Senate
17 May 1961

23rd Parliament · 3rd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 23rd Parliament
  3. 1961

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1067

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported: -

Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Bill 1961.

Customs Tariff (Dumping and Subsidies) Bill

page 1067

QUESTION

TIMBER INDUSTRY

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

– I address a question to the Minister for National Development. Is he aware that the Tasmanian Timber Association has described as quite remarkable a statement by him that the present decline in the timber industry is due to overcapacity? Is it the Government’s policy to discourage the modernization of timber mills, increased mechanization, the use of electric power and greater production? Will the Minister agree that the difficulties in the Australian timber industry have been caused, not by over-production, but by under-consumption, due to the Government’s credit squeeze and unlimited imports of timber?

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

– I have not seen this statement by the Tasmanian Timber Association, but I would have been interested to see it. If the timber industry attributes to me the view that the cause of its difficulties is over-production, the industry has incorrectly interpreted my remarks. What I have said is that the difficulties confronting the timber industry have arisen from a variety of causes. There has been a fall in the demand for timber, presumably due to a slackening of the home-building programme. There has been an increase in timber imports and there has been a gearing up of the industry to meet a higher level of demand than is justified by events.

page 1067

QUESTION

SECURITY

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– I wish to direct a question to the Minister for the Navy in his own capacity and, perhaps, also in his capacity as the Minister representing the Acting Attorney-General in this chamber.

Has his attention been directed to the recent scandalous naval spy disclosures in Great Britain and to the subsequent M.I.6 George Blake spy case, also in Great Britain, which have led to a public agitation for the strengthening of security measures against Communist subversion? Does the Minister believe that these recent disclosures are a complete and absolute vindication of, and proof of the necessity for, the legislation to amend the Crimes Act that was recently passed by this Parliament? Does the Minister believe that strengthening of the existing legislation on this subject is necessary in the nation’s interest?

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · VICTORIA · LP

– Yes, I have noticed reports of the defection of a man named Blake who, I understand, was serving with the Royal Navy in England, and of the allegation that he gave to the Russians and the Communist world generally official secrets which the newspapers have stated are of great significance to the safety of the free world. I agree with the suggestion of the honorable senator that this incident does indicate the necessity for the act which was recently passed by the Parliament, particularly those sections which deal with persons of this kind who work for a foreign power against the interests of their own country and who attempt subversive action. I would add that if we had not passed that legislation and if something of this kind had happened in Australia, we would have been accused by the Opposition of not having available proper methods for dealing with such subversion - methods which we have adopted in spite of the protests of the Opposition.

page 1067

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Senator COLE:
TASMANIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service inform the Senate of the number of occasions on which the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority has instructed local representatives at various ports throughout Australia to alter their decision when a penalty has been imposed on a group of waterside workers and on which they were instructed to hold the penalty in abeyance pending an appeal to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? Will he also indicate the number of times that an appeal has not been lodged and no further action has been taken, the number of times an appeal has been lodged and has not been proceeded with, and the number of appeals against the suspension of a group of waterside workers that have been before the commission for twelve months without having been dealt with?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I have not the details of all those matters in my mind. If I were to follow the ordinary course and ask the honorable senator to place his question on the notice-paper, probably insufficient time would be left during this sessional period for me to supply the information. Therefore, I undertake to obtain the information and to furnish it to him in writing at the earliest possible opportunity.

page 1068

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Senator MCKELLAR:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Did the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service hear over the radio this morning a statement to the effect that within the last few days General MotorsHolden’s Limited had re-employed SOO men in South Australia and 200 in New South Wales, and also that a considerable percentage of those dismissed in Victoria had been re-employed?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I did not hear that radio news item this morning, but I have read a report to that effect in the press. It is of interest to contrast the huge headlines which appeared in the press when those men were dismissed with the small paragraphs which are appearing in the newspapers now that the men are being taken back.

page 1068

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– I address the following questions to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry: Is it a fact that the Australian Wheat Board delegation which visited red China recently not only contracted for the already decided sales of wheat on credit, but also prepared the ground for large sales during the next few years, which obviously will involve continuing credits of millions of pounds? As the risk of these credit sales will be undertaken solely by the Australian wheat farmer, and the Government thus will take no responsibility, is this not inconsistent with the concern for our overseas balances which has recently been expressed by the Government and is it not a dangerous policy, having regard to the vital importance to our economy of sure returns from wheat? What will be the effects, if any, of these sales on international wheat agreements to which Australia is a party?

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · VICTORIA · LP

– I have no knowledge of any suggested future sales of wheat to red China, either for cash or on credit terms, and I should be amazed if any negotiations had been entered into, for the very good reason that the recent sales of huge quantities of wheat to China were possible only because we had a record wheat harvest throughout Australia. It would indeed be a very brave man who would attempt to foretell the Australian harvest in the ensuing year. Another reason, which I think is valid, is that over the last twenty years the Australian Wheat Board has built up a splendid reputation for trading, and has secured traditional markets which have been of the greatest value to us over a long period. Knowing the policy of the board, I am quite sure that its chief concern is to retain those markets. In reply to the last question, I believe that the sale of wheat to red China under the terms and conditions announced is no infringement whatever of the International Wheat’ Agreement.

page 1068

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister representing the Treasurer tell me how much money has been raised by borrowing overseas during the period 1939-49 and the period 1950-60, and the amount of overseas loans that have been converted during these periods? Will the Minister also tell me how much has been paid overseas in interest on borrowed and converted money during these periods?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The preparation of answers obviously will require some research, and it will not be possible for me to get the information to the honorable senator prior to the rising of the Senate. I shall obtain it for the honorable senator, and post it to him during the recess.

page 1068

QUESTION

LAOS

Senator VINCENT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct to .the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs a question which relates to the very important conference currently being held in Switzerland to discuss the Laotian position. Is the Australian Government represented at the conference, not as a party, of course, but by an officer acting as an observer? If Australia has no such representation, from what source is the Government being supplied with the daytoday decisions of the conference? If Australia has representation at the conference, can the Minister state who is acting on our behalf?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– We have, of course, our own diplomatic representatives permanently stationed in Geneva. We are not a party principal to the negotiations which are being, or which may be, carried on in Switzerland in regard to a cease-fire and a solution of the Laotian situation. The information that we obtain would be from our own diplomatic officials and those of friendly countries.

page 1069

QUESTION

KING ISLAND

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In view of the circumstances prevailing on King Island, where many ex-servicemen on war service land settlement farms are feeling the effects of low incomes from their wool, high freight rates, and high cost of living, besides the isolation and rigorous climatic conditions, will the Treasurer consider, in preparing the coming Budget, the inclusion of King Island in areas subject to zonal tax concession, and so give an incentive to these men who are doing such a good job under adverse conditions?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The question asked by the honorable senator involves not only many aspects of policy, but also related matters which need to be taken into consideration. As 1 speak I can foresee disputation on whether King Island could, or would, qualify for a zonal allowance such as other parts of the Commonwealth enjoy. I think the best 1 can say to the honorable senator is that 1 shall bring the matter to the notice of the Treasurer and ask him to consider it.

page 1069

QUESTION

CANNED CHICKEN

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Customs and Excise. I understand that recently the Leader of the Opposition in another place, Mr. Calwell, stated on a nation-wide telecast that im ports of American canned chicken into Australia were of the order of £A3,000,000. ls that figure correct? Has the Tariff Board inquired into the poultry industry and, if so, what were its recommendations?

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · TASMANIA · LP

– I saw the television session to which the honorable senator refers, and 1 heard the Leader of the Opposition make the statement that canned chicken from America had been imported to the value of £A3,000,000. I felt somehow that the figure was exaggerated so I had a look at the facts. During the last eight months since American chicken has been coming into Australia the total value of the imports is of the order of £364,000- not £3,000,000.

Senator McKenna:

– Do you attribute the statement to the Leader of the Opposition?

Senator HENTY:

– To Mr. Calwell. I understand that Senator McKenna is the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. An emergency meeting of the Tariff Board considered the poultry industry, and the deputy chairman made a report, which was tabled in the Senate last week, to the effect that he could not recommend any added protection to the Australian poultry industry. As a matter of fact, the Australian canned poultry industry requested no further protection than the existing duty of 6d. per lb. and the sales tax which is now in force. As a result of the importation of canned chicken the poultry industry realizes that there is a market for canned chicken in Australia, and the industry is now setting out to capture that market. It believes that the importation of this product has shown the way to a new activity, and has increased the prospects of the industry, and that it can compete on even terms under the present tariff. It believes that it can put out a superior article. The importation of American canned chicken has, in fact, been of advantage to Australia.

page 1069

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

– I should like to ask the Leader of the Government a question. How does he reconcile his answer to a question of mine last week, when he said that there were no strings attached to the loan from the International Monetary Fund, with the statement in the press that the

Treasurer, Mr. Harold Holt, had agreed with the International Monetary Fund that limitations on credit would continue until 30th June, 1962?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I do not recollect seeing the statement made by the Treasurer, but any statement by him would necessarily be more accurate than mine. However, I suggest to Senator Brown that there may be a possibility of his misunderstanding the Treasurer’s statement or that the Treasurer was incorrectly reported, because it is my clear recollection that the only information given to the International Monetary Fund was a statement of our intentions, of the policy that we were pursuing and the general trend of the arrangements that we had in mind. But there is no clear commitment and no contractual arrangement. We are quite at liberty to change our policy in various ways - as, indeed, circumstances may well necessitate - in accordance with changes in economic circumstances. As 1 understand it, we have not been committed to any definite arrangement.

page 1070

QUESTION

ROADS

Senator HANNAFORD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development. Have any direct representations been made by the Premier of South Australia for assistance from the Commonwealth for the improvement or the reconstruction of roads from the Channel country which are vital to the transport of beef cattle to Adelaide and other southern markets? If such representations have been made, what answer has been given? We in South Australia consider that such representations are sound and that the roads to which they refer are an integral part of the network of roads envisaged for Queensland and northern Australia generally.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I am aware that the Premier of South Australia has made representations to the Prime Minister on this subject, but I do not know whether the Prime Minister has dealt with the representations and sent an answer. To my recollection, I have not seen such an answer. I remind Senator Hannaford that the purpose of the Commonwealth becoming interested in arterial roads in the north of Australia was not the improvement of existing roads, because there is legislation covering such roads, and Commonwealth funds are made available for that purpose. The idea behind this new programme is the construction of new roads to assist in the development of new areas for the purpose of increasing the export income earned from beef and minerals. The Government has received from various States a number of applications which apparently are based on the idea that this programme is analogous to the present Commonwealth aid roads programme. Under that programme, the Commonwealth is making many millions of pounds available each year to the various States. This programme is superimposed upon that programme. It is for the purpose of opening up new areas and helping the beef and mineral industries in the north to earn more export income. 1 do not know how that fits in with the application from the Premier of South Australia, because I have not seen an answer to his application.

page 1070

QUESTION

CRIMES ACT

Senator POKE:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Acting Attorney-General. Has any action been taken against any person or persons under the recently extended provisions ot the Crimes Act? If action has been taken, will the Minister inform the Senate of the number of persons against whom proceedings have been or are to be taken? Will the Minister also state in what localities breaches of the act have occurred?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I cannot state in what localities breaches of the act have occurred; nor am I aware of any action having been taken under the recentlypassed provisions to which the honorable senator referred. However, I direct his attention to the answer to a question on this subject which was given by the Acting Attorney-General in the House of Representatives a little while ago. That answer shows the necessity that existed for passing, over the protests of the Opposition, an act to enable the Commonwealth to deal with subversion.

page 1070

QUESTION

ROADS

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister for National Development, arises from the question asked by Senator Hannaford which the Minister has just answered. Is it a fact that he is considering the building of roads from the Channel country to Bourke in New South Wales? Does he consider that those roads would open up new beef-producing areas, or would they merely have the effect of diverting to New South Wales cattle which now go from the Channel country down the Strezlecki and Birdsville tracks to the South Australian market?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– lt is my recollection that an application for such a road has been made, lt is also my recollection that the Government has received far more applications than it thought would be likely when it announced that it would give financial assistance in the building of the roads referred to by the honorable senator. Nobody has any right to think that an application will be approved as a matter of course. The situation is being very carefully considered. Groups of Commonwealth and State officers are studying the relative importance of the various roads in respect of which applications have been made. Matters taken into consideration include the likelihood that the roads would assist the development of the. beef industry and the mineral industry. The importance of the roads is being considered from the point of view of how they will increase our export earnings. The purpose of the roads is to provide new facilities for export earnings, and not simply to improve existing facilities. We must consider construction costs, the type of road to be built, the route to be followed and a number of other things. The Government is proceeding as quickly as possible. Nobody should jump to the conclusion that every suggested route for a new road as published in the newspapers, and every proposal that is discussed, will be approved automatically by the Government. We are as yet a long way from that stage.

page 1071

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Civil Aviaiton In reply to a question that I asked on 19th April last concerning duty periods for air crew on long distance flights, the Minister confirmed by letter that Ansett-A.N.A. was employing pilots to fly aircraft on the round trip Melbourne-Perth-Melbourne with a very short stop-over in Perth in order to achieve better utilization of crews. Is it a fact that after one week’s trial of this method of employing air crew, TransAustralia Airlines considered that the arrangement was not in the best interests of those concerned and reverted to the previous roster system under which air crew were allowed one day’s rest in Perth? Has any opinion been expressed by the Australian Air Pilots Association on the merits or demerits of the two roster systems? In view of the fact that the Minister has stated that hostesses are not directly concerned with the safe conduct of flights and that the Department of Civil Aviation does not rule on their duty time, does not the Minister consider that provision for adequate rest should be made on a fullybooked aircraft for hostesses who are on duty for a spread of more than twelve hours?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I am not precisely aware of the details of the crewing arrangements followed by Trans-Australia Airlines or Australian National Airways on the east-west run. It may well be that what suits the operations of one operator does not suit the operations of the other. I point out to the honorable senator, as I indicated in an answer given to her previously and in the letter that I wrote to her, that these crewing arrangements always have as their base considerations of safety. No arrangement is entered into which will adversely affect safety. The honorable senator asked whether the pilots’ association has made any comment in relation to the crewing arrangements which are now in operation, as I understood her to say, by Ansett-A.N.A. I know that these crewing arrangements and hours of duty are constantly the subject of discussion between the Department of Civil Aviation, the Australian Air Pilots Association and the airline operators. I have had no comment, much less criticism, from the Air Pilots Association in respect of this or any other crewing activity. Indeed, the honorable senator will be aware that only last week I made public reference to the issue of a new order in respect of crewing arrangements and flight times, which once again established Australia as one of the foremost nations of the world in respect of this important aspect of civil aviation.

If my- memory serves ma correctly, I stated in the. letter which I wrote to, the honorable, senator that air hostesses did. not. come within the same precise; category as pilots and other crew members. Again speaking from memory, I stated that the.department, was. not so directly concerned with air hostesses, although it displayed a continuing interest m the. general terms and! conditions; under which they worked and’ kept those terms and conditions: under constant observation.

page 1072

QUESTION

THE SENATE

Senator CAMERON:
Minister for Health · VICTORIA · LP

– I address a question. to the. Leader of the Government in the Senate. In. view of the amount of business that is to be. transacted in this House, and the likelihood that additional contentious matters will be submitted from another place, is it the intention of the Government that the Senate shall sit to-morrow?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– That matter has not yet been decided.

page 1072

QUESTION

BELL BAY ALUMINIUM WORKS

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister for National Development give the Senate information concerning the: production of aluminium at the Bell Bay aluminium works since the re-constitution of the undertaking? Can he say whether negotiations, are. pro. ceeding in regard to the deposits of bauxite, at Weipa and whether the Premier of Tasmania is visiting Weipa in this connexion?’

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I have no detailed information that I can give to the honorable: senator. I have not been closely in touch with this, matter in recent weeks.. However, I can reply to his question in general terms. 1 know what the programme which was envisaged when the legislation concerning Bell Bay aluminium works was before the Senate some’ time ago is being pushedahead as quickly as, possible. I have heard that representatives of the Kaiser organization have visited Australia and have expressed the view that if it is practicable they would like to see the building programme taken to a further stage at an earlier date than was originally expected. I do not know whether a decision has been reached on that point. I have read in a newspaper that the Premier of Tasmania is, visiting Weipa. I am glad that he; is doing so. The information I have about Weipa is. that progress is being made at Weipa at a rate a. little faster than that originally expected. I. hesitate to mention the details for fear that. I shall not statethem correctly. However, I can give the general answer that rather better progress is being made at Weipa thant we thought would be made at the time that we were discussing in the Senate, the sale of the Bell Bay works.

page 1072

QUESTION

IRON ORE

Senator SCOTT:

– My question also, is addressed to the. Minister for. National Development. In view of the, important announcement that was. made some months ago that the Government had lifted the. embargo on the export of iron ore, can the Minister say whether there, has been any activity, on the part of State instrumentalities,, companies or individual- prospectors in the search for new iron ore deposits in Australia?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The question asked by Senator Scott is difficult to answer without notice. I propose to ask for leave of the Senate later to-day to make, a statement concerning the intention of the Government of Western Australia to call tenders in respect of the Mount Goldsworthy iron, ore. deposits. I am aware that a good deal of exploration for iron ore is going on in various parts of Australia. I know that quite a few applications for permits to export, iron ore have been. made. I think it is true to say that so far only one application has been approved.. That is due to the fact that before applications are approved some delay must occur because a fair amount of work has to be done-. An applicant does not merely write a. letter and obtain approval immediately. He has to satisfy the department, quite properly, that an ore deposit exists and that it is of good quality. Details of an exploration- programme must accompany a request for an export permit, and: other formalities have to be observed. In general: terms, the answer to. the. honorable senator’s question is that the lifting of the embargo has materially stimulated exploration for iron ore deposits throughout Australia.

page 1073

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION

Senator CANT:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. How many workers were covered by the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act in each of the last five financial years?
  2. How many claims for payment of benefits under the act were made in each of those years?
  3. Does each Commonwealth department contribute an amount each year to the Treasury in respect of its employees? If so (a) on what basis is the amount contributed, and (b) is it on a loss ratio per cent, of claims paid out?
  4. If the answer to 3 (b) is in the affirmative, what was the loss ratio per cent, for ca.h department during each of the last five financial years?
  5. Does the Secretary to the Treasury make ex gratia payments where provision for such is contained in the act? If so, what was the amount of ex gratia payments made in each of the last five financial years?
  6. What were the amounts of ex gratia payments made in each of the last five financial years in respect of weekly payments, lump sum payments, medical expenses, hospital expenses and travelling allowances?
  7. What was the total amount, if any, contributed to the Treasury by all departments in each of the last five financial years?
  8. What was the total amount paid out by the Treasury in each of the last five financial years in respect of weekly payments, lump sum payments, medical expenses, hospital expenses and travelling allowances?
  9. Will the Treasurer recommend to the Government that the officer administering the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act present an annual report to the Parliament covering all aspects of the operation of the act, and, if this is agreed to, could he arrange for the first report presented to be for the year ending 30th June, 1961?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Treasurer has furnished the following reply: -

  1. All members of the Services and all permanent officers and temporary and exempt employees of the Commonwealth and authorities of the Commonwealth, excluding those seamen who are covered by the Seamen’s Compensation Act.
  2. Statistics of claims that are made are not obtained from departments; however, the number of claims in which payments were made under the act was -

3 and 4. No.

5 and 6. There is no provision in the act for ex gratia payments. 7 and 8. Departments do not make contributions to the Treasury but meet compensation payments from their own votes. The dissection of cost is recorded somewhat differently from that asked and is as follows: -

  1. This question raises a matter of policy, which it is not the practice to deal with in answers to questions; however, pursuant to regulation 13, the commissioner provides an annual return to the Treasurer specifying - (a) the number of cases in respect of which compensation has been paid under the act during the year; (b) the amount of compensation paid during the year; and (c) the amount paid in respect of medical and funeral expenses during the year.

page 1073

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator ROBERTSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

  1. What insurances are provided for the crews, including hostesses, of aeroplanes operating in the Commonwealth?
  2. Are the rates of insurance the same in each company?
  3. Is there any binding agreement on these rates from the Commonwealth angle?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I now answer the honorable senator in the following terms: -

  1. Insurance cover in the event of accidental death on duty in respect of aircrew, including hotesses employed by the government-owned airlines, Qantas Empire Airways Limited and TransAustralia Airlines, is as follows: -

Qantas. - All employees are covered by the New South Wales Workers’ Compensation Act, which provides a cover of £4,300 where death arises out of employment and provided dependancy is established. In addition the company pension scheme provides for death benefits. In the case of aircrew, the average death cover provided under the pension scheme is as set out below: -

Captains . . 15,930

First officers 9,901 Other technical aircrew .. 9,231 Flight stewards . . . . . . 5,873

Flight hostesses 2,636

T.A.A. - Pilots. - (i) In cases where the pilot has dependants, a sum of £14,000, provided that if the retrenchment or retirement value of the pilot’s superannuation amounts to £7,500 or more, this sum would be payable plus a further £2,500. (ii) In cases where the pilot has no dependants, a sum of £5,000 or the retrenchment value of the pilot’s superannuation, whichever is the greater. The above sums are inclusive of payments under the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act.

Flight Engineers. - Payment in accordance with the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act - death cover £3,000 payable to dependants - or in the ease of an aircraft accident, up to £7,500 inclusive of any payments under the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act. The amount payable would be at the discretion of the commission, having regard to the marital status and dependants of the officer concerned.

Air Hostesses. - Insurance cover of £2,000 for death on duty, or the benefits of the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act, where applicable. Should there be no benefits payable under the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act, the amount of £2,000 is payable at the discretion of the commission. I regret that I have no precise knowledge of the insurance cover provided by other airline operators for their aircrews.

I understand that the rates of insurance cover provided for aircrew differs between the various companies.

There is no binding agreement in respect of the insurance cover provided as far as the Commonwealth is concerned.

page 1074

QUESTION

NATIONAL INSURANCE

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Did a recent gallup poll show that more than seven out of ten Australians favour a compulsory contributory national insurance scheme for pensions, sickness and unemployment?
  2. Has a subsidiary company of a private bank established a scheme in Western Australia which will allow members of the public to enjoy the benefits of superannuation?
  3. Has the Government now rejected all ideas of setting up a compulsory national insurance scheme?
  4. Will the Prime Minister undertake to examine the Western Australian scheme?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The following replies have been furnished: - 1, 2 and 4. Several superannuation schemes, to which members of the public are invited to contribute with a view to providing for their retirement, have been established throughout Australia by private financial institutions. The Government is fully acquainted with the principles on which these private schemes are based.

  1. The Government has looked at various national insurance schemes in operation in other countries and has carefully studied the implications of establishing such a scheme in Australia. The Government will continue to review all aspects of social services policy with a view to effecting whatever improvements are thought to be desirable and practicable.

page 1074

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator TANGNEY:

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

  1. Will the Minister reconsider as a matter of urgency the case of Thomas Palmer, a young British seaman, the son of a British Army officer and his Ceylonese wife, who has been refused permission to stay in Australia on the ground that he does not look European, and who is due to be deported this week?
  2. Is it a fact that the Minister for Immigration stated during the Roy Milne Lecture for 1960 that Australia’s migration policy is based on well-tried principles of maintaining homogeneity, readiness of absorption, familiarity of religion and the same fundamental attitudes to living?
  3. Does not Mr. Palmer, whose education has been up to university standard in engineering and who has enjoyed a certain standard of living in the home of his paternal aunt in London, measure up to our immigration standards far better than many European migrants who have been admitted to Australia during the past decade?
  4. As Mr. Palmer cannot secure a student’s visa to complete his engineering studies at the University of Western Australia except as a fulltime student, which his financial position will not permit, will the Minister consider some way of assisting Mr. Palmer, either as a Colombo Plan student or by the aid of a Commonwealth scholarship, so that he may remain in Australia?
  5. Would not Mr. Palmer’s deportation at this time have serious repercussions on Australia’s relations with coloured members of the Brit-sh Commonwealth of Nations?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration has furnished the following replies: -

  1. There appears to be rather widespread misunderstanding in this case. Thomas Palmer, an aoprentice marine engineer in his final year, came to Australia in the vessel “ Kookaburra “ in March, 1961. Conditional upon there being no immigration objection, he was signed oft, at his own request, by the master of the “Kookaburra”. While his vessel was still at Fremantle, he approached the department and sought permission to remain for residence. As he was predominantly non-European in appearance, he was informed that he could not remain for residence. This is in line with immigration policy since Federation.

The signing-off from the “ Kookaburra “ was cancelled and Palmer again became a crew member of the vessel. He did not rejoin it, however, and when the vessel sailed without him a warrant for his arrest as a deserter was issued by the ship’s agents. His failure to leave also made him an illegal entrant, liable to deportation.

Representations on his behalf were made to the effect that if action was taken along these lines, Palmer’s apprenticeship would be cancelled. Having regard to this, it was decided, in association with the ship’s agents, that no action would be taken against him either as a deserter or as an illegal entrant provided that he left Australia voluntarily. This has now occurred.

  1. Yes. The full text of the statement is as follows: - “ Despite the intellectual attraction of some ot their arguments the advocates of either partial or radical change in our Asian migration policy never appear to me to make out a convincing case. Without wishing to appear complacent, I believe that both Australia’s national growth and our international relations will best be served by continuing our present policies for they observe well-tried principles - homogeneity, readiness of absorption, familiarity or religion, the same fundamental attitudes to living. Above all, the thought processes of the people we seek to attract are, if not the same, at least in tune with ours. This is a characteristic which I would stress, for in our contemporary world perhaps the highest barrier between peoples of other nationalities and races is mental misunderstanding.”
  2. I am not prepared to make any comparison between Mr. Palmer and European -migrants who have been admitted to Australia during the past decade.
  3. Mr. Palmer is already in his final year as an apprentice marine engineer and there is no obvious reason why he should be encouraged to abandon the honourable career upon which he has embarked and made considerable progress. Apart from this, of course, the question of whether Mr. Palmer should be granted a Colombo Plan studentship or a Commonwealth scholarship is outside my field.
  4. As mentioned in the reply to question 1, Mr. Palmer was not deported.

page 1075

QUESTION

PUBLIC WORKS

Senator WRIGHT:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. What amount was expended* on Commonwealth public works in 1959-60?
  2. Of this figure what amount was expended in Canberra or the Australian Capital Territory (a) by the National Capital Development Commission, and (b) otherwise?
  3. What amount of this expenditure was made pursuant to recommendations of the Public Works Committee?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Treasurer has replied as follows: -

  1. Expenditure on the works programme, civil and defence, for 1959-60 was £39,409,548.
  2. Of this amount £11,000,000 was paid to the National Capital Development Commission for expenditure by that authority and £1,070,378 was spent on behalf of departments in Canberra.
  3. £658,973 was spent on projects which had been the subject of recommendations by the Public Works Committee.

page 1075

QUESTION

DECIMAL CURRENCY

Senator MCKELLAR:
through Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

Can the Treasurer give an assurance that if decimal currency is introduced in Australia the change-over will not be effected before 1963?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Treasurer has furnished the following reply: -

The Government has not as yet decided whether or not a decimal currency system will be adopted in Australia, but it is certain that any change-over which might be decided upon could not be effected before 1963.

page 1075

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION

Senator McMANUS:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Have most Australian State governments in recent years reviewed and improved the workers’ compensation acts covering State employees?
  2. Has New South Wales just passed what is, in many respects, a model act?
  3. Is not a review of the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act now desirable, especially in view of the dissatisfaction of unions with the present act, which compares most unfavorably with State legislation?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers: -

  1. Some of the States have amended their legislation in recent years. It will be recalled that the Commonwealth’s legislation was reviewed at the end of 1959.
  2. This must necessarily be a matter of opinion. Some of the amounts provided in the New South

Wales act are substantially out of line with those provided by the legislation of the other States.

  1. The rates of compensation provided by the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act 1959 do not compare “ most unfavorably with State legislation”. Moreover, as I said in my repiy of 8th December to the earlier question of the honorable senator, it is not possible to make such a generalized assertion. It is necessary to compare each part of the Commonwealth act with each part of every State act since there are differences between the State acts. For example, the maximum amount payable to a widow under the Commonwealth act is £3,000; under the Tasmanian act it is £4,000 and under the South Australian act, £2,750. Even this example would be subject to the further qualification that, in Tasmania, there is no general liability of the kind provided under the Commonwealth act in relation to journeys to and from the employment.

page 1076

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SERUM LABORATORIES

Senator McMANUS:

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

With reference to the recently tabled report of the Parliamentary Public Works Committee regarding the unsatisfactory conditions at the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, Parkville, Victoria, and the recommendation for the erection of new buildings, will the Minister ensure, when considering new buildings, that due regard is given to the views of civil defence authorities, supported by the eminent authority. Sir Kingsley Norris, that dispersal and decentralization of the work of the laboratories are vital to ensure that, in emergency, Australia could not be deprived totally of these essential facilities by one large-scale fire or one bomb?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply: -

Yes.

page 1076

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENT OFFICES, BRISBANE

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

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

  1. Has the Minister received a report showing that one day last week a thief entered ths Commonwealth Parliamentary Offices, Brisbane, during the luncheon period and stole money from the handbags of some of the secretaries?
  2. Will the Minister give a directive that an administrative arrangement be made which will allow one male officer to be on duty at the offices during luncheon periods daily?
Senator WADE:
LP

– The Minister for the Interior has furnished the following replies: -

  1. No. A report is being obtained.
  2. Arrangements have been made for a male attendant to be on duty daily from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. on and from 11th May, 1961.

May 1 add that my reference last week to a similar personal experience related to the Commonwealth Parliament Offices in Melbourne.

page 1076

QUESTION

TELEPHONE CHARGES

Senator McMANUS:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

  1. Is a charge made by the Postmaster-General’s Department for providing telephone subscribers with a statement of trunk-line calls?
  2. If so, (a) is this a new impost, and (b) what justification is there for such an additional charge on telephone subscribers, who are already paying heavy fees for calls?
Senator WADE:
LP

– The PostmasterGeneral has furnished the following replies: -

  1. Yes. 2. (a) No. (b) The preparation and supply to telephone subscribers of detailed statements of the trunk calls included in their accounts involves the Post Office in considerable additional work and expense. It is necessary, therefore, to apply a charge for these statements in order to recoup to some extent the expenditure incurred. The charges for statements of trunk calls are modest and do not cover the actual costs entailed in their preparation.

page 1076

QUESTION

NATIONAL DISASTER FUND

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– On 8th March, 1961, and 23rd March, 1961, Senator Tangney asked me whether the Commonwealth would consider establishing a national disasters commission. The first question, on 8th March, 1961, concerned the setting up of a national disasters commission similar to the War Damage Commission. Senator Tangney asked a somewhat similar question last year and, as explained in the answer given on 19th May, 1960, investigations have revealed that it would be wellnigh impossible to design an effective national scheme for insurance against losses arising from natural disasters. A natural disaster insurance scheme could not be operated on the same lines as the war damage insurance scheme. The main reason is that the risk of losses from natural disasters is restricted to relatively small sections of the community, and it would be unreasonable to compel the rest of the community to insure against risks to which they are not exposed. The general risk of war damage was, however, shared by a large proportion of the population, enabling contributions by property owners to the scheme to be made compulsory. The principal disadvantage in any voluntary scheme of this nature would be that only those exposed to the risks would wish to insure and thus the premiums payable would be extremely high, if not prohibitive.

The second question, on 23rd March, 1961, related to schemes which had been introduced by the governments of New Zealand and the United States of America under which national disaster insurance funds had been established. The New Zealand scheme has been found to be not appropriate to Australian conditions. The New Zealand scheme provides for a compulsory earthquake, flood and storm insurance premium to be levied on every fire insurance policy that is taken out. Cover under the scheme is limited to buildings and their contents. The scheme finds acceptance in New Zealand because there is a risk of earthquake damage throughout the whole of that country. In Australia the situation is quite different in that only relatively small areas are subject to natural disasters and the risk varies greatly from place to place. In regard to the United States of America, I understand that a scheme relating to insurance against losses resulting from floods was instituted in 1956. I also understand that this scheme, which was intended to be of an experimental nature, was later abandoned.

page 1077

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator WADE:
LP

– On 11th May, Senator Kennelly asked the following question: -

I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, by slating that in relation to the present football season in Melbourne a dispute seems to have arisen between the Victorian Football League and television stations over the televising of the last quarter of matches. The policy adopted by the national station in Melbourne is causing tremendous hardship to elderly and ill people who have enjoyed watching this sport for a number of years. I understand why commercial stations may refuse to televise the last quarter of matches but I am at a loss to understand why Channel 2 - the national station - refuses to do so. Will the Minister make inquiries and ascertain why Channel 2 does not televise the last quarter of football matches in Melbourne although it did so in other seasons. I point out that Channel 2 is not a commercial undertaking. I am not worried about the commercial stations; I am worried only about the national station.

The Postmaster-General has now furnished me with the following information in reply: -

The Australian Broadcasting Commission was most anxious to televise the last quarter - approximately 30 minutes - of the Victorian Football League matches to be played this year, as has been done for the past four years, and was willing to pay considerably more for this right than last year. Its offer was in fact £225 per match for “ home from home “ matches, as against £150 per match for the previous two years, an increase of 50 per cent.

The Melbourne commercial television stations were also willing to increase the fee by the same amount which each station considered the maximum which could be offered, but negotiations with the Football League failed.

You will appreciate that as custodians of public moneys there is a limit to which the A.B.C. can go in payment for sporting rights, and it is considered that the amount offered was fair and; reasonable for a half-hour telecast.

Although the A.B.C. realizes the tremendous interest in Australian Rules Football in Melbourne, it could not possibly offer more than it did without severely prejudicing negotiations with other sporting bodies, in the future, having due regard to the importance of the sport concerned.

It is of interest that when the A.B.C. could not reach agreement with the Victorian League it negotiated successfully with the Victorian Australian Rules Association at a reasonable figure to telecast the last quarter of matches played by teams under its control. It also intends to telecast important matches in other codes, so the A.B.C. is giving the best service possible under the circumstances to football enthusiasts.

page 1077

GUITARS

Tariff Board Report

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I lay on the table the report of the Deputy Chairman of the Tariff Board on the following subject: -

Guitars

The Deputy Chairman’s recommendation that no action be taken has been accepted by the Government.

page 1077

UNITED NATIONS TRUSTEESHIP COUNCIL

Senator SPOONER:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council and Minister for National Development · LP

– by leave - The Australian delegation to the forthcoming Twenty-seventh Session of the United Nations Trusteeship Council, which is to begin in New York on 1st June, 1961, will be as follows: -

Representatives: Mr. J. D. L. Hood, Minister,

Australian Mission to the United Nations.

Alternate representative: Mr. J. A. Forsythe, Australian Mission to the United Nations.

Adviser: Mr. P. C. J. Curtis, Australian Mission to the United Nations.

Special representative: Mr. D. McCarthy, Assistant Secretary, Department of Territories.

Advisers to the special representative: Mr. Ephraim Jubilee, member of the Legislative Council for Papua and New Guinea; Mr. Raymon Gadabu, councillor, Nauru Local Government Council.

Two indigenous members - one from the Trust Territory of New Guinea and one from the Trust Territory of Nauru - have been included in the Australian delegation for the first time. They will act as advisers to the special representative, who, under the council’s rules of procedure, is required to be specially qualified by his knowledge of conditions in the two Territories. The appointment of Mr. Jubilee and Mr. Gadabu reflects not only our policy of cooperating as fully as possible with the Trusteeship Council - which, at its last session, specially requested that an indigenous representative of Nauru at least should be included in the 1961 delegation - but reflects also our recognition of the increasingly active role which the indigenous people must develop in the conduct of their own affairs.

In the course of the session, the Trusteeship Council will review developments in the seven territories still under the United Nations trusteeship system. As part of this review it will consider in detail conditions in the two Territories under Australian administration - New Guinea and Nauru, the latter being administered by the Australian Government on behalf of Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. We believe that the Australian administration of these two Territories is developing them in an orderly but at the same time vigorous fashion towards the objectives defined in the Charter of the United Nations. Many developments over the last twelve months since the Trusteeship Council’s last study of the conditions in these Territories continue to be a witness to this: In the political field, developments such as the re-constitution of the Legislative Council for Papua and New Guinea; in the economic field, increasing expenditure and effort towards the development of the Territories’ own economies; in the social field, further marked advances in health, education and the many aspects of community development generally.

page 1078

QUESTION

IRON ORE

Senator SPOONER:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council and Minister for National Development · LP

– by leave - Following the Commonwealth’s decision to permit a carefully controlled export of iron ore, which I announced in December last, the Government of Western Australia raised with us its proposals to call tenders for the development for export of iron ore reserves at Mount Goldsworthy and Tallering Peak.

The Commonwealth has agreed with the State upon the terms on which approval to export from the two deposits will be given. We have informed the State that we accept Tallering Peak as a small deposit, that is, one containing not more than 2,000,000 tons, the whole of which may be exported. The ore reserves at Mount Goldsworthy are now estimated at a little more than 30,000,000 tons, and the Commonwealth is prepared to agree to the export of 15,000,000 tons at a maximum annual rate not exceeding 1,000,000 tons.

The Western Australian Government will, of its own accord and in its own way, proceed to make its arrangements for the development of these deposits. It will be for the successful tenderer to make a formal application to the Commonwealth for permission to export.

The Commonwealth has accepted no commitment in respect of any export of ore from Mount Goldsworthy beyond 15,000,000 tons. The purpose of the Commonwealth’s policy of carefully controlled exports is to encourage exploration and increase known reserves. The Mount Goldsworthy deposit is an example of how our iron ore reserves can be added to by active investigation. In 1959 the reserves in this deposit were estimated to be 6,500,000 tons. Due to testing since then by the State Mines Department, the reserves now are estimated to be over 30,000,000 tons, most of which is high-grade ore. If more resources are proved at Mount Goldsworthy, then the question of how these additional resources are to be dealt with will be a matter for future consideration.

I have also a copy of the information and conditions of tender for Mount Goldsworthy iron ore deposit in Western Australia that was issued by the Western

Iron Ore. [17 May, 1961.] Iron Ore. 1079

Australian Government. This is the first development of its kind, and in view of its importance - it is a big export transaction - honorable senators might like to refer to the conditions from time to time. I do not propose to read them but with the concurrence of honorable senators I shall incorporate the information in “ Hansard “. It is as follows: -

page 1079

INFORMATION AND CONDITIONS OF TENDER FOR MOUNT GOLDSWORTHY IRON ORE DEPOSIT IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Information to Tenderers

Tenders addressed to the Under Secretary for Mines, Department of Mines, Saint George’sterrace, Perth, are invited and will be received by the Government of Western Australia up to 5 p.m. on the Fourth day of September, 1961, for the mining, transport and shipment of up to 15,000,000 tons of iron ore from Mount Goldsworthy deposit situated approximately 62 miles Easterly of Port Hedland.

The following advices have recently been received by the Western Australian Government: -

  1. from a group of Japanese Steel Mills that, provided ore from Mr Goldsworthy is satisfactory in grade, price and delivery terms, such mills will purchase this ore when it becomes available, and

  2. from the Commonwealth Government that it will approve export by the successful tenderer of up to 15,000,000 tons from the lens at the Mr Goldsworthy deposit in which over 30,000,000 tons have already been proved, subject to:

    1. the annual rate of export not exceeding one million tons;
    2. the make-up of the ore parcels of which export will be allowed being a mixture of the two grades of ore in the same proportions as the proportions in which the reserves of thirty million tons referred to above contain ore that is above and below 60 per cent. iron content;
    3. the successful tenderer carrying out an exploration programme of the Mr Goldsworthy deposit on a basis that is acceptable to the Commonwealth and the State Governments.

Plans indicating the site of the deposit and plans and results of diamond drilling operations thereon which have been conducted by the Government are available for inspection at or may be procured from the Department of Mines at the address mentioned below. Copies of the “Report on the Development of the Port of Port Hedland” (July, 1960) as prepared by Messrs. Rendel, Palmer and Tritton, Consulting Engineers of London for the Government of Western Australia are obtainable from the Department of Public Works, Perth.

Tenderers may submit any alternative or additional proposals in regard to any matter mentioned in these Conditions of Tender particularly in regard to the method of transport of ore to the place of shipment and alternative sites or proposals for the provision of wharf facilities but full particulars must be provided for all alternative proposals.

Statements made and information given in these Conditions are offered in good faith but no responsibility for their accuracy or correctness shall be accepted by the Government of Western Australia.

Conditions of Tender

Tenderers shall disclose in their tenders full particulars of the following: -

  1. their proposals concerning the mining transport and shipment of iron ore in accordance with these Conditions of Tender;
  2. what work facilities and things (if any) the tenderers desire to be done or provided by the Government and how the tenderers propose to pay therefor;
  3. in connexion with the operations concerning the iron ore what work the tenderers propose to do and what they intend to erect or construct at Mr Goldsworthy at the place of shipment of the ore and along the route between Mr Goldsworthy and the place of shipment;
  4. the vehicles locomotives and/or rolling stock they intend to employ in the said transport of ore.

Matters to be provided for in the Tender.

Each tenderer shall include in his tender provision for the following: -

  1. the latest date upon which mining operations for the iron ore will commence and the latest date for the commencement of shipment of the ore from the place of shipment;
  2. the maximum and minimum annual rate of export of such ore not exceeding a maximum of one million tons per annum and also the total period of operations concerning the iron ore;
  3. compliance with the conditions laid down by the Commonwealth Government as hereinbefore stated under the heading “ Information to Tenderers “, as hereinafter stated and as may from time to time be imposed by the Commonwealth Government or otherwise under the laws of the Commonwealth
  4. for the transport at his own cost of the ore from Mr Goldsworthy to the place of shipment and then for the loading of the ore on to ship. He shall however disclose in his tender full particulars of the rail and/ or road facilities which he proposes to provide or desires the Government to provide at his expense. If the tenderer proposes to provide and use rail facilities they must be capable of transporting one million tons of iron ore per annum from the deposit to the point of shipment and the tender shall disclose the approximate route to be followed and how the necessary land, or rights and interest to in or over land, along the route shall be acquired. The tenderer shall make provision for the laying of the line or track, the provision of locomotives rolling stock and safety devices and all structures erections and things incident or ancillary thereto and shall disclose the tenderers proposals in regard to the provision of train crews and ground and other staff. In this connection tenderers are referred to Part VI of the Public Works Act, 1902-1956.

If the tenderer proposes to use road facilities his tender shall disclose: -

  1. what roads he proposes to constructor cause to be constructed and the route or approximate route to be followed and the width and type of construction of the road;
  2. the type or types of vehicles in which the ore will be transported from Mr Goldsworthy to the place of shipment;
  3. in so far as the tenderer proposes to use any portion or portions of the State or Local Authority road system, present or future, the tenderer shall undertake and agree that the vehicle gross axle loads shall never exceed twelve tons and that tyre pressures of the vehicles shall not excedd 100 pounds per square inch with wheel loads and tyre sizes properly related to each other. (Tenderers are informed that above loading requirements are applicable to dry weather conditions and that rainfall records indicate that the average annual rainfall in the relevant area is about 12 inches and that the average number of wet days per year is eighteen. Tenderers may therefore have to expect some restriction on transport over roads but any such restriction is expected to be of limited character.)

In the use of road transport and of routes the successful tenderer shall comply with the relevant laws for the time being in force in the State particularly with the provisions of the Traffic Act, 1919 and the State Transport Co-ordination Act, 1933 and all amendments thereof and regulations thereunder for the time being in force.

All work to be carried out for or in relation to the transport of ore from Mr Goldsworthy to the point of shipment shall be subject to the approval of the State Government and plans and details in regard thereto must be submitted to and approved by the State Government prior to construction.

Harbour Facilities

Each tender shall make provision for a new loading berth and ancillary harbour facilities either

  1. at Port Hedland in the said State on the basis of the work projected in the said “Report on the Development of the Port of Port Hedland “ dated July, 1960, but without regard to the estimates appearing in the first sixteen lines of the paragraph numbered 15.2.2. on p. 41 of that Report; or
  2. at any other point on the Coast approved by the State Government.

So far as possible the tenderer will ensure that the whole of the loading berth and ancillary harbour facilities will be provided and constructed on Crown Land which the Government will make available to the successful tenderer on leasehold basis under the Land Act, 1933 and its amendments.

Tenderers however are required to state whether and to what extent (if any) and upon and subject to what conditions the rail road and other facilities to be provided by or for the successful tenderer may be used by members of the public. The successful tenderer will be required to permit the land the subject of the loading berth and ancillary harbour facilities and also the berth and facilities when constructed or provided to be used by ships and persons other than those engaged in removing or shipping iron ore so long as such utilisation will not interfere with impede or delay the operations of the successful tenderer in relation to the shipment of iron ore. Such utilisation shall be so permitted upon terms and conditions to be mutually agreed from time to time between the State Government and the successful tenderer or in default of agreement to be determined by arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1895 and its amendments for the time being in force.

Upon completion by the successful tenderer of his operations at Mr Goldsworthy or upon the shipment of fifteen million tons of iron ore therefrom or upon the abandonment by the tenderer of bis operations the subject of these Conditions of Tender or upon the expiration or sooner determination of the said lease or upon the determination or cancellation of this Contract the Government may by notice in writing to the successful tenderer determine the mineral claims and the loading berth and ancillary harbour facilities and all improvements and things erected thereon or provided for or in connection therewith shall remain or become the absolute property of the State Government without compensation and the tenderer will do and execute such documents and things as the State Government may reasonably require to give effect to this Condition. The tenderer must agree that if he fails to keep the loading berth and ancillary harbour facilities in good and usable repair and condition then the State Government may repair the same at the expense of the successful tenderer and may recover such expense from him on demand.

Iron Ore Deposits

The successful tenderer will under the provisions of the Mining Act, 1904 and its amendments and regulations for the time being in force thereunder make application for mineral claims over and in respect of the areas delineated and coloured red on plan No. 25 (Iron Deposits) at the said Department of Mines and the State will subject to the provisions of the said Act and regulations and of any agreement between the successful tenderer and the Government grant the application for the mineral claims and will from time to time after application being made for the purpose renew the claims during the continuance by the successful tenderer of his mining and export operations the subject of these Conditions of Tender.

Information to be Given by Tenderers.

Each tenderer will set out in his tender: -

  1. full particulars of his organisation (and in the case of a Company its capital structure) the capital available for the carrying but of the operations the subject of these Conditions of Tender and his obligations under any agreement with the State and Commonwealth Governments and his ability and knowledge in regard to the satisfactory undertaking and performance of those conditions and obligations;
  2. details of his proposed programme of operations;
  3. the amount of royalty per ton of iron ore produced from Mr Goldsworthy which the successful tenderer is prepared to pay quarterly to the Department of Mines on behalf of the Government.
  4. information as to appropriate weighing appliances to be installed by the tenderer in positions to be approved by the State Government under conditions which will provide for the satisfactory weighing or calculating of the tonnage of iron ore produced.

Further Obligations of Successful Tenderer

The successful tenderer shall-

  1. negotiate and be responsible for all contracts in respect of the sale of the iron ore;
  2. at all times carry out all mining operations at Mr Goldsworthy continuously and to the satisfaction and approval of the Minister for Mines and duly and punctually observe perform and comply with the provisions of all Acts (Commonwealth or State) applicable to or in any way concerning the said mining operations and the respective Regulations for the time being in force madeunder such Acts.

  3. on such site at the place of shipment as is provided therefor construct and at all times maintain and Use only such plant machinery and structures as are approved by the relevant authorities (statutory or otherwise) and Government Departments (including the Harbour and Light Department of the said State) as will enable the ore -

    1. to be emptied from the wagons or vehicles employed for the transport of the ore; and
    2. to be stockpiled at such site; and
    3. to be conveyed from such site into the ship’s hold.

  4. forthwith and at all times duly and punctually-comply with and carry out all the requirements and orders of all authorities (statutory or otherwise) and Government Departments in respect of any of the following matters: -

    1. conveyance of iron ore from the stockpile into the ship’s hold;
    2. shunting operations of rolling stock employed in the transfer of the said iron ore;
    3. the stevedoring of the ships engaged to ship the iron ore;
    4. the employment of labour for or in connexion with loading the aforesaid ships;
  5. before commencing the construction of any such equipment plant machinery or structures as are referred to in paragraph (c) of this Condition submit the plans and specifications of same to the relevant authorities (statutory or otherwise) and Government Departments and obtain (if required) their respective approval therefor and in any event the approval of the said Harbour and Light Department;
  6. at all times to the satisfaction of the State Government ensure that all roads constructed or caused to be constructed by the successful tenderer between Mr Goldsworthy and the place of shipment are adequate for the purposes of transporting over those roads the Ore and all plant equipment machinery merchandise and goods for use in or in connection with or incidental to the mining the transport the loading or the shipment of the ore, and that the roads are kept and maintained in good repair order and condition.
  7. upon notice to execute all repairs and works required to be done pursuant to any written notice given by the State Government in or in connectionwith the construction or repair of roads PROVIDED ALWAYS that if the successful tenderer shall not within 28 days after service of such notice commence and thereafter proceed diligently with the execution of the repairs and works mentioned in such notice it shall be lawful for the State Government to execute such repairs and works and the cost thereof shall be a debt payable on demand made by the State Government on the successful tenderer and recoverable by action.

Requirements of the Commonwealth of Australia.

The successful tenderer will be required to comply with the conditions and requirements of the Commonwealth as stated in the paper of the Departmentof National Development dated 20th December;1960, and entitled “ Informationfor

Applicants for Approval to Export Iron Ore” which (inter alia) include-

  1. provision of such information as is relevant concerning applications for approval to export iron ore;
  2. rendering of progress reports regarding the mining and exploration programme and
  3. provision of such other information as the Commonwealth may require; and will permit entry by the Commonwealth to the mining tenement in pursuance of any enquiries deemed necessary by the Commonwealth in administering the export control. (Copy of the Department of National Development paper referred to is attached.)

Any outstanding export entitlement may be suspended or cancelled if a titleholder fails to conform with any of the foregoing conditions and requirements of the export approval, or to submit, by the required date, an acceptable progress report. Exports additional to the quantity stated will be subject to further application to the Commonwealth Government prior to any such additional export being approved. In considering such applications the Commonwealth will, in accordance with its policy of encouraging and securing the processing within Australia of minerals and the extraction of metals therefrom, and of increasing iron and steel production in Australia, have regard to the possibility of ore being exported in processed form instead of as ore.

The Commonwealth will also have regard to the possibility of the exports being transported in Australian ships. Tenderers should indicate any proposals they may have in this regard for the information of the Commonwealth.

Right to Reject Tenderers

No tender need necessarily be accepted.

Assignment

The successful tenderer with the consent in writing of the State Government shall have the right to assign or dispose of all or any part of its rights and obligations under the Contract (referred to in the final Condition hereof and hereinafter called “ the Contract “) or any interest therein or to assign all or any of the before mentioned Mineral Claims and such consent shall not be arbitrarily or unreasonably withheld subject to the assignee executing in favour of the State Government a Deed of Covenant to perform observe and comply with the assigned obligations.

Delegation to Other Parties

Without prejudicing the rights remedies powers or obligations of the successful tenderer or the State Government under the provisions of the Contract, either of them shall have the right from time to time to entrust to third parties the carrying out of any portion of the operations which it is authorized or obliged to carry out under the Contract.

Force Majeure

The Contract will be made subject to any delays in the performance of obligations under the Contract which may be occasioned by or arise from circumstances beyond the power and control of the party responsible for the performance of such obligations, including delays caused by or arising from act of God, act of war, force majeure, act of public enemies, strikes, lock-outs, stoppages, restraint of labour, or other similar acts, whether partial or general, shortage of essential materials, reasonable failure to secure or delays of contractors riots and civil commotion.

Arbitration

Any dispute or difference between the successful tenderer and the State Government arising out of or in connection with the Contract or as to the construction of the Contract or as to the rights, duties, or liabilities of either party thereunder, shall, in default of agreement between the parties, be referred to and settled by arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration Act,1895 and its amendments for the time being in force.

Indemnity

  1. The successful tenderer shall indemnify and keep indemnified the State of Western Australia against all actions claims costs and demands arising out of or in connection with the construction maintenance or use by the successful tenderer of the loading berth, the place of shipment, any apparatus or equipment for conveying the iron ore or any other substance from the place of shipment into the ship’s hold, the said rail track or road.
  2. Forthwith upon the execution of the Contract the successful tenderer without limiting his obligations and responsibilities under the preceding sub-condition shall insure in the joint names of the State Government and the successful tenderer against all such damage arising out of or in consequence of the aforesaid actions claims costs and demands AND shall effect such insurance with an insurer and in terms approved by the Minister for Mines and for a sum to be mutually agreed AND the successful tenderer shall whenever required produce to the appropriate officer of the State Government the policy or policies of insurance and the receipts for payment of the current premiums.
  3. If the successful tenderer shall fail to effect and keep in force the aforesaid insurance then the State Government may effect and keep in force such insurance and pay such premium or premiums as may be necessary for that purpose AND the amount of such premium or premiums so paid by the State Government shall be a debt payable by the successful tenderer upon demand being made therefor by the State Government.

Remedies and Powers of State Government

If the successful tenderer makes default in the due and punctual performance or observance of any of the covenants, agreements, conditions or stipulations contained in the Contract the subject of the before mentioned operations and notice of that default is given by the State Government to the successful tenderer; or in the case of a default which is capable of being remedied and has not been remedied within the 60 days next following a notice from the State Government to the successful tenderer specifying such default and requiring it to be remedied or if the Export License approval or entitlement issued by the Commonwealth of Australia to the successful tenderer in respect of the export of the said iron ore is cancelled or revoked or if the successful tenderer goes into liquidation then and in any of such cases the Contract and the Mineral Claims issued to the successful tenderer pursuant to that Contract and all Leases and Licenses granted to the successful tenderer pursuant hereto or to that Contract shall be determined and cancelled but without prejudice to any right of action the State Government may have against the successful tenderer in respect of any antecedent breach of that Contract or of the conditions endorsed on any of the Mineral Claims or of the said Lease or License AND the railway track or line and all structures erections and things incident or ancillary thereto shall remain or become the absolute property of the State Government.

Contract

Within thirty days of the Under Secretary for Mines requesting in writing the successful tenderer to execute a form (to be prepared by the State Government) of contract with the State Government (the subject of the before mentioned operations) containing the above conditions of contract subject to any additions thereto variations thereof or omissions therefrom as may be agreed upon by the State Government and the successful tenderer the successful tenderer shall execute such a Contract.

Tenders to be placed in a sealed envelope addressed to the Under Secretary for Mines, Mines Department, St. George’s Terrace, Perth, and clearly marked “Mt. Goldsworthy Iron Ore Tender “.

page 1083

CELLULOSE ACETATE FLAKE BOUNTY BILL 1961

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Cellulose Acetate Flake Bounty Act to enable the operation of the bounty to be extended by proclamation to a date not later than 31st December, 1961, and to allow the bounty to be ended before that date, should this be desired. The question of continued assistance to the industry was referred to the Tariff Board on 28th July. 1960. Public inquiries have been held, but the board has not yet presented its report. The Government considers it reasonable to continue the benefits of the bounty until it has examined the recommendations of the Tariff Board. Hence the proposal in this bill that the bounty may be extended by proclamation to 31st December, 1961.

The Cellulose Acetate Flake Bounty Act provides for a bounty of lOd. per lb. on cellulose acetate flake produced in Australia and sold for use in the manufacture of textile rayon yarn in the six years ending 30th June, 1961. C.S.R. Chemicals Proprietary Limited is the only applicant for bounty. The company has received bounty payments in respect of flake sold during the year ended 30th June, 1956, amounting to £99,489; for 1957, amounting to £113,258; for 1958, amounting to £100,981; for 1959, amounting to £124,286; and for 1960, amounting to £120,033. For sales during the six months to 31st December, 1960, the company has received £73,603.

The principles of assisting cellulose acetate flake production by bounty rather than import duties was adopted in 1956. The bounty was designed to avoid imposing additional costs on this basic material essential to the Australian rayon textile industries. The proposed amendment would enable the present measure of assistance to be continued until the Tariff Board’s report has been received and considered by the Government. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Hendrickson) adjourned.

page 1083

DEFENCE PAY BILL 1961

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to validate certain payments made to or in respect of members of the Defence Force and to persons employed in a civil capacity under the Naval Defence Act.

Between the two world wars, rates and conditions of pay and allowances for members of the forces were reasonably stable and were incorporated in regulations. Following the Second World War a new pay code was approved for the services which differed substantially from that which applied pre-war, and required the making of new regulations. Each of the three services did have regulations made, but for a variety of reasons amending regulations fell behind the frequent changes in rates and conditions of pay and allowances which have occurred over the last decade or so.

Although the regulations did not keep pace with events, all payments to members of the services have been made in good faith and with the authority of the Government. Moreover, the necessary funds have been appropriated by Parliament. The lack of authority in the form of regulations for these payments had been a matter of concern to the Ministers and departments concerned, and in an endeavour to remedy the position regulations were made last year which set out to supply the necessary authority retrospectively in a short and simple form. These regulations were disallowed by the Senate on 4th October, I960. In brief, the. arguments advanced in favour of disallowance were stated to be that the period was so lengthy and the sums involved so large that the payments should be covered by act of Parliament rather than by regulation.

The. disallowance of these regulations by the Senate meant that two steps were necessary to put the position in order. First, action had to be taken to bring up to date any regulations covering pay and allowances which were still behind-hand. Secondly, a bill was necessary to obatin parliamentary authority for the validation of past payments.

On the first point, all the necessary regulations have now been made by the Executive Council. To achieve this in the time available, it has been necessary, I am bound to point out to the Senate, to depart from the assurances given to both Houses of Parliament, that all regulations will be settled by the Parliamentary Draftsman prior to their submission to the Executive Council. With the agreement of the Attorney-General, the regulations have been drafted by the departments concerned and submitted to the Executive Council by the responsible Ministers. They are now being looked at by the Parliamentary Draftsman to ensure they are in order, and if they are not, any necessary amendments will be prepared. This departure from the assurances 1 have mentioned was only authorized by the Attorney-General in view of the special circumstances prevailing and because compliance with the assurances would have delayed still further the making of the necessary regulations.

The bill now before the Senate is designed to meet the point of view that validation of past payments should be by act of Parliament. The bill has been kept to the simplest of terms. It provides that all payments made during the period between 7th August, 1947, and 31st March, 1961, under, or in pursuance of, financial instructions issued by the service departments or boards, shall be deemed to have been lawfully made. I should again mention that these financial instructions all had their origin in, and conformed to, Government approvals for rates and conditions of payments. The bill has been drafted so as to cover payments made to personnel employed by the Department of the Navy under the Naval Defence Act as it was found on examination that certain aspects of the regulations covering the pay of these personnel were out of date in a similar manner to the regulations governing service pay.

If the bill were to spell out all the details of rates of pay and allowances and their conditions of payment, it would be a long and complicated measure. It will be recalled from the debate in this chamber last October that in the matter of pay alone there were 26 variations in rates of pay involving all ranks and trade groupings in the services. These were brought about by cost-of-living adjustments, reviews of the pay code, marginal adjustments and so on, and were frequently associated with changes in allowances. Allowances and other conditions of service include such matters as marriage allowance, deferred pay, increments, specialist qualification pay, furlough and a wide variety of other matters, the rates and conditions of payment of which varied from time to time during the period in question. To include all these in detail would involve literally hundreds of pages of printing.

For the future, directions have been issued by the Government that payments will not be made in advance of the making or amendment, as appropriate, of the necessary regulations. I commend the bill to the favorable consideration of the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Willesee) adjourned.

page 1085

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL 1961

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The bill which I introduce relates to licences in respect of broadcast receivers and television receivers let out on hire. The bill seeks to introduce a variation in the provisions governing the issue of hirer’s licences and, in particular, the method by which business organizations and persons engaged in the renting out of receivers to members of the community may make payment for such licences. The existing provisions have not yet been proclaimed. The bill affects the licensing of receivers which are installed on a rental or hire basis, by seeking to allow an alternative form of licence to cover a number of receivers rather than only one receiver. It does not affect arrangements existing for the licensing of receivers obtained under hirepurchase agreements.

There has been considerable development in the hiring or renting of television receivers as an alternative to their purchase. Long-term rental is a relatively new business activity in Australia; its increasing popularity is such that the number of television receivers on hire has been rising by over 1.000 each month. Short-term rental transactions are also considerable. It has been represented by some organizations engaged in the hiring out of receivers that considerable hardship would be imposed on them if the existing provisions relating to the payment in advance annually of the whole of the licence-fee for each receiver let out on hire were applied. The bill seeks to modify the existing provisions in order to meet these representations.

The bill seeks to facilitate, moreover, the administration of the licensing arrangements for not only those people engaged in the rental industry, but also for the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, in respect of receivers installed on a rental or hire basis.

Mr. Deputy President, the bill provides for those organizations or persons in this class of business to avail themselves of alternative methods of obtaining licences for receivers. There may be either a licence for each receiver, which licence must be attached to that receiver in a manner to be prescribed, or alternatively, a licence may be held by the hiring organization or person for a number of receivers let out on hire, subject to each receiver being suitably marked in a manner to be prescribed. Suitable arrangements are therefore being made for the identification of receivers for licensing inspection purposes.

Under the bill, licences may be issued for any period not exceeding twelve months. The regulations will prescribe the basis of the fees to be paid for a hirer’s licence. The fees shall be assessed, having regard to the duration of the actual period of hire involved and the number of receivers being licensed, and to the fact that the Commonwealth must recover, in advance, an amount for each period based on the annual licence fees presently applicable. Licences which cover more than one receiver may be obtained for a lesser period than twelve months, while the regulations will, also, continue the provisions for payment in advance.

The bill which I have introduced, Mr. Deputy President, provides that the form of a licence will continue to be authorized by the Postmaster-General, while the manner in which persons and organizations engaged in the hiring of receivers should suitably notify the department of the number of receivers hired out during each month will be prescribed. I commend the bill for consideration by honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Dittmer) adjourned.

page 1086

HOUSING AGREEMENT BELL 1961

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 1086

LIFE INSURANCE BILL 1961

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 Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to make the amendments to the Life Insurance Act 1945-59 which were foreshadowed in the course of my second-reading speech on the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Bill 1961. Honorable senators will recall that that bill implemented the Government’s decision to encourage greater investment in public securities by life insurance companies and private superannuation funds.

A major provision which was introduced was that life companies which conform with the investment arrangements laid down will be exempt from taxation on the investment income attributed to their superannuation business. In addition, a company can obtain an increase in the deduction allowed under section 115 of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act if investment in public securities exceeds the standard laid down, that is, 30 per cent, of assets in public securities, including not less than 20 per cent, in Commonwealth securities. A decrease in that allowance occurs if a company holds a small amount of public securities and does not enter an undertaking to attain the “ 30/20 per cent, ratio “. In either event, the adjustment to the section 1 1 5 deduction applies only to the Australian portion of a company’s life insurance business, just as the 30/20 per cent, ratio applies only to the assets held by a company in respect of its Australian liabilities.

In order that these arrangements will be effective, some machinery amendments are required to the Life Insurance Act. Under that act, a company is required to establish and maintain one or more statutory insur ance funds. Premiums and investment income in connexion with the policies included in the class of life insurance business for which a statutory fund has been established are paid into the fund, which may only be used to pay claims and expenses relating to such policies.

At present, the superannuation business and overseas life insurance business of a company are generally included in the one fund with other Australian life insurance business. Whilst adequate information is available in respect of the overseas business, the information available for superannuation business is limited to certain statistical data only. In addition to this problem, it is possible that, in the future, some companies may wish to set up separate statutory funds for their superannuation business or overseas business, intead of relying on the apportionments provided in the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act, to determine the extent of the tax concessions or allowances available. The Life Insurance Act permits establishment of a separate fund for part of a class of life insurance business only if the approval of the Insurance Commissioner is obtained, and it seems reasonable to modify this arrangement.

The principal amendments in the bill now before the Senate include one to enable a life company to establish, if it so wishes, a a separate statutory fund for the whole or part of its superannuation business, or its overseas business or both, subject only to the necessary agreement of the commissioner as to the apportionment of liabilities and assets between the existing fund and the new fund. If this course is followed, the company, by segregating the various classes of its business, will identify the superannuation income which is eligible for tax exemption and the assets to which the 30/20 per cent, ratio does not apply. It will not be necessary, therefore, to resort to the apportionment processes contained in the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act.

Another amendment provides that, where a separate superannuation fund is not established, sufficient information will be available relating to that business. The additional information required will be a separate actuarial valuation and separate revenue account for that business. This information will enable the apportionment contained in the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act to be applied.

One further amendment to which I should make reference relates to the existing requirement in the Life Insurance Act for an equitable apportionment of expenses between the various classes of life insurance business. A company should pass any saving of income tax on the investment income of its superannuation business to superannuation policy-holders, and provision has been made for this to be done.

The opportunity has been taken to rectify a few minor drafting defects in existing sections of the act. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 1087

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY BILL 1961

In committee: Consideration resumed from 16th May (vide page 1066).

Clauses 1 to 3, taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 4 (Interpretation).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Clause 4 is the interpretation clause. In it a number of terms used in later substantive clauses to which the Opposition is opposed are defined. I rise merely to indicate that while T do not propose to spend a great deal of time on this clause, it is not to be concluded that the Opposition approves the substantive provisions where the terms »»» clause 4 are later used.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Continuous ports and seasonal ports).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Clause 5 is opposed by the Opposition. Our opposition is based on two grounds. Sub-sections (1 .) and (2.) of proposed new section 7a are the first steps in a chain of events which divide waterside workers into two categories - regulars and irregulars. The proposed new section will also divide ports into two types - continuous and seasonal. We on this side of the chamber object to clause 5 because we are concerned with matters of principle that arise later in the bill, and to which this clause is preliminary. I direct the attention of the committee to sub-sections (3.) and (4.) of the proposed new section. In effect, those subsections provide that when a port changes its character the schedules to the act may be altered by regulation. If the committee will refer to the schedules it will see that the first schedule deals with continuous ports - there is quite a number of them - and the second schedule deals with seasonal ports. If the bill is passed, the division between continuous and seasonal ports is made by this Parliament. The bill provides that the classifications of ports may be altered by regulation. In effect, as I have explained to honorable senators on many occasions, a Minister will change something that the Parliament has established. I know that theoretically the Governor-General in Council changes classifications such as these, but in practice the change is made very largely by a Minister. The Opposition thinks that an important point is involved in these classifications. It is certain that the activity of a port and its character may change with the passage of time. I understand that some ports that were seasonal have become continuous and vice versa. This matter is of major consequence to the people engaged in the industry, and the Opposition believes that any change of the nature referred to should come before the Parliament. After all, the Parliament is making the division now, and any change made should be made only by the Parliament.

Senator Vincent:

– Senator, have you addressed your mind to the impracticability of changes being made through the Parliament rather than by regulation?

Senator McKENNA:

– I cannot imagine any impracticability arising. These things do not develop in a hurry. A port does not in the space of two or three months change from one category to another. Such a change develops over a period. I think that Senator Vincent gave me an argument in favour of this matter coming before the Parliament. Changes have taken place in the past, but any deterioration or build-up in a port usually does not take place overnight. Only on rare occasions is the Parliament out of session for more than three months. I suggest that no question of impracticability would arise. If some slight difficulty did arise, no real inconvenience would be occasioned by waiting the few weeks that might be involved to bring the matter before the Parliament.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I should like the Minister for the Navy (Senator Gorton) to inform me why Port Huon does not appear in either schedule. I should like the Minister also to tell me whether we can be assured that the division between continuous and seasonal ports in the bill corresponds to the old division between class A and class B ports which, as I understand it, were ports in respect of which there were regular registers of waterside workers and seasonal registers of waterside workers. The third matter to which I should like the Minister to address his mind is the interpretation of the expression “ from day to day “ in sub-section (5.) of proposed new section 7a. That expression, which is to be found throughout the bill, is synonymous with the reference in our discussions to employment at continuous ports. I should like to know whether the Minister can refer me to a settled interpretation of that expression as definitely implying continuous work.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– I ask the Minister why the port of Albany is not included in the list of continuous ports in the first schedule. I note that the ports of Bunbury and Geraldton are included. I should imagine that the port of Albany, in regard to approximate tonnages handled, the nature of the freight handled and seasonal conditions, would be similar to the ports of Bunbury and Geraldton.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

.- As the Minister is a Victorian, he may be able to say why the port of Portland has not been included in the first schedule. I point out that waterside workers are employed at the port at certain times of the year, and it seems peculiar that the name of the port does not appear in either the first or the second schedule.

Senator CANT (Western Australia) [4.3 8”. - Clause 5 provides for the classification of ports. Long service leave is rather a ball-and-chain affair at any time. I notice that the clause provides that the GovernorGeneral - ultimately the Minister- may deprive a port of its registration under either the first or second schedule of the bill. I suggest that such action could be used as a disciplinary measure against the workers. If the Parliament approves in this bill of certain ports being classified as coming within either the first schedule or the second schedule, the cancellation of registration should not be left to the whim of the Minister but should also be determined by the Parliament. After all. such a cancellation might affect the conditions governing long service leave. The workers could be deprived of those conditions simply by the passing of a regulation.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– I shall do my best to answer the questions that have been asked so far. Senator McKenna seemed to give the impression that the bill provided, for the first time, for the division of waterside workers into regulars and irregulars.

Senator McKenna:

– Not for the first time. I did not say that.

Senator GORTON:

– I accept the honorable senator’s statement that he did not say that. In case his remarks gave the impression that that was being done for the first time, I make it clear that that is not the case. I am informed that for a considerable time, whether by law or by custom, there has been a differentiation between regulars and irregulars.

Senator McKenna:

– It is by agreement between the authority and the branches of the Waterside Workers Federation at the various ports.

Senator GORTON:

– That is the practice, in any case, and that is the point I wanted to make. I do not think there is reason for a great degree of fear about the honorable senator’s second point to the effect that the possible alteration of the status of a port from continuous to seasonal, or otherwise, may not necessarily be made by act of Parliament. Admittedly, an alteration that is made by means of a regulation, though it is provided that it shall be made by the Governor-General in Council, is in effect a decision of the Government; but the regulations do come to the Parliament.

Senator McKenna:

– After the event.

Senator GORTON:

– Yes, but they do not become effective until the Parliament has had a chance to disallow them.

Senator McKenna:

– Indeed they do. They become effective the moment they are passed. It is only later that the Parliament has the right to disallow them.

Senator GORTON:

– Yes, but they become ineffective the moment that the Parliament has the right to disallow them. One may be fairly sure that the industry itself would have a voice in the matter, should there be any untoward development, although I cannot imagine what such a development might be.

I have been asked about the classification of the ports at Port Huon, Portland and Albany. I understand that the classification of a continuous port refers to a port that is in use throughout the year. A seasonal port is a port which is in use every day for a substantial portion of the year. There are other ports, which come into neither of those categories, at which ships call occasionally - not every day throughout a period of the year, but maybe once a week, or every four or ten days. They are not ports which are either continuously in use throughout the whole year or continuously in use throughout a substantial part of the year.

Senator Wright:

– May we take it that the classification of continuous and seasonal ports corresponds with the old classification of A and B ports?

Senator GORTON:

– I am told that the classification in the schedule follows the Ashburner award. B class ports are not included. Regarding the honorable senator’s request for an interpretation of the expression “ from day to day “, I am not quite sure of the point that he wants me to answer, but the intention is that a regular waterside worker must make himself available from day to day for continuing employment.

Senator McKenna:

– Would not that have some reference to the fact that waterside workers are compelled to work from Monday to Sunday? They have to be available for every day of the week.

Senator GORTON:

– Yes, on any day on which they are called in.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– I thank the Minister for his information about the port of Albany. On behalf of Albanians, may I call them, 1 stress the fact that that port is the equal in every respect of the ports of Bunbury and Geraldton, for the purposes of this bill. Will the Minister refer this matter to the department so that on the next occasion consideration is being given to reclassification of ports the port of Albany may be included in the first schedule? It would not be the first time that this port had been overlooked. I feel obliged to invite the attention of the Minister and of the department to this fact.

Senator COLE:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labour Party · Tasmania

– I should be glad if the Minister would tell me what the position would be in relation to the grant of long service leave pro rata in the event of the discontinuance of the use of a port by shipping, thus rendering the waterside workers there redundant. Take the port of Strahan, in Tasmania. It is quite a busy little port at the present time, but if Queenstown became defunct - and that is within the realm of possibility within 20 or 30 years - there would be no work in the port of Strahan. In that event, the watersiders would find that they were in a port which was neither a seasonal port nor a continuous port. The waterside workers who are engaged there have worked in a continuous capacity for periods ranging from five years to twenty years. I realize that if shipping ceased to use the port the waterside workers there could transfer to other ports, but, as they are living in the area with their wives and families, it is reasonable to assume that they would go to other positions in the district. Will the Minister inform me whether, in the event of this contingency arising, the waterside workers at Strahan would be granted long service leave on a pro rata basis?

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– I understand that if a continuous port like Strahan were to close down, the watersiders who had been working there would retain all of their long service leave credits. If they wished to continue in the industry, they would have to go to some other port in order to qualify for further long service leave. If they complied with the conditions laid down in the bill, they would receive long service leave on a pro rata basis after working continuously at a continuous port for a period of eight years.

Senator Kendall:

– What would be the position in relation to ports such as Mackay and Mourilyan in Queensland, or Port Kembla in New South Wales, which are not mentioned in the schedules?

Senator GORTON:

– It would depend on whether the credits were earned during a time when the port was classified either as a continuous port or as a seasonal port. If they were earned during such times, the waterside workers would retain them. If the port were an occasional port - that is, one at which a ship calls only occasionally - as distinct from a seasonal or a continuous port, credits would not be available.

Question put -

That the clause stand as printed.

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

AYES: 28

NOES: 25

Majority . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in ‘the affirmative.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (Functions of the Authority).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This clause proposes to amend section 17 of the principal act. That section relates to the functions of the authority, which are set out in some detail. The clause proposes the amendment of the section by omitting paragraphs (c) and (d) of sub-section (1.) and inserting new paragraphs in their stead. I am not concerned with proposed new paragraph (c), except to ask the Minister a question. The proposed new paragraph authorizes the commission to pay -

Attendance money payable to registered waterside workers under an award of the Commission or under section thirty-one a of this Act;

I take it that the reference is to sub-section (7.) of proposed new section 31a.

Senator Gorton:

– It refers to payments to irregulars.

Senator McKENNA:

– That is the answer I wanted. Is that the only provision in the bill relating to the payment of attendance money to irregulars?

Senator Gorton:

– I would not say that it is the only authority, but it is an authority for such payments.

Senator McKENNA:

– The reference to “ section thirty-one a of this Act “ is, in my study, a reference to sub-section (7.) of proposed new section 31a, which is set out on page 8 of the bill. I merely wanted to confirm my view that that is the authority for the payment of attendance money to irregulars, in the rare cases in which it is payable.

I am concerned about proposed section 17(l.)(d). The following words in the proposed paragraph are the same as those in the existing paragraph: - to ensure that sufficient waterside workers are available for stevedoring operations at each port and that the labour of waterside workers is used to the best advantage . . .

Then the following new words are to be added: - and, for those purposes, where, in the opinion of the Authority, it is expedient to do so -

  1. to facilitate waterside workers registered at one port becoming registered at another port for limited periods; and-

There is no objection to that subparagraph

  1. to require–

I emphasize the word “ require “ - waterside workers registered at a port to offer for and accept employment on a daily basis at another port, being a port situated within reasonable travelling distance, by surface transport, from the port at which they are registered;

The only variation from the existing practice which is effected by the clause as I see it is the provision which will make it compulsory for waterside workers at one port to transfer to another in the circumstances outlined.

The Waterside Workers Federation has co-operated freely with the authority in agreeing to those transfers in the past. I refer to the report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority for the year ended 30th June, 1960, at page 94 of which the following paragraph appears: -

Transfers between the pom ot Burnie and Devonport in accordance with an order of the Authority have been operating regularly since May, 1958. They were of considerable value during the year in alleviating shortages of labour at Burnie in particular. ‘For instance, through the month of April, 1960, Devonport men were engaged for work at Burnie on nine days, the total number transferred being 564. In the same month, a total of 96 Burnie men were employed at Devonport on two days. During the year, the Federation requested the Authority to extend this scheme to include the nearby ports of Ulverstone and Stanley. An order giving effect to this proposal was made on 23rd June, 1960.

There is an indication that the principle is acceptable to the federation, and it is apparent, in the instance I have just quoted, that in Tasmania the federation even wants an extension of the present practice.

Quite a number of points arise. I take it that the reference to a daily basis means that the trip to the port which needs help is to be made on the day on which that help is needed and that the return trip will be made on the same day. I know that the question of what is a reasonable travelling distance is open to argument, but I raise no point about that. I realize that the Devonport workers travel 30 miles to Burnie and that they are offering to travel another 40 or more miles down to Stanley. So, obviously, from the federation’s viewpoint the distance of 70 miles is not unreasonable.

Senator Henty:

– Is that the position? Will not the position be that the Stanley members will be coming to Burnie?

Senator McKENNA:

– The Stevedoring Industry Authority does not put it that way.

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA · LP

– There has never been any question about a shortage of labour at Stanley.

Senator McKENNA:

– It may well be that the situation is just the reverse of what I believed it to be. The report of the authority states -

During the year, the Federation requested the Authority to extend this scheme -

It is talking now about transfers from Devonport - to include the nearby ports of Ulverstone and Stanley.

Senator Henty:

– Does not that mean that the men would be coming from Ulverstone and Stanley up to Burnie?

Senator McKENNA:

– That may well be the position. If it is, the men coming from each direction will be moving about 35 miles. That would be an indication that a distance of that order is reasonable - that is if the surface transport is suitable. I understand that in these circumstances the men are transported at the expense of the authority and that they are paid for time lost through travelling. That is all right. I should like the Minister to assure me that the question of overnight accommodation does not arise in such cases.

What concerns the Opposition more particularly is this: Whereas hitherto it has been a matter of agreement between the federation and the authority, it is proposed to change the procedure so that waterside workers may be required to transfer from one port to another. It is to be obligatory for them to do so. At page 102 of the report to which I referred earlier, the Stevedoring Industry Authority states -

On the 9th February, waterside workers at Devonport refused to transfer to Burnie because of a dispute at that port, 576 man-hours were lost in consequence. On 28th March, also at Devonport, there was a refusal to embus-

That is a new word - for transfer to Burnie because the drivers were not members of the Transport Workers Union. There was a loss of 660 man-hours.

Under the proposed provision, it is quite obvious that, if there were a dispute at Burnie involving the federation and its members, the Stevedoring Industry Authority could require the waterside workers who are registered at Devonport to transfer as strike breakers.

Senator Wright:

– It is not a transfer. It is just a matter of their accepting work there for that day.

Senator McKENNA:

– It is a transfer in fact. However, I do not think anything in particular attaches to it. These waterside workers could be asked to embus, to use the authority’s word, and proceed to Burnie. But it is quite certain that the waterside workers at Devonport would not go to Burnie to undertake work if their colleagues at that port were on strike. They could be on strike for a ground that might later be held to be quite reasonable or excusable. For example, there may have been some breach of the award by the shipowners or the stevedoring company, or some other provocative action which had induced the Burnie men to go out on strike. The point I am making is that proposed section 17(l.)(d) provides that the waterside workers shall be required to proceed to the port where help is needed whereas hitherto it has been a matter for an order by the port authority with the concurrence of the federation. Now the element of compulsion is to be introduced.

A refusal to transfer in the circumstances I have outlined would mean that all those waterside workers at Devonport who refused to move down to Burnie would be liable to the penalties provided for in section 36 - to cancellation of their registration and, under the proposed new provisions, also forfeiture of attendance money for four days. Quite a number of penalties would attach to such refusal. Knowing the watersiders quite well, I say this to the Government: No matter what the penalty was, these men would not transfer in the circumstances I have outlined. A similar situation has existed in relation to Geelong and Melbourne. That is referred to at pages 93 and 94 of the Stevedoring Industry Authority’s report. We of the Opposition oppose this provision, which has no regard to the factor I have mentioned and which makes a transfer compulsory in the circumstances I have outlined.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– Mr. Chairman, I can reply to the earlier point made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) bysaying that the men would be travelling in their own time, that they would have their travelling expenses paid, that they would be required to be in attendance from day to day and that the question of overnight accommodation is not covered and would1 not arise. The men would be taken there and back on the same day.

Senator Wright:

– Did you say that the men would be travelling in their own time?

Senator GORTON:

– That is what I am informed.

Senator McKenna:

– But they are paid now. They get travelling time.

Senator GORTON:

– That is what I am saying.

Senator McKenna:

– They are travelling in the employer’s time, not in their own time.

Senator GORTON:

– I beg your pardon. They are travelling in the time for which they are being paid. The only other point of substance which was raised by the Leader of the Opposition was the objection to the use of the word “ require “ in the proposed provision that registered waterside workers shall be required to offer for employment at another port. The present situation under the award, in relation to attendance money and otherwise, is that members are required to offer day by day for work in their own port. So no alteration is proposed, except that they are now to be required to offer for work in another port. There can be no objection to that in normal circumstances, I suggest, particularly as the other port must be within a reasonable travelling distance. Let me move on to what the Leader of the Opposiiton suggested might be the abnormal circumstances, in which there is a dispute in an adjacent port. At present, if there is a dispute in a port at which a registered waterside worker is engaged, he is required to make himself available for work in that port on a ship, whether or not the dispute relates to that ship. The proposed provision would extend to a neighbouring port the conditions which now apply in his own port.

Senator COLE:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labour Party · Tasmania

– I ask the Minister for the Navy (Senator Gorton) whether any exemptions will be made from the requirement to travel between ports. Some waterside workers are over the age of 60 years, and some of the younger ones suffer from disabilities. It would be wrong to make no exemptions. Waterside workers travel from Burnie to Devonport in rather crowded buses. Because of smoking and for other reasons, conditions in the buses are not all that they should be, and many men will not in any circumstances take work on the Burnie wharf, although as a consequence their earnings are cut quite considerably. Devonport waterside workers have had a rather lean period, and it has been a godsend to them to be able to transfer to Burnie. In spite of that, from 5 to 10 per cent, of them will not travel to Burnie in any circumstances.

Senator Vincent:

– Because they are too weak to travel?

Senator COLE:

– Because they have certain disabilities. Some people do not like travelling. The work at Burnie would be mostly at night. They would be working the evening shift, leaving at 4 p.m. and arriving back at 12 midnight or 12.30 a.m. Will those men with genuine disabilities be exempted from the requirement to travel?

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– All that I can say in reply is that the legislation imposes the requirement upon the waterside worker, and it would be for the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, or possibly the commission, to decide whether there were sufficient genuine grounds to justify exemption.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

.- Do I understand the Minister to say that, if there is a dispute at Burnie, waterside workers from Devonport may be ordered to Burnie?

Senator Wright:

– Of course, they can be.

Senator Cole:

– I do not think that they can be.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I want to know the position.

Senator Vincent:

– Would it not depend upon the nature of the dispute?

Senator KENNELLY:

– I am concerned about the position in relation to any dispute.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- The submission by Senator McKenna amazes me. It is that if there is a dispute at Burnie there is something anomalous in requiring Devonport workers to attend for work at Burnie. The whole idea as I understand it - I hope that the Minister will correct me. if I am labouring under a misunderstanding - is that if the authority orders Burnie registrants to work, there is a dispute, and the Burnie registrants do not work, they are acting contrary to a requirement of the authority. What distinction can be drawn between those on the register of a port and those on the register of a neighbouring port? The system in this industry is that members of the federation have a monopoly, but within that monopoly they are bound to turn up. for work, either at the port at which they are registered or at a port within reasonable travelling distance from that port, when required by the authority to do so. I am amazed that the Parliament has to listen to a claim that this federation should be superior to the requirement of the authority.

I was interested to hear that travelling time and all the rest go onto the expenses of this industry. Is anybody in the Senate concerned with that situation, whereby to maintain this monopoly the cost of travelling between two ports is an added cost to the industry? Looking at the authority’s statement of accounts for last year, one sees that the total cost of attendance money, annual leave, statutory holidays, sick pay and loss of pay, was £3,420,000. This is a matter in which we should exercise some responsibility. Give the men proper travelling time, pay them for it and provide proper buses, but recognize that we are not going to maintain a monopoly just so that when one port is easy and another has work we shall continue to pay in the port where there is no work, and allow the work to bank up in the other part where the services of waterside workers are required.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– In answer to Senator Kennelly, I say that a member of the Waterside Workers Federation who is registered, say, at Devonport, is required to make himself available to go to Burnie and to work under exactly the same circumstances as apply to any member of the federation who is registered at Burnie.

Senator Cole:

– That will be the position after the bill is passed?

Senator GORTON:

– Yes, whether or not there is a dispute.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I address myself to Senator Wright’s submission that there is something anomalous about the proposition that the Opposition has put. His submission shows a complete disregard of the outlook and attitude of the Waterside Workers Federation and the universal trade union principle that one trade unionist will not scab on another. In the case that we are discussing, there can be two situations at Burnie. All of the waterside workers at Burnie may be on strike. The strike may be unjustified, it may be justifiable, or in terms of the bill it may be excusable. Who is to determine whether or not it is justifiable or excusable, when the Devonport men are asked to travel? I merely make the point that under this provision the Devonport men may be ordered to go, and if they do not go they will suffer all the penalties provided in clause 36.

Senator Wright:

– Just as the Burnie men who have been ordered to work and have refused to work at Burnie will suffer the penalties.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes. The honorable senator may be completely assured that the Devonport men would not move an inch towards Burnie in those circumstances. The Government ought to know that that is the position. The Stevedoring Industry Authority certainly knows that it will be the position. Why introduce a penalty and make a difficulty? All the evidence is that in this matter of transferring men to another port the federation is co-operating magnificently. The report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority discloses that. The men rebel against a transfer, or oppose a transfer only when their mates in the port to which it is sought to transfer them are on strike because some important trade union principle has been offended. That being the case I think the clause is an unfortunate one and demonstrates the Government’s whole approach to this industry. The Government’s outlook can be seen right throughout the bill; and it is provocative. In dealing with the functions of the authority it would have been adequate to enable the authority to arrange these transfers instead of making it a requirement.

I do not know whether I understood Senator Wright correctly when he complained about men being paid for travelling time.

Senator Wright:

– I did not complain about their being paid for travelling time.

Senator McKENNA:

– He adverted to the extreme cost of travelling time. On this point let me say that it is universally accepted that if an employer requires a man to travel in the course of his work it certainly does not devolve on the workmen to pay the cost of that transport.

Senator Ormonde:

– That applies right throughout the building trade.

Senator McKENNA:

– It applies throughout every trade.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Tasmania · LP

– I should like to answer the point made by Senator McKenna by stating first of all that I listened fairly carefully to what Senator Wright had to say. I have no doubt whatever that having first adverted to the high costs which are involved in this industry he then used, as nearly as I remember, these words, “ Pay the men in the boss’s time, give them good buses and working conditions, but do not give them some extra monopolistic power over and above that “.

Senator Cant:

– That was a second thought on the part of Senator Wright.

Senator GORTON:

– That was what 1 understood him to say. I am terribly sorry that honorable senators opposite cannot understand it, but that is what he said. That is the first point I want to make. I move on now to say that at present there is a requirement for a waterside worker to take whatever job crops up for him on the roster.

Senator McKenna:

– At the port at which he is registered.

Senator GORTON:

– Yes. That is a requirement placed upon him. We have been told that that requirement works all right on a voluntary basis when a waterside worker is required to work at a port reasonably close to the port in which he was working before. I might say that I can see no reason why a waterside worker, or a worker in any other industry, who is transported in the boss’s time under proper conditions, should not go to a neighbouring port to carry out the work which is available there but which may not be available at the port at which he is registered.

Senator McKenna:

– Will you deal with the other point - the position where the men at the second port are on strike over some union principle?

Senator GORTON:

– I wish to make the first point clear before I deal with the question of whether there is an industrial disturbance at the second port. Leaving out the suggestion of an industrial disturbance, 1 can see no reason why a man, under the conditions I have outlined, should not travel a reasonably short distance to where work can be provided for him.

Senator McKenna:

– I have already explained that they do so voluntarily.

Senator GORTON:

– Let us understand these matters clearly. I wished to understand whether the Leader of the Opposition had any objection on the first point. As far as the other point is concerned the bill does require waterside workers, even if there is an industrial disturbance at the second port, to go to that port at the discretion of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– The compulsive aspect of the paragraph now stands revealed after what Senator Gorton and Senator Wright have said. It stands revealed that the authority will be in the position to require workers to present themselves at another port as strike breakers. Because they happen to be registered waterside workers, bound to work at one port, they may be required to scab on their mates. Senator Gorton excuses this by saying that at present there is such a requirement on a waterside worker. I remind Senator Gorton that the present requirement has caused more loss of time than has been lost as the result of any other type of industrial stoppage. The Waterside Workers Federation has requested the authority on many occasions, if there is trouble on one ship, to isolate that ship and not to order other waterside workers to go to that ship knowing full well that they wil1 not. so and that the whole port will be tied up. This clause will have the effect of tying up not only one port but also a second port by trying to force workers to scab on their workmates. The whole plot stands revealed by the statements of the two honorable senators.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– As I understand it the Opposition is objecting to the requirement element in this clause.

Senator Kennelly:

– If there is trouble at a port.

Senator VINCENT:

– I want to be quite clear before I proceed to argue the proposition. Does the Opposition object to the requirement element absolutely or only if and when there happens to be a stoppage at the critical port? If the Opposition objects to the requirement element only if and when there happens to be a stoppage in the port in question, then I think this matter can be argued from somewhat different premises. If, however, the Opposition is arguing against the requirement provision absolutely, I think that a new field of discussion should be observed. I am assuming that the Opposition merely objects to the requirement provision in circumstances where there is industrial trouble.

Senator McKenna:

– The Opposition objects to the possibility of this clause being used for strike breaking.

Senator VINCENT:

– That is merely putting it another way. The Opposition objects to the requirement provision if there is a strike at the port in question. I will assume that the Opposition does not object to the requirement provision in other circumstances.

Senator McKenna:

– I have said three or four times that it does not.

Senator VINCENT:

– Let us have a discussion, as objectively as is possible, about the real objection of the Opposition. The Opposition argues that it is objectionable to have a requirement provision where a stoppage is in progress but that it is not objectionable in other circumstances. With the greatest respect, I cannot understand that argument at all. That is the very height of illogicality. If the Opposition wants to object to the requirement element I think it should stand firm and object to it in all circumstances. It just cannot have its cake and eat it too.

Senator Cant:

– You do not understand their working conditions. You do not understand Labour people.

Senator VINCENT:

– I have listened to Opposition speakers with great interest and in silence. I would appreciate a similar courtesy from the honorable senators who are endeavouring to debate this question simultaneously with me. We arrive at the very interesting conclusion that, irrespective of how illegal or how wrong a strike may be and irrespective of any circumstance at all, merely because there happens to be a stoppage at one port this monopoly industry is closed down there. I wonder what Mr. Chifley would have said about that. He ordered the soldiers into the mines during the big coal strike in 1949. I do not think that he would like to hear honorable senators opposite talking about requirements. In that case there was an inexcusable, Communist-inspired strike. Is it now the policy of the Labour Party to support Communist-inspired strikes? One can see where we are getting to.

I want to be quite clear on what the Opposition really wants. We have to understand each other’s views in these debates and we have to discuss these matters without becoming heated. If that is what the Labour Opposition is now advocating, then, in my opinion, it is essential that the whole of the public who are listening, including the interested parties from the waterfront, should understand it. I can understand statements from the Labour Party advocating support for strikes in certain circumstances, but I do not think that responsible men in that party or in any party other than the Communist Party would endorse a policy of supporting a Communist-inspired strike for political purposes. That is what we are getting to.

Where a high industrial principle is involved or where the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has said, in effect, “This stoppage is justifiable because of certain circumstances “ - for example, a prima facie wrongful action on the part of the employer - I am. quite prepared to discuss the reasonableness of the requirement provision. But it rather staggers me to hear the Labour Party voicing an absolute objection to the requirement provision in the circumstances that I have outlined - namely, where waterside workers take part in an inexcusable stoppage inspired by the Communist Party for political purposes.

The bill does not state that the requirement provision is an absolute rule which must be imposed in all circumstances. With great respect, I say that the Opposition has misread this clause. Undoubtedly, there is complete discretion in the employing authority, the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, to require or not to require waterside workers to accept employment at another port. I suggest to the Opposition that the matter of when that requirement should or should not be used must be left in the discretion of the employing authority. That is really the situation. Nothing in this bill makes it an absolute rule that in all circumstances of stoppages men shall be required to work at other ports. That is not the meaning of the clause and I do not think any one can read that meaning into it.

If we adopt the absolute attitude that the Opposition has adopted, we undoubtedly shall finish up by supporting political strikes inspired by the Communists. Every person in Australia knows that the majority of the strikes on the waterfront are Communistinspired for political purposes.

Senator McKenna:

– That is utter nonsense.

Senator VINCENT:

– Every one knows that. The members of the Opposition know it and they get no marks at all from more than 10,000,000 Australians for pretending that they do not know that. I have made my position clear. I invite the Opposition, as dispassionately as possible, to consider this matter on the basis that I have mentioned - whether its attitude is absolute or whether it will qualify its attitude in cases where strikes are patently Communist-inspired and are therefore to be despised and opposed.

Senator DITTMER (Queensland) 15.30]. - It is quite apparent from the statement of the Minister in relation to this clause that this is a starkly provocative measure, designed to bring about industrial chaos prior to the elections. Honorable senators on the Government side are interjecting. I listen to them patiently on all occasions and I suggest that they do likewise to me. We know that there are trouble-makers among the waterside workers, but the vast majority of them; - I know many hundreds of them - are extremely decent, capable, men who are anxious to do their job.. They are not to blame on all occasions when there is trouble. The Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority is not particularly sympathetic to the men. Senator Vincent will know that if men walked out of a mine in Kalgoorlie, irrespective of the reason and whether the strike was illegal or legal, no other miner would go underground and no other man would approach the surface of the mine.

Senator VINCENT:

-It would not be a Communist-inspired strike.

Senator DITTMER:
QUEENSLAND

– Forget about that word “Communist”. You will be using the word “ communism “ enough in. the next few months, so give it a spell on this bill. You will be using, it in November and December; that is a certainty. You will also use this measure in an. endeavour to cloud the issues, because the Government is. so unpopular with tha Australian people at the: present time.

Who would expect a man in the Waterside Workers Federation - in which thereis a great bond of mateship, as there is in other trade unions - to take another man’s job? No one in that union would takeanother man’s job, irrespective of whether that man was on strike for a just or unjust cause. With this legislation the supportersof the Government and: the Communist agitators that they mention so frequently will be able to precipitate industrial trouble. The Government will go to the people in a clouded financial atmosphere. Who attacked the Government only recently?’ None other than Mr. Staniforth Ricketson..

The CHAIRMAN (Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid): - Order! The honorablesenator must keep to the clause.

Senator DITTMER:

– This is industrial” warfare; the matter to which I was refecring is economic and psychological warfare. The Opposition has shown this clause to be starkly provocative. The supporters of the Government want to precipitate industrial chaosv if they can, so that they can. say to the people,. “ Give us a mandateto provide industrial! stability on the waterfront and in industry generally “.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– I listened to Senator Vincent with my usual patience. I was amazed to hear him say what the position will be. All I am concerned about is what the words mean. The clause reads in part - to. require waterside workers registered at a port to offer for and accept employment on a daily basis at another port. . . .

In arguing this point, it does not matter whether or not there is a dispute as outlined by Senator Vincent. I have never heard Senator Vincent or any other honorable senator on the Government side refer to any trouble on the waterfront as being other than Communist-inspired. I am quite used to that. The fact is that even if the bill. is. everything that the supporters of the Government think it is, the men will not work. Once a job is declared black at Devonport, no man from, Burnie will go to that job. What concerns me is the fact that if waterside workers refuse to go from Burnie to Devonport they will automatically be penalized. The sooner honorable senators opposite get out of their minds- the idea that all stoppages and disputes on the waterfront are caused by one set of people only thebetterwillbeHonorable- senators opposite would realize how wrong theyareintheir beliefs if they were toread the report of the Australian Stevedoring. IndustryAuthority. I have had a little experience of waterside workers. We in. this place are wasting our time if we think that this billwill bring peace to the industry. It is no good saying that Healy is the man to fear. I remember that when Cadden was secretary of the Melbourne branch of the union the waterside, workers would stop work if they had a grievance.. Honorable senators opposite, should pay regard to the history of this industry. I’ am not suggesting that I support every stoppageon the waterfront, but if a dispute existed I would not work on the waterfront even though I did not agree with the dispute. I know that during busy times waterside workers transfer from Melbourne to. Geelong.. But to. require them to do so is to compel them to do so. Surely in this age men are entitled to say, for example, that they do not want to do night work. They may want to go out at night. Are we, in 1961, to say that a person must, contrary to his personal wishes, sell the only commodity that he possesses at a time when the boss, wants it? I hope that we never corner to that stage. I am not content to make my remarks only in this place;

I will also make them outside. If we treat these people as human beings - they are not cattle - we will get somewhere with them. After all, they are not as easily led by the nose as many honorable, senators opposite. The waterside workers have views of their own. The Parliament may pass legislation relating to the waterfront every week, but it will not get any extra cargo into the holds or removed from the holds unless the waterside workers are in agreement. We must remember that the workers have only one commodity to sell - their labour.

Senator Wright:

– Do not talk about the waterside workers selling their labour. Let them deliver it.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Senator Wright was amazed to think that waterside workers travel from one port to another in the boss’s time.

Senator Wright:

– I did not say that.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Oh, yes, you did. 1 know that the Minister for the Navy (Senator Gorton) tried to rescue the honorable senator. Perhaps the Minister thought that he needed the honorable senator’s vote. He is showing a little political sense that he did not show a month ago. The Government may introduce as many bills as it wishes, and may use as much coercion as it wants, but I know how much cargo will come out of the holds. The waterside workers are as good as they were 30 years ago.

Senator Hannaford:

– They do not show it.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Yes, they do. They will look after themselves.

Senator Hannaford:

– That is right.

Senator KENNELLY:

– That is right. We in this place, from both sides of the chamber, look after ourselves. No one blames us for doing that. Why should not the waterside workers get the best conditions and wages possible?

Senator Vincent:

– Nobody is attempting to stop them from getting good wages and conditions.

Senator KENNELLY:

– The Government is. Of the 4,000 waterside workers registered in my city I doubt whether 200 of them would be members of the Communist Party. I have had a little experience of these workers. To listen to honorable senators opposite one would think that every waterside worker was a little Stalin.

Senator Hannaford:

– You have the one who counts.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Listen, if I walked on to the waterfront to-morrow - I know what I am saying - I would vote for Healy. Why would I vote for Healy? I would vote for him because I would think that he would get the best wages and conditions for the labour that I had to sell. That is the only thing that matters. The Government will never obtain the cooperation of the waterside workers if it continually attempts to inflict injustices on them. I know that this clause will be passed because the Government has the numbers, but it will not help the Government as far as the waterfront is concerned.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP

– Perhaps we may now discuss this matter a little more quietly. The act at present requires men who are registered in a port to work in that port at the direction of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority. Does the Opposition suggest that men who are transferred from one port to another temporarily should not be governed by the regulations that apply to the men already working in that latter port? That is what the Opposition is proposing and, of course, it is nonsense. Senator Poke is interjecting. I have never heard him say a word of common sense since he has been here. However, I have always listened courteously to his speeches, and I would like him to listen courteously to me. I thank the Leader oi the Opposition (Senator McKenna) for reminding me of what I first said. I suggest that honorable senators opposite ask the men who have the privilege of working in this monopoly what they think of the Government’s proposal.

Senator Kennelly:

– This monopoly?

Senator HENTY:

– It is a monopoly. Do not make any mistake about that. Apparently, honorable senators opposite want the men who work at a port, and who are registered, to be governed by a set of regulations which shall not apply to men who are transferred to that port. 1 disagree with that proposition.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator HENTY:

– Before the suspension of the sitting, Mr. Chairman, we were considering the amazing proposal of the Opposition that whilst the provisions of the bill should apply to waterside workers registered at a port, they should not apply to waterside workers who were transferred to that port to meet a shortage of labour. The Opposition seems to see some difficulty in applying the provisions in that respect. 1 see no difficulty in requiring men who are employed at a port to do certain things. If there is a surplus of labour at a port and some of the waterside workers are transferred to meet a shortage of labour at another port, I cannot see why they should not be subject to the same regulations as are their mates at the port at which they are working. It is an odd proposition to suggest that there should be a differentiation between the two classes of workers.

I was interested to hear a good oldfashioned speech from Senator Kennelly. We can understand why he made it, of course, when we appreciate that he was speaking to a particular audience. It was one of the old-time rabble-rousing speeches. He became a little worked up. I was astounded by his forthright statement that if he were a waterside worker he would vote for the Communist leader, Mr. Healy. He said that not once but several times.

Senator Ormonde:

– Did he say that?

Senator HENTY:

– Yes.

Senator Cant:

– I think the Minister is misquoting him.

Senator HENTY:

– I do not think so. Senator Kennelly repeated the statement several times. He said that he would vote for the Communist leader because he would get him better conditions. Well, that is a short-term policy. It would be interesting to see the kind of conditions that would apply if that Communist leader got control of the country.

Senator Cant:

– I should like to take a point of order.

Senator HENTY:

– I can see that the honorable senator does not like this.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I ask the Minister not to continue along those lines.

Senator HENTY:

– I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I was only replying to something that was said previously in the debate.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Minister has gone far enough.

Senator HENTY:

– I do not intend to say any more on the subject, because I do not like the look in your eye, Sir.

Senator Dittmer:

– You can be truthful, too.

Senator HENTY:

– Senator Dittmer is interjecting, I understand, Sir.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I shall look after him.

Senator HENTY:

– Yes, I have no doubt that you will, but I should like to have the opportunity to say something to him.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Minister will be in order so long as he keeps to the clause.

Senator HENTY:

– I want to tell him that it is bad luck that the Foot and Mouth Disease Bill will not be dealt with during this sessional period, because he is an expert in that field. He gets on his feet and opens his mouth too much.

To be serious, the provision for the transfer of labour is a most important matter in Tasmania, of which I am a representative in this Parliament, particularly in the north of the island where there are several A class ports in close proximity to each other. The Tasmanian provision helps the men when there is a surplus of labour. Transfers to other ports, which are close by, are effected quickly. The system works very well indeed. The report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority for 1960, at page 93, contains an interesting reference to the ports at Beauty Point, Bell Bay and Launceston. Because that reference is relevant to the matter we are discussing, I think it should be read to the Senate. In relation to the cost of transferring waterside workers from one port to another, the report states -

The cost incurred by way of transport and travelling time is counterbalanced by the saving in attendance money at the port where there happens to be a temporary surplus of labour and by the increased revenue from the stevedoring industry levy at the other port.

So, I think we can quite fairly dismiss any suggestion that the transfer of labour from one port to another is costly. As the report says, the cost incurred is counter-balanced by savings in other ways.

Unfortunately, for quite a long time the Waterside Workers Federation resisted the operation of this system at Beauty Point and Launceston; and it was not until an amending order providing for reciprocal transfers of waterside workers between those ports was made by the authority with effect as from 1st October, 1959, that transfers of labour applied to those ports. That amending order had results which it is interesting to note, because they show quite clearly the benefit of the system to men in a port where there is a surplus of labour, and also to the community as a whole. The report continues -

Prior to that date, resistance to transfers by the branches of the Federation at the ports had caused the Authority to apply to the Conciliation -and Arbitration Commission for rescission of an order it had made giving “ A “ class .status for attendance money purposes to the port of Beauty Point.

I pause there, Mr. Chairman, to say that it was only when the authority said to the federation, in effect, “ All right. If you will not transfer, if you resist transfers, we will reduce Beauty Point to a B class port, and your attendance money will be so much less “., that the federation played ball and decided to agree to transfers being made. It was as a result of that order - in effect, the taking of action similar to that which the Government proposes under the bill - that the federation agreed to the transfer of .labour.

Senator Ormonde:

– It co-operated.

Senator HENTY:

– Yes. “ Co-operation “ is a pleasant term to use when something is dangling over your head. The report states -

During the balance of the year, transfers were made from Launceston to Beauty Point and Bell Bay on 52 occasions for 17 day and 35 evening shifts, and involved .2,462 men in the working of 15,537 man hours. Transfers .from Beauty Point to Launceston were made on 17 occasions for two day and T5 evening shifts, involving a total of 589 men who worked 3,527 man hours.

Those figures indicate the benefit to the men. The report goes on -

It -was demonstrated soon after the -transfers began .that ‘the transfer .of even a :small number of men, sufficient to make up a .complete gang, could -have an important effect on the turn-round df vessels. For example, the transfer of five and ten »men ‘from ‘Launceston to Beauty ‘Point on the 16th and 17th November, 1959, respectively, enabled the working of an extra gang on the vessel “ Port Invercargill “ on each of these days. This vessel sailed after two days’ working, the use of the two extra gangs having saved a day. Within the first two months of the inauguration of this transfer of labour, the vessel “ Tatana “, plying between the mainland and Tasmania, had gained an extra trip to Launceston due to being able to obtain all labour requirements on time. In the same period it appeared that the vessel “Pateena” would have lost a full day if it had not been for the transfer system.

So, Sir, I think it is a system which has worked well to the benefit of the men concerned, of the ports concerned and of the community at large. But I again draw attention to the fact that this system was not accepted by the Waterside Workers Federation until the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority said, “We will make Beauty Point a B class port and your attendance money will go down “. It was only then that the waterside workers accepted this alteration. Those conditions, I think, will apply under this bill, and I think we would be very wise to pass this clause intact.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Before summing up the Opposition’s case in relation to this matter, I want to refer to one aspect of the largely irrelevant speech just delivered by the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty). He quote extensively from page 93 of the last report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority. He read three or four passages which pictured the Waterside Workers Federation as a body that was objecting to this type of transfer, but what he did not put before the committee was the vastly important paragraph of the report relating to the federation’s general outlook on the matter of inter-port transfers. The authority stated -

The Waterside Workers Federation has in general supported interport transfers and, in fact, has continually pressed the Authority to extend their operation as a means of conserving the available work for registered waterside workers by avoiding the employment of unregistered mcn. However, the Federation has maintained from time to time that such transfers can only be effected with the consent of the men concerned.

The .truth -of the matter is that the Minister featured one rare incident of objection - an objection that was well based. At ;first the authority ‘allowed men to be transferred from one port to another, but would not permit the reverse of that. It was only when the reciprocal exchange was permitted by the authority that the trouble was resolved. In fact, it turned out that the trouble, in the rare case that the Minister has mentioned, was plainly, on the turn of events, due to the fault, not of the men, but of the authority. The general position is that the men want this system in relation to Burnie and Devonport, around which most of the argument centred. The authority itself has said that the men were actually asking for an extension of the interchange between ports to Ulverstone and Devonport.

The point I make is that the debate has shown that this proposed new paragraph of section 17 could be used for strikebreaking. That has been admitted by the Minister and some Government senators have said that they believe it should be so used. It is obviously intended that the provision should be so used. At the meeting between officers of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, officers of the Waterside Workers Federation and the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon) and his officers, when this provision was discussed, it was stated on behalf of the Government that the provision was required, first, merely to clear up a doubt as to the power of the authority to authorize such transfers, and secondly, because of its disciplinary effect. That is the whole purpose of it. That is the crux of it.

When you look at what has happened in Burnie, Devonport and other ports along the north-west coast of Tasmania, you see that the system has been working perfectly. Men who have a real reason for being excused from the exchange are granted exemptions; they are excused. The only trouble that can ever arise from this interchange of men between ports is when one group of men at a port are asked to aci as strike-breakers on their mates at another port. No matter what penalties were imposed on the men by this measure, they would never be parties to that. Let us look at the two parts of proposed new paragraph (d). The first provides that the authority is authorized - to facilitate waterside workers registered at one port becoming registered at another port . . .

The second part authorizes the authority to require the men to transfer. The compulsory, mandatory nature of that provision is deliberate. It is completely clear that it has been designed for one purpose, and one purpose only. That is one basis of our objection. A further objection is that it will not yield any results and that it is provocative. If it is used, it will cause more disruption than ever in the industry. If, due to the weight of numbers on the Government side, this clause goes through, 1 trust that the authority will have the good sense never to seek to apply it in a way that will mean that one set of waterside workers will be asked to act as strikebreakers on another set.

Senator Vincent:

– Are you arguing that no law should be passed by this Parliament which is disliked intensely by the bosses of the waterside workers?

Senator McKENNA:

– In discussing this matter, I face the facts of life. If the honorable senator who is interjecting had any understanding of the camaraderie and the mateship of the men in the federation, and if he had even the faintest conception of what the trade union movement thinks of a scab, he would understand quite plainly that this cannot be effective. Therefore, it is only going to be provocative. I think that I have said all that the Opposition needs to say on this clause. We have made it perfectly plain that we oppose the clause, and we shall content ourselves with going to the vote.

Senator COLE:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labour Party · Tasmania

– I would like to point out that my party is not opposed to the idea of the transfer of waterside workers from one port to another, but 1 do not think that the supporters of the Government quite understand what takes place and they do not appreciate the unfairness that can arise through forcing men to take jobs in other ports.

Each port has its own roster and the men are rostered for work on the various ships that come into the port. No outside labour from other ports is brought into the port to work those ships until there are jobs offering. I should like the Minister to think about that position. Let us look at the transfers that are taking place along the north-west coast.

Senator Tangney:

– Of Tasmania?

Senator COLE:

– Yes. It is getting quite a lot of publicity, and so it should. Along that coast can be seen outstanding examples of the transfer of waterside workers. These men will be greatly affected by this clause. Take the roster at Burnie. There may be sufficient work to keep the entire force of waterside workers at Burnie working for anything from a week to three weeks without calling upon labour from Devonport or any other port. The men at Devonport, which is a port that is not working at full pressure, derive no advantage from the work that is being carried out by the waterside workers at Burnie, who are earning considerable amounts each week. Then, just when the time arrives for the men at Devonport to transfer, a localized strike may occur on the Burnie waterfront. If they refuse to take the. jobs - the Government knows quite well that they will not take them - those men and that port will be put out of commission. In other words, the Tasmanian economy will be hurt because the port of Burnie is put out of commission as the result of a localized stoppage. That is the dangerous aspect of this legislation. If this clause is agreed to, there is only One thing which can be done - to place the four ports on the north-west coast of Tasmania on the one. roster. Then the men will travel to where jobs are offering.

Senator McKenna:

– At whose expense?

Senator COLE:

– At the expense of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, of course.

Senator Kennelly:

– Not if they are on the one roster.

Senator COLE:

– I mean one roster for the whole coast, the same as is being done at the present time in relation to the “ Princess of Tasmania “.

Senator Kennelly:

– How will a man get from Devonport to Burnie if you have the one roster? He would not go in the shipowners’ time; he would go in his own time.

Senator COLE:

– I am referring to the implications of this clause we are now considering.

Senator Wright:

– Whose suggestion is this about the one roster? Is it yours?

Senator COLE:

– It is not a suggestion at all. I am pointing out the only way in which ths clause can work. It will be of no value at all to the industry; it will be a hindrance and will result in the tying up of the various ports on the north-west coast. It would be possible to have the four ports on the north-west coast - Devonport, Ulverstone, Burnie and Stanley - all out of commission because of a local disturbance at, say, Burnie.

Senator Vincent:

– It will not be obligatory upon the employer to apply the requirements of this provision; it will be discretionary.

Senator COLE:

– There is no discretionary clause in the bill. This clause has been introduced as a disciplinary measure, and that is one of the reasons why we are opposing it. This is a long service leave bill. If I may digress a little, I say that when you are granting long service leave you should not apply any tags unless the same tags are applied to everybody else who is given long service leave. We are against Communist control of the waterside workers more than is anybody else.

Senator Dittmer:

– No more than is anybody else.

Senator COLE:

– Yes, more than anybody else. By bringing in such foolish legislation at this time the Government is responsible for a continuance of Communist control of the Waterside Workers Federation. Mr. Chairman, this provision will cause a great deal of trouble and will damage the economy. It should not be agreed to.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– I agree entirely with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) when he says that the Opposition’s objection to this clause, which has been discussed at some length, has been stated quite concisely. I hope in a few minutes to reply equally concisely to the objections he has raised. In the first place, the clause provides that it would not be possible for a waterside worker who was registered at one port to attend at that port, draw appearance money and then refuse to go to another port nearby at which work was offering. I do not think there is much objection to the principle that a man should not be able to attend at a port at which work is slack, receive appearance money, and then refuse to go, at the employer’s expense, to a nearby port at which work is offering. Under this legislation, he will be required to go to the nearby port where work is offering.

Theoretically, a waterside worker would be required also to go to a nearby port where a dispute was occurring. Already a waterside worker is required to work in his own port even if a dispute is occurring at that port. Theoretically - I point out in reply to Senator Cole that it is at the discretion of the Stevedoring Industry Authority, as is clearly stated in the bill - a waterside worker could be required to go to a nearby port, and in that respect two ports close together would be under the same obligations as the one port now is.

The only other point I wish to make - the matters at issue are fairly clear now- is to indicate to Senator Cole and others that in almost every case in which longservice leave is made available under State awards or other awards certain conditions are attached to the granting of that leave. But, of course, that comment is not directly related to this clause.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

.- Let us get the position very clearly. We have no objection to what Senator Henty says as related to ports working in normal times. But if there is friction at a port and the Government intends to bring waterside workers from a neighbouring port, then I say that this legislation is designed purposely to make scabs of good industrial workers. The framers of this legislation have not the slightest conception of the attitude of industrial workers, the methods they employ, and what has been their code of ethics for the past 60 years; otherwise, they would never have attempted to include this penal clause in the bill. This clause has been inserted deliberately and purposely for what reason? It has been inserted so that, if there is friction in one port, waterside workers may bc brought from other ports in which there is no friction. If the Government wants to keep industry moving, will it do so by creating friction in every port? Would it not prefer to keep the ports working in which there is no friction? By introducing this legislation, the Government will have deliberately caused friction in every port in a State and possibly every port in Australia.

I repeat that the framers of the legislation have no conception of the attitude of industrial workers, their code of ethics and the methods that have been the ‘Unwritten law for the past 60 years. I reiterate that this legislation has been introduced for the specific purpose of causing chaos in the waterfront industry throughout Australia.

I listened very attentively to members of the legal fraternity on the other side. It the august body to which they belong were on strike, nothing in the world could break the strike. Would Senator Wright or Senator Vincent scab on fellow members of their profession? Although they would not scab on one of their own fraternity, they stand up here and offer reasons why we should, by legislation, force good, honest Australians to become scabs or be penalized in respect of their long service leave. I have never heard before in this chamber a more provocative and biassed speech than I heard to-day from Senator Vincent. He is absolutely Com-happy, that is all that is wrong with him. When the subject of industrial workers, and particularly waterside workers, is raised, the first matters that come to his mind are Communists and Jim Healy. I am not an advocate of communism; I never was. Neither am I an advocate of the Democratic Labour Party or the Liberal Party. They are all the same to me. I stand for the platform of the Australian Labour Party. I challenge the honorable senator to point to any strike brought on by Jim Healy, in which Healy was not fighting for a very just principle, the benefits of which this Government, some other government of the same colour, or the shipowners, were trying to deny to waterside workers. I would issue the same challenge if Jim Healy were a member of the Liberal Party, the Labour Party or the Democratic Labour Party.

Let us recall the time when there was trouble on the Hobart waterfront, when work was held up by two members of the Democratic Labour Party. Had the Government wanted to transfer waterside workers from Launceston to take the place of those in Hobart, would the Launceston workers have scabbed on their colleagues in Hobart? Honorable senators opposite know perfectly well that they would not have scabbed. They introduced the subject of Communists. I have brought in the Democratic Labour Party. There was a specific case where this provision could have been used to try to man the ships that were unmanned in Hobart because of the trouble over the Hurseys, which was built up by the press. If this legislation had been in force, the Government would have tried to make scabs of 300 or 400 good, honest waterside workers from Launceston. In dealing with the subject, the Government is not dealing only with Communists. It is dealing also with tens of thousands of honest workers. I happen to be one who can speak with some knowledge of them.

Senator Sir Neil O’sullivan:

– You are not ohe of the workers?

Senator AYLETT:

– That is something that the honorable senator from Queensland cannot say. Had I remained on the waterfront as a member of the Waterside Workers Federation, I would have retired under this legislation with nothing at all, after 40 long years of honest service.

Senator Cole:

– You are doing all right.

Senator AYLETT:

– Do not say that I cannot speak from experience. I have worked with coal miners and metal workers. They are all the same. The Government will never, by legislation, coercion, or persuasion of any kind, force any worker with a spark of unionism in him to scab on another, but that is what this legislation seeks to do. The workers are asked to scab or be penalized for not doing so. Would members of the legal fraternity scab on a fellow member in another town? If no legal men in a town would act for certain reasons, would one from another town come in and scab? Would the Government force legal men to scab or be deregistered? If legislation of that type were before the Parliament, honorable senators opposite would be crying out for the implementation of democratic principles. We would hear cries from Senator Wright and Senator Vincent. Previously I have heard Senator Wright condemning waterside workers because they were paid 12s. appearance money. “ What for? “ he asked, and then added, “ For nothing! “ Yet he was asking 100 guineas as appearance money. We have to be fair dinkum. I ask Senator Wright to be fair dinkum.

Senator Dittmer:

– At least doctors have to do some work for the money.

Senator AYLETT:

– The honorable senator should not lead me off the track, because I might say something about doctors that he would not like, although he is one of my colleagues. Even at this late stage, the Government should reconsider this matter. If it tries to implement this legislation, there will be chaos in industry. The Government could have framed the legislation to provide that where friction existed in one port, waterside workers in another port would not be compelled to go to the first port until the dispute was settled. The Government should try to localize a dispute instead of spreading it. Honorable senators opposite talk about a monopoly. What greater monopoly can there be than to take charge of a man’s body, soul and labour - the only thing he has - and to compel him, whether he likes it or not, whether or not it is against his union principles and the code under which he has been brought up, to work where he is directed. Is there any democratic freedom in that? Compare the monpoly of the Waterside Workers Federation with what the Government proposes to do to waterside workers. I ask the Government to give a little more consideration to industry, and to try to keep the ships and produce moving in Australian ports, instead >of introducing legislation which it knows perfectly well will tie up the ports.

Senator McMANUS (Victoria) TS.38]. - Unfortunately, Senator Aylett has sadly dented the temporary harmony that until now has existed on this side of the chamber. The Democratic Labour Party is opposed to the bill, and to this section of the bill, on trade union principles. On that aspect, we are prepared to put aside our views of Jim Healy and a lot of other people. We believed that the clause was wrong. We were going to vote against it because we thought it was wrong. We will still vote against it because we think it is wrong. We were told that the Government brought in this bill to bring about industrial harmony. How shall we bring about industrial harmony, when one port is on strike, by attempting to transfer men from another port and, in so doing, putting the other port on strike also? That is altogether apart from the fact that industrially the practice of trying to force men to .do the work of their fellow unionists who are on strike cannot be condoned. That is the weakness of this clause. It has been suggested from the Government side that the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority would have enough common ‘Sense not to try to do that. I have no doubt that the estimable gentlemen of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority would not be so foolish as to do that. But if thai is the case, what is wrong with inserting a provision in the clause that it shall not apply in the event of an industrial dispute. That would solve the whole problem, and everybody would be happy. I would certainly support such a provision. I do nol think anybody, even the union, objects to the transfer of men from one port to another. In many circumstances the union is in favour of such a transfer, but the union does object to the possibility of compulsion where an industrial dispute exists. The problem could very easily be solved if the Government would hold this clause over with a view to inserting an exception, namely, that it should not be used in the case of an industrial dispute.

I turn to the small matter that was raised by Senator Aylett. I have never understood why, when Liberals attack Jim Healy, Labour men think they have to stick up for him. Surely he is big enough and strong enough to stick up for himself. My attitude to Mr. Healy is simply this: I do not believe he could be a satisfactory union official. He is a member of the Communist Party, and the Communist members in every union meet in caucus before a council meeting. They go into the union meetings with their orders from a political organization, and even though their orders might be contrary to the well-being of the majority or all of the members of the union, they will still carry them out. At a union meeting Jim Healy does what the industrial organization of the Communist Party tells him, even though what he has been told to do is against the interests of the waterside workers. He has to obey instructions or else be expelled from the Communist Party.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I think the honorable senator is getting away from the clause under discussion.

Senator McMANUS:

– In deference to your suggestion, Sir, I shall leave that issue, but I merely say that if an industrial dispute breaks out in this industry and Mr. Healy is involved in the dispute, I hope that it will be a legitimate dispute. Senator Aylett said that you can be sure that any industrial dispute Jim Healy fights is a good one. That is a remarkable statement from a man who was a member of the Labour Party in 1949 when the Chifley Labour Government gaoled Jim Healy and froze the funds of the union because it said that Jim Healy was engaged in damaging the economy of the country to such an extent that it had to take action which normally would be foreign to a Labour government.

Senator Dittmer:

– Did you not agree with the Chifley Government’s action?

Senator McMANUS:

– I agreed with it; but the difference between Senator Aylett and me is that I still hold the same opinion of Jim Healy to-day that the Labour Party held in 1949 whereas Senator Aylett has changed his opinion.

Senator TOOHEY:
South Australia

– I cannot agree with everything that Senator McManus has said, but at least he made one suggestion that was worth while, namely, that this clause should not be used for the purpose of breaking industrial disputes. I do not think the Government is likely to accept that advice. Getting back to kernel of this matter we have to consider why this provision was inserted in the first instance. It is true, as the Minister for the Navy (Senator Gorton) has said, that a similar provision already exists in another act governing the activities of waterside workers. Its significance in this legislation cannot be escaped when we take into account exactly what it means and what can flow from it. In regard to Senator Gorton’s claim that there are long service leave provisions in other organizations which are hedged in a similar way, I challenge him to name one organization where long service leave is hedged in by provisions similar to those contained in this bill.

Senator Gorton:

– Coal miners.

Senator TOOHEY:

– I challenge the Minister to prove to this Senate and to the people of Australia that there are any similar provisions. From my knowledge of industrial activity I cannot recall any instance where long service leave is hedged in by such provisions or where it has been ushered in under such circumstances. I ask Senator Gorton whether his Government will be prepared to insert the long service leave provisions which govern the coal miners.

Senator Gorton:

– When we are discussing the long service leave provisions I shall do that. Those provisions are not contained in this clause.

Senator TOOHEY:

– I submit that at no time in the industrial history of this country have we seen long service leave provisions ushered in against a background of universal hostility by the union concerned. The union does not want a bar of the Government’s legislation. We have the extreme situation of the Government conferring what it claims to be a benefit on a union that has said that it does not want a bar of it. The Australian Council of Trade Unions - the responsible body of trade union opinion in this country - will not have a bar of it.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable senator is getting a little wide of the clause the committee is debating. The committee is dealing with the power of the authority to transfer men and not with the penalty clauses that flow from that authority.

Senator TOOHEY:

– I do not want to go outside the provisions of the clause, but I would say that those who have preceded me in the debate on this clause have covered far more territory than I have covered. If we are to stick meticulously to the rules I hope that those who follow me will be equally curtailed.

Senator Cole:

– We did not have the opportunity to make speeches at the secondreading stage.

Senator TOOHEY:

– That is so. I return to the clause which provides that waterside workers may be required to go to another port if it is so determined by the authority. The clause was inserted as part of an attitude which is embodied in the whole bill of forcing something down the throat of the union with which it is reluctant to have anything to do at all. The attitude displayed in this clause can be seen throughout the whole bill.

I return to what I said when I commenced to speak. I wish to pin the

Government down to two points. In the first instance, because a similar provision to this exists in another act relating to waterside workers’ activities, it does not necessarily follow that such a provision should be inserted in this bill. From our idea of what the bill sets out to do we can only assume that the provision has been inserted as a measure of provocation on the one hand, and on the other as a means whereby industrial unrest and strikes can be fomented. I repeat that Senator Gorton cannot name any industrial award providing for long service leave which contains the restrictive provisions that are inherent in this legislation.

Senator TANGNEY (Western Australia) T8.39]. - I take it that if the Government was really sincere in inserting this clause only for the purpose of facilitating work at the various ports and giving work to waterside workers who are unemployed in one port by permitting them to unload ships in another port, it could quite easily have added a proviso at the end of the clause - “ Provided there is no industrial dispute at either port “. In that way it would overcome the difficulty with which unionists are faced in accepting this clause. As members of trade unions and of the Labour Party we know that since the inception of unionism there has always been an inherent hatred of anything that looks like scabbing in a union.

In the port of Fremantle some years ago there was an instance where, not waterside workers, but other workers were brought in to try to overcome a strike on the waterfront. That resulted in the death of one of the waterside workers in the struggle that ensued. From that day to this, 4th May has always been regarded as a very special day in the calendar by the waterside workers at that port. They feel that that man will not have died in vain if no authority ever tries to institute a system of forced labour on the wharfs. That has never been done since that time in the port of Fremantle.

Waterside workers seem to be regarded as a race apart. The very fact that they are waterside workers seems to put them outside the ken of ordinary men. They are only ordinary men trying to earn their livings as best they can. In my opinion, this slurring of them, calling them Communists and saying that their union is Communistridden, is a complete departure from the truth. I was at a mass meeting of 1,600 waterside workers in Fremantle when a motion was proposed which would have been of advantage to any Communists who were present, but the motion received only thirteen votes from the 1,600 men who were present at that meeting. I believe that that represents approximately the proportion of Communists in the Waterside Workers Federation.

I do not join in the eulogies of Mr. Healy. It has been said that he is a wonderful union secretary and so on, but I believe that he has received a great deal of praise for work that was done by the union as a whole and also for advantages that were given to the waterside workers by the Chifley Labour Government. I consider that he was fortunate in that he was the general secretary at the time when those benefits were conferred on the waterside workers, because he has received the credit for them.

A Liberal government in Western Australia acknowledged that it is the inherent right of any member of a union to belong to any political party. Because he belongs to a certain political party, he cannot be made a second-rate member of his union. In other words, he is entitled to stand for any office in that union. That ruling was given in 1947 by a Liberal government.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable senator is getting a little away from the clause.

Senator TANGNEY:

– I am mentioning this because I am trying to show that, in relation to the transfer of labour from one port to another, the bill gives to a Communist secretary of a union great power to stir up industrial unrest if he wants to do so. Therefore, I should like to see the Government accept the proviso that this clause shall not be operative when there is an industrial dispute at either port.

Senator HANNAN:
Victoria

.- In this debate the Labour Party has set up a windmill and has knocked it down with a great deal of enthusiasm. Its psychological approach to the problem is amazing. The Opposition says that the workers must be given whatever they ask for, and there must not be the least suggestion of disci pline. The Minister has given a perfectly clear and reasonable explanation of why this clause was inserted in the bill. We have heard a number of honorable senators opposite parroting the words that have been poured into our ears by certain people who have been in the galleries and in King’s Hall yesterday and to-day. The words “ provocative “, “ obnoxious “, “ smearing “ and “ fascist “ have been suggested, although I do not think the word “ fascist “ has been used by honorable senators opposite this evening. A certain jargon has been used, and it is quite clear that the indignation of members of the Opposition is completely synthetic.

They want to make the trade unionists sacrosanct. They want to put trade unionists above the law. Although Mr. Chifley did not hesitate to put the Army into the coalmines, honorable senators opposite now urge gentle persuasion and the psychological approach. That is the 1961 method of tackling this problem. They insist on getting a head-shrinker to overcome the difficulties. I can remember that a little while ago the Labour Party threatened the Australian electors on an issue such as this. It said that only the Labour Party could get coal produced. We have shown that we can get coal produced, because last year’s production was 50 per cent, higher than that in the previous year.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable senator is getting away from the clause.

Senator HANNAN:

– The word “scab” has also been bandied about as though every one who hears it must bow low and shrink in terror. But has anyone ever thought of people scabbing on the community? That is exactly what has happened in a large number of waterside disputes. The waterside workers have scabbed on the rest of Australia. I can recall, going back a few years, when the waterside workers scabbed on the housewives of Melbourne. In those days the people of Melbourne were entirely dependent upon coal from Newcastle to enable them to cook their week-end joints.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! That is not covered by this clause.

Senator HANNAN:

– I will link it up with the clause in this way: The mild disciplinary measures which are proposed in this clause arise from the experiences which I propose to put to the committee. The Victorian Government brought the ship “ Haligonian Duke “ from India, full of coal. Victoria needed that coal, urgently, but the waterside workers would not unload it. 1 am proud to say that I volunteered to unload the “ Haligonian Duke along with thousands of other men who believed that-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I will not allow the honorable senator to continue along those lines. He must deal with this clause.

Senator HANNAN:

– You do not think that that matter is sufficiently related to the clause, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN:

– No.

Senator HANNAN:

– I bow to your ruling. I believe that the point has been well made, and I leave it with the committee.

Question put -

That the clause stand as printed.

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

AYES: 28

NOES: 26

Majority . . 2

Clauses 8 and 9 - by leave - taken together.

AYES

NOES

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Clause 8 amends section 26 of the principal act. Section 26 provides for the establishment of a quota of waterside workers at a port. The section contains a number of provisions dealing with that matter. The portion of the clause under consideration to which the Opposition objects is proposed new subsection (5.), which reads -

In determining whether the quota for a continuous port or a seasonal port should be varied, the Authority shall, in addition to the matters referred to in sub-section (1.) of this section, take into account the contribution to the performance of stevedoring operations at the port that is, in the opinion of the Authority, likely to be made by registered irregular waterside workers.

In other words the authority, when establishing the number to constitute the quota for a particular port, is told to have regard to the reserve force that is available amongst irregulars. What will be the position of irregulars under this bill? At present there are some 783 persons on an irregular roster. The roster has been operated as a matter of practice between the authority and branches of the union at different ports down through the years. Of the 783 persons on the roster 259 work every day, but they are free not to present themselves for work if they so wish.

Senator Wright:

– Which port is this?

Senator McKENNA:

– The figures I gave are on an Australia-wide basis. At 31st December last, 783 persons were on the irregular roster. Of that number an average of 259 were employed daily.

The roster covers not only men who are aged but also men who are suffering from various disabilities. It also covers men who, because of particular circumstances, the authority and the federation agree shall go on the irregular register. Those men qualify for sick leave, and in some instances they even qualify for annual leave. In other words, the register is a relatively live one. What will the register be like and what will be its effect when this bill becomes law? When the bill becomes law every watersider who is over 70 years of age will be transferred to what is termed the B register, which is the register of irregulars. All the men at present on the irregular roster will be transferred to a new register, and to the 783 already on the list will be added approximately another 700. The first compulsory draft to that register will be men over 70 years of age. No matter whether they are mentally and physically capable of doing the work without danger to the safety, speed or economy of the operation, instantly and automatically those men will be transferred. The Minister for the Navy (Senator Gorton) indicated that under this bill there will be no compulsory dc-registration, but the bill goes so close to compulsory de-registration that it will not make any difference.

Clause 12 (2.) (a) provides for the compulsory and immediate transfer of persons who have attained the age of 70 years. Irregulars who are on register list B will no longer be able to fit into the general pattern of work. Proposed new section 31a (4.) provides that those men may not be engaged for work until every regular waterside worker has been allocated to work. There are a couple of minor exceptions to that provision with which I will deal later. Whereas at the moment the older men get a fair share of work - the waterside workers are concerned for the welfare of their veterans and partially disabled men - under the new provision they will not get any work until every regular has been satisfied. The older men will not get attendance money because they are not under any obligation to attend. Proposed new section 31a (4.) reads -

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in an award of the Commission, a registered irregular waterside worker -

is not required to attend or make himself available for employment as a waterside worker,

Section 36 of the act, as proposed to be amended- by clause 16 of this bill, will mean that a waterside worker may be deregistered if it can be shown that he has attended for employment so infrequently that it may fairly be presumed that he does not intend to make his services available as a waterside worker. Let us look at the plight of these men. Section 36 of the act prescribes the offences for which the penalties are suspension or revocation of registration. The section provides that where a registered irregular waterside worker has attended for employment so infrequently that it may fairly be pre sumed that he does not intend to make his services available as a waterside worker, he may be deregistered. On the one hand he is told that there is no need for him to attend. On the other hand it is obvious from the wording of clause 16, which amends section 36 of the act, that he is obliged to put in an appearance. He gets no attendance money. No suggestion is made that these men, particularly those who have attained the age of 70 years, are not perfectly fit. If they are not perfectly fit mentally and physically the authority has power at any time to have them removed from the industry. So we reach the position that although these men are not to be paid, they must continue to attend in order to show that they retain an interest in the industry.

Let us consider the position of the 70- year-olds who are retired. The Government has told us that they are to be generously treated under this bill. It has said: “ We will not wait for them to complete twenty years’ service. We will give them the whole three months’ pay - the sum of £260 or thereabouts, or enough to keep them for thirteen and a half weeks.” They are to be taken from positions where they were getting the benefit of ordinary average wages of £20 or so a week and given enough to live on for three months. They are to be told: “ Now go on to the ‘ B ‘ register. You do not have to attend. You get no attendance money if you do attend. Moreover, if you do not turn up with some degree of frequency you will be deregistered.” How quickly they will reach that stage! The Government claims that this is a generous provision. I think it is heartless, and so do the other members of the Opposition.

First, there is the concession that if aged waterside workers have been employed for ten years they shall be dealt with under this bill as thought they had twenty years’ qualifying service. I suppose that scarcely one of the waterside workers over the age of 70 years would have had less than many decades of service on the waterfront. We look at this provision and wonder what the Government is striving to achieve. Honorable senators opposite contend that there is a problem on the waterfront, and that something needs to be done about it, but we of the Opposition do not concede that. this provision is generous or even decent. It is wrong to apply it to men who are fit, and who have not been declared unfit; it is wrong to take them arbitrarily, the day that this bill becomes law, and place them on the irregular roster, with the consequences which flow from that. The men are very concerned about it.

Looking at the matter broadly, the authority is to be told, “ You have regard to that reserve of irregulars when you are determining the port quota”. What will that reserve constitute so far as the authority is concerned? It means that the authority will have a large reserve of approximately 1,800 men, most of them aged, all of them quite fit, who have recently been transferred. They will be unpaid. The authority will have a great unpaid reservoir of irregulars to call upon in an emergency. In short, this provision is designed to have waterside workers standing by without pay - standing by on the cheap. They are to be told that they may apply for the pension because they are old enough to do so. Let us consider their position. They are to be given a paltry £260 that will last, according to their normal standard of living, for three months. But that £260 may be reckoned against them in assessing permissible income if they apply for the age pension. So, in the first year, they will receive £260, but that will wipe out the full entitlement to aged pension, having regard to the provision that an individual may not earn more than £182 a year without losing a part of the pension.

Although such a waterside worker will not be able to earn money without prejudicing his pension rights, he will be required to attend not infrequently. Without taking up any more of the time of the committee, that is the case that we of the Opposition make against this clause. We think that it is completely lacking in generosity, in vision and in imagination. It approaches the problem of the aged in a harsh, arbitrary and inadequate way. The provision, in effect, says cold-bloodedly to the authority: “ Have regard to the people you have in the irregulars, who are unpaid, experienced, aged and able, and who are compelled to attend with some degree of regularity. They get no pay for attending. They will be struck off the roll if they do not attend.”

I have said sufficient to indicate the outlook of the Opposition. We have a general objection to the clause 9 because it refers to the establishment of two registers on a legislative basis, instead of the free, easy and efficient arrangement that is operating in regard to rostering at the moment.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– As briefly as possible, I shall reply, for the sake of the record, to the points that have been raised. The proposals contained in clauses 8 and 9 are not, in my opinion, as ungenerous as the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has made them appear to be. It is quite true that all those who reach the age of 70 years, or who will have reached it by the time this bill becomes law, will be compulsorily retired. On retirement, if they have been on the register since 1947, they will receive their full long service leave. They will, be placed on a register of irregular waterside workers. That will enable them, with the addition of the pension which they may draw from the Government, to earn during a year as much as they desire to earn, according to the type of port where they live and for which they are registered. I know that the bill does not cover this matter, but in practice, not one of these elderly irregular workers would in fact be struck off the register if, during the course of the year, he earned a total amount which would result in his pension being reduced. I emphasize that that is not the legal but the practical position. He would be given the opportunity to work on the waterfront and supplement the pension to a considerable degree. I think that the younger men coming on will provide a better service for the union and for Australia as a result of this bill.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– The bill proposes that waterside workers who reach tie age of 70 years shall be retired. Compared with the situation in other industries, that is probably a generous provision. I know of many vocations in which employees are compulsorily retired at 65 years of age or even earlier.

Senator Ormonde:

– An employee usually goes on to a pension then.

Senator VINCENT:

– There was nothing to stop the Waterside Workers Federation, if it really felt keenly about its elderly members, from instituting a superannuation scheme many years ago, but it has not done so. Let us not blame the Government for everything. The Waterside Workers Federation is an extremely wealthy body, far wealthier than are many bodies which look after their aged employees. The federation could have inaugurated a pension scheme for its aged members had it wished to do so.

When these aged waterside workers are placed on the irregular roster, will it not be competent for them to apply for work? Having regard to the demand for labour on the waterfront, is it not reasonable to assume that in a majority of cases they will be able to obtain work as frequently as they apply for it?

Senator Gorton:

– That will depend on whether the registered waterside workers are fully employed.

Question put -

That the clauses stand as printed.

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

AYES: 28

NOES: 26

Majority . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clauses 11 and 12 - by leave - taken together.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Mr. Chairman, clause 11 seeks to amend section 30 of the principal act, which deals with registration in excess of port quotas. As the act stands now, the authority is authorized to register a person who, within the preceding period of three years, has had his registration at a port cancelled at his own request. The amendment proposed by this clause provides that if his registration has been cancelled at his own request and he has attained the age of 65 years when he seeks re-registration, within a period of three years of his registration being cancelled at his own request, re-registration may be denied to him.

This is one more approach by the Government to the question of reducing the average age of the man in the industry. It has to be remembered that a watersider may drop out of the industry because of a prolonged illness or because he has gone abroad. There are many reasons why men drop out of an industry and subsequently want to come back into it. Under this clause, if a man has attained the age of 65 years by the time he wants to return to the industry, after dropping out of it at his own request, he may not be accepted. It has to be borne in mind that, even under the Government’s proposal, men will be allowed to continue in the industry until they are 70 years of age. This is one more restriction, one more deprivation of a privilege that has hitherto been enjoyed. One could understand it if the bar in relation to men who had not dropped out of the industry were set at 65, but the Government has set it at 70 years of age.

There does not seem to be any real reason for this provision. Take the case of mental or physical unfitness. Neither the Waterside Workers Federation nor the Opposition takes objection to nonacceptance in cases where the men concerned are not fit. An unfit man may be a danger to himself, to his colleagues and to everybody else on the waterfront. In such a case, we would not support his retention in the industry. However, this provision is one more of the irritating things that the Government has done. It seems to be quite unnecessary to throw away a right that has been enjoyed for so long.

I have dealt with the effect of clause 11. I turn now to clause 12, which deals with many matters that I adverted to for the sake of my argument about the work force that I described as an unpaid reserve of the authority. Clause 12 proposes the insertion of a new section, section 31 a, in the act. It provides for the placing of waterside workers on either of two registers - A and B. I have already dealt with the effect of that.

Sub-section (2.) of proposed new section 31a provides that every waterside worker who becomes 70 years of age after the measure becomes law shall go over to the dead reserve of the irregulars. Sub-section (4.) of the proposed new section contains a provision that a registered irregular waterside worker shall not be required to attend or make himself available for employment.

In proposed sub-section (5.) we see an interesting provision, to which [ have not yet adverted. Although it is provided in proposed sub-section (4.) that an irregular waterside worker is not required to attend or make himself available for employment, paragraph (b) of proposed new sub-section (5.) says that nothing shall - prevent the allotment of a registered irregular waterside worker to particular stevedoring operations in respect of which the Authority is satisfied that there is no registered regular waterside worker suitable for employment in those operations available and prepared to accept engagement;

The important words in this paragraph from the point of view of my argument are “ prepared to accept engagement “. Here we run into the kind of argument that we had about inter-port exchanges. This provision raises the question of strike breaking. Under the act as it stands, no watersider is entitled to refuse to undertake stevedoring operations to which he is directed by the authority. Consider a case where suitable work has been offered to one of the regulars and he is not prepared to accept that engagement. In those circumstances, it may be offered to an irregular. The regular may have declined to accept on the ground, perhaps, that the work is too arduous or that the conditions are not safe. There may be many reasons for declining. They may be good reasons or they may be bad reasons. The regular immediately commits an offence if he declines work that is offered to him. He is liable to- the penalty of suspension and even of deprivation of his registration. He may lose up to four days’ attendance money on future occasions. Those are the penalties that can attach to a regular who refuses work. Under this provision, irregulars can be offered jobs that have been declined in those circumstances by regulars. The irregular, following the traditions about which we have spoken earlier to-night, will decline too. But when he declines in these circumstances he is immediately liable to de-registration altogether. That may not be the effect that the Government intended, but it is the effect of the clause as it is written into the bill. That is one of the elements which cause us some concern.

I have adverted to the points that concern us in both clauses 11 and 12. For the reasons I have advanced, the Opposition will vote against both clauses.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– In reply to the last point that was made by Senator McKenna, I am informed, and I believe that the language of the bill makes it quite clear, that the situation which the honorable senator said could arise would in fact not arise. I direct Senator McKenna’s attention to proposed section 31a (4.) (a) which provides that a registered irregular waterside worker is not required to attend or make himself available for employment as a waterside worker. Paragraph (b), to which the honorable senator referred, merely provides that if the authority is satisfied that registered regular waterside workers are available it shall not put on a registered irregular worker. The only exception to that would be if regular waterside workers were available but were not prepared to accept engagement. In those circumstances, the registered irregular worker could not be punished because he would not be required to make himself available.

Senator McKenna:

– But the more important point was that he could be asked to scab, as the trade unionist says, in those circumstances.

Senator GORTON:

– He could not be punished in any way at all if he declined to take work on the waterfront. That is the point I wanted to make clear.

Senator Wright:

– It would be quite optional for him?

Senator GORTON:

– It would be entirely optional. I regret to say that 1 have forgotten the first point that was made by the Leader of the Opposition, which was related to clause 11.

Senator McKenna:

– The right already conceded under existing section 30 to go back within three years, regardless of age, has been altered to debar the worker if he has reached 65 years of age.

Senator GORTON:

– The objection offered was that the bill provides that a waterside worker shall be permitted to continue in employment after the age of 65 years and up to the age of 70 years should he so desire, but that, if he asks for his name to be taken off the register, it will not be reinstated after he has reached the age of 65 years.

Senator McKenna:

– Yet other men may continue.

Senator GORTON:

– Other men who have not asked for their names to be taken off the register may continue at their own choice. 1 think it is reasonable to suggest that you would not want men who were nearing the end of their lives asking to have their names taken off the register and then put on again, and then asking for them to be taken off and again restored.

Senator McKenna:

– The Minister must concede, though, that that is a curtailment of an existing right.

Senator GORTON:

– Well, it is, in a way.

Senator COLE:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labour Party · Tasmania

– We have been discussing the position of regulars, as they are called on the waterfront, and men between 65 and 70 years of age. All this legislation could have been forgotten if there had been a pensions scheme for waterfront employees.

Senator Wright:

– On what basis?

Senator COLE:

– We have been told here to-night that Mr. Healy is a very good secretary; he has been praised. 1 believe he went to Mr. Chifley when Mr. Chifley was in office and asked for a pensions scheme for waterside workers. The reply was, “ If the waterside workers are prepared to contribute to a pensions scheme, they may have it to-morrow “. But this great secretary refused the offer, with the result that there is no pension for waterfront employees. I believe there should be a pensions scheme for waterside workers. However, they say they want a pensions scheme without having to contribute to it. Even that would be less expensive for the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority than is the present set-up and the benefits that are proposed in the bill. The Stevedoring Industry Authority could save money by paying waterside workers a pension of £4 a week without the workers contributing anything at all. Long service leave will cost approximately £500,000.

Senator Wright:

– A year?

Senator COLE:

– It will cost that in the first year. If the authority gave the waterside workers a pension of £4 a week, it would cost approximately £383,552. That would mean that a retired waterside worker and his wife, taking into account the ordinary social service pension, would receive £14 a week. A single person would receive £9 a week. Such a scheme would mean a great saving to the authority. Moreover, the waterfront industry would thus be placed on a more stable basis and de-casualized to a certain degree. In addition, waterfront employees would work under conditions of employment similar to those enjoyed by Commonwealth employees.

It must be remembered that the Com,monwealth Government, through the Australian National Line, is the greatest shipowner in Australia. It has 40 or 50 ships plying on the Australian coast. The provision of something in the nature of a pensions scheme is necessary to bring a certain amount of satisfaction to waterfront employees and to make their job one that can be looked up to by the people of Australia.

Senator Wright:

– Do you mean a special superannuation fund to which the employee would contribute nothing?

Senator COLE:

– I am just saying what could be done with the money that will be spent in implementing the proposals now before us. If we took into consideration the saving that would be effected not only in relation to long service leave but also in relation to holiday pay, sick pay and appearance money, we would find that the Stevedoring Industry Authority would save a considerable sum of money.

Senator Vincent:

– Have you had it calculated actuarially?

Senator COLE:

– I have calculated it myself, which is much better.

Senator McKenna:

– The Government has not told us what it would cost, but it should have done so.

Senator COLE:

– There is no reason why it could not tell us. I am not advocating giving to waterside workers a pension for nothing; 1 am just saying what could be done and how the Stevedoring Industry Authority could save money.

Senator Wright:

– At what cost?

Senator COLE:

– I am not saying that there should be a pensions scheme without some contribution by the employee.

Senator Wright:

– I asked what the cost would be.

Senator COLE:

– They could have a superannuation scheme similar to that enjoyed by honorable senators.

Senator Wright:

– What would be the annual payment from government funds?

Senator COLE:

– I do not know what the government payment would be.

Senator Vincent:

– You are getting it cheaply.

Senator COLE:

– The Government contributes about 21 times the amount that we contribute.

Senator Wright:

– That ratio to-day is 70/30.

Senator COLE:

– I know that any person who withdraws from the superannuation scheme, not having served eight years, receives 2i times the amount contributed.

Senator Robertson:

– Big business provides superannuation schemes.

Senator COLE:

– Yes. We should be able to provide some kind of superannuation scheme on the wharfs. The Government is introducing long service leave by legislation. There is no reason why it should not introduce a pensions scheme by the same method. The waterside workers as a body would accept it and contribute towards it, because it would do something for them. I know that the leaders of the federation would not accept it.

Senator Vincent:

– That would be the end of it.

Senator COLE:

– They will not accept the Government’s long service leave scheme, but that is not the end of it; the Government is forcing the scheme upon them. In the same way, the Government could force a pensions scheme, in spite of the attitude of the Communist leaders, because it would mean an improvement in the standard of employment.

Senator Vincent:

– Would you vote for it?

Senator COLE:

– I certainly would.

Senator Vincent:

– Why do you not vote for long service leave?

Senator COLE:

– We explained that we oppose the bill because of the penalties provided. There would be no punitive clauses in pensions legislation. When a man reached the age of 65, he would retire. He could not be held back until he was 70, just because he had engaged in strikes. In relation to the irregulars, the Government is doing something which, while not exactly dishonest, is harmful to these men. They go to work for one day or two days a week to augment pensions. That has been accepted practice on the waterfront. The Government would get rid of the irregulars, who it claims are not in the best interests of efficiency, by introducing a pensions scheme. Waterside workers are virtually government employees, now, whatever may be said about them. They are controlled by a government instrumentality, the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority. In, order to get itself out of bother in relation to irregulars, the Government should introduce a pensions scheme.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– Surely the proposition that Senator Cole has just submitted is one of the most irresponsible to which we have listened. It is not accompanied by any assessment whatever of the cost of it. If it is being suggested that there should be a special pensions scheme for waterside workers, how can we justly discriminate against any other section of workers? When it is realized that attendance money annually amounts to £1,348,806, annual leave costs £1,036,165, statutory holiday pay costs £638,749, sick leave costs £326,023 and loss of pay, training charges and transfer costs amount to £34,941, making a total cost of £3,420,684, to maintain this industry with those amenities, it is seen to be clearly irresponsible to advocate a pensions scheme discriminating against all other sections of workers, at an unknown cost

The only other matter to which I wish to advert is Senator McKenna’s reference to proposed new section 31a., sub-section (4.). He said that this was another instance of an attempt to use one section of waterside workers as a strike-breaking force against another. I am sure on further consideration Senator McKenna will withdraw that suggestion, because it is based on a misinterpretation of the provision. This irregular force is entirely voluntary. Instead of barring irregulars entirely from waterside work, the Government has proposed a provision whereby, after 65 years of age, an individual may at his option retain his name on the register and attend for work when he pleases. He will be, as I understand it, subject to no obligation to obey a direction or roster for work. This will be an entirely voluntary force.

Senator Ormonde:

– It ought to be, at 70 years of age.

Senator WRIGHT:

– That is another argument, but please let me submit to the committee the answer to the argument that Senator McKenna submitted which, I think, we should clarify and understand. I am only saying that unless the members of that supplementary force are under an obligation to attend for work it is fallacious to argue to us that they could be subject to a direction from the authority to attend at a time when the registered regular men who are rostered for work refrain from attending. As there is no obligation on men of the supplementary force to attend, it is incorrect to suggest that they could, at the direction of the authority, be made a strike-breaking force against registered waterside workers who are not prepared to accept their roster.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

, - I certainly do not withdraw the argument that I addressed to the committee. I am not persuaded to such a course by anything that Senator Wright or the Minister has said. I adverted to proposed sub-section (4.). I directed particular attention to it on two occasions. It provides -

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in an award of the Commission, a registered irregular waterside worker -

is not required to attend or make himself available for employment as a waterside worker . . .

There are two matters. He is not required to attend or to make himself available. 1 refer the committee to section 36, the penalty provision of the act, which reads - (1.) Where, after such inquiry as it thinks fit, the Authority is satisfied that a registered waterside worker -

  1. has failed -
  2. to offer for or accept employment as a waterside worker . . .

I remind the committee that every one on the B register is a waterside worker. The provision continues -

  1. to perform any stevedoring operations which he was lawfully required to perform . . .

That is something more than being required to attend or to make himself available. Having attended and made himself available, if he is offered employment, it is an offence under section 36 for him to decline it. I repeat my argument, and say that the proposed provision could be used in the way that I predicated a moment ago. I withdraw nothing.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– Senator McKenna adverted to section 39 (1.) (e) of the act. I direct his attention to the fact that the clause we are discussing - proposed new section 31a. (4.) reads -

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in an award of the Commission, a registered irregular waterside worker -

is not required to attend . . .

Senator McKenna:

– My argument is directed not to proposed new sub-section (4.) but to proposed new sub-section (5.).

Senator GORTON:

– Section 36 would not have any effect on proposed new subsection (4.).

Senator McKenna:

– I agree entirely.

Senator GORTON:

– I think you did refer to proposed new sub-section (4.) in your argument. I should be glad if you would refer to proposed sub-section (5.).

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

.- Senator Wright was speaking with reference 16 the proposal of Senator Cole that a pension scheme would solve the problem of those irregulars whose health is such that they cannot be expected to carry on much longer, and he described the pension plan as being completely irresponsible. I think Senator Wright’s suggestion was uncalled for. Senator Cole was acting upon evidence that has been collected by a number of people interested in solving some of the problems of the waterfront, and I do not think there was any justification for Senator Wright’s statement that what Senaor Cole said was irresponsible.

I have had given to me some figures on which a proposed scheme was worked out. lt may be that on examination some good points may be seen in the scheme. To me the scheme seems feasible, and I have a good deal of confidence in the people who tried to work it out. When the figures were prepared in 1960, it was pointed out that at the end of June, 1959, there were 1,475 registered waterside workers over 65 years of age, or 81 less than there were in 1957. Those 81 either died or retired; and their withdrawal represented a saving to the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority and the employers of approximately £25,000 in the payment of attendance money, public holiday pay, annual leave and sick pay. It was pointed out that each individual who retired from the industry represented a net saving to the industry and to the employers of almost £300 a year which it was said could, and should, be returned to the waterside workers in the form of a pension for those over 65 years of age who wished to retire. It was suggested at that time that the pension for a single man should be £4 a week and for a married man £7 a week, because under the permissible income provisions of the Social Services Act a waterside worker could receive an age pension as well without materially affecting his pension payment.

Those figures were worked out by people who know something about the industry. They believe that it would be possible to prepare a satisfactory scheme which would help to solve a lot of the problems of those aged men who are in good health and who still attend for work occasionally because they have tq do something to supplement. their age pension. As to the suggestion of Senator Wright that such a scheme would give to one section something that others do not enjoy, I ask: Why is it wrong to give an aged waterside worker an addition to his age pension when parliamentarians who have served only eight years receive a pension Of £18 a week? We also give coalminers and all types of government employees a pension. In my view, if we are to give parliamentarians and government employees a pension we should also give a pension to waterside workers? After all. whatever anyone might say, under the conditions of their employment to-day they are virtually government employees.

Senator ORMONDE:
New South Wales

– I should like the Government to consider the New Zealand pension scheme. 1 do not suggest that it do it immediately, but I think it should do so at some future date. The New Zealand scheme is a contributory one, 5s. a week being paid by the employee and 5s. a week by the employer. It secures for a wharf-labourer when he reaches the age of 60 an amount of £3,037. It is quite wrong to think that the idea of a pension for waterside workers is something new, because it is not. Thanks to the efforts of Harry Bridges, that famous or infamous Labour leader, depending on one’s point of view, waterside workers in the United States have a very fine pension scheme. Canada and the United Kingdom also have pension schemes. I believe that the leaders of waterside workers, even including Jim Healy, are anxious to do something about this problem of old men in the industry. One must remember that these old men worked in the industry during a period when there was not much in it for a wharf-labourer. Most of them have very little to-day. They five in tenements around the waterfront, in cottages built to the pavement. They have worked for over twenty years as wharf-labourers during times when it was impossible to get any money together. They missed the boom period, and it is little wonder that to-day they do not want to leave the job and depend on their age pension when they are still able to increase their earnings by putting in a few days on the waterfront. 1 support the views of Senator Cole and Senator McManus. I think the waterside workers are quite wrong in not doing something about a contributory scheme, such as the scheme that operates in the coal-mining industry. Mr. Bland, of the Department ot Labour and National Service, had a lot to do with the introduction of the scheme for miners. The Government cannot say that it has nobody to give it advice on a matter such as this. The coal-mining industry scheme has made the industry better than it was. Coal-miners can now look forward to some sort of security in their old age, to something better than the age pension. 1 disagree with Senator Wright. In many ways he is a liberal with a small “ 1 “. That is the impression I get one night, and then the next night I get the impression that he is a crusty conservative who is not prepared to agree to anything that would make this world a better place for the men who live in it. If I may be permitted to digress for a moment, he referred to £3,000,000 being spent on amenities for waterside workers, but he had not one word to say about the immense profits of shipowners. This bill has been debated in both Houses for nearly two days and only from the Labour side have we heard that there are any such people as shipowners in this industry. The shipowners do exist. The Waterside Workers Federation has been severely criticized by honorable senators opposite. The shipowners have failed in their duty to the industry just as the coalowners failed in their duty to the coal industry.

If the stevedoring industry is a monopoly, it is only because those who were interested in production on the waterfront thought that that was the only way to organize the industry. It is a casual industry. The Government should also attack the problem of the casual nature of the industry. It is no good honorable senators talking about wharf labourers as though they are ordinary workers. They are not. They do not work under ordinary conditions. They are almost private contractors. They come and go when it suits them, just as the shipowners come and go when it suits them. That suits the shipowners. They do not want a tied weekly industry in which men will be normal and receive their weekly wages. They want this casual form of employment and they want the old men to be available when they want them. I say again, that suits the shipowners. So, if it costs £3,000,000 to provide a few extra amenities for the waterside workers, I believe that is a good investment for the Government.

I also believe that if the shipping industry and the stevedoring industry were made less casual and less political they would be the better for it. One does not hear the things that are said about the Waterside Workers Federation being said about other unions. The federation is accused on all occasions of being political. The real troubles on the wharfs are not being discussed because many people believe that the union is completely political. That is wrong. The wharf labourers are fair average Australians. Unfortunately, they do not always vote for Labour men in the election of their leaders.

I make an appeal to the Government. In this chamber to-night the Government has seen members of the Democratic Labour Party combining with members of the Australian Labour Party on this issue of principle. The Government should be convinced by that. Even if supporters of the Government say, as is said pretty generally - but wrongly, I believe - that members of the Labour Party are soft on Communism, although I do not agree that we are, that cannot be said of the two Democratic Labour Party senators. Tonight, they put up the same case as Senator Kennelly put up. The Government should take notice of that. They understand what makes the men on the waterfront tick. If the Government wants to solve the problems of the waterfront it must bear this sort of thing in mind: While the waterside workers elect Healy, a leading member of the Communist Party, as their general secretary, conversely they also elect to office Jack Cummings, a leader of the Democratic Labour Party, as Victorian president. This is not an ordinary situation which is cut and dried and absolute.

I know that the Government intends to push this bill through to-night. I know also that the legislation will not solve any problems on the waterfront. However, 1 hope that the Government will accept the views of the Democratic Labour Party and the Australian Labour Party on this matter, and consider the real problem free from politics. If it does that it might find part of the solution in giving the wharf labourers a weekly wage. If they were put on a weekly wage they could go to work and obtain the benefits obtained by other workers who receive a weekly wage. The waterside workers could be made ordinary workers, too. The authority has all sorts of powers. The Government could give it one more power - the power to be the employer of the waterfront employees. It could give the waterside workers one boss instead of a dozen bosses. In my opinion that would make a great difference on the waterfront. I am sorry that I digressed from the clauses, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I want to refer briefly to Senator Wright’s speech. He said that by putting waterside workers on a pension scheme they would be put in a privileged position in comparison with other workers in Australia. That is quite wrong. There are several special groups of workers who now have contributory retirement benefit schemes. The contributions are made by the workers, the employers and the Government. Senator Wright’s statement was quite wrong.

I direct attention to sub-section (8.) of proposed new section 31a which provides that a worker may be put into Part B of the register by the authority after a medical examination. First, the proposed new sub-section says that if, after a medical examination, the medical practitioner finds that the physical and mental condition of the worker is such that he should be put on the day-to-day roster, the authority may do so. The proposed new sub-section goes on to give the authority the right to say that in its opinion the worker’s physical and mental condition does not allow him to be put on Part A of the register. So, if a worker is on Part B of the register, and he goes to the trouble of obtaining a certificate from a medical practitioner to the effect that his physical and mental condition is such that he could be put on Part A, the authority still reserves to itself the right to override the medical opinion and say that in its opinion his physical and mental condition is not such that he should be put on Part A of the register.

I will have more to say about medical opinions during the consideration of the next clause. I believe that it is quite wrong that, despite the fact that medical opinion is in favour of the worker, the authority still retains the right to keep that worker on the irregular roster. It is wrong to give the authority power to override members of the medical profession who are skilled in their occupation and skilled in examining workers as to their physical and mental capabilities. In the main, the members of the authority are laymen. For the purposes of a medical examination the chairman is also a layman. Yet the three members of the authority have the right to override medical opinion.

Question put -

That the clauses stand as printed.

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

AYES: 28

NOES: 26

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 13 (Medical examination of registered waterside workers).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This clause deals with the medical examination of registered waterside workers. Sub-section(2.) of proposed new section 32a reads -

The Authority may, at any time, if it has reason to believe that thephysical or mental condition of a registered waterside worker is such as to render him incapable of properly carrying out the duties of a waterside worker or a danger to others, by notice in writing, require him to submit himself to medical examination by a medical practitioner specified in the notice at a time and place specified in the notice.

The Opposition thinks it is quite reasonable for the authority to order that a waterside worker be medically examined if it has reason to believe that the man’s condition is such as to render him unfit to work on the wharfs. The examination will be conducted by a medical practitioner who is an employee of the authority. In other words the medical practitioner is an officer of the authority. A man of any age, be he young or old, may be referred to a doctor who is an employee of the authority if the authority has reason to believe that the man is unfit to work as a waterside worker. We are prepared to accept that provision. Sub-section (1.) of proposed new section 32a reads -

The Authority may, by notice in writing, from time to time (but, subject to the next succeeding sub-section, at intervals of not less than twelve months) require a registered waterside worker who has attained the age of sixty-five years to submit himself to medical examination by a medical practitioner specified in the notice at a time and place specified in this notice.

Again, the medical practitioner will be an employee of the authority. In view of the provisions contained in proposed sub-section (2.), what is the necessity for proposed subsection (1.)? If the authority has any reason to believe that a man is unfit it may require him to be examined. A person who is 65 years of age or over is required to submit himself annually to medical examination. The mere fact of that examination hanging over his head induces anxiety. It is a continuous worry, and in the view of the Opposition it is unnecessarily vexatious.

Senator Kendall:

– It should not be a worry to have a free medical examination.

Senator McKENNA:

– In ordinary circumstances nobody would be worried about a medical examination, but the bill provides that if a waterside worker is found to be unfit he is immediately transferred to the B register. That is a consequence of the medical examination. He would then have no right to regular work.

Senator Wright:

– Is there any appeal from the decision of the authority?

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes. I will refer to that matter later. Senator Kendall said that a man should not worry about having a free medical examination. That is so if one goes to one’s own doctor for one’s own enlightment. But on this medical examination depends the man’s future in his job. If he is found to be unfit he either leaves the industry or goes on the B register. So in the case of a man 65 years of age or over his future employment in the industry hangs on the result of his medical examination.

Senator Spooner:

– The examination may also be a means of prolonging his life.

Senator McKENNA:

– We do not object to a man being sent for an examination if the authority thinks that he is unfit to do his work. What we do object to is the fact that hanging over the man’s head will be the worry that he may be out of the industry after his next medical examination. That is a mental worry. It is the type of thing that sets up a neurosis. I hear somebody sigh and utter a sound that I interpret to mean, “ That is not so “. That is easy enough to say to somebody who has security, but to a man with dependants and commitments - a man who has been on a small wage for years - it is a matter of very great moment.

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA · LP

– How many dependants would a man of 65 years have?

Senator McKENNA:

– The number may vary. I know of one waterside worker, who died in Devonport recently, who left five dependent children. They were adoptive children. The man was killed on the wharfs. Senator Henty implies that a man 65 years of age would not be likely to have dependent children. A man of 65 may be rearing his daughter’s orphaned children. Various circumstances may arise.

Clause 17 of the bill provides for appeals in certain circumstances. An appeal from a decision to transfer a man to the B register or to remove him altogether from the industry is covered by paragraph (c) of sub-section (1.) of proposed section 37. That leads me to a further criticism of clause 13; it makes no provision for an adverse medical report being made available to the man concerned. He would be entitled, on appeal, to call other medical testimony to rebut the authority’s contention that he should be transferred from the A register or removed altogether from the industry.

Senator Paltridge:

– That medical report would be in evidence at the appeal, would it not?

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, but a man placed in that position would want that information as soon as possible. He may not know the contents of the report until the appeal hearing is under way. Does Senator Paltridge suggest that it would be fair to produce the authority’s doctor in court without letting the appellant know the nature of the report? The appellant would not know what medical evidence he would need to rebut. The clause is faulty in that it does not provide that a man transferred to the B register or transferred out of the industry shall be given a copy of his medical report.

Senator Wright:

– Which section entitles the authority to declare the man unfit?

Senator McKENNA:

– That is provided for in paragraph (c) of sub-section 2 of proposed new section 31a. Under that provision, he may be transferred. The transfer is automatic in the case of an adverse report. I concede that there is provision for an appeal, but I suggest that machinery to facilitate the appeal should have been included in the bill, having regard to a proper consideration of the needs of the worker.

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

, - When I rose to speak during the secondreading stage of the bill last night I was Ned Kelly-ed. However, I have an opportunity to speak of some of its provisions now. The clause that the committee is considering concerns me and also many of the men engaged in the industry. They regard this clause as the scrubbers’ section, because it proposes to authorize the authority to get rid of a number of men when there is surplus labour at a port. We have to pay due regard to the hazardous nature of the industry. I suppose that no industrial worker is more prone to accidents than is the waterside worker, largely because of the nature of the employment. He must handle heavy cargo and heavy equipment, climb ladders, walk on slippery decks, and so on. Consequently, he is prone to accidents. I do not know of any industry in which there is a greater percentage of chronic backs.

Senator Cole:

– That is from carrying the shipowners.

Senator DITTMER:

– That may be so. The waterside workers have had to do that for years. Some waterside workers may be classified as “ E.H.”, or “ Exempt from Hold “, which means that they are to do deck work, perhaps on cranes. Under the provision that we are discussing, all those men may be medically examined. There is no quarrel with that, if they represent a menace to their workmates. No reasonable man in the industry would expect to be exempt from examination in those circumstances, but a question arises, having regard to the desire to eliminate surplus labour.

Let us consider the handling of the people engaged in this industry over recent years. I know that the Commonwealth Government has not been to blame in this particular matter, but there has been mechanization, with men being thrown out of the industry, and no thought of rehabilitation. Now, large numbers of men may be precipitated on to the labour mart, although they have given a large portion of their lives to the industry. There is a completely callous disregard of the responsibility that should be shown to men who have given the best part of their lives to the industry. As Senator McKenna has pointed out, sub-section (3.) of proposed new section 32a provides that the medical practitioner who examines a waterside worker is obliged to furnish a certificate to the authority; but there is no obligation on him. to furnish a similar certificate to the person being examined. In other words, the person concerned will not know the condition for which he is being transferred or taken out of the industry. In many cases, examinations probably will be made by a general practitioner who may make a diagnosis in regard to a particular facet of disease. If the person beirg examined were given a copy of the examination report he could go to a specialist and obtain a counter opinion which probably would outweigh the opinion of the doctor appointed by the authority.

Senator Aylett:

– Who would pay Cor all of that?

Senator DITTMER:

– He would have to pay for it, but the union is loyal to its members. Let me give the committee details of a case concerning a man who was injured in Townsville, and who came to see me in Brisbane. His case had been disregarded, from the point of view of compensation. I submitted his case to the union. His disability did not come within my particular field of specialization. Subsequently, he was taken to Sydney where he saw one of the eminent specialists in Macquarie-street. As a result of the opinion given by the specialist, his claim was recognized. The union met all his expenses of the preliminary inquiries-

Senator Aylett:

– Why should not the industry which wants to discard him pay for it?

Senator DITTMER:

– If it loses, it should do so, but I am seeking protection for the men, irrespective of who is to bear the cost. I think that the man concerned in such a case is entitled to a measure of protection. The Government will be remiss if it does not alter that provision so as to provide that a man who is being discarded must be furnished with a copy of the medical report.

It must be realized that there are men working on the waterfront who are not perfectly fit, but who can carry on usefully and make a real contribution to waterside work. In those circumstances, I think that the Government has a responsibility. If ali the waterside workers were to be medically examined, many of them would be found to have bad backs; others would be found to have joints that had been injured, and to be suffering from traumatic arthritis; there would be many with cut lesions on their shoulders, and so on; but they are still able to carry on. If you took them to a doctor, he could easily find a reason to suggest the discarding of them, or a transfer. I make this plea to the Minister, since the Government is introducing this scrubbing section.

Since the introduction of this bill was announced I have spoken, I think, to 150 waterside workers in Brisbane, and not one was not suspicious of this provision to invest in the authority the right to have waterside workers medically examined. Not one. of them quarrelled with that right insofar as it applied to examination of men who were suspected of being a menace to their associates in the industry; but they all were extremely suspicious of the ultimate purpose of the examination for any other purpose. I plead with the Minister to accept a measure of social responsibility and to recognize the obligation of the Government to people who have given a lifetime of service to an essential and hazardous industry, accident-prone as it is. As I have said, there are engaged in the industry men who in many cases are not particularly physically fit but who nevertheless can make a real contribution in effort and who can serve in certain fields of endeavour on the waterfront. If only out of a sense of fairness, men who are medically examined should be furnished with a copy of the medical report, so that if they seek to appeal they will have the. opportunity to protect themselves and their dependants and to provide for their continued livelihood.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– The picture that has just been painted for us is one of hazardous conditions under which people work on the waterfront - climbing ladders, acting as hatchmen, walking on slippery decks-

Senator Dittmer:

– Have a look at the accident rate.

Senator GORTON:

– The honorable senator now mentions, in addition, the accident rate. With that background, we should all be convinced that it is necessary for people working in this industry, in the interests of the safety of their comrades, to be well and healthy and able to perform their duties under all the difficult circumstances of which Senator Dittmer has spoken.

Let us be quite clear about what this bill does not propose to do. First, it does not propose to give the authority the right to scrub anybody, to use the honorable senator’s expression. The bill will give the authority the right to require a member of the federation to take an examination by a qualified medcial practitioner, who will be the one to decide whether or not that man is fit. Senator Dittmer, with a disregard of the profession to which he belongs, which I personally do not share, said that if you sent a man to a doctor he could easily make up some excuse-

Senator Dittmer:

– I did not say that at all. That is not fair and it is not true.

Senator GORTON:

– That is what I heard you say, and you can squeak as much as you like.

Senator Dittmer:

– I rise to order, Mr. Chairman. I did not make that statement. I certainly would not reflect on my professional colleagues. I suggest that the statement be withdrawn.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Senator Dittmer objects to the statement made by the Minister and asks that it be withdrawn.

Senator GORTON:

– Mr. Chairman, I wrote down at the time the words used by the honorable senator. His words were to this effect, “ take him to a doctor and he could easily find a reason for getting him off the waterfront “.

Senator Dittmer:

– I did not say that at all.

Senator GORTON:

– I am of the opinion that a medical practitioner would give a true and faithful report on the results of his examination. This procedure should tend to safeguard the health of the person concerned as well as his safety and the safety of the people with whom he was working. A distinction is made in the bill between those who have reached the age of 65 years and those who have not. It is provided that that authority should have reason to believe that a person under the age of 65 is ill before he may be required to go before a doctor.

Senator McKenna:

– That particular provision is not tied to men under 65. It has application, on its face, to anybody.

Senator GORTON:

– The point is that proposed new section 32a. (2.), whatever application it may have wider than the one I am now giving to it, does say that the authority needs to have reason to believe that the physical or mental condition of a registered waterside worker is such as to render him incapable, and then may require him to go before a doctor.

Senator McKenna:

– That applies to a man of any age.

Senator GORTON:

– Taking the case of a man of 65 years or over, which is dealt with in proposed new sub-section (1.), the authority is not required specifically to have reason to believe that his physical or mental condition is such as to render him incapable, but the authority may require him to undergo medical examinations at terms not closer together than twelve months. Again harking back to the very difficult conditions which Senator Dittmer says exist in this work, a man who has qualified for the age pension according to the law of this country, a man who has reached the retiring age in most of the professions in this country, might well be required, for the safety of himself and others, to undergo medical examination rather more frequently than others.

As to the suggestion that a copy of the medical report should be made available to the worker himself, I say that that would probably happen in any case and it would certainly happen should that worker appeal to the commission.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– Under sub-section (4.) of proposed new section 32a the authority has the right to choose the medical practitioner to whom a waterside worker shall be directed. I do not want to cast any reflections on members of the medical profession, but we do know that some of them are just as biased against the waterside workers as are honorable senators on the Government side of the chamber. Yet, as I have said, the authority has the right to select the medical practitioner to whom a waterside worker shall be directed for examination. As Senator Dittmer has said, there is no obligation upon the authority to furnish the worker with a copy of the medical report. Sub-section (3.) merely requires that the medical practitioner shall furnish a report of the examination to the authority.

The matter goes a little bit further than that, of course. There is no provision in the bill that the medical report that is issued, and which the worker is not entitled to receive, shall be confidential to the authority. The authority can get a medical report after the examination. It is not bound to give to the worker concerned a copy of that medical report, but it can broadcast the contents to other people. There is nothing in the bill to say that the medical report is to be confidential to the authority once it has been provided by the practitioner.

Sub-section (2.) of proposed new section 32a provides that if the authority is of the opinion that the physical or mental condition of a worker makes him a danger to the industry, it can require him to submit himself for medical examination at a time and place specified in the notice. I direct the attention of the committee to the psychological effect on a highly-strung worker - one who suffers from a nervous condition - if he were required to present himself for examination every three months or six months. Even if he is cleared by the medical practitioner, he does not know the margin by which he has been cleared or whether there is anything really wrong with him. This would place a heavy strain on his nervous system. I believe that it is quite wrong to permit the authority to require a worker to submit himself for medical examination at any time and place specified, without inserting a provision that he shall be furnished with a copy of each medical certificate concerning him that is presented to the commission.

There is one other aspect of the matter. If a copy of the medical certificate were given to the worker, its contents should be confidential between the three parties concerned - the doctor, the authority and the worker who has been examined.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- This is a provision that 1 think requires a little more consideration than has been given to it up to date. Just before Senator Cant sat down he directed the attention of the committee to an obligation in relation to confidence. I point out that under section 59 of the act an absolute privilege, irrespective of good faith or motive of any sort, is vested in the authority or any of its officers in respect of the printing or publishing of a report. Having regard to the details which are given in the annual reports of this authority, that is something that deserves consideration. Most intimate details of disease, handicaps or deformities might go into an annual report with complete immunity so far as redress is concerned. I just mention that there is no safeguard in the law against that, having regard to the absolute terms of the privilege given under section 59 of the act.

Senator McKenna has raised the question of the right of a waterside worker who is required to submit himself for medical examination to be furnished with a copy of the medical report. We should remember that the medical practitioner to whom the waterside worker is submitted for examination is employed by the authority, or is one with whom the authority has made an arrangement to carry out the medical examination of waterside workers for the purposes of this provision. Without making any reflection upon a medical practitioner so retained, I say that there is an inclination, a tendency, to have regard - I do not say an improper regard - to the legitimate interests of the authority retaining him and employing him. That medical practitioner may issue a certificate the effect of which is to authorize the authority to transfer the waterside worker from register A. to the register of irregulars over 65 years of age - register B, as I understand it.

Senator Gorton:

– Or back.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Yes. The point 1 wish to make through you, Mr. Temporary Chairman, for the Minister’s consideration, is that there is an administrative right on the part of the authority to act on a medical certificate, the details of which and the reasons supporting it have not been communicated to the waterside worker concerned.

Let me say - I am being as brief as possible - that in civil litigation where civil injuries are the subject of a claim, a plaintiff is usually required to submit himself to a medical practitioner appointed by his adversary. In some legislation, there is no provision that the report of the defendant’s medical practitioner should be made available to the plaintiff, but the rules of court usually provide that before that practitioner can be called to give evidence against the plaintiff his report should bc submitted to the plaintiff’s solicitor before the trial. That is a little different from the situation we are now considering. In the instance I have just quoted you are making a legal claim, and if you are making a claim it is only reasonable that tha! claim should be scrutinized by a specialist medical practitioner appointed by the defendant. But here the examination is put forward as being incidental to the right to employment.

I want to make my point quite plain. You have this system whereby, for the purpose of having this monopoly of employment, the Waterside Workers Federation has surrounded itself with a garrison of governmental controls. Obviously, the federation must submit to governmental jurisdiction in the matter. It is obvious that for the purpose of employment the Stevedoring Industry Authority must have the right to have a proper medical examination of waterside workers who claim to be continuously fit to discharge their duties. But do not let us under-estimate or treat lightly the inroad that is being made upon the right of privacy on the part of the individual waterside worker as an incident - 1 think a necessary incident at the moment - of this system of governmental controlled employment.

Let me direct the minds of honorable senators to a matter that concerns us very gravely - road safety. We know that during the last three years there has been a most purposeful contention as to whether in the case of drunken drivers the. right of privacy should be invaded compulsorily by law to the extent of allowing a doctor who is appointed by those who administer road traffic to take a blood sample. That is a less serious invasion of the right of privacy than is a general medical examination as to fitness for work. These are the aspects of the system that alarm me. The system has been accepted, and medical examination seems to me to be a necessary corollary of it. But realizing the extent to which invasion of the right of privacy seems to be demanded by the system, do not let us treat lightly the argument, first, that the Stevedoring Industry Authority may act on a report that is really not worthy of consideration and which has never been communicated to the man affected; and secondly, that the report may appear in an annual report and be given world-wide publicity with complete immunity from responsibility for the publication of private and intimate details. [ rise to point out these matters in the hope that the Minister will thoughtfully state the Government’s viewpoint as to whether we can be assured that in all cases a waterside worker will have supplied to him, if the authority acts adversely to him, a copy of the medical practitioner’s reportSecondly, I should like an assurance that such reports will be very jealously safeguarded against undue disclosure in theauthority’s annual report to the Parliament.

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

.. - Senator Wright made a particularly thoughtful contribution to the debate. We know his capacity. He has shown a sense of proportion and an appreciation of the significance of this part of the bill. By and large, the medical examination of employeeson the waterfront is conducted by general practitioners. No one would belittle the standing of the Australian general medical practitioner. He is superior to his counterparts in any other part of the world.

Senator Cole:

– Is this self-praise?

Senator DITTMER:

– That is far from my mind. The honorable senator is aware of my modesty. Many of the conditions of employment on the waterfront are of a special nature, with the result that diagnosis and the assessment of the seriousness or permanence of a man’s condition requires, the opinion of a specialist. Many of the medical conditions involved are of an orthopaedic nature. There is no suggestion that the Stevedoring Industry Authority will depart from its past practice. There is no provision to the effect that when a certificate has been tendered by the examining medical officer, the authority will assess a waterside worker’s condition and send him to a specialist in a particular field. Therein lies a distinct weakness.

I did not concentrate particularly on Senator Gorton’s reference to persons of more than 65 years of age as being in the old-age group. I was more concerned with sub-sections (2.) and (3.) of proposed new section 32a. Waterside workers have become accustomed to working in the industry after reaching the age of 65 years, and I do not see why they should be prepared to accept a transfer to another register simply because the Government wishes to slam on them something that is worth while - long service leave - but to which is attached a lot that is extremely bad, such as the penalties for which provision is contained in the bill. They are the two points that I wish to make at this stage.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the; Navy · Victoria · LP

– As I understand the first point raised by Senator Wright, it was. that because of the absolute privilege conferred on the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority by section 59 of the principal act the authority could publish, without fear of civil or criminal action, or any other kind of action, reports relating to the medical condition of an individual waterside worker. I do not think that that is even a possibility, because the immunity conferred by section 59, as I understand it, relates only to that which the authority is allowed to do under sections 57 and 58. Section 57 reads -

The Authority shall, as soon as practicable after the last day in each month, make public, by such means as it thinks fit, a report giving particulars of -

stoppages of work by registered waterside workers during that month; and

delays in the performance of stevedoring operations during that month due to the failure of registered employers to comply with a provision of this Act, of an order or direction of the Authority or of an award of the Commission.

Section 58 (1.) provides -

The Authority shall -

as soon as possible after the commencement of this Act prepare and furnish to the Minister a report on the operations of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board during the year. . .

as soon as possible . . . prepare and furnish to the Minister a report on the operations of the Authority, and the operations, if any, of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board, during the year . . .

as soon as possible . . . and in each succeeding year, prepare and furnish to the Minister a report on the opera- tions of the Authority . . .

It is those reports which enjoy the privilege that is referred to in section 59. That those reports would contain medical reports on a particular person is so unlikely that I believe it could properly be said to be impossible.

Senator Wright referred also to a certain inroad into personal privacy in that a waterside worker is required to submit himself to medical examination to ascertain whether he is fit to continue in the industry, without being provided with a copy of the medical report. The act provides that before a waterside worker may be engaged in the industry he must submit himself to a medical examination, and he does not get a copy of the report. So the bill prescribes a repetition of a condition that exists.. It is not an entirely new condition. It is a condition that applies not only to waterside workers, but also to public servants, and members of the Army, Navy, Air Force and a number of other institutions. I do not labour that point, as I think it was upon the first point that Senator Wright laid most stress.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– While the Minister’s reply is fresh in our minds, let me say that in relation to the annual report I was thinking of the situation where as. a consequence of adverse actions by waterside worker X a stoppage occurs which is required to be the subject of a general report. It may be thought proper, in justification of the action taken by the authority, to include details of a medical report or the substance of it. I mention that only in the. hope that it will be accepted as not a remote possibility. There is a risk that should be guarded against, and I hope that we have an assurance that no such matter will find its way into the annual report.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I do not agree with the argument that an employee should not be given a medical report when examined after being employed in the industry. The initial examination of a worker seeking employment is quite different. He applies for employment and is medically examined. If he is classified as fit, he is employed. At some future time, after working in the industry in various capacities, and possibly having suffered injury or progressive deterioration of health as a result of working in the industry, he is re-examined. Almost without exception in every field of employment the employee has the result of the medical examination made known to him. In the railways service, an applicant for employment who is examined and rejected is not given a medical report; he is just not employed. However, after he is employed, it is a vastly different matter.

In the mining industry, examination for miners’ phthisis and other chest complaints was voluntary, in order to encourage miners to undergo therapy for treatment of the disease and to promote safety in industry. The quintessence of this matter is that the employing authority should have a human interest in the worker and the maintenance of his health. Even when the Government was trying to create a pool of casual employees on the waterfront as a threat to the workers who were continuously employed, there was a code that prescribed that a man who was unfit to go into the hold or to lump cargo or do other heavy work would have preference in regard to other work that he was capable of doing. That is only right in the case of a man who has spent at least twenty years in the industry. Men with disabilities can do crane driving, hooking on and observing, and they can attend to nets.

It is most important that medical reports be given to workers. If that is not done, it will be a callous disregard of the rights of the worker and of safety in the industry. A man may hide a deficiency if he is likely to be penalized becausehe is not fit to do every job that he may be directed to do. There are many jobs that a man with a disability can do.

Senator Spooner:

– Would not the doctor know that?

Senator COOKE:

– The doctor is not asked to determine that. He is asked to determine whether the man is healthy and fit and not a danger to the industry. He does not say that the man should be given certain work. Men are sometimes found to have complaints that are progressive. We have had trouble on the waterfront over a type of fumigant used for wheat. It is a matter of conjecture with doctors as to whether it is dangerous. Lung complaints arise from the husks, dust and dirt associated with bulk handling, although protective clothing is used. These matters are still argued in workers’ compensation cases. I earnestly request the Minister to give an assurance that the. workers will have full reports and details of medical findings after the initial examination, and of the reason why they are transferred from one roster to another or not rostered at all.

Senator RIDLEY:
South Australia

– I refer to proposed section 32a (4.), which reads -

In this section “medical practitioner” means a legally qualified medical practitioner employed by the Authority or with whom the Authority has made an arrangement to carry out medical examinations of waterside workers for the purposes of this section.

It was suggested by the Minister in replyto Senator Dittmer that a reflection had been cast upon the medical profession. I submit that if anybody were seeking a reflection on the medical profession it could be found in that sub-section, because the term “ medical practitioner “ is restricted to one employed by the authority or with whom an arrangement has been made by the authority. I have no inhibitions about the medical profession. I have never accepted the suggestion that members of that profession are not subject to the same human frailties as affect any other section of the community. By the same token, 1 do not cast aspersions on any particular one. In my experience of workers’ compensation claims, I found that specialists differed widely. Because the facts are clear in my mind, I shall mention names. In one case, Dr. Krantz of Adelaide assessed the disability in a claimant’s hand at 90 per cent., while Dr. Ian Hamilton, who was the specialist engaged by the insurance company, assessed the disability at 30 per cent. Those were two doctors on whose professional ability no aspersions could be cast. The difference between the two of them was the difference between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. As a matter of interest the court assessed the disability at 70 per cent.

Consideration interrupted.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -

That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate.

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

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Aves . . . . 26

Noes . . . . 28

Majority 2

Question so resolved in the negative.

Consideration resumed.

Question put -

That the clause stand as printed.

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

AYES: 28

NOES: 26

Majority . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses 14 and15 agreed to.

Clause 16 (Cancellation or suspension of registration of waterside workers, &c).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Clause 16 purports to amend section 36 of the principal act. That section sets out the offences which justify the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority in either cancelling or suspending the registration of a waterside worker. To the penalties has been added, by the clause we are considering, a further penalty right at the end of the section authorizing the authority where not inappropriate to suspend entitlement to attendance money.

The bill purports to amend a section which sets out certain offences, the commission of which would entitle the authority to do one of three things - suspend the waterside worker’s registration, cancel it altogether, or suspend his entitlement to attendance money. They are grave penalties. Coming back to consider the new offences that are created, I refer to paragraph (a) of clause 16, which we are now considering. Under that paragraph it is now to be an offence for a person to fail to submit himself to medical examination in compliance with a notice under section 32a of the act.

Senator Wright:

– There may be some misunderstanding when you say it is an offence, may there not?

Senator McKENNA:

– I described it as an offence.

Senator Wright:

– It is not punishable by any fine or imprisonment.

Senator McKENNA:

– No. How is it described in the proposed amendment to the act? I did not choose the word “ offence “ with any particular deliberation. It is a breach of the act. “ Breach “ is probably a better word.

Senator Wright:

– Yes.

Senator McKENNA:

– I did not use the word “ offence “ with any particular regard to its connotation. I think “ breach of the act “ would be the better phrase. I accept that. It is a breach of a worker’s obligation if he fails to submit himself to medical examination, and he is liable to penalties of cancellation or suspension of his registration. I do not complain about that. 1 direct attention to the fact that it is one more penalty. It is a necessary corollary of the obligation to submit to a medical examination. There must be some sanction if a man does not do so. However, it all amounts to piling up a list of breaches that may be committed and that attract the particularly severe penalties provided in section 36 of the act.

I come now to paragraph (b) of clause 16 wherein it is provided that it is a breach if a man, being a registered regular waterside worker, has not regularly attended, or made himself available, for employment as a waterside worker or, being a registered irregular waterside worker, has attended for employment so infrequently that it may fairly be presumed that he does not intend to make his services available as a waterside worker. I mentioned that point in another context quite recently when I was indicating that as one of the elements of the unpaid work force reserve that the bill creates among the irregular waterside workers. 1 should like the Minister to say what is meant by that paragraph which refers to an irregular waterside worker who attends so infrequently as to lead to the fair presumption that he does not intend to make his services available as a waterside worker.

I ask the Minister to consider the case that 1 cited some time ago where in the first year a man aged 70 years, who takes his £260 worth of long service leave and goes on to Part B of the register, of necessity will exhaust his capacity for earning under the Social Services Act. He will receive more than £182. Accordingly, he will not want to earn any more money because it would depreciate the age pension. It is quite obvious that he is expected to attend sometimes. I ask whether he is expected to attend on occasions when he has not been particularly called by the authority. If he is, on how many occasions is he expected to attend? Does this reference to attending infrequently apply only to cases where the authority has called the man and hehas failed to put in an appearance? I know that an earlier provision says that he is under no obligation to attend, but I still believe that if he does attend and he is asked to take the place of a regular worker who has refused work, he commits a breach of the clause that we are discussing and renders himself liable to the severe penalties about which I have already spoken.

Senator Gorton:

– On what do you base that?

Senator McKENNA:

– I base that on sub-section (1.) (e) of section 36 of the act, to which I referred.

Senator Wright:

– You could not fairly presume that he had no intention to attend.

Senator McKENNA:

-I am dealing with two matters. I have asked the Minister a question on the first one. I am now on a separate matter. I direct attention to the fact that section 36 is the penalties section. There are three penalties - concellation and suspension of registration and suspension of entitlement to attendance money. Under paragraph (e) of sub-section (1.) of section 36 of the act it is a breach which attracts those penalties if a man has failed -

  1. to offer for or accept employment as a waterside worker;
  2. to commence-

That is an important word - . . continue or complete an engagement for employment as a waterside worker; or

  1. to perform any stevedoring operations which he was lawfully required to perform.

A section that we discussed some time ago said that notwithstanding anything contained in the act - I agree that that would refer to this section - a worker was under no obligation to attend or make himself available.

Senator Gorton:

– For employment.

Senator McKENNA:

– For employment, yes. There are two things that he need not do; namely, attend for employment and make himself available for employment. But having attended, and having made himself available for employment, there is another step. The authority allows him to take over the work of a regular who declines to do the work. Under paragraph (e) of sub-section (1.) of section 36 of the act, to which I have just referred, that man commits an offence if he fails to commence, having been directed to work as a waterside worker, or if he fails to perform any stevedoring operations which he was lawfully required to perform.

I put it to the committee that despite the protection that is given under sub-section (4.) of proposed new section 31a, if the regulars went on strike at a particular port, under this section it would be competent for the authority to call the irregulars, and if they attend and are directed to work, but refuse to obey the direction to take over the work of the strikers, undoubtedly they commit an offence under section 36 of the act that would entitle the authority to deregister them.

Senator Wright:

– Surely that is untenable.

Senator McKENNA:

– No, it is not untenable. It is one of the possibilities which has concerned the Waterside Workers Federation which, with reason, is very suspicious of a number of the provisions contained in this measure. I should like the Minister to advert to that matter.

In paragraph <d) of this clause that we are now considering we see the reflection of the repeal of a relevant section of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which is not immediately before us, but to which we may refer. That provision in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act provided that in the event of concerted action for an unauthorized stoppage the payment of attendance money at a port could be suspended completely. That would operate against everybody at the port. However, there is no real change because at the end of section 36 of the act, the penalties section, it will now be provided that in the event of any breach, where not inappropriate, the authority may suspend a waterside worker’s entitlementto attendance money. That is an entirely new penalty added to section 36. But, in effect, it repeats with particularity the power of the authority to suspend the entitlement to attendance money not only of one waterside worker, which it may do, but of all waterside workers at the port. Despite that repeal and the credit that the Minister claimed for it in his second-reading speech, the power of the authority to deal with any waterside worker by way of suspension of entitlement to attendance money is preserved and re-written into the act. Paragraph (e) of clause 16 qualifies that power. It provides that if the authority wants to impose a penalty it shall not suspend a waterside worker’s entitlement to attendance money if there are demands for his services at the port and if it is undesirable to punish him in that way. Proposed new sub-section (3c.) of section 36 reads -

The number of days directed by the Authority . . shall not exceed four times the number of working days for which the Authority would, if it had suspended the registration of the waterside worker instead of suspending his entitlement to attendance money, ‘have suspended his registration.

In the absence of any other explanation I read that proposed sub-section to mean that the authority may suspend for a completely indefinite period entitlement to attendance money. It may be that under awards or orders of the authority or the commission, particular periods of suspension may be provided for particular breaches. I doubt whether that is the case, but if it is it would enable one to work out with arithmetical precision what is four times the number of working days for which the authority would have suspended registration instead of debarring the man from receiving attendance money. I ask the Minister: Are there penalties limiting the period of suspension of registration? If there are not, I ask him to accept my protest and that of the Opposition against proposed sub-section (3c.) which provides that the penalty shall not exceed four times the period that the authority would have imposed if it has imposed a penalty of suspension of registration. I submit that there may be an indeterminate factor about the period of days for which the authority would have suspended the registration of the waterside worker. If that is the case it is completely unfair, because there would be no limit as to the number of days for which a man could be suspended from entitlement to attendance money. The answer may be that all the periods of suspension are detailed in orders either of the commission or of the authority, but if that is not so, the clause is most objectionable.

I refer now to paragraph (c) of clause 16, which provides that a waterside worker shall be guilty of a breach if he has been -

  1. convicted of an offence against this Act; or
  2. convicted of an offence against any law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory of the Commonwealth, being an offence that, having regard to the circumstances in which it was committed, shows him to be unfit to be a registered waterside worker; 1 am particularly concerned about the words, “ having regard to the circumstances in which it was committed “. Will the Minister indicate just what circumstances are contemplated under that paragraph?

First, the circumstances would be circumstances in the view of the authority. Ultimately, on appeal, the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission would have to review the matter. What has the Government in mind? I can understand that in the case of an offence involving theft, where a man is handling goods, the circumstances may be such as to justify action under this clause. But if a state of emergency has been declared under section 30j and section 30k of the Crimes Act and a man continues on strike after the declaration of emergency and is convicted at petty sessions of the offence, which carries a heavy penalty, is that offence regarded as constituting circumstances in which the man may be deregistered?

Senator Gorton:

– Would you repeat that, please?

Senator McKENNA:

– Sections 30 j and 30k of the Crimes Act provide that in the event of an interstate dispute threatening interstate trade, the Governor-General may declare a state of emergency. Thereafter, any worker in the interstate sphere - waterside workers are in that category - who continues on strike commits an offence attracting possible imprisonment for one year. I think that is the case, although J do not have before me a copy of the Crimes Act. Assuming that situation arose in the waterfront industry and a waterside worker was convicted under the Crimes Act, would his offence constitute the type of offence that would lead to his de-registration under proposed new paragraph (f) of subsection (1.) of section 36? That is a very relevant question. I want to know what the Government has in mind. Suppose a waterside worker is convicted of illegal betting on the wharfs, is that the type of circumstance that would lead under this clause to his de-registration?

Senator Wright:

– Or playing two-up?

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, or playing two-up. I do not imagine that this clause contemplates the case of a waterside worker who submits a false income tax return, although that would relate to his earnings on the waterfront. I ask the Minister: What is the position in the cases that I have referred to? It behoves the Minister to say with some particularity what offence, having regard to the circum stances in which it was committed, would constitute such an offence as to lead to a man’s de-registration.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– In reply to the last point raised by Senator McKenna, the kind of offence envisaged by the Government and by the authority would be, for example, where a registered waterside worker who felt bad blood between himself and a foreman, lay in wait for that foreman not on the wharfs but in some more remote part of the town, assaulted him and was convicted of that assault in a court. That would meet the requirements of the words “ having regard to the circumstances in which it was committed, shows him to be unfit to be a registered waterside worker “.

Senator McKenna:

– Is there any comparable provision which would apply to the overseer if the overseer waylaid the waterside worker away from the wharf?

Senator GORTON:

– I should imagine so, although I do not know.

Senator McKenna:

– Where is the provision to be found? ?

Senator GORTON:

– I do not know at the moment. If there is not one, that is not a specific argument against the provision in the bill, though it may be an argument for the insertion of one at a later stage.

An alternative example that would fit this definition is that of a man working on the wharfs who was convicted in a court of receiving, outside the area of the wharfs, goods stolen from the wharfs, although he had not actually been caught pilfering or breaking open cargo. I have given those two examples in reply to Senator McKenna’s request that I should state the kind of thing that the. Government has in mind. I do not believe that the circumstances mentioned by the honorable senator, in which a man went on strike and was convicted under the Crimes Act, would be applicable in this case. I am not at this stage competent to say whether those circumstances would be applicable, but I doubt whether they would be. The Crimes Act is legally applicable to all workers and, depending on the circumstances, would not be applied to show whether a man was unfit to be registered as a waterside worker any more than whether he was unfit to be registered as a transport worker or a railway worker.

Senator McKenna also referred to the new causes of action which may arise if members of the federation refuse to submit themselves to medical examination when they are required to do so, or refrain from doing so. Since the committee has already passed the clause which deals with that matter, and as we have already argued that it is clear that a waterside, worker should be medically fit, I do not think there is too much to be made of this point. The honorable senator devoted a good deal of time to clause 1 6 (b), and particularly to the provision which relates to irregular waterside workers. Paragraph (d) of proposed new sub-section (1.) of section 36 reads - being a registered regular waterside worker, has not regularly attended, or made himself available, for employment as a waterside worker or, being a registered irregular waterside worker, has attended for employment so infrequently that it may fairly be presumed that he does not intend to make his services available as a waterside worker;

The Leader of the Opposition wanted to know the criteria that would be applied in deciding whether an irregular waterside worker had attended so infrequently that it might fairly be presumed that he did not intend to continue in his work. I am informed that, in practical terms, what normally happens is that if a man who is registered as an irregular waterside worker has not shown up at a pick-up centre for the port in which he is registered for six or eight months, the. authority seeks to get in touch with him. That is the practice at present. Very often, it is found that the man concerned is in an old men’s home, or a place of that kind. Senator McKenna also asked what would happen if an irregular waterside worker had earned sufficient money, so that if he earned more, the age pension to which he was entitled would be reduced. The answer is that when a man has earned a sum of money which, if he increased his earnings, would lead to his age pension being reduced, he is regarded by the authority as being excused from working for the rest of that year. When an irregular waterside worker attends a pick-up centre his name is noted. A letter is sent to him when he is required to attend.

Senator McKenna also referred to the relatively new proposition, referred to in clause 16, which seeks to amend section 36 of the principal act, that the authority may not only cancel or suspend the registration of a waterside worker but may also, when not inappropriate, suspend his entitlement to attendance money. Since the suspension of the entitlement to attendance money would be a lesser punishment than cancellation or suspension of registration, it would be inappropriate to suspend the entitlement to attendance money because of misconduct in an area near an employment bureau, wharf or ship, or because he had shown himself to be unfit to be a registered waterside worker. It would also be inappropriate to suspend attendance money in the case of a man who had shown, by reason of his physical or mental condition, or his incompetence or inefficiency, that he was not capable of carrying out the duties of a waterside worker, or might be a danger to others. In those circumstances, it would be clearly inappropriate to suspend attendance money rather than to apply the existing law.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– It is proposed to omit paragraph (0 of sub-section (1.) of section 36 of the principal act and to insert in its stead a paragraph which begins - (0 has been -

  1. convicted of an offence against this Act;

As Senator McKenna has pointed out, this is really a drag-net provision which will allow the authority to suspend or cancel the registration of a waterside worker under any act of a State or Territory, or any act of the Commonwealth. That confers a very wide discretion on the authority. I put it to the Minister that most of the branches of the Waterside Workers Federation in the various States are registered under State laws, as well as Commonwealth law. As a result, they are subject to the provisions of State legislation. In many instances, shipowners take action against waterside workers under State laws instead of the federal law. A conviction may be recorded, and the authority has the right to cancel or suspend the registration of a waterside worker, or to suspend the payment of attendance money.

I submit that when this bill becomes law there will be no limit to the power of the authority to suspend or cancel the registration of a waterside worker or to suspend the payment of attendance money if he commits an offence against a law that has been passed in any part of Australia. In my opinion, this is a most provocative provision. It will place the onus on waterside workers to be very good boys indeed. I suggest that there is not an honorable senator in this chamber who has not committed an offence against an act of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory. Yet, the Government proposes to say to waterside workers: “ You shall not do certain things. If you do you must suffer the penalty.” For my part, I cannot allow legislation of that sort to be enacted without raising some protest about it.

I want now to direct attention to the proposed amendment of sub-section (5.) of section 36 of the principal act in the manner set out in sub-clause (f) of the clause. Subsection (5.) of section 36 gives the authority the right, when considering the cancellation or suspension of the registration of a waterside worker, to take into consideration any action that the union may have taken against its member. Generally, when these disputes occur on ships and workers refuse to work for certain reasons, which may or may not be valid, the authority immediately takes action to suspend their registrations and, of course, invariably directs other workers to take their places and eventually ties up the port. But I am not concerned with that aspect of the matter at the moment. Before a registered organization can take any action in respect of its members, it has to go through the process of complying with its rules and several hours or a day may elapse before the organization is able to put into operation the machinery to discipline its members if it thinks that they were acting in contravention of its rules, or of the safe working conditions, for instance. It is quite useless to put a provision in the legislation that the authority may take into consideration some punitive action that the union may take against its members unless you also put into the legislation a provision that the authority shall delay taking action to cancel registrations or suspend registrations until such time as the union has had an opportunity to implement its rules. I would like the Minister to advise me whether it is the intention of the Government to instruct the authority to give the registered organization an opportunity to discipline its members in its own way in order to avoid some of the penalties that may be imposed under this bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I wish to make some comments in relation to sub-clause (c) of the clause, which inserts a new paragraph (f) in sub-section (1.) of section 36 of the principal act. Under the existing provision, a ground on which the authority may cancel or suspend the registration of a waterside worker, if it thinks fit, is that the waterside worker has been convicted of an offence against the act. This bill proposes to expand the grounds upon which that suspension or cancellation may take place. A further ground for suspension or cancellation will be a conviction for an offence against any law where the offence for which the conviction has been entered is one that, having regard to the circumstances in which it was committed, shows that the man is unfit to be a registered waterside worker.

I raise this matter only because my attention was specifically drawn to this provision by a delegation of waterside workers in King’s Hall during this week. I want them to know that their representations have led me specifically to consider this provision. The submission that was made to me was that power was being taken by the authority to cancel or suspend a waterside worker’s registration, not only for an offence against the act, but also for any offence against Commonwealth or State law. I point out that the amendment has been carefully framed so as not to take that wide power. The basis of suspension or cancellation under the new provision is a conviction for an offence against the act or a conviction for an offence against Commonwealth or State law where the conviction is one that shows, having regard to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, that the waterside worker is unfit to be registered. The Minister has given, I think, two most appropriate illustrations of the kind of offence that is contemplated.

I want now to refer to Senator McKenna’s submission in relation to the Crimes Act. I submit that it was misconceived. If there is a proclamation and a waterside worker continues thereafter on strike, he certainly does commit an offence against the industrial provisions of the Crimes Act, but there is not, I submit, a real extension by this bill of any power to suspend him for that matter. Under section 44 (2.) of the principal act, a registered waterside worker shall not, without reasonable cause or excuse, refuse to accept employment or perform work in stevedoring operations with another person who is a registered waterside worker, or is employed as a waterside worker by virtue of section 40 of the act. Refusal by a waterside worker, without reasonable cause or excuse, to accept the work that he has been ordered to undertake, so long as it is with another registered waterside worker, is a breach of section 44 (2.). That means that it would be a ground for the suspension or cancellation of his registration under the present section 36, unamended. A registration can be cancelled or suspended for an offence against the principal act - and section 44 (2.) is a part of it - so the extension of this provision does not amplify the ground upon which the authority may act in respect of that matter. I think it is true to say that the supposed offence would be technically an offence under the Crimes Act, but it would also be an offence under section 44 (2.). Therefore, I submit that that argument was misconceived, as was the .submission that was made to me that paragraph .(f) of section 36 (1.), as proposed to be extended, was improperly wide.

I shall refrain from .dealing now with another matter that is in my mind, on which I shall seek clarification. It concerns proposed new sub-section (3a.) of section 36. I merely mention it now so that at a later stage, when the theme of the debate is more relevant to the matter, we shall be able to have some discussion on it.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I wish to refer, briefly, to two matters concerning my submission regarding convictions under sections 30j or 30k of the Crimes Act. I understood the Minister to say that, as he was advised, he would not deny that a conviction under either of those sections might fall within the circumstances .that I mentioned, but he was not prepared to commit himself. Is he in any better position to .answer now, having had an opportunity to consider the matter?

Senator Gorton:

– If a .man were convicted of a crime of any kind against the Commonwealth, the matter would then rest with the authority and the man could appeal against the decision of the authority to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. 1 would say that in those circumstances, as the clause is drawn, the commission definitely would not regard that action as coming within the ambit of this clause.

Senator McKENNA:

– Thank you. But I would differ. When all is said and done, the offence would have occurred in relation to stevedoring operations. Under sections 30j and 30k of the Crimes Act, it would be related to his immediate employment. The authority might feel that it could properly deem it to be the kind of conviction that should dis-entitle him to continue on the waterfront. I do not think that would be at all remote.

Senator Gorton:

– But your remarks at the beginning were confined to stoppages.

Senator McKENNA:

– I submit it would have to be a stoppage under sections 30 r and 30k of the Crimes Act. The offence that Senator Wright referred to would be committed by the initial stoppage. Then, if later the Governor-General declared a state of emergency and the man continued on strike, that would be an offence against a Commonwealth law that would invoke the provisions of proposed section ‘36 (1 .), proposed new paragraph (f).

Senator Wright:

– That would be a much graver offence than an offence under section 44 (2.).

Senator McKENNA:

– It is graver. It may well be, of course, .that that .is the only thing that would happen. The case I have just .postulated might not be followed right through. A waterside worker who did not participate in the initial strike which provoked the Governor-General’s proclamation may be .picked up. .He would not have offended under section 44 (2.); but, perhaps having come back to work after leave, he would be faced with the proclamation and would walk straight into it.

Senator Gorton:

– He would not be committing anything which is not already covered by section 36 (1.) (e) of the act - that is, if you are speaking about a stoppage - because already if he fails to offer for or accept employment, or fails to perform any stevedoring operations, he can be suspended.

Senator McKENNA:

– Is the Minister saying that the provision which the Government proposes to write into the act is unnecessary?

Senator Gorton:

– No. I am saying that it is designed to deal with action taken away from the wharfs but which in the circumstances in which it is taken shows that the man is unfit to be a registered waterside worker.

Senator McKENNA:

– I point out to the Minister that to say that it is in relation to matters apart from the wharfs does not delimit it. There is no suggestion of that in the clause.

Senator Gorton:

– But it could undoubtedly be construed to be so.

Senator McKENNA:

– If that was the intention, then the Government has gone very far wide of the mark that it had m mind. I suggest that its intentions might nave been expressed quite differently. Instead of being left wide open to the discretion of the Stevedoring Industry Authority and the interpretation of a court, the provision could have been related more intimately to operations on the waterfront than it is. This is a careless, wide-open approach. The Government, instead of pinpointing what it is aiming at, is setting the net so wide that it will pick up any mortal thing that could happen. That is one of the objections that the Opposition has to this provision. I have taken longer on that point than I expected to take.

I move now to the second matter to which I wish to refer. Perhaps the Minister has not been advised on the point, but I indicate that he did not answer the question I asked in relation to proposed sub-section (3c.) of section 36. This provision delimits the suspension of entitlement to attendance money to four times the number of days that would have been imposed in relation to suspension of registration. I asked whether the position was that under awards and orders the number of days of suspension of registration had been specifically fixed and that all one had to do was to multiply those days by four to ascertain the number of days for suspension of attendance money. As I said before, if that is the case, the penalty could be worked out arithmetically. If that is not the case, I am arguing that proposed sub-section (3c) of section 36 contains the power to suspend attendance money for an unlimited number of days. I have not had any reply from the Minister on that point.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– Subject to correction in writing by my advisers, the situation as I understand it is that the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority could suspend a man for any number of days.

Senator McKenna:

– That is, suspend registration?

Senator GORTON:

– Yes, it could suspend registration. Alternatively, it could direct that he should not get appearance money, but the direction would be limited in this way: It could not direct that he should fail to get appearance money for a greater number of days than four times the number of days for which it would have suspended his registration.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I wish to refer to proposed sub-section (3a.) of section 36, which provides -

The entitlement of a registered waterside worker to attendance money shall not be suspended under sub-section (1.) of this section unless the Authority is satisfied that the demands for the services of waterside workers at the particular port at the time are such that it would be undesirable to suspend his registration.

Whether it be because of the hour of the night or my own inherent obtuseness I do not know, but I need a little clarification from external sources to enable me to understand the proposition contained in this provision. I preface my expression of concern with this reflection: I seem to recall that at some point during the consideration of this bill the Government remarked upon the ineptitude, in certain circumstances, of applying sanction of suspension. It has often seemed to me to be simply accentuating the damage that is done to industry by a stoppage when the Australian Stevedoring

Industry Authority orders a whole body of men to be suspended for a further two days, which means the banking up of cargoes and dislocation in the port. Coupled with that reflection is the fact that it has been stated that the union officials tell the waterside workers that, instead of losing money as the result of a stoppage, they actually gain. The men stop work on a Wednesday or a Thursday so that the cargo has to be unloaded on a Saturday, when the rate of pay goes up to 22s. 5d., or on a Sunday, when every waterside worker gets 28s. an hour or £11 4s. for an eight-hour shift.

Senator Ormonde:

– I think I will resign from the Parliament.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I am glad to have that exclamation of astonishment from Senator Ormonde, because I think we are bound to look at the extravagance and waste that are accumulating in this industry and at the preposterousness of the situation when a stoppage takes place mid-week and there is a further suspension of work and a banking up of cargoes which makes it imperative, in order to get a ship out of port, to pay the men £11 4s. for working on a Sunday. I hope I jm right in recalling from the fog of my memory a remark about the ineptitude of this so-called sanction of suspension. I mention that only because it may be linked up with what we are trying to express in proposed sub-section (3a.) of section 36. I just do not understand what is intended in this provision, and I seek elucidation.

Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 12.38 a.m. (Thursday).

Thursday, 18 May 1961

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– I desire to answer a point raised by Senator Wright in regard to proposed new sub-section (3a.) of section 36. The authority can either suspend a registered waterside worker or suspend his entitlement to appearance money. The clause means that the authority will take away or suspend the right of the worker to appearance money unless it is satisfied that the demand for labour at the port makes suspension undesirable.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I must confess that 1 do not understand the proposed new sub-section. That is perhaps because I do not understand the procedure. A man has committed a breach of the act. The authority addresses its mind to what it shall do. It is told in this provision. Do not suspend him unless you are satisfied that the demands of the port will be met.

Senator Gorton:

– The authority will suspend him unless it is sure that the demands of the port require that he be not suspended.

Senator Wright:

– No. It will suspend his attendance money.

Senator McKENNA:

– There is a negative form that cannot be put into the affirmative. The provision reads -

The entitlement of a registered waterside worker to attendance money shall not be suspended under sub-section (1.) of this section unless the Authority is satisfied that the demands for the services of waterside workers at the particular port at the time are such that it would be undesirable to suspend his registration.

As I understand it, when a man’s attendance money is suspended, the effect is that he has to attend and if no work is available to him he will not get attendance money. He has to go through that process time after time if a multiple penalty of suspension of attendance money is imposed upon him. That might run over a long period of time, because a port might be busy. He attends and he gets work. He attends again and he gets work. Then he attends and he does not get work. There is the first penalty of suspension of attendance money. I take, it that no question of attendance money arises if he attends and gets work.

Senator Gorton:

– This relates to section 36 of the act, dealing with the penalties to be imposed.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, I appreciate that. I know that there are three types of penalties. The commission may suspend registration or cancel it, or it may suspend attendance money..

Senator Wright:

– This is not limited to the irregular roster?

Senator McKENNA:

– No, it applies to both. Attendance money would be fairly rare in the case of register B. It would apply only on the days when a man was called by the authority and work was not available. The authority would be most unlikely to call him if the work were not there. I think that attendance money would have very little application to part B of the register.

Senator Gorton:

– That is probably right. It applies almost entirely to part A of the register.

Senator McKENNA:

– I should think that that would be so. as a matter of practice. Here we have a. regular who has committed a breach which subjects him to three types of penalties. We now purport to say to the authority, “ Do not suspend- “.

Senator Gorton:

– No, “ Do suspend “.

Senator Wright:

– The proposed new subsection provides that the entitlement, shall not be suspended unless, a certain condition applies.

Senator McKENNA:

– We. say, “ Do suspend him and do not suspend, his attendance money “-.

Senator Gorton:

– We say, “ Do suspend him unless you think the demands of the port make suspension undesirable. In that case suspend his attendance money.”

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, I appreciate; the point now. If I happen, to be* AttorneyGeneral in, the near future, and. Senator Gorton applies for a job as Parliamentary

Draftsman,. I. shall consider his, claims, very seriously.. He has. reduced the provision, to. real English on this occasion. I follow, the point now.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 17 and. 18 agreed to.

Clause 19.

Senator McKenna:

– I suggest- that this clause be dealt with according to the several proposed new sections, of which there are thirteen. The clause runs- to about ten pages. I have indicated to the Minister and, I think, to you, Mr. Chairman that we are concerned to oppose only two. of the proposed new sections. There are not very many proposed sections that we particularly want to discuss. I want to concentrate the debate, upon, the matters, that we want to discuss, and not waste time on those to which we have no particular objection. I do not want an untidy debate, ranging, over thirteen proposed new sections. Accordingly^ I. propose that, we: deal with the clause,, proposed new section- by proposed new. section.

Senator Gorton:

– I think it would meet the wishes of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) if we deal individually with proposed sections 45a, 45b and 45c, and then deal with the rest of. the proposed’ sections as one, voting as. on one if necessary.

Senator McKenna:

– That is perfectlyacceptable to. me.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Clause 19 will be considered in the following manner: The committee will deal with proposed sections 45a, 45b, and 45c, in that order, and will then take the remainder of the proposed sections together.

Proposed new section 45a. agreed to.

Proposed new section! 45bi (Declaration of ports, etc., for purposes of ascertaining, qualifying service.)

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This proposed section relates to the declaration of ports for the purpose of ascertaining the qualifying service for long service leave. It requires the authority, as soon as possible after the commencement of this part of the bill relating to long service leave, to declare the ports at which, and the period or periods in relation to each of those ports during which, periods of registration as a waterside worker under Commonwealth stevedoring legislation, before the commencement of this Part, may count as qualifying service. The purpose of this proposed section is to enable the authority to say what periods in the past, before the operation of this act, are periods that should count as qualifying service. As I read the clause, the dictum of the authority in that matter is conclusive. I have not detected any right of appeal. I have noted proposed section 45m in connexion with this matter.

That proposed section provides -

Any question arising under this Part as to - leave; shall, in the first instance, be determined by the Authority. (2.) A person aggrieved by the decision of the Authority in respect of such a question may appeal to the Court.

The thing that concerns me is whether the declaration by the authority as to the periods before the comencement of this act that are to apply for qualifying service falls within the category of entitlement of a person to long service leave. I doubt very much that it does. I think that the proposed section I have read relates to the individual. I do not see any provision for the union or for an individual member, whose entitlement to long, service leave is in question, to have an appeal from a completely arbitrary decision of the authority.

Senator Vincent:

– Would you also include a case where the declaration of the authority under proposed section 45b was patently wrong?

Senator McKENNA:

– My point is that the proposed section is conclusive. I am addressing the Minister on the proposition that on my reading of the clause the declaration by the authority that three months in a particular year at a particular port would be the only period to be regarded to deter mine qualifying service could not be appealed from.

Senator Gorton:

– If it was a seasonal port that was in operation for only three months.

Senator McKENNA:

– I put it to the

Minister that from 1942 onwards the classification of ports has varied; some have come up and others have gone down. Some have changed from seasonal ports to continuous ports, and others have changed in the opposite direction. The question is whether the information relating to this matter would be in the hands of the authority only. I am concerned to know whether the union, or the individual members affected, would have the opportunity to test and question the decision of the authority. For the sake of obtaining a reply from the Minister I address to him the argument that there is no proper appeal against the decision of the authority which is the very base of the entitlement.

The Opposition is opposed to the clause for the basic reason that it does not see any provision for a proper appeal against the decision of the authority in this matter. I think the Minister will appreciate the importance of this provision. The authority can arbitrarily make a decision which cannot be questioned by the union, by an individual, by the commission or by a court. Supposing the union takes the view that the authority has allowed only three months in respect of such and such a year in respect of such and such a port. Must the union accept exactly what the authority decides, or is there machinery in this bill that will enable the decision of the authority to be attacked? That is the point at issue here.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– As the Minister has not risen immediately, I should like to advert to a matter to which Senator McKenna referred when he led the debate in committee first thing this afternoon. I refer to clause 5. When discussing that clause reference was made to the schedule in which ports are divided into continuous ports on the one hand and seasonal ports on the other. The Leader of the Opposition referred to proposed sub-sections (3.) and (4.) under which regulations can be gazetted whereby a port in one schedule can be transposed to the other schedule, and vice versa. I did not intervene in the debate at that stage because 1 was quite satisfied that if that could be done by regulation either House of the Parliament could take corrective action.

I thought the intention in dividing the ports into two classes in the schedule was to so classify them for the purpose of indicating whether service would count as a qualification for long-service leave, but proposed new section 45b does seem to give to the authority power, by declaration in the Gazette, to declare the ports at which, and the period or periods in relation to each of those ports during which, periods of registration as a waterside worker may count as qualifying service before the commencement of this act.

Senator Gorton:

– That is the point.

Senator WRIGHT:

– It is the period of service before the commencement of this act. Is the declaration as to what ports are seasonal and what ports are continuous applicable to the whole period?

Senator Gorton:

– I understand not.

Senator WRIGHT:

– The next portion of the proposed new section reads - (2.) The Authority shall, from time to time, by notice in the Gazette, declare, in relation to each seasonal port, periods during which periods of registration as a waterside worker at that port under this Act may count as qualifying service.

That is a complementary prospective provision. There does seem to be reason for concern that by notice in the Gazette a declaration can be made against which neither House of the Parliament has the authority to take corrective action. I notice that this proposed sub-section refers to seasonal ports and that therefore the prospective authority apparently does not apply to continuous ports. As we have discussed this matter the meaning has become clearer. If this power is limited to seasonal ports I am happy with the provision. I regret if I have taken time to instil the matter into my own head.

Proposed new section agreed to.

Proposed new section 45c (Qualifying service for long service leave).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Proposed new section 45c deals with qualifying service for long service leave. The opening words of the proposed new section are “ Subject to section fifty-two a of this Act “. Those words immediately take us to clause 20 of the bill, which is the focal point of one of the objections of the trade union movement, the Waterside Workers Federation and the Opposition, because the determination of the qualifying period for long service leave is subject entirely to the penalty provisions contained in clause 20. I say to the Minister for the Navy that I would be prepared to defer discussion on proposed new section 52a, although I claim that I am certainly entitled to discuss it at this stage, If I could have the Minister’s assurance that we shall have an opportunity to reach that proposed new section before the debate closes.

Senator Gorton:

– I give you that assurance subject to our getting through clause 19 in a reasonable time.

Senator McKENNA:

– I would want the Minister to define “ reasonable “. May I take this opportunity to say that to-day I have found how completely unreasonable the Government can be in relation to the Opposition. I shall take an opportunity to press that point before the morning arrives.

Senator Gorton:

– The morning has arrived.

Senator McKENNA:

– I want a definition of “ reasonable “.

Senator Gorton:

– All right, let us see what we can do. We are now arguing proposed new section 45c of clause 19. The group of proposed new sections next to be considered embodies proposed new section 52a. There is very little between those two proposed new sections. I suggest that it would be reasonable for the committee to arrive at proposed new section 52a in about a quarter of an hour’s time at the outside.

Senator McKENNA:

– Let me consider that for a moment, while I see what I have to say about proposed new section 45c. That proposed new section will not detain the committee long. I make this qualification: As long as the Opposition does not take longer than a quarter of an hour. 1 cannot control the supporters of the Government. If they extend this debate until 1.30 a.m., I certainly will not put myself in the hands of the supporters of the Government on this matter.

Senator Gorton:

– Let us go ahead for a while and see how the debate goes. In my opinion proposed new section 52a is important. I should like to discuss it by itself, if possible.

Senator McKENNA:

– I hate those words, “ if possible “. I have the opportunity now, and the question is whether I should seize it, or debate the matter in the orderly fashion in which we have debated the earlier part of the bill. I think the Minister will acknowledge that there has been no waste of time by the Opposition.

Senator Gorton:

– Yes. There has been no waste of time by either side.

Senator McKENNA:

– I can speak only for the Opposition.

Senator Gorton:

– Unless we discuss proposed new section 52a in conjuction with proposed new section 45c, the latter by itself should not take very long.

Senator McKENNA:

– I agree. Quite frankly, I do not think that I have anything to say on that proposed new section, except that in the opinion of the Opposition the presence of the words, “ Subject to section fifty-two a of this Act “ vitiates the whole section. I have nothing further to add. Now can the Minister give me an assurance that I can accept? He knows the position.

Senator Gorton:

– As you have nothing to add, this question can be put and the committee can go on to proposed new section 52a.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

. -I have something to say on proposed new section 45c. I will be as brief as possible. I direct attention to sub-section (4.) of that proposed new section, which reads, in part -

In ascertaining the period of qualifying service of a person for the purposes of this Part, the following periods shall be deducted from the period during which he has been continuously registered as a waterside worker under Commonwealth stevedoring legislation within the meaning of this section: - (a)…..

any period after the commencement of this Part during which he was registered at a port not being a continuous port or a seasonal port;

I put this question to the Minister for the Navy: The Australian Stevedoring Industry

Authority has the power to direct workers where and when they shall work. We have argued about that to-day. What is the position if the authority directs a worker to go to work at a port that is not a continuous port or a seasonal port? If he is under directions to go to such a place and work, what is the position in respect of the accumulation? All of the periods referred to in sub-section (4.) are periods that do not break service, but do not count as service for long service leave purposes. A worker can be put into the position that he goes to work at a particular port that is neither a continuous port nor a seasonal port at the direction of the authority and does not have that period counted for long service leave purposes.

Senator Gorton:

– I am told that the answer to that question is, first, that the position does not arise and, secondly, that the man still remains registered at his original port under the act.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I wish to understand the justification for sub-section (2.) (a) of this proposed new section, which provides that service is to be regarded as continuous notwithstanding the fact that a break not exceeding two months has occurred in the continuity of a man’s registration. That is not the same as the continuity of his performance of service. It is a break of two months in his registration, irrespective of the cause of the break. Why should not that break his entitlement to long service leave? It seems to me that a suspension of a man’s registration for a period of two months is a serious matter that should disentitle him from long service leave. If there has been a cancellation of his registration for some reason, it seems to me that his service should not be regarded as continuous for long service leave purposes. I am certain that no such great indulgence is extended to persons entitled to long service leave under State legislation.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– May I add one comment to Senator Wright’s remarks? Would it be correct to assume that if a worker were found to be guilty of quite a serious offence for which his registration was suspended for a period of two months, this proposed new section would apply when his registration was renewed?

Senator Gorton:

– I am informed that if the suspension of registration for two months was a disciplinary measure the authority would not take the man back.

Senator BENN:
Queensland

. I heard the reply given by the Minister for the Navy a moment ago, but it does not satisfy me completely. We are dealing with the English language. I am referring to the words “ irrespective of the cause of that break “. I put this proposition to the Minister: Suppose a waterside worker was granted leave of absence for some reason. First, I should like to know whether it is posible for a waterside worker to be granted leave of absence by any authority.

Senator Gorton:

– Yes, it is possible.

Senator BENN:

– There could be circumstances which would justify an average employer granting an employee leave of absence.

Senator Gorton:

– Well, that is possible.

Senator BENN:

– That answers my question. If he were granted leave of absence for a period, that leave of absence would not count against him.

Proposed new section agreed to.

Proposed new sections 45d to 45n taken together.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I wish to ask the Minister for the Navy a question about proposed new section 45l. Proposed new section 45l reads -

Amounts payable under this Part in respect of long service leave and amounts payable under section forty-five e of this Act shall be paid by the Authority.

I heard nothing in the second-reading speeches in either place to indicate what is likely to be the cost of this particular benefit. I heard nothing to indicate how it will be financed. I heard nothing to indicate whether an increase in the industry charge is contemplated. I heard nothing to indicate what the Government thinks about the commencement date of the charge. Those matters seemed to me to be remarkable omissions on the part of the Government. I cannot understand why the Government did not address its mind to those matters. Is the Minister for the Navy in a position to make a full and considered statement on the question of how this new benefit will be financed? It will be appreciated that that is a most relevant request. When I spoke during the secondreading stage of the bill, I commented on this omission. The Government should give us the fullest possible explanation.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– The matter raised by Senator McKenna is a most important consideration. I note the significance of the fact that the Opposition has not presented any real objection to clause 19 of the bill - the long service leave provision. It was only the other provisions of the bill to which we heard any real opposition. We are now considering the cost of financing this long service leave provision. During the debate on the second reading of the bill, I pointed out that for the year ended 30th June, 1960, the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority cost the country £4,156,067. That sum was financed by a special payroll tax on stevedoring wages. The tax amounted to, I think, 2s. 6d. a man-hour. That is an extraordinarily high special tax, but we do not hear very much about it because it is passed on to the trading community and is not borne by the people who pay it. Senator Cole suggested that the cost of this long service leave proposal will be £500,000. When I asked him whether that assessment was for each year he replied that it was in respect of the first year. I would like the Minister for the Navy (Senator Gorton) to comment specifically on that matter.

I do not accept Senator McKenna’s submission that the Minister’s second-reading speech showed that remarkably little attention has been given to this subject. It is true there is a deplorable omission from the second-reading speech, but I think that was done in the hope that nobody would invite specific information during the passage of this measure as to the cost of providing long service leave for waterside workers. On the information that I have been able to gather from various sources, I hazard the guess that the cost of this long service leave scheme will run at the rate of about £250,000 a year and will be financed by an addition to the special pay-roll tax levied on stevedoring wages. The committee cannot escape the responsibility of satisfying itself completely as to the amount of the increased tax anticipated and the manner in which it is proposed to be raised.

Senator BENN:
Queensland

– Proposed new section 45l reads -

Amounts payable under this Part in respect of long service leave and amounts payable under section forty-five e of this Act shall be paid by the Authority.

Proposed new section 45m reads - (1.) Any question arising under this Part as to -

  1. the entitlement of a person to long service leave;
  2. the period of long service leave to which a person is or was entitled; or
  3. the entitlement of a person to a payment under this Part or the amount of such payment, shall, in the first instance, be determined by the Authority.

I particularly want to know how the authority will calculate long service leave payment due to an employee who has during his years of service performed various classes of work which attracted different rates of pay. Is a standard practice followed? Will the usual decisions of the courts be followed or will the matter be left to the discretion of the authority? What redress is open to a person who is not satisfied with the decision of the authority? He may appeal to a court against the decision of the authority. It could happen that the value of long service leave would be taken up by the cost of his appeal. In my view proposed new sections 45l and 45m are unsatisfactory. One reason why they are unsatisfactory - a very substantial reason - is that words could have been found to prescribe positively how the payment of long service leave would be calculated.

Senator Gorton:

– That is shown in proposed new section 45k.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– The leave will be financed by a levy raised by the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority in the same way as the present levy is raised. It is difficult to be accurate as to what amount will be involved. For one thing, it is difficult to say how many people over 65 years of age will avail themselves of the opportunity to become registered irregular waterside workers. However, the calculations of the department indicate that in the first three years the total cost of the scheme will be about £500,000. It is thought that over a longer period of years alevy of about 2d. a man-hour will meet the requirement.

Proposed new sections agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 20.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This is the clause that mars this bill. The clause provides for a reduction in the qualifying service for long service leave on account of participation in some concerted port stoppage. The stoppage is deemed to be concerted if the number of persons at the port exceeds 250 or one-third of the total number of registered regulars at the port. Where those circumstances exist the authority is authorized to make a declaration in writing that a stoppage occurred at the port on a particular day. The authority is required, if it makes such a declaration, to identify by name the individuals who participated in the concerted action. In sub-section (3.) of proposed section 52a., there is a provision that where the authority makes such a declaration it shall serve a copy of the declaration, or a supplementary declaration as it is called, on the union. There is no mention of a copy of the declaration being served on the individuals who are affected by it, although they are the people who are concerned and who are to be penalized if there is any penalty. Sub-section (2.) provides that the individuals are to be identified in the declaration, although the only obligation, as specified in sub-section (3.), is to serve a copy of the declaration on the union.

The point I make is that while the union is not affected by the declaration, the individuals are. There is no provision which requires the union to notify the individuals. If a person is to be subjected to a penalty, at least he ought to be notified. We do not object to a copy of the declaration going to the union, although we would object to an obligation being cast on the union to notify the individuals. That would be unfair to the union. There should be an obligation on the authority to notify people who are to suffer a penalty.

Sub-section (4.) provides for the imposition of penalties. First, the entitlement, to attendance money is to be suspended on at least four occasions, and in addition, there will be a further penalty. The forfeiture of attendancemoney will occur over quite a long period, in order to pick up the four days. The provision relates to four days in respect of each day of the stoppage. Attendance money is payable at a time when work in the port is slack, when the earnings of the waterside workers are at a low level and when the men can least afford to be penalized. I do not think that the Minister can controvert that proposition. The penalty of loss of attendance money does not apply necessarily to four consecutive days. It may be picked up on the slack days. It might take months, in a busy port, before a man had paid the full penalty.

A waterside worker may also be penalized if the commission, after such inquiry as it thinks fit, determines that there shall be a loss of 30 days of qualifying service for long service leave for each day of the stoppage. I do not want to develop the argument that I put forward during the second-reading debate, but I say again that the penalty imposed in this respect is, at its maximum level, at least three times as savage as was the penalty imposed for the most serious strike that we have had in this country for decades. I refer to the coal strike of 1949. We of the Opposition look on this penalty as an exceedingly vicious one. I should like to know who is to initiate an inquiry by the commission, and how it is to be initiated. It is not provided that notice shall be given to the union. Proposed sub-section (4.) provides -

Subject to sub-sections (6.) and” (7.) of this section, where a declaration under sub-section (1.) of (his section is made and served in accordance with this section -

the qualifying service for long service leave of the waterside workers so identified is, by force of this section, reduced by a number of days (not exceeding thirty) which the commission shall, after such inquiry as it thinks fit, by order, determine.

How does the matter get to the commission? Where in the bill is there a provision which relates to that matter? Where is the provision that the people affected - either the union or the individuals whose entitlement may be reduced - are to be notified?

I proceed to proposed sub-section (7.) which purports to enable a union to prove that a strike was justifiable. It reads -

Where the Authority has made or purported to make a declaration under sub-section (1.) of this section, the Commission may, by order, upon application made by the Union in relation to the port to which the declaration relates before the Commission has made an order under subsection (4.) of this section in relation to thai declaration -

if it is satisfied . . .

About certain things, it may rescind the declaration. I ask: Where is the protection in that provision to prevent the commission from making an order, after such inquiry as it thinks fit, before the union has had an opportunity to apply for the declaration to be rescinded? So far as the bill is concerned, the whole matter may be concluded before the union, or the persons identified in the commission’s declaration, have had an opportunity to move in the matter. That is entirely wrong. The whole matter may be disposed of before the union, or an individual concerned, is in a position to apply under proposed sub-section (7.).

I come to another provision of the bill which I regard as iniquitous. I refer to proposed sub-section (9.) which provides -

Where the Authority makes a declaration under sub-section (1.) of this section-

That is, a declaration that an unauthorized concerted stoppage has occurred - it shall not subsequently, unless the declaration has been rescinded under this section, exercise its powers under section thirty-six of this Act in relation to the waterside workers identified in the declaration or in a supplementary declaration in respect of the acts or omissions that constituted their participation in the port stoppage to which the declaration relates.

Senator Wright:

– Is the honorable senator prepared to put that sub-section separately to the committee?

Senator McKENNA:

– I should be very happy to do so. I thought that it would be necessary only to read that sub-section for the honorable senator to realize the iniquity of it. Despite the fact that a declaration of the authority has been rescinded, the authority may nevertheless penalize the persons identified in the declaration. That may happen after a court or a commission has excused a strike. I have never read in any act a more iniquitous provision. I said at the second-reading stage that this was the most inchoate provision that I had ever read in the Federal Parliament. There are gaps all over it. It is positively execrable that, although the commission has rescinded the authority’s declaration and declared that a strike was excusable, the authority nevertheless may go ahead and suspend or cancel registration, or suspend or cancel entitlement to long service leave. This is the worst provision in the bill, both because of the way it is drafted - because of the gaps in it - and because it is the provision that mars and destroys the advantage of long service leave to waterside workers. It is the provision that has made them throw the bill back in the face of the Government, in the circumstances that I mentioned during the secondreading debate.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– Before the Minister rises, I should like to make some comments. I am afraid that Senator McKenna misinterprets my attitude to sub-section (9.) of proposed section 52a. I shall read it in this way -

Where the Authority makes a declaration under sub-section (1.) of this section, it shall not subsequently . . . exercise its powers under section thirty-six of this Act in relation to the waterside workers identified in the declaration or in a supplementary declaration in respect of the cause or omissions that constituted their participation in the port stoppage to which the declaration refers.

Honorable senators will notice that I have omitted the expression to which Senator McKenna anchors his contention - that is, “ unless declaration has been rescinded under this section “. I am taking the case that the authority has made a declaration that a concerted port stoppage has occurred, and has made a supplementary declaration to the effect that A, B and C have participated in that port stoppage. I am reluctant to think that the Government’s real intention is that a declaration to that effect, addressed solely to the purpose of lengthening the period in respect of which long service leave accrues, should be a pretext for denying to the authority the right to exercise the disciplinary powers under section 36 of the principal act. I will be amazed if there has been a real understanding of this section by the Government.

I believe that the whole purport of sub-section (9.) of proposed section 52a has been misunderstood; otherwise, the Government would never have put it forward. Let me remind honorable senators of a sentence in the second-reading speech of the Minister for Labour and National Service Mr. McMahon) that intrigued me, and to which I referred during the second-reading debate on the measure in this chamber on Tuesday night. The Minister said -

The provision I have mentioned will not apply to the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority’s exercise of these disciplinary powers in relation to all the men involved. 1 think that that was a reference to this sub-section. Was not that so? Senator Gorton remains silent. The position apparently is more complicated than I thought. Evidently, I have made a mis-hit at that one. Forget that I have made any reference to it.

I shall revert to the proposed sub-section. I ask the Minister how it can be justified that, simply because the authority has made a declartaion under this sub-section saying that A, B and C have participated in a concerted port stoppage - a declaration which has the effect of increasing the length of time in respect of which long service leave qualifications accrue - the authority thereby deprives itself of the obligation to discipline those people in respect of that stoppage. It amazes me to think that the bill makes such an inroad into an already weak and riddled piece of legislation and undermines it in this way.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– The points that Senator McKenna made in relation to this clause were as follows: - He said that men named in a supplementary declaration by the authority as men who have taken part in a port stoppage are not individually to be notified that they have been named, and that the union is to be given a list of the names of the men concerned. That is quite true. In fact, the union is treated as a representative of the men and a list of the men’s names is given to the union, not to the individuals concerned.

The honorable senator referred to subsection (4.) of proposed new section 52a, which provides that the entitlement of a waterside worker to attendance money shall be suspended for four days for every day that he is engaged in an unauthorized stoppage, and he pointed out that those four days could extend over a long period, because attendance money is paid only when the man applies at the port or at the pick-up centre for work and work is not available. That is quite true. One of the objects of this bill, besides the granting of long service leave to the waterside workers, is to ensure that the individual waterside worker who takes part in an unauthorized stoppage will himself feel the economic effects of taking part in that unauthorized stoppage, instead of the union paying the amounts involved and the man himself not feeling in his own pocket the result of his own action.

The next point to which Senator McKenna referred was the savagery - I think that was the term he used - of the sanctions which the commission could impose on a man. He said that if a man was engaged in an unauthorized stoppage the commission could say to him, “ For every day on which you were engaged in the unauthorized stoppage you will lose 30 days entitlement to long service leave”. The first comment I want to make is that I think that, almost without exception, State laws dealing with long service leave impose sanctions of this kind. When the Leader of the Opposition was dealing with this point at the secondreading stage, in an endeavour to show how savage - to use his own word - these propositions were, he said that in the 1949 coal strike, after the strikers had been on strike for seven weeks, they were penalized only to .the extent of seven days.

Senator McKenna:

– Seven days of their three months’ long service leave.

Senator GORTON:

– Yes, seven days of their three months’ long service leave. I want to point out to him that, under the coalmining award, a man has to work for approximately eight weeks in order to become entitled to one day’s long service leave. That is his entitlement after working for eight weeks. In fact, the removal of seven days from the three months’ long service leave meant that the coalminers were required to work for 56 extra weeks in order to get the same amount of long service leave that they would otherwise have got. That in fact was ‘the penalty which was imposed in the case of the coal strike to which the honorable senator referred, and on members of unions which struck while the government of which he was a member was in office. This provision leaves to ‘the commission, which in many respects is .a judicial body, ‘the decision as to what penalty shall toe imposed. I believe it is reasonable to leave that decision to the commission.

Senator McKenna and Senator Wright both adverted to proposed section 52a (9.), which reads -

Where the Authority makes a declaration under sub-section (1.) of this section-

That is, a declaration that there is an unauthorized stoppage - it shall not subsequently, unless the declaration has been rescinded under this section, exercise its powers-

That is, it shall not exercise its disciplinary powers. The declaration could be rescinded under this provision, for example, on grounds specified in proposed sub-section (7.) (a). It could be rescinded on the grounds that there were only 249 men on strike instead of 250. If the declaration is rescinded in such circumstances, clearly there is no reason why the authority should not take action under its other powers against the 249 men who went on strike. Great cruelty could not result from this provision, as has been suggested, because the authority could take further action only after the declaration had been rescinded by the commission. Its action then would be subject to appeal to the commission. There would be no possibility of the commission over-ruling its original decision.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– I do not want to prolong the debate, but I should like the Minister to correct me in relation to one or two matters. The first point that occurs to me is that the Stevedoring Industry Authority has a very wide discretion under proposed section 52a (1.) in deciding whether it will make a declaration. I should like the Minister to indicate whether I am wrong in expressing that opinion. This is the key sub-section of this whole provision, because it is from the declaratory section that what follows must proceed. I repeat my suggestion that the authority has a very wide discretion as to whether it will declare in writing that a stoppage has occurred on a particular day at a particular port. I do not think any obligation is cast on the authority to make a declaration with respect to the stoppage.

I should like some clarification on another point. I think I am right in saying that where a stoppage occurs from day to day - in short, where there is a strike for perhaps a week or more - -again there is no obligation to make more th 3 11 one declaration with respect to a stoppage on a particular day. Of course, the authority could make a number of declarations in respect of a number of days; but it need not do so. There again there is a very wide discretion. I should -like the Minister to tell me whether that contention is correct or whether it is necessary for the authority to make a declaration with respect to every day of the stoppage.

I turn now to proposed sub-section “(7.), under which the declaration of the Stevedoring Industry Authority can be upset by the commission if it deems the stoppage to be excusable. I take it that when the Minister used the word “ unauthorized “ lie was referring to this provision which refers, in effect, to an excusable stoppage.

Senator Gorton:

– Eight stop-work meetings aTe authorized.

Senator VINCENT:

– But the Minister has been talking about authorized and unauthorized stoppages. Does he mean excusable and inexcusable stoppages?

Senator Gorton:

– “ Inexcusable “ and “ unauthorized “ would mean the same.

Senator VINCENT:

– There is no definition of “ excusable “ or “ inexcusable “. There has been no industrial case in which any -court has tried to define the term. The provision is so vague as to leave the commission with ‘a wide discretion in deciding what is an excusable stoppage. 1 am not sure whether it was the Leader of the Opposition who referred to this measure as being a fierce bill; at least he used a similar term. I suggest that the penal provisions of this proposed new section are extremely tame; they amount to very little at all.

Senator Dittmer:

– That is not right.

Senator VINCENT:

– Wei 1, there is a discretion here. First, the authority has a discretion as to whether it will make a declaration. It could wink its eye at a stoppage. There is no obligation upon it to make a declaration, nor is an obligation cast upon it to make a declaration if the stoppage continues. That is a rather wide discretion. It gives to the union a pretty fair field in the realm of striking. Even if the authority makes a declaration, its decision can be overruled - almost capriciously I suggest - by the commission’s saying that having regard to the circumstances the strike was excusable. This very light penal provision will probably be rather difficult to invoke.

Senator Wright:

– It is not really a penal provision.

Senator VINCENT:

– I agree that it is not really a penal provision; it is a disciplinary provision. When one thinks of the disciplinary or penal provisions which apply to many other industries in relation to long service leave, one has cause for some surprise and concern. If a member of the Public Service is found to be guilty of gross derelection of duty or of an offence relating to his job which amounts to a criminal act for which he is punishable, not only is he sacked instanter but also he loses all his rights to long service leave and superannuation. He does not only have four days knocked off.

Senator Kennelly:

– Why are you so vicious?

Senator VINCENT:

– The Leader of the Opposition made some reference to a vicious section. Let us relate it to the Public Service, banks or innumerable other industries in which men can not only be sacked but also lose the whole of their superannuation. I agree with Senator Wright’s contention that these disciplinary provisions are extremely light and will be most difficult to invoke.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– I should like to answer (he points raised by Senator Vincent, because I think that they are of importance. I do not think that the situation gives to the authority the discretion that Senator Vincent indicates. Proposed new section 52a reads, in part - (1.) Where-

  1. registered regular waterside workers at a port fail on any day -

    1. to attend or . . .
    2. to comply . . .

I now direct the honorable senator’s attention to the fact that in those circumstances, if the authority has not exercised its powers under section 36 and does not propose to exercise them, it shall issue a declaration.

Senator Vincent:

– -The proposed new section does not say “ shall “.

Senator GORTON:

– It does say “ shall “.

Senator Vincent:

– It says, “ the Authority is authorized to declare . . .”.

Senator GORTON:

– The proposed sub-section provides that where -

  1. (he Authority has not exercised, and does not propose to exercise, its powers under section thirty-six of this Act in relation to all the registered regular waterside workers who have so failed, the Authority is authorized to declare, in writing, that a port stoppage occurred on that day at that port and shall declare accordingly.

That will apply day by day, so the provision does not leave quite the lack of precision which I think the honorable senator fears.

Senator RIDLEY:
South Australia

– When the Minister was replying earlier, he inadvertently used the word “ authorized “ instead of “ unauthorized “. I interjected and I think he realized that he had made that slip of the tongue; I was prepared to let the matter rest at that. When Senator Vincent rose, he altered the expression from “ authorized and unauthorized stoppages “ to “ excusable and inexcusable stoppages ‘. The confusion created by the Minister’s slip of the tongue become worse confounded. I noticed the Minister nodding his head to the change of expression from “ authorized and unauthorized “ to “ excusable and inexcusable “. This took my mind back to the contribution made in these terms by Senator Lillico during the second-reading debate -

But I think that the king-pin stop-work meeting was the one that was held not long ago in Australian ports concerning Fidel Castro. It boils down to this: Because the leaders of the waterside workers sympathized with summary executions, with the abrogation of human liberties and wilh a country of the western hemisphere, which is the great bastion of the free world, becoming an iron curtain country, it is fit and proper to inflict a penalty on the people of Australia by tying up ships for 24 hours.

Then the honorable senator tried to link that up with a statement made in another place by a member of the Opposition. I should like to ask the Minister whether that stoppage referred to by Senator Lillico is in the category of an authorized or unauthorized stoppage, or whether the Minister prefers to use one of the expressions used by Senator Vincent, “ excusable “ or “ inexcusable “. Whichever term he decides upon, the incident mentioned by Senator Lillico just did not take place.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I have no doubt that it is purely by inadvertence that I have not heard anything from the Minister that satisfies my objection to proposed sub-section (9.). I want to point out that if the authority, under this provision, makes a declaration of a general concerted port stoppage, that declaration is made only for the purpose of disentitling the individuals concerned to four day’s attendance money and of lengthening the period of service that constitutes their qualification. It seems to me that the exercise of those powers in relation to long service leave is no justification for dropping the disciplinary powers that should properly be exercised under section 36. Proposed sub-section (9.) provides that where the authority makes a declaration of the sort that 1 have mentioned, in reference to long service leave, it shall not exercise its disciplinary powers under section 36. The solution of my difficulty may lie in the word “ all “ in paragraph (c) of proposed subsection (1.), which provides that the authority is authorized to make this declaration only if it - - has not exercised, and does not propose to exercise, its powers under section thirty-six of this Act in relation to all the registered waterside workers who have so failed.

In an atmosphere in which I hope to be heard, I want to be understood. Is the position that a declaration relating to long service leave may be made although the commission has exercised or proposed to exercise, say in relation to the ten ringleaders, the disciplinary powers under section 36 and it can then go on to make a declaration under proposed section 52a? In those circumstances will proposed subsection (9.) prohibit the exercise of the powers under section 36 against all of the persons who have taken part in the concerted stoppage, or against all, except those that I have called the ten ringleaders? I do want to get through to the Minister. We need a little patience when discussing legislation at this ungodly hour.

It will be remembered that the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon) said in the lower House that certain alterations were made to the bill to meet objections by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I have an intuition that proposed sub-section (9.) is one of them.

I sense an intention to provide an alternative, yielding to some idea of the A.C.T.U. that a man cannot be punished twice. I do not look upon proposed section 52a as providing punishment at all. I look upon is at a prescription of conditions upon which entitlement to long service leave accrues. We are told that this benefit is to be given on condition that if there is a concerted port stoppage the individuals concerned will have four day’s attendance money refused and have the period before long service leave extended by one month or such lesser period as the authority prescribes. To my way of thinking, that does not justify relieving the principal persons concerned of liability to disciplinary action under section 36. I believe that proposed sub-section (9.) really undermines the whole of the disciplinary powers under section 36 in relation to a port stoppage, if any condition accrues from that port stoppage, which disentitles men to attendance money for four days or lengthens the period of qualification by as much as one month. I am very much concerned at the thought that this provision will drive a hole in what was in any case a fairly weak piece of legislation. 1 have spoken for longer on this matter than I have been content to speak on other aspects of the legislation in this committee stage. When I started, an air of irritability was evident in the atmosphere. We have got over that and have become quiescent. However, I do want the Minister to understand my concern at the degree to which this legislation is being undermined, on my interpretation of the matter, by this proposed new sub-section (9.).

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– Listening to the two legal senators on the opposite side and their complaints about the weakness of the penal provisions of this legislation, one wonders whether they have a pecuniary interest in the matter, and whether the penalties to be applied to the workers will result in bigger fees for the lawyers. I suspect that the two honorable senators may have such a consideration in mind.

Throughout the whole of this debate the Opposition has complained about the restrictions of freedom that are being impposed upon registered waterside workers. Now, in the final clause of the bill, we find a further restriction. We find- that if there is a five-day strike in a particular port it can cost the waterside workers involved six months accumulated service for the purpose of calculation of long service leave credits. This is a further penalty, in addition to all the other penalties contained in the bill, in addition to all other penalties contained in the principal act, in addition to all the penalties provided by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and in addition to all the penalties that can be imposed under the industrial sections of the Crimes Act.

We on this side of the chamber regard long service leave as a right. We regard it in its proper perspective. The worker receives thirteen weeks leave for twenty-years’ service to a particular industry. We believe there should be no penal conditions attached to long service leave. For this reason we must oppose the final penal provisions that are provided in clause 20 of the bill.

I have mentioned four of the measures dealing with industrial matters in which penal provisions are included. A short time ago we were dealing with another portion ot the measure under which conditions set out in any act that has been passed in Australia can be made to apply to the grant of this long service leave. When we consider the whole question, is it any wonder that the Waterside Workers Federation has said, “ We do not want the legislation; we will be better off without it “? I believe that in saying this the federation is quite correct. Workers do not want to be given something which can then be immediately taken away from them, and that could be the effect of this legislation. The Government says, “ We will grant you long service leave, despite the fact that you do not want it, but as you accumulate service for long service leave purposes we will gradually take that accumulated service from you.” It could be that only those who are over 70 years of age at the present time and have an entitlement to long service leave will receive the benefits provided by the legislation. Having in mind all the penalties that are provided in this and other legislations, it could be that waterside workers admitted to the register will be dead and gone before they have 20 years’ accumulated service for long service leave purposes. That is what can happen when the Government inserts provisions of this nature in its legislation.

I think the Government- is simply looking, for trouble. In fact, I think it is encouraging trouble, because I notice that the- bill will become law only when it receives the royal assent. I do not know, and I doubt that any one else On this side of the chamber knows, when it will receive the royal assent. I1 suspect it will receive if at a time that is suitable to the Government for election purposes- -when the Government can use the penal provisions and the dissatisfaction that will be created by this legislation to assist it with its election campaign.

I believe the legislation in its present form’ to be mischievous, and that it cannot contribute towards the smooth running of our ports. The Government does itself less than justice in bringing down legislation of this kind.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– I shall just answer a question raised by Senator Wright, i think he was correct when he said that possibly the word “ all “ in: paragraph (c) of Subjection (1.) of proposed new section 52a may be the answer to the fears that he entertained. It is quite clear that if the authority does exercise its powers under section 36 in’ relation to all the registered waterside workers, then it cannot make a declaration. On the other hand, it could make a declaration if it exercised its powers under section 36 against some of the ringleaders. That, I think, is the answer to the point raised by Senator Wright.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I want to reply to two points made earlier by the Minister for the Navy (Senator Gorton). He referred to the 1949 coal strike and the penalties imposed by the Coal Industry Tribunal On the miners who engaged in that strike. The Minister said that the miners had been penalized to the extent of losing 56 weeks of qualifying service. I have not checked or verified the figures, and I do not contradict them. However, accepting them, let me just show what could have happened if the provisions of this legisation had applied. The strikers could have lost 30 days qualifying service for each of the 49 days of the strike, which would have meant a loss of 1,470 days, or four years.

Senator Gorton:

– That could have happened under the legislation in force at the time of the Goal strike.

Senator McKENNA:

– But the point is that it did not happen. Let me point out also that the penalty was riot imposed after an open court hearing. It was imposed in association with the granting of the award. Simultaneously” with the granting of the award, the penalties were imposed on those associated with the coal strike that had recently been settled, immediately after the strike had concluded and after all the disruption and upset were over. In those conditions the penalty amounted to a loss of one year of qualifying service, but under this bill the maximum penalty could involve a los of 210 weeks or four years. Therefore the possible penalty under this legislation is four times as heavy as the penalty in fact imposed after the coal strike.

Let me refer again to this proposed new sub-section (9.). From what the Minister said it appears that the intention is that the authority shall be free to go ahead and impose penalties under section 36, provided the rescission of the declaration by the commission was due to the fact that the making of the declaration by the authority was not authorized by the section. That is the provision in paragraph (a) (i) of subsection (7.) of proposed new section 52a. 1 put it to the Minister that if that is the intention, then sub-section (9.), after the word “ subsequently “, should read - unless the declaration had been rescinded under sub-section (7.), paragraph (a) (i) of this section.

Then the authority would be free, after recision of the declaration upon the one limited ground that it was not authorized by the section, to proceed with other penalties. But the whole thing now is left wide open and, in the view that I put for the Opposition, it may well be, having regard to the way in which the provision is phrased, that the commission having excused the strike, the authority is still free to go ahead and impose penalties that are permissable under section 36. I say that is outrageous.

Senator Gorton:

– I understand that you want this part of the sub-section to read “ unless the declaration has been rescinded under this section according to sub-section C7.) (a) (i) “?

Senator McKENNA:

– That is so.

Senator Gorton:

– That means the authority could go ahead and take action if it was under sub-section (7.) (a) (ii).

Senator McKENNA:

– It is quite obvious that if the declaration was not authorized by the section the strike is not really excused. It is struck out on that ground only. It is the second element - that the strike may be excusable - to which sub-section (9.) refers. A declaration may be rescinded because of a technical fault in the declaration itself, or on the ground that the port stoppage was, having regard to all the circumstances, excusable. Supposing, under subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a), the commission were to say that the strike or stoppage was excusable, although 250 waterside workers, or one third of the number registered at the port, had been involved. In the terms of sub-section (9.), despite the fact of the commission having rescinded the declaration on the ground that the strike was excusable, the authority could still impose penalties under section 36.

Senator Gorton:

– And there could be an appeal to the commission against those penalties.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, but why should there be such a gap? Why should the legislation contain such a stupid and unfair provision? If the interpretation contended for by the Minister is correct, why was it not written into the Bill that the power given to the authority to go back and impose penalties arose only in a case where the making of the declaration was not authorized by the section?

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I wish to speak for only two minutes. I am obliged to the Minister for what he said about proposed new sub-section (l.)(c). I wish to follow on from that. It is now our common understanding that where there has been a concerted port stoppage by not less than 250 men, or one-third of the quota for the port, and the authority has not exercised and does not propose to exercise its powers under section 36 in relation to ali of the registered waterside workers, it may make a declaration which will affect long service leave.

In order to simplify the matter I shall cite an example. Take a case where 300 men are involved and the authority has either exercised, or proposes to exercise, its disciplinary powers under section 36 in relation to ten of them. It then goes on to make a declaration. Sub-section (9.) provides that where the authority makes that declaration it shall not subsequently, unless the declaration is rescinded, exercise its powers under section 36 in relation to the waterside workers identified. That is the whole 300. The exercise of disciplinary powers in relation to ten men leaves it open to the authority to make a declaration affecting long service leave, but then subsection (9.) frustrates the implementation of section 36, certainly as to the remaining 290 men and probably as to the whole 300.

I mention this only because I think that that provision - written in as an afterthought, the Government having yielded to the persuasion that I mentioned before - results in a complete undermining of the already weak disciplinary power that existed under section 36.

Senator Gorton:

– Would you mind expanding that argument a little? Why would the action against the 290 or 300 be frustrated?

Senator WRIGHT:

– By exercising power under section 36 against 10 men, the authority is authorized to go on and make a declaration under sub-section (1.). Sub-section (9.) provides that where the authority makes that declaration, it shall not subsequently exercise any disciplinary power against any of the waterside workers identified in the declaration. The declaration identifies all the workers who participated in the stoppage, not merely then ten against whom the authority has formed the intention to exercise disciplinary power under section 36.

Senator Gorton:

– I do not think that is so.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I am advancing this argument in order to make the position clear: If the Minister accepts the responsibility of saying that he clearly understands these provisions, and is satisfied that the inroad that I fear is not there, I am prepared for the moment to rest content. However, I think it would be a sad reflection upon this measure if it turns out subsequently that, as a result of an after-thought which has weakened the safeguards of long service leave conditions, we have eroded seriously the disciplinary powers given under section 36.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– I do not think that Senator Wright’s interpretation is correct. Let me take the example that the honorable senator quoted. Suppose 300 men go on strike and that action under section 36 is taken by the authority against ten of them. The authority then makes a declaration relating to the other 290 men who were concerned. Having made that declaration, the consequences of the declaration, as set out in other parts of the bill, flow in regard to those 290 men. The authority could not, having made a declaration in regard to the 290 men, subsequently use section 36 against them as well. It could use section 36 against the ten ringleaders and then make a declaration about the other 210, but, having made the declaration, it could not subsequently take action under section 36 against those 270 men.

Senator MATTNER:
South Australia

– I should like to ask the Minister one question. I refer to page 24 of the bill, lines five and six. Sub-section (1.) of proposed section 52a states that the authority is authorized to declare, in writing, that a port stoppage occurred on a certain day at a certain port and shall declare accordingly. Am I right in understanding that the authority may declare that the stoppage occurred, or is it bound to declare it?

Senator Gorton:

– It has to make the declaration.

Senator MATTNER:

– The important words are, “ and shall declare accordingly “. The Minister may be satisfied, but I am not. I think the authority has an option as to whether it will declare.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP

– The official information I have is that it is mandatory for the authority to declare. The wording of the clause makes this mandatory. It says that where a registered waterside worker at a port fails on any day to report for work and the authority has not exercised and does not propose to exercise its powers under section 36, the authority is not only authorized to declare in writing that a port stoppage occurred on that day, but shall declare accordingly. I am told it is mandatory.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 21 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1150

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1961

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16th May (vide page 1021), on motion by Senator Gorton -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This bill is ancillary to the measure we have just discussed. Its main proposition is to remove one punitive section and to replace it in different form in the Stevedoring Industry Act. We do not particularly oppose it We regard the bill as a purely machinery measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 1150

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL 1961

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1085).

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– This bill is being taken out of the original order, and I wonder what the reason for the change is. The way the Government is hammering these bills through is suggestive of political thuggery. I am sorry to say that; but that is how I feel about the Government’s attitude.

This is a comparatively simple bill. It simply arranges for a licence fee to be charged when a television set is hired. It is amazing how the Government can find a way to facilitate the passage of measures which assist business people or business firms. The bill provides that a proportion of the licence fee will be paid when a set is hired for a part of the year. There is nothing unreasonable or unfair about that. However, it is amazing how quickly the Government can find means to assist businesses. Although we propose to agree to the measure as submitted by the Minister, we will move an amendment at the appropriate time. I take it that Senator Wade has received a copy of our proposed amendment.

Senator Wade:

– No, I have not seen it.

SenatorDITTMER. - Then we will provide you with a copy of it. We do not disagree with the basic approach of the bill as submitted by the Minister, but we will seek the permission of the Senate to move an amendment in relation to some new matter.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– It is true, as Senator Dittmer said, said, that the Opposition does not oppose the bill. As it is now the desire of the Government to place the PostmasterGeneral’s Department on a business footing, I have often wondered why it is not possible for every person who sells a television set to notify the department of the sale and of the name of the person to whom the set is sold, so that the purchaser can be contacted by letter and the licence fee collected. I believe that this would save the Post Office a considerable amount of money and would obviate the need to employ snoopers who are operating in practically all the suburbs of my city. I do not condone the actions of those who do not obtain a licence, but I am certain that a simple and more efficient method than the present method could be found to obtain for the Post Office the payment of more licence fees than are paid at present.

This is a matter that ought to be considered while we are dealing with the subject of licences. The method I have suggested would be of assistance in more than one direction. In my opinion, it would be more efficient. While it is true that it is not a matter that can be altered under this bill, I hope that the Minister for Air (Senator Wade) will speak to the PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Davidson) about the suggestion that has been made with the object of running this big undertaking in a much more business-like way than it has been run up to the present, particularly in relation to television licences and also broadcasting licences.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– I move -

That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole on the Bill to consider an amendment to Section one hundred of the Principal Act in the following terms: - “ Leave out sub-section (6.), insert - (6.) A licensee shall not broadcast or televise an advertisement relating to -

a substance or appliance for which a therapeutic use is claimed, or

a substance, appliance, method or technique for which cosmetic and/or physiological advantages are claimed, unless the text of the proposed advertisement has been approved by the Director-General of Health, or, on appeal to the Minister under this section, by the Minister.’.”.

The Opposition bases this motion on the claims of the National Health and Medical Research Council which is composed of men who realize their responsibility, understand the therapeutic and other advantages of certain products, and are associated with research. For that reason we desire that this amendment to section 100 of the principal act should be included in the bill. I am certain that on reflection, which at this hour is probably a little difficult for many people, the Minister for Air (Senator Wade) will realize that it is desirable to include this amendment in the bill.

The National Health and Medical Research Council favours increased Commonwealth control of radio and television advertisements for medicines and medical preparations. In the principal act an indefinite term “ medicine “ is used. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Bill 1961, which I understand has been passed by another place, contains the indefinite term “ therapeutic purpose “. The council has expressed a desire for a more definite term in the principal act. A recommendation for increased Commonwealth control of advertisements was adopted at the council’s latest meeting held in Canberra. One of the council’s functions is to advice Federal and State Governments on public health legislation and administration, health, medical and dental care and medical research.

The Government does not always accept the advice that is tendered to it by the council. The Government is an executive body which has a responsibility to the public. The council recommended that the federal Broadcasting and Television Act be amended to clarify the Commonwealth’s authority to control medical advertisements on radio and television. It is unfortunate that the Minister was not advised about this so that he could have made a better job of this bill, although that was not the purpose in introducing this amendment.

The council recommended that for “ medicine “ - to which I referred as an indefinite term - the words “a substance or appliance for which a therapeutic use is claimed “ should be substituted, lt also recommended that the words “ a substance, appliance, method or technique for which cosmetic, physiological or anatomical advantages are claimed “ should be incorporated in the act. “ Therapeutic use “ is for the purpose of preventing, diagnosing, curing or alleviating a disease, ailment, defect or injury, or influencing, inhibiting or modifying a physiological process. Those are not my words. They are the words of the top medical research body in Australia for which the Government accepts responsibility in some measure by financing it. Yet the Government is not prepared to accept the council’s advice. Does that not seem tragic when one thinks of how extraordinarily useful is the humanitarian purpose that this body serves, and also when one thinks of the extraordinary lengths to which its members will go in devoting themselves to the welfare of the men, women and children of this country?

There is a great waste of money on the purchase of patent medicines with no real therapeutic value. Yet the Government does nothing about the matter. Let me cite one example, namely a product known as “ Bidomak “ which was on the market some years ago. South Australians will recall it because it was prepared in Adelaide. It retailed at 2s. 9d. a bottle. Its price was apportioned in this way: The advertising cost was ls. 3d.; the bottle and the contents cost 5d.; and the rest was profit. When the product ceased to be advertised because the sales had grown so large, it was not sold and it just went off the market.

Only recently in the United States of America a Congessional inquiry has been held into the sale of drugs. If honorable senators care to read the story they will find out the influence of the advertisers of patent medicines. Very often they dictate the policies of newspapers because of the very magnitude of their advertising expenses. Yet the Government is not prepared to do anything on the advice of experts.

On this occasion, however late the hour, I hope that the Government will accept this instruction to the committee. I have always had a high regard for the Minister. He is a tolerant man. He is interested in people and in the welfare of his country. I believe that he is big enough to realize that there is a deficiency in the principal act. I hope that he will accept this resolution. If he does so, he will be a much greater man than he has appeared to the people outside to be in the past. Those of us who know him know that he has qualities-

Senator Henty:

– Get on with the medicine.

Senator DITTMER:

– I am speaking the truth as I see it. That is my way of fashioning a story for history. I believe that the , Government has a responsibility in this matter. When we look at our television programmes, what do we see now?

Senator Paltridge:

– Last Saturday or Sunday we saw Arthur Calwell.

Senator DITTMER:

– He did an excellent job, too. That programme was much better than the one the previous week. If you saw me on television, you would know that I was excellent, too!

What do we see on television? We see advertisements for Ford pills, something else for your nose, and something else for your indigestion. Does not the Government consider that it has a responsibility in relation to this problem? Does it not realize that it is spending £26,000,000 a year under its pharmaceutical benefits formulae. It should face up to its responsibility in relation to the amount of money that people are spending on patent medicines which are claimed to effect cures that are completely divorced from reality. Do not take my word for that. Ask the National Health and Medical Research Council, the (Commonwealth Director-General of Health, or any other authority. An inquiry directed to any reputable authority will show that there is a tremendous fortune wasted on these things.

As most senators realize, I am not one who usually pleads, but it is not too late, and I now plead sincerely with the Minister and with the Senate to accept my suggestion. There is nothing wrong with it. It is completely realistic and factual. It is in the interests of the people and will cost the Government nothing. I think that, apart from the point of view of political responsibility, some members of the Government are realistic, although that is not obvious from the way the Government keeps us here discussing bills at this hour of the night. I ask the Minister to discuss my suggestion with his Cabinet colleagues here and I commend the suggestion to the Senate and hope it will be approved.

Senator SPOONER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– The bill before the Senate is of some importance, having regard to ; the financial considerations that are involved in it and the convenience it gives to people who rent television sets. The amendment which Senator Dittmer seeks to have referred to the committee relates to an entirely different matter. I have made inquiries and I cannot ascertain whether it has come before the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) for his consideration. I do not know whether it has come before him and been considered, and I cannot find out what his views on it are. This House has authority of its own, but this is the Postmaster-General’s bill and it is an important measure. Although I do not know what his views upon the amendment are I know from experience that once we start to amend a bill in one direction we generally find that there are consequential amendments needed in another direction. I am not prepared to assume the responsibility of facilitating this amendment going to the committee for consideration. J am prepared to say to Senator Dittmer, however, that I will ensure that it does go to the Postmaster-General and that he will consider it and let Senator Dittmer know personally whether or not he has already considered it, and what his view about it is. It is against that background that I say the Government is not prepared to support the motion.

Question resolved in the negative.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– Certain suggestions have been made, and if the Minister for Air (Senator Wade) does not know enough about the bill to enable him to deal with them he ought to be courteous enough to say so. I am aware of the hour, and it will be alot later before we are finished. I think the way in which the fees for television licences are at present collected is stupid. There should be some obligation on the people who sell television sets to advise the Government, through the department, of all the people to whom they sell television sets. The PostmasterGeneral’s Department could then collect the fees and save a tremendous amount of uneconomic work for a number of men.

Senator Wright:

– It is more economical to collect the names from the seller of the sets, is it not?

Senator KENNELLY:

– Yes, as long as he advises the Postmaster-General’s Department. At present when a person buys a television set the department relies on the individual concerned to take out a licence for it, and the vast majority of people do so. Television licences are checked by people sent by the department from house to house to inquire, when they see a new television antenna up, whether the set is licensed. If the intention is to place the Postmaster-General’s Department on a business basis I am agreeable, but do not do this only, however welcome it may seem as compared with the old method. I give the Minister the credit by saying that I do not think he failed intentionally to answer the points raised, but at least when a question is asked I think he should try to answer it.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– I would like Senator Kennelly to know that there was no discourtesy intended on my part. I listened to his second-reading speech, and I thought that any points he wanted to raise would be raised during the committee stage. For that reason I had no desire to repeat myself and labour the point, and I am therefore prepared to stay here as long as he would like and give him all the information I can on this bill. The honorable senator had a good deal to say about the collecting of licence fees for television sets. He advocated that those who sold television sets should lodge a return with the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. I can tell the honorable senator that that has been the policy for a long time. A return has been mandatory showing the names of purchasers and the dates of the sales. This measure deals with a different type of transaction altogether. It is designed to facilitate departmental supervision of the issuing of and payment for licences. It will have some real value to those who are hiring out sets on a big scale. It also will protect the user himself who, when he has a television set on hire, must have an identification mark on it to show that it has been registered. The money that Senator Kennelly referred to goes into Consolidated Revenue and a vote is passed every year by the Parliament for broadcasting purposes.

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– The Minister for Air (Senator Wade) referred to a new form of sale. He subsequently corrected himself. The bill provides for hirings. Why does the Government find it so easy to bring down measures designed to facilitate the operations of business undertakings? I do not quarrel with the justice of this bill. The Government is not seeking to collect from these business undertakings revenue in excess of the annual licence fee.

Senator Wade:

– That is so.

Senator DITTMER:

– Why does the Government find it so easy to introduce measures designed to facilitate the operations of business firms but does not find it so easy to introduce measures designed to benefit employees? The bill provides for two forms of indentification of hired sets. One form of identification is to affix to a set a label approved by the Postmaster-General’s Department. But how does the Government propose to identify television sets that are not out on hire for a lengthy period?

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– I was pleased to hear the Minister for Air (Senator Wade) say that retailers are obliged to advise the PostmasterGeneral’s Department of the television sets that they sell. But what does the department do with that information? Not very long ago the Melbourne newspapers carried reports of people being fined for having unlicensed television sets. Does the department burn the returns submitted by the retailers? What does the department do if it is advised that Joe Smith of a certain Melbourne suburb has purchased a television set for which, four or five months later, he has not obtained a licence? It seems to me that the department is wasting a great amount of money and many man hours by sending its inspectors around knocking on doors to see who has licences. A departmental inspector even called at my home to see whether I had a licence.

Senator Henty:

– Did you have one?

Senator KENNELLY:

– Yes. Like Senator Henty, I obey the law. I am amazed to think that the department obtains this information from the retailers and then does nothing about it other than to send out inspectors. God knows how many inspectors the department has. I would like to know how much they are paid.

Senator Dittmer:

– And how many unlicensed sets they discover.

Senator KENNELLY:

– They discover quite a number. I cannot understand what the department does with this information. I would have thought that if a retailer advised the department that Joe Smith of a certain address had purchased a television set, the first thing the department would do would be to send Joe Smith a letter saying that the department had been advised that he had purchased a television set on a certain date and pointing out that Joe Smith was obliged to pay a licence fee of £5. The department does not send out inspectors to ascertain whether subscribers have paid their telephone accounts. The department simply sends you a bill and you pay. If you do not pay, the department disconnects your telephone. I have no quarrel with that. This is a most remarkable department. I could talk about it for a long time.

On one occasion 1 wanted a telephone shifted about 20 yards in a certain part of Melbourne. I asked my secretary to go to the department to see how long the transfer would take. I was told by a departmental workman that if I had not made representations in Canberra the transfer would have been effected two or three weeks earlier than it finally was effected. I am not repeating something that was told to somebody else. I was told that personally. On another occasion I wanted to transfer a telephone a distance of about 50 yards but I was told that no cable was available. When the foreman came to the premises he told me that it would not take more than a moment to install the telephone because the cable was already there. Why should 1 blame the Minister for the stupidity of small people who, due to circumstances, are placed in positions that are too big for them to handle? If the Minister wants the names of the persons concerned I will give them to him. A man gets sick of this. Apparently I am supposed to sit at home, ring up someone in town and be told a pack of lies. When 1 sent someone to see how long this work would take, I was told that if I had not made representations in Canberra it would have been done two or three weeks earlier.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– Senator Dittmer made some play on the allegation that the Government facilitated measures for business firms. He implied - indeed I think he went so far as to say it - that we had scant consideration for other than business firms. That allegation cannot be substantiated in any way. This legislation provides for two methods of paying license fees. The hirer can. if he so desires, elect to pay the full twelve months’ fee or he can pay it on a monthly basis. The honorable senator suggested that this legislation was designed for the big businessman. The legislation makes exactly the same provision for the man who hires out half a dozen sets as for the man who hires out 500 sets. As a realist, the honorable senator will know that the man who hires out a set will take very good care to have his own hiring charges secured, and the man who actually uses the set will, of necessity, be asked to pay more because of the fact that the man who owns the set is obliged to pay a twelve months’ licence fee in advance. For that reason, some consideration must be shown ultimately to the man who uses the set.

Senator Kennelly wanted to know what happened to the returns that were lodged by the firms which sell the sets. He wanted to know whether they were burned or put in pigeon-holes. Surely Senator Kennelly is not so naive as not to know that television licenses, motor car licenses and all other annual licenses expire. A return covers a set for twelve months. Is the department going to say, “ You have paid your licence fee for twelve months and we have no further interest in you “? Of course not. The department’s policy is to have its men make spot checks here and there all over the country. People who have a television set know that the onus is on them to renew the licence on the due date. Surely the honorable senator does not expect to impress the Senate when he suggests that the returns are burnt or destroyed, or that they remain unused. I will not talk about the honorable senator’s telephone allegation.

Senator Kennelly:

– It is true.

Senator WADE:

– If the honorable senator cares to nominate the case that he has in mind, I can assure him that the PostmasterGeneral will be only too pleased to follow it up and see that some restitution is made.

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– I want to repeat the question which I have already asked the Minister concerning the two bases for licensing sets. A licence may be obtained for each set, and there is also a collective system. I ask the Minister how he proposes to identify sets covered by the collective system. I take it that something in the nature of a label will be attached to individual sets, but how is it proposed to identify the sets in the other category?

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– It is the intention of the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) to have these sets permanently embossed with date markings to indicate the period of the licences.

Senator Dittmer:

– What system do you propose to institute to ensure that a licence fee is paid for all the sets covered by a collective licence?

Senator WADE:

– The proposal of the department is that an audited statement shall be lodged with the department monthly. From that statement, the department will be in a position to check the number of sets on hire.

Senator Dittmer:

– I am not interested in the department, but in the people who hire the sets. The department will be honest. 1 want to know about the firms who hire out the sets.

Senator WADE:

– If the firms who hire them out default in their licence fees-

Senator Dittmer:

– I am asking how the department will know that it is collecting the correct amount of licence fees for the number of sets on hire under the collective system.

Senator WADE:

– The firms will be obliged to lodge an audited statement of all their hirings.

Senator Dittmer:

– How will you check on that?

Senator WADE:

– The department, having that return, will be in a position at any time, by spot checking or other investigations, to ascertain whether the number of sets on hire has been correctly stated.

Senator Dittmer:

– The department will have authority to move in on the firms?

Senator WADE:

– That is so. As the honorable senator knows, adequate penalties are provided in the act to deter any potential offenders from committing breaches of the act.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– In clause 9 of the bill, the term “ hire “ does not include hire under a hire-purchase agreement. Could the Minister say whether the new system of lend-leasing, under which television sets can be leased for a period of years, would be considered as a hire-purchase arrangement and therefore excluded?

Senator Wade:

– The bill will apply to the situation to which Senator O’Byrne has referred.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1156

CELLULOSE ACETATE FLAKE BOUNTY BILL 1961

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1083).

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– The purpose of this bill is to amend the Cellulose Acetate Flake Bounty Act, under which a bounty of lOd. per lb. is paid on cellulose acetate flake produced in Australia and sold for use in the manufacture of rayon yarn, which in turn is used in motor tyres and other manufactured articles. The Government has been awaiting a report from the Tariff Board which, apparently, has been delayed owing to pressure of work. The bill proposes to enable the operation of the bounty to be extended by proclamation to a date not later than 31st December next and also, if necessary, to enable the Government to terminate the bounty before that date if it feels disposed to do so after reading the report of the Tariff Board.

The Opposition does not oppose the measure, Mr. President. I understand that the purpose of the bounty is to keep the price of the raw material to such a level that the price of the finished product will not be exorbitant. I have only one comment to make, and that is that the bounty is not being paid to small people. I understand that the only applicant, C.S.R. Chemicals Proprietary Limited, is a subsidiary of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited, which is one of the biggest and strongest industrial concerns in Australia. I also understand that the cellulose acetate flake goes to Courtaulds (Australia) Limited, which makes the finished product. I believe that approximately £500,000 has been paid so far by way of bounty. While the Opposition does not intend to oppose the measure, which has a laudable aim, we nevertheless wonder how the Government would view the suggestion that this industry, which has been helped so much by the Australian people and which is now firmly on its feet - it has been so for some years - should look, not to a bounty, but to the use of some of the excess profits of the companies which are associated with it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 1157

DEFENCE PAY BILL 1961

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1085).

Senator WILLESEE (Western Australia) (3.9 a.m.]. - This is a bill which the Senate has already had before it in another form some time ago. Honorable senators will remember that, approximately twelve months ago, the Regulations and Ordinances Committee presented a report which recommended the disallowance of certain regulations applicable to the three defence services. The regulations were concerned with pay and allowances and involved an amount of approximately £100,000,000, on account of increases over a period of years. The Regulations and Ordinances Committee recommended that the Senate disallow the regulations, first, because the amount was considered to be excessive, and secondly, because there was no authority for the defence services to lean on in justification of continued payment of pay and allowances at the increased rates.

I remember that an honorable senator who spoke during the discussion that ensued at that time instanced the case of a member of the forces querying his pay, or an allowance, and having no authority to rely on other than the word of his superior officer, or something of the kind. I am sure you remember, Mr. President, how critical certain honorable senators opposite, particularly Ministers, were of the report of the committee. There were allegations of disloyalty. Senator Anderson spoke of loyalty, in a speech in which he supported Senator Spooner. The upshot of that discussion was that the Senate accepted the recommendations of the committee. We said at the time that, because of the circumstances, the matter went beyond the scope of regulations and should be covered by an act of Parliament. I am happy to say that the Government has now introduced the relevant legislation.

I do not like delaying the Senate at this hour, but the principle involved in the bill before us is of tremendous importance. It is one which the Government has accepted at long last. I only hope that it will apply that principle in other respects. So far, we have not been able to get it to do so. Maybe I am harsh in my judgment, but it always has seemed to me that the Government has been reluctant to accept recommendations of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. There always seems to be a reluctance to accept the recommendations in the spirit in which they are made. I recall that, some years ago, although circumstances did not come before the Parliament, the committee pointed out certain errors to the Minister concerned. I refer to a regulation which related to the recovery of money lost through defalcations in the armed services. The Minister withdrew the regulation. I think I am correct in saying that that matter has never been corrected by legislative action, although there has been ample opportunity for that to be done.

The situation is not a new one. On a certain occasion, Senator Sir Neil O’sullivan, who was then Attorney-General, of his own initiative introduced a bill to validate regulations which had been made under the Air Force Canteens Act of 1957. On that occasion Senator Sir Neil O’sullivan made it quite plain that he did not excuse either his department or himself, and that he proposed to adopt the correct procedure. That is why we were at a loss to understand the attitude of some honorable senators opposite, particularly that of the Ministers in the Senate, on the last occasion on which a recommendation of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, that certain regulations be disallowed, was discussed in this chamber. I am sure that those honorable senators now see the wisdom of validating by act of parliament payments made to or in respect of members of the defence forces, as is proposed under this bill.

After the previous occasion on which the matter was discussed in this chamber, I wondered whether I had not drawn the long bow at that time, as one is sometimes apt to do in the heat of debate. However, the opinion that I expressed at that time was confirmed when I read a book written by Herbert Morrison, entitled “ Government and Parliament “, which was first published in 1954. I wish to read one or two short passages from that book to underline the importance of this bill which relates to delegated legislation. The heading of the chapter to which I shall refer first is “ An Unfortunate Blunder “. Mr. Morrison does not spare himself. He uses strong language right from the start. He states that at the height of the war, when incendiary bombs began to rain down on London, the central government had to move in and take over the fire fighting services. Although he was a local goverment man, he was opposed to the central government taking over and centralizing services of any kind at all. He states that it was necessary to move quickly because of the imminence of the danger from incendiary bombs, and that his department had to promulgate regulations. He introduced a short bill which allowed the Secretaries of State for the Home Department and for Scotland, by means of regulations, to form a fire defence service. He made provision in the bill for an opportunity to be given for the Parliament to challenge the delegated legislation.

Regulations were made under the act and were rapidly put into effect. Everybody knows with what success. They were remarkably successful during the Battle of Britain when the Germans tried to set London on fire. However, those regulations were never tabled in the House of Commons. The amazing thing was that, as Morrison points out, he failed to notice that they had not been tabled, his department failed to notice the omission and every member of the Parliament failed to notice it. A lot of members of the Parliament would have liked to have noticed that fact, of course. Morrison had finally to bring in a bill to remedy the mistake, and when he did so he humbly apologized to the House of Commons for the blunder which had been made. He said it had been a serious one and he made no excuses. He admitted that what had happened was a terrible thing. I want to emphasize the strong language that he used throughout, Mr. President. He concludes his recital of the incident by stating -

We certainly were ashamed of ourselves.

Another statement that he made about this episode was -

  1. . it was indeed a most serious offence.

Those passages make interesting reading, particularly for members of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. I do not want to quote at this early hour of the morning all that Herbert Morrison wrote. I merely want to have these matters recorded now as another opportunity may not present itself. My purpose in doing this is to emphasize the urgency and extreme importance of what the Government is doing on this occasion. 1 am pleased to see that at last, with good grace, it is doing this. But I hope that the Government is not taking this action lightly. I trust that it is not acting merely in order to escape from the position in which we put it. We did not do what we did with the intention that that should happen. The Regulations and Ordinances Committee considered - and it had the backing of a fairly convincing vote of the Senate - that the procedure now being adopted was the proper procedure. So I am pleased to see that the Government is taking this action.

I want to say one more thing: I should like to make it clear that at no time has there been any suggestion of impropriety or that anybody ought to wait for his pay. At no time has there been any intention to put anybody over a barrel and use the belt on him. We merely said that the Government should not allow the payment of such large sums of money to be validated merely by regulation. Indeed, not very long before these events with which I have been dealing, there had been a recommendation that no payments totalling more than a specified amount should be authorized by regulation. I think that the amount suggested was about £2,000,000.

The Opposition supports the bill, Mr. President, and trusts that it will be the forerunner of more such measures.

Senator MCKELLAR:
New South Wales

– Mr. President, I propose to be very brief. I am very glad indeed to see this bill come forward. As the Senate may recall, I was one of the members of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee who voted for the disallowance of the defence financial regulations. I considered at the time, and have felt since, that the committee’s actions were fully justified and were in the best interests of this Parliament. I remind honorable senators that in a speech which I made in this chamber at the time I said that the question was whether government was to be by regulation or by the parliamentary institutions which we have at our disposal. During the last few days, we have seen an episode which does not reflect credit on this Parliament, and I think that happenings of that kind were some of the things that the members of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee had in mind on the earlier occasion. I am very pleased indeed to see that the Government is now taking the action which we considered at the time should be taken. (Quorum formed.)

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 1159

LIFE INSURANCE BILL 1961

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1087).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Mr. President, the bill now before the Senate will amend the Life Insurance Act. The Senate will recall that some little time ago, the Government announced, as one of the economic measures which it had conjured up in a moment of frenzy in November, 1960, a proposal to compel life insurance companies and superannuation funds to subscribe 30 per cent. of their investable funds to government and semi-government loans. Prior to that announcement, various companies had invested different percentages of their investable funds in these loans, ranging from 37 per cent. to a very low proportion in certain instances. I recall that over a ten-year period a most insignificant portion of a total of some £500,000,000 was invested in Commonwealth loans. The Government, having suffered this situation over quite a number of decades, decided that at long last something should be done about it.

We on this side of the chamber were amazed at coercion of the kind proposed by the Government, which made its decision inhaste and presently repented in haste. It subsequently decided that instead of coercion it would adopt a system of incentives and disincentives, as the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) described it. We had submitted to this chamber two measures designed to give effect to that policy. One provided for certain income tax concessions and for the exemption from tax altogether of certain investment income attributable to superannuation business. That exemption had previously been extended to superannuation funds but had not necessarily applied to life insurance companies in respect of their superannuation activities.

Apart from that, the Government, after havinghad second thoughts, introduced a measure which provided for increases in the deduction allowed under section 115 of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act if life insurance companies observed the 30-20 per cent. ratio, as it has become known, and invested 30 per cent. of their investable funds in government securities, 20 per cent. being in Commonwealth securities. Companies which failed to observe this ratio were to be penalized on a pro rata basis according to the degree to which their investments in these securities fell below the nominated levels of 30 per cent. and 20 per cent. [Quorum formed.]

Senator McKENNA:

– Mr. President-

Senator Scott:

– Sorry to interrupt you!

Senator McKENNA:

– I was very happy to be interrupted in order to get some time to rest. I say to Senator Hannaford when he smiles at Opposition senators -

Senator Hannaford:

– I did not say anything.

Senator Wright:

– It is the right of the Opposition to debate and consider measures.

Senator Hannaford:

– We are not talking about that.

Senator McKENNA:

– I heard an interjection from an honorable senator - at the moment I do not know from whom it came - and I say that there is nothing to be mirthful about when Opposition senators have been working on bills into the small hours of the morning for days, doing very extensive study on them in order to be able to put forward considered views in this place, being forced to remain here till this hour. For whose convenience, for what advantage to the country?

Senator Wright:

– Yes.

Senator McKENNA:

– I have no: hesita-tion in saying that I am not fit to address myself to the bills that are immediately before, us.. I am just not fit to give of my best efforts’. What is the necessity for this haste, this hurry?

Senator Wright:

– Yes.

Senator McKENNA:

– Why could we not,, even at this stage,, get up and come back in the morning - at 9.30, or whatever hour the Government likes? What have we heard from the Government about this measure or any other measure that demands that it go through at the expense of the health of senators and the good work of the Senate? We have not heard a. word about that. I do not hesitate to say that on. this side of the chamber we have men whom Government senators know are very sick, and to whom- any undue strain is a grave danger. I want to place on record, now that I am started on this theme, that I told the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Spooner) that if, owing to the undue strain imposed upon any of the men, some of whom are just out of hospital, anything happened to them, I would hold him and the Government responsible. I will still hold them responsible for what might happen even now.

This is an indecent strain to impose upon anybody. We make what protests we can, but we are at your mercy because you have the numbers. I think that it is absolutely inconsiderate; inhuman, and utterly disruptive of the status of the Senate that it should be asked to continue at this indecent pressure and in this indecent haste. Nobody is competent at this hour of the morning, after days of hard work, to do justice to the measures that are before us. I take this opportunity to record my protest. I put it to the Government, even at this time, that it should consider adjourning and coming back at a reasonably early hour in the morning.

J want to put it on record, if I may advert to this matter for a moment, that there is a major bill coming up - the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Bill 1961 - which the Opposition takes very seriously. The Government may not take it seriously, but the Opposition does. The bill has been passed by the other places in the last few hours and it is coming to us. I will not be able to give to the measure one-fiftieth, of the study that 1 should give to it, and I demand an opportunity to have time for that study in order to be. able to present’ a> considered1 view on the bilk.

What else have we got to do? We shall! have to pass, without proper examination, four bills appropriating £300,000,000. From the viewpoint of the country, it is ai disgrace: - a complete disgrace - that the Government has seen fit to do as it is doing,, quite apart from the humane elements that are involved. I am obliged to the honorablesenator who gave me an excuse to embark on that subject. 1 make a plea to Government senators to- pay regard to the statusof this chamber, to have regard to the need to give proper consideration to measures we are debating and, even though 1 put it last, it is not an unimportant consideration to have regard to the humane aspects of what is being done. If that plea falls on deaf ears, I can do no more than to continue, but we shall endeavour to do what we have to do. Our consideration of money measures will be inadequate - necessarily inadequate - and when all is said and done this is a stifling of democratic procedures. This; is the worst thing, that has been done in the Senate for a very considerable time, having regard to the state of health of many of theOpposition senators.,

Senator Kennelly:

– And some of their own.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, and some of the Government senators. This type of thing is hopeless.

T return to the bill that is before us. I was commenting on the fact that the Government sought to make a frontal attack on insurance companies and superannuation funds and then ran away from it. The Government brought in a method of incentives and disincentives. It is a hopelessly weak, inept and inadequate measure, one which on the face of it makes no contribution to supporting loans floated from the time it was introduced. Insurance companies with surpluses could sell to insurance companies with deficits in order to achievethe ratio laid down by the Government. It makes no real contribution to solvingthe problem of the gap in the loan market and there is no assurance that there will be- £1 subscribed out of current incomes to. the loan market. It is a futile placard and a gesture, which has, no- real meaning, in, other words, I regard it as a: fraud upon the Australian community.. It ignores the fact that if. it did. produce moneys, if it did make any contribution to current loans, it barely touches a corner of the field. If £30,000,000,, which- is the maximum, amountthat could come in as. a result- of the: measures- nothing like, that will come in - were received there, would still leave this year, a gap of £190,000,000- in the loan market. We are presented with the tail end of these futile measures; it is. nothing, more than a political placard.

When the Government envisaged doing something coercive,, its supporters never properly considered the matter. They have run away, from: it. They perpetrated a> fraud’ upon the Australian people in bringing down the two measures, we had before us, which are not going to make the slightest significant contribution to remedying the loan market. We now come to the tail end. of the economic measures in the form of. this bill. The, two measures we. got before were two of the most complicated bills that. T have ever seen passed through this. Parliament. They were filled with, algebraic formulas. I dare say they daunted every member of this Senate in respect of. giving them proper study. What did they do? They cluttered’ up the already, complex income tax legislation with a mass of complicated provisions, and we had to consider them in this place at short notice., It the. members of this Parliament were examined on the subject of those bills I would be surprized1 if 99 per cent, of us scored 1 per cent, of the marks.

Senator Hannaford:

– Hear,, hear! I think that is quite true.

Senator McKENNA:

– I think it is quite: true, too, and-, if it is-, is, not. that: a: dis- grace?

Senator Wright:

– Hear, hear!

Senator McKENNA:

– Is this the way the National Parliament addresses itself to the vast problems - the truly vast problems - of balance-of-payments, Commonwealth and State financial relations and the loan market? These are1 the- fundamental’ things in the Australian economy. But what- do we do as senators? We shy off them. The»

Senate is a- House- of review. Its members are the: representatives of the States. I venture: to say that if honorable senators were examined., on- this subject they would score, at the most, only 5 per cent, of the marks. Yet. we sit. and legislate at. this hour on matters affecting economic measures and their aftermath- £300,000,000 of supply moneys and all the rest of it. It is little wonder that the public tend to regard politicians with contempt because the public has an unerring instinct for finding out what is the truth - whether you are putting on a front or really working and really thinking. I am exceedingly disheartened for the future of this country when I find the Government’s lack, of thought and lack of knowledge from time to time so apparent as to be inescapable even to the notice of the casual observer. Who is doing the thinking? That is what we want to know. It should be the leaders; it should be the Government;1 it should be ourselves. Every person in this Parliament has the responsibility; and we- simply do not address ourselves to it. I. do not blame the people of this country- for having a rather broad contempt for- the Parliament. Their instinct tells; them that- it is* putting om a front, and= that is exactly what it is1. When we behave as we are to-night, not- giving proper consideration! tomeasures’, we do not do honour to our institution, we: do not serve our country, and one feel’s that: oner is a: complete- fraud in the scheme of things’.

There’ are many in the Parliament whoar; prepared’ to work, ifr gwen- the opportunity. There are many who are here because they want to make a contribution totheir country. There are many who could do far better if they were not’ in this- place - T am speaking now about their future and the future of” their families - and to be treated like this at’ the end’ of the session -

Senator Wright:

– By a Liberal Government.

Senator McKENNA:

– By a Liberal Government! I wonder that Government senators stand’ for it. Quite frankly, I am at the stage where I am almost ashamed to bei member of the National Parliament when I see the way in which work is pushed’ through in this place-. It is a terrific pity. It is a bad thing for the country. We loserespect before the- people-. Not only that,. but, what is more important, the democratic institution of Parliament gets into the discard, and when respect for national institutions is lost we are on the way out, we are on the slide.

We want work and effort. But what do we do? We come here for three days a week for many months. The first question that is asked about the place is, “ When do we get up?” Not, “When can we have a committee?” Not, “How much work can we do?”, but “How little can we do?” I am sorry to have to say these things, but they are in my mind and they are better said than restrained. I doubt that they will have any effect. I would hope that they would, and I still hope that the Government might listen to a suggestion that we adjourn in the immediate future and come back at a reasonable hour to-morrow to conclude these matters.

To come back to the bill. What the bill proposes really is to tighten up the machinery that was left loose when the other two income tax measures went through. The various life insurance companies mostly mix up all their business - all their overseas business, their superannuation business, their legal life and other Australian insurances. All that has got to be segregated to allow the complicated income tax laws that we put through to apply. The superannuation funds are treated differently from the life insurance funds. It is essential that there be a real division of the separate funds, an apportionment of assets and liabilities, as well as a segregation of the appropriate revenue and expenditure for each of the funds. If that is not done, there is to be an application of the complicated formulae that appeared in the income tax measures with which we have dealt. Alterations have to be made accordingly to the Life Insurance Act which at the moment forbids an insurance company to establish funds without the consent of the Life Insurance Commissioner. [Quorum formed.]

The Life Insurance Act requires that the consent of the Life Insurance Commissioner be obtained before new funds are set up in relation to the different classes of life insurance business. The bill accordingly enables a life company, if it wishes, to establish a separate statutory fund for either the whole or part of its superannuation business, or its other types of business such as overseas business. One thing that these companies have to do is to get the Life Insurance Commissioner to agree to an apportionment of the assets and liabilities that are relevant to the particular fund that it is proposed to segregate. If they do not do that then, 1 repeat, they have to resort to the complicated processes for apportionment that were devised in the various income tax bills. Again, in order to establish a superannuation fund they must have an actuarial valuation, and they have to keep a separate revenue account with all the appropriate records of expenditure from that fund.

This bill is designed to give effect to the Life Insurance Act and to enable these various things to be done. The company that makes a saving of income tax upon its superannuation benefits is obliged to pass such savings on to the policy holders. (Quorum formed.)

I think I have concluded all that 1 need reasonably say in relation to this measure. We do not oppose it. We think that all that will happen will be that the insurance companies will be put to an enormous amount of difficulty in getting their benefits. We do not think that Government loans will be helped. I repeat to the Minister the question that I asked, and to which I got no adequate answer, when the measures to which this bill is merely a supplement were before us. What does the Government propose to do regarding the other gap of £190,000,000 that exists in the loan market in this country? Are we to keep on allowing the taxpayers of the present time to bear that colossal burden? Is posterity to bear no small proportion of the cost of the enormous public works of the Commonwealth which will endure for the benefit of future generations? Is there no significance about the establishment of the Australian Loan Council and the authority that is given to it? Is all that to go for nothing and is the Government to have the lazy and the burdensome task, so far as taxpayers are concerned, of continuing to pay for the whole of the Commonwealth’s capital works out of revenue? Not only that, but this year another £80,000,000 has been advanced to support the States works programmes!

How long is it to continue? Has the Government despaired? What a futile gesture is this system of incentives and disincentives in the face of that great gap! Obviously it will not make any contribution of substances to closing the gap in the loan funds. I hope that again the Minister will try to address himself to what is one of the fundamental problems in our economy - how to get the loan market functioning again, and so to lift some of the intolerable burden that rests upon the taxpayers in providing finance for capital works.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– The Life Insurance Bill is the second attempt that has been made, if not in this sessional period then within the last twelve months, to amend the Life Insurance Act. This measure, which is of a most complex character, was introduced consequential to the measure that was passed through this chamber with a truncated debate within the last month. There have been two complicated taxation measures, one relating to incentive payments and the other an odious measure directed for a discriminatory purpose at the savings institutions of this country. Those measures also passed through this chamber with a truncated debate.

I have listened to Senator McKenna who this morning has been speaking his own mind unembarrassed by caucus. Those strictures should be either accepted or rejected by Liberal Party members who came into this place to restore to a deliberative assembly this Parliament, which we had criticized under another regime as a Parliament dominated by the executive. We came in waving a banner which indicated that we would restore the Parliament. We then faced the situation in which this chamber - one branch of the Parliament - was made the special subject of attack. The matter was considered by a Constitutional Review Committee and the result is on record. There were some who felt the faint hope that the Senate could be restored to its original purpose, but if it is to be prostituted by inept, purblind and unthinking procedures such as this, there is no hope for the future of this place. But the people will preserve it. That is shown by the way in which they cling to the idea that against a possible arbitrary government they will even preserve the Legislative Council of New South Wales. But to what purpose? That we should sit here like mopokes at ten minutes to four in the morning-

Senator Henty:

– Do not call us mopokes

Senator WRIGHT:

– This is the time when the mopokes start to call. I have been debating the Stevedoring Industry Bill with intensity since 3.30 this afternoon with only the meal intervals breaking the continuity. So far as I am concerned there are two alternatives: One is to pursue this measure in this purblind fashion, and the other is to rise now and to return refreshed at 10.30 a.m. and make some significant speeches on the other bills that are to come before us. If we continue the sitting now, the honorable senators who wish to state their views on life insurance, supply, and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories will be able to do so but to less advantage than if sense were injected into the situation.

Having uttered those seductive words I want to say that I had the privilege of hearing the explanation of this bill for the first time when the Minister read the second-reading speech yesterday afternoon, only twelve hours ago. For me, those twelve hours have been occupied by an intense consideration of a complicated, anomalous and surprising measure in which we seek out for our beneficence the waterside workers of Australia. We have chosen them as a special body among all the workers of Australia to be given long service leave. We have seen the spectacle of Jim Healy - the Opposition’s saviour of unionism in the Waterside Workers Federation - and ‘his myrmidons being appointed with the oil of approval by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in another place. We have had the irony of a Liberal Government saying, “ Jim, you and your henchmen have done Australia such service that we wish to confer long service leave upon you as a reward “.

But enough of that. Having been precluded by that legislation from giving attention to the Life Insurance Bill, we now come to the Life Insurance Bill. I want to make sure that I have digested it so that I shall adhere to accuracy. The Minister has told us that the major provision is that life companies which conform with the investment arrangements laid down will be exempt from certain .taxation. I ask my Liberal colleagues especially to be alert to those significant words: “Life companies which conform to the investment arrangements laid down will be exempt . . .”. Let us ponder that proposition from the point of view of Liberal philosophy.

Senator Kennelly:

– Is that not one of the controls about which we have heard so much?

Senator WRIGHT:

– Let me develop my theme in my own way. I should like to see whether I suck the full juice of melancholy from that phase which puts forward the Government’s proposal as one in which companies which conform to the investment arrangements laid down shall receive special treatment. 1 regret that the speech says only that they shall be dealt with by way of exemption from taxation. I excuse the Minister in this regard because I know sufficient to believe that 99 chances to 100 are that the speech was written for him. J -want ito say that I protest against - the writer of this speech saying that companies (that conform with the investment arrangements laid down -will not be subjected to the ‘taxation penalties applicable to those companies that do /not conform with the investment arrangements laid down. Of course, if life assurance companies do , not .conform with the investment arrangements they will ,b.e subject to a reduction of : their deductions from .taxation. Those who .do not conform in .their investment arrangements with :the .30/ 20 per .cent, ratio will have increased taxation. Those who do conform to that ratio and .improve on it, will .get some exemption from taxation.

A partial statement .of that kind in a second-reading speech engenders want .of confidence. You find -running .through .the speech the ,suggestion that the principal legislation, to -which this bill is .ancillary, was .beneficial and (gave .benefits .to .the .-life >companies .that conformed. The Liberals who fought the campaign .from 1.945 to 1949 will view .with .great apprehension the idea that we use the Life Assurance Act as a means of laying down investment arrangements, conformity .or noncor.formity with which will qualify the companies for tax deductions or tax penalties. Undoutedly the truth is .that the income tax legislation was opposed in this chamber by me alone, unless Senator Wood also opposed it.

Senator Wood:

– I spoke against it.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I had the honour of opposing it alone.

Senator Hannaford:

– Standing alone, you could not even call for a division.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Thank you, Senator Hannaford. I was hoping that that would go on the record. I want Liberal members to reflect on the significance of the fact that the Labour Opposition, which professes to govern the economy when in office ;by controls, including controls .of life assurance, has surprisingly to me, .extended that idea ito employees’ -superannuation funds. I ‘know that superannuation funds include the funds which we, with great zeal, introduced in 195.2 in favour .of self-employed persons. At that time we gave not .the slightest hint that eight years later we would bring in a bill .providing that, .as a condition of taking advantage of these superannuation provisions, the contributors >shall invest in specified securities.

I remind .honorable senators of the significant fact that the Labour Party supported the ‘bill in the other chamber. The ‘Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator McKenna) said he did not oppose it and, as Senator Hannaford has just acknowledged, there .was nobody in .the chamber on whom I could .rely for support if I called -for a division to show whether or not the -members -of the Labour Opposition would vote in support ,of -the .bill. Of course, they .supported it with all four feet. The Leader of .the Opposition stood there on his stamping ground thumping with those hooves and .saying how glad .lis was to .see socialist policy being put into effect by ,his opponents

These measures were imposed, not on institutions which were .ravaging -the economy by taking .excessive profits, but -on the institutions which were the .citadels of confidence. These were the institutions in .which the thrifty section of the community had reposed their .savings. .So prescient were those who controlled .these institutions that they -were .not prepared to let .the policyholders .and superannuants who had entrusted their .contributions to .them -suffer through the incidence of inflation. They saw that the only opportunity they had to offset the winnowings of inflation was to place their investment in the equities of the market. Now they find that discriminatory taxation is imposed on them. Those who conform with the investment arrangements laid down pay less tax, and those who do not conform pay more.

Let me turn now to another provision of the bill. The second-reading speech suggested that the legislation provided concessions and allowances whereas, as I have shown, it is really designed to impose higher taxes upon those companies who choose not to conform with the 30/20 per cent, ratio of investment in Commonwealth stock.

Senator Spooner:

– They take all the benefits and none of the responsibilities.

Senator WRIGHT:

– That is a privilege in a free enterprise economy that is still conceded to the ravaging sections of the community but not to the savings institutions, on whom the Government directs discriminatory taxation. I do not deny that the purpose of the measure was related to the public interest.

Senator Spooner:

– Then why rant about it?

Senator WRIGHT:

– It was conceived, wholly misguidedly, as an effort to achieve the public interest. I do not deny that those who framed the measure did so, as they thought, in the public interest; but so mistakenly and so destructively is it from the point of view of basic Liberal principles . . .

Senator Spooner:

– Your judgment is superior to everybody else’s.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Not at all. I am only putting an individual point of view. Is there anybody in the chamber who denies me that right as the elected representative of the people?

Senator Paltridge:

– No. You must not be criticized; you must not be questioned. Go straight ahead!

Senator WRIGHT:

– No, I am not in a position to force my views upon either of the Ministers who have interjected, but I only hope that with the persevering attitude that perhaps is not improper at five past four in the morning, with daylight in the dawning, and the strength to see it through-

Senator Henty:

– Hamlet, Act III.

Senator Paltridge:

– Go on, clown.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Mr. Deputy President, I ask that the Minister withdraw that objectionable statement.

Senator Paltridge:

– I withdraw with pleasure.

Senator WRIGHT:

– It is a pity that the record could not photograph the exhibition. The first of the principal amendments included in the bill is to enable a life company to establish, if it so wishes, a separate statutory fund for the whole or part of its superannuation business, or its overseas business, or both, subject only to the necessary agreement of the commisisoner as to the apportionment of liabilities and assets between the existing fund and the new fund. As I understand the position, it is this: The life insurance companies for the first time are being given by the income tax legislation the same benefit of exemption from taxation so long as they conform to the investment arrangements now laid down to govern superannuation funds. This bill is to enable such companies, instead of having the intricate problems of apportionment that are involved where there are mixed investments representing life insurance assets and superannuation assets, to constitute a separate statutory fund provided for in the Life Insurance Companies Act for various funds. But it should be noted that the segregation of assets of the superannuation fund so allowed as a separate statutory fund is permitted only subject to the necessary agreement of the commissioner as to the apportionment of liabilities.

When the Labour Government introduced the Life Insurance Companies Act in 1945 there was great apprehension on the part of these institutions, representing the savings of thrifty persons, that Labour would extend its socialist energy to controlling the investments of these funds; and a great sigh of relief on the part of these companies went up when Labour abstained from that idea. But, of course, had Labour remained in office, long before now it would have been laying down investment arrangements for these companies. To show just what the significance of this is from the point of view of impact upon policies that I thought I supported, I ask the chamber to look at proposed new section 40(4.), which provides -

Where -

the old fund contains assets included in a prescribed class of assets . . .

Reading thus far, one would think that that expression had the interpretation that is given to it by the Acts Interpretation Act. That means that the government of the day would take by regulation the power to prescribe classes of assets. But proposed sub-section (6.) provides -

For the purposes of the last two preceding subsections, Commonwealth securities and public securities other than Commonwealth securities are prescribed classes of assets.

Whether that is an exclusive statement for the purposes of those two sections, I do not know. I understand from what is stated there that Commonwealth securities and public securities are prescribed classes of assets. Whether that means to exclude the ordinary application of the Acts Interpretation Act is still, in my mind, an ambiguity. If the situation is, as I fear, that by regulation we are to take the power to prescribe different classes of assets and, according to those classes prescribed by regulation, to make this law applicable or inapplicable, we are setting a most dangerous precedent in that by regulation we can attach particular consequences toa classification of assets made by regulation.

If it stopped there, one’s apprehension would not be nearly so keen. Proposed sub-section (7.) provides -

A company shall, on or within six months after the effective date of establishment of the new fund, furnish to the Commissioner . . .

By which, I understand, is meant the Commissioner of Life Insurance - a statement in accordance with the prescribed form showing -

  1. particulars of the amounts, as at the effective date, of the liabilities in respect of the business of the old fund and of the liabilities in respect of the business of the new fund; and
  2. particulars of the assets transferred from the old fund to the new fund and of the assets remaining in the old fund.

Proposed sub-section (8.) contains a startling provision - “ If it appears to the Commissioner that -

  1. a statement furnished to him under the last preceding sub-section is in any respect unsatisfactory, incomplete, inaccurate or misleading or otherwise fails to comply with the requirements of that sub-section;
  2. the amount of the liabilities in respectof the business of the old fund or the new fund as shown by the statement is insufficient or excessive; or
  3. the value of the assets, or of the assets included in a particular class of assets, of the old fund or the new fund as shown by the statement isinsufficient or excessive, the Commissioner may, after consideringany explanation made by or on behalf of the company, give to the company such directions in writing as he thinks necessary -
  4. for the variation of the statement;
  5. for an increase or decrease in the amount of the liabilities shown in respect of the business of the old fund or the new fund; or
  6. for the transfer of assets from one fund to the other fund, respectively, and, subject to this section, the company shall forthwith comply with any directions so given.

In other words, you put that official into a position in which he has an overriding authority with regard to the constitution of the superannuation fund, and he gives the directive with which the executive of the company is bound to comply. I see great danger in superimposing upon these institutions a precedent such as that, which, if followed in respect of general commerce, would lead to that indirect hybrid control of commerce and trade which we say is an illegitimate form of nationalization. If you pass legislation to give an official supervisory functions involving the power to direct a transfer of assets from one fund to another, and then say that the company shall forthwith comply with the direction so given, it seems to me there is danger in that kind of legislation, and particularly because of the precedent that may be established for socialist governments that may come to power at a later stage.

Senator Willesee:

– I raise a point of order, Mr. President. It is generally understood that the senators in this chamber occupy their appointed places. It is incumbent upon a senator who comes into the chamber, under Standing Order No. 402, to take his place. A glance at other standing orders makes it obvious that every senator is expected to remain in his place. I can find no standing order that allows senators to wander around, or to lie down and go to sleep in the places of other honorable senators, even those who sit on the opposite side. I ask you to rule whether senators should be in their places at all times.

Mr PRESIDENT:

– I know of no Standing Order which says that senators must always be in their places. If a senator came into the chamber, found another senator occupying his place and wished to occupy that place himself, I would immediately take action to see that the senator occupying the place vacated it at once.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I was directing attention to the dangerous implications of provisions that I have, somewhat tediously, I regret, read in order to ensure an accurate understanding by honorable senators, and with the perhaps presumptuous intention of bringing those provisions to the attention of some honorable senators for the first time. Now I direct attention to proposed new subsection (IB.) of section 37, appearing in clause 5 of the bill, which says: -

A company may establish and maintain a separate statutory fund, under an apropriate name, in respect of the whole, or such part as the company determines, of the life insurance business carried on by the company outside Australia.

I can understand a provision referring to a separate statutory fund in respect of the whole of one particular section of business, but I am not quite sure that this legislation will apply to the life insurance company with fairness and equity if it attempts to provided for the establishment of funds under an appropriate name in respect of the whole or such part of a fund as it determines, because I would have thought that the purpose of establishing a statutory fund was to segregate certain assets and liabilities into a particular fund, and that this would involve a responsibility on the part of officers and directors of the company to see that there were assets specifically allocated to that fund, and liabilities incurred in respect of that fund, which were exclusively referable to it. I hope the Minister will correct me in his reply if I am in error, but my recollection is that the liabilities of these life insurance companies can be associated only when they refer to a particular statutory fund against the assets of that statutory fund exclusively; that is to say, my understanding of the Life Insurance Act is that when you create a statutory fund it is a fund that consists of assets to which the liabilities of that fund only have recourse.

So you have a series of funds, each constituted with the idea of having liabilities exclusively limited in respect of it. That idea is difficult to reconcile with the idea inherent in proposed new sub-section (Ib.), in which a part of a fund is now expressed to be a proper component for the constitution of a separate statutory fund.

I direct attention to this aspect of the matter, with no knowledge of the life insurance companies except what I have gained from my own professional business and from my capacity as adviser to the humble borrower. I have had no connexion of any sort with these life insurance companies except as a policy holder, but I do fear, from communications that have been addressed to me by some of these companies concerning the impact of the income tax legislation, that we may do less than justice to these companies if this complicated measure is enacted without some assurance that representatives of the life insuranc companies have had an opportunity to see what is intended in this bill as a direction with regard to their accounts, and without some approval from the Life Offices Association of Australasia. As we know, these companies have formed themselves into an association, and if one of the association’s representatives has had an opportunity of dealing with a matter such as that to which I addressed myself in my most recent remarks, my anxiety would be dispelled. But I do want it to be understood that I think we have a duty to pass legislation of this character not when it comes hot from the baking plates of the lower House, but on the expiration of an appropriate interval thereafter. We have been assured that those who will be affected by the measure have had a real opportunity to give their considered opinion as to whether or not this legislation will apply, with a proper sense of justice and balance, to the arrangement of their business.

It does seem regrettable to me that the second-reading speech of the Minister does not indicate to us whether these institutions have been informed of the way in which a bill like this will affect their arrangements. I think I have said sufficient. I have quoted most sparingly from the provisions of the bill, but that which I have quoted gives a cogent indication that in respect of the segregation of assets and the constitution of these group funds, the life insurance commissioner has power to give directions and insist that those directions shall be complied with.

I should perhaps add that those directions are subject to an appeal to a court. I have not had an opportunity to consult the principal act, but my recollection is that the court is the High Court or a Supreme Court. However, I ask the Senate to consider how awkward is an appeal to a court on a matter of that sort, which involves the whole of the business arrangements of a particular undertaking and seeks a decision whether certain assets or liabilities are to be appropriated to one statutory fund or another. At this point the following quotation comes to my mind: -

And be these juggling fiends no more believ’d,

That palter with us with a double sense;

That keep the word of promise to our ear,

And break it to our hope.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

. -I do not desire to delay the deliberations of the Senate for long. When the major legislation, to which this bill is supplementary, went through the Senate last week, I pointed out that it was a distasteful type of legislation to me because I believed that in effect it was beginning to set down a new road to socialism and was contrary to Liberal-Country Party principles. I reiterate that statement in relation to this legislation. As Government supporters no doubt know, at the time of the introduction of the Government’s economic measures, I opposed virtually all of them. I was not in the chamber when the vote was taken on the measure introduced last week, but when speaking to it I said that I was not prepared to call for a division or vote against it. I spoke against it and repeated what I had said in the latter part of last year.

Because the Opposition was supporting two measures of the trilogy introduced by the Government I felt that the measure on which to take my stand was that which dealt with increased sales tax on motor vehicles, because on that measure I had support in the chamber. I believe in being realistic in these matters. It is no use hitting your head against a wall, or taking a stand when there is no chance of providing a demonstration in this chamber. The Opposition had supported the measures and on this side of the Senate there was not sufficient support for my view.

I wish to express myself in these terms because I have not changed my view about these things. It is most regrettable that the Liberal-Country Party Government deemed it necessary to take these steps. Although I am only one individual against large numbers in the chamber, that never worries me because it is what one thinks individually and sincerely that counts. More force is now gathering in support of some individuals who opposed these measures at the time they were first introduced. A new financial paper, the “ Financial Times “ appeared this week and is on sale in Sydney and other cities in Australia. It contains an article by Sir John Crawford which indicates, I think, that people who occupied very high positions in the Public Service of the Commonwealth were also opposed to the financial measures which were first recommended to this Government by some authorities in the service. I think that the passage of time has indicated that the individual thinking of some members of the community is far more correct than the collective thinking of a large number of people.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– in reply - During the course of the second-reading debate a rather heated exchange occurred between Senator Wright and myself, as a result of which he asked that I withdraw a certain description which I applied to him. I did withdraw. I now take the opportunity, if I may, in addition to withdrawing, to apologize to Senator Wright and the Senate. I express my regret that in the heat of the moment I used an expression to which he took exception. I amsorry.

This is a machinery bill. Normally one would have anticipated that the debate would have been directed to the machinery which it seeks to set up. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) not unnaturally took the opportunity to deal with the policy measures - if I may so describe them - which were introduced a week or two ago. He roundly condemned them - 1 hope his words will be noted - as measures which were weak, inept and inadequate. I told him at the time that the purpose of the legislation was to ensure’ that insurance companies made subscriptions to loans and government securities which, in the circumstances prevailing at the present time, can be regarded as fair and equitable.

In his speech to-night Senator McKenna has made it completely obvious that his philosophy goes much further in this respect. He suggests that the weakness and ineptitude of the measures presumably spring from the fact that the Government has not - to use an expression with which he will be familiar - sacked the rich insurance companies to the extent that he would have preferred.

The honorable senator referred also to the loan market and posed a question, and asked for an answer, which incidentally I gave him last week. He asked about the break-up of the loan market and I told him that in 1958-59, despite difficulties that existed in that year and the years before, the Government came within an ace of achieving the financing of all public works by public loan subscriptions.

Senator McKenna:

– Not Commonwealth works.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– All public works by loan subscriptions. In other words we financed the State public works.

Senator McKenna:

– But not a penny of Commonwealth works.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– They were far and away smaller than the State loan works. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that they were financed from revenue by the government of which he was a member as a matter of policy.

Senator McKenna:

– In one year only, and to the tune of no more than £27,000,000.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– The policy was subscribed to by Mr. Chifley when he was Treasurer of this country and was followed by the government of which you were a member.

Senator McKenna:

– I will read to you what Mr. Chifley said. You did not read a passage.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I wish you would. I think on the last occasion I read to you what he said. One is prompted to ask. When will we hear something from the Australian Labour Party about this matter? Its leader had an opportunity on Saturday night last to- say what would be the financial policy of Labour in the unlikely event of its becoming a government, and he declined to do so. I return the compliment and tell the Leader of the Opposition that when Mr. Calwell was pressed on some particular aspects of financial policy, he gave the most weak, inept and ineffective performance I have ever seen on a television screen.

I come to the comments of Senator Wright. He speaks of Liberal policies and Liberalism almost as if he were the sole proprietor of Liberalism. He asks: How can a Liberal Government do this? If I were inclined to be persuaded by what Senator Wright said on this occasion, or for that matter on any other occasion, and for the moment thought that I had been departing in any way from Liberal principles, I could reinforce myself by looking at the statements of some of the great Liberals of this country who have supported this measure. Sir Philip McBride is no less a Liberal than is Senator Wright. I have had the pleasure of hearing Sir Philip McBride, the Federal President of the Liberal Party, speak in warm terms of commendation of the financial policies being pursued by the Liberal-Country Party Government at the moment.

Senator Wright:

– Let me be clear. Do you mean of this bill?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– Yes, of this bill. I need not go outside this Parliament. Would any one say that the Right Honorable R. G. Menzies lacked Liberalism? Is he any less a Liberal than is Senator Wright? Or is Mr. Harold Holt any less a Liberal than is Senator Wright? Is Mr. McEwen’s approach to politics any less Liberal than is Senator Wright’s approach? The truth is that Senator Wright opposes these measures. He is entitled to do so; he does not like this sort of thing. But when he takes the line that he opposes them because they are anti-Liberal he stands pretty well alone, because the great Liberal thinkers of this country support this measure and the other measures that have been introduced by this Government.

I shall refer particularly to some of the queries raised by Senator Wright. He referred to prescribed funds in proposed new section 40. Sub-section (6.) of this section provides -

For the purposes of the last two preceding sub-sections, Commonwealth securities and public securities other than Commonwealth securi ties are prescribed classes of assets.

This indicates that they are exclusively the assets that may be held. As a point of interest, no power is taken by regulation to widen that provision. On the question of the power of the commissioner to require certain information and to make a determination I point out that provision is made for an appeal to the court. The court referred to is the High Court.

Senator McKenna:

– In what section?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– In sub-section (10.) of proposed new section 40. I am told that the structure of this section follows closely that in the original act.

I am gratified that the Opposition does not oppose the measure, despite the harsh things that the Leader of the Opposition took the opportunity to say about Government policy generally and the Government’s financial measures particularly.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– The first matter I wish to raise in committee is the provision of proposed new sub-section (1b.) of section 37 which is contained in clause 5 and to which I referred in my second-reading speech. I seek from the Minister some statement as to what is the conception of the expression -

A company may establish and maintain a separate statutory fund– [Quorum formed.]

I was inviting the Minister to give me some information as to the conception underlining the provision which says -

A company may establish and maintain a separate statutory fund, under an appropriate name, in respect of such part as the company determines, of the life insurance business carried on by the company outside Australia.

The Minister will notice that I have read the provision omitting the words “ the whole or “. I am puzzled when I seek to grapple with the conception that a statutory fund is to be formed in respect of such part as the company determines of the life insurance business carried on by it outside Australia. I direct the Minister’s attention to the provisions of proposed new subsection (8.), which is contained in clause 3. This sub-section reads -

For the purposes of this Act -

the life insurance business of a company under a policy that is registered by the company in a register kept at a registry in a State or a Territory shall be deemed to be life insurance business carried on by the company in Australia;

That is a conception that I do not quite understand. If I understand that provision aright, it means that the mere registration of a policy in a register kept in a State determines that life insurance business is carried on by the company in Australia. Proposed new sub-section (1b.), which was the subject of my opening remarks, refers to the allocation of business to a statutory fund in respect of the whole, or such part as the company determines, of the life insurance business carried on by the company outside Australia.

My first difficulty is to know whether or not I am correct in thinking that the registration of a policy in a State register determines that that business is life insurance business carried on in Australia. If that is so, what business is carried on outside Australia? Having determined what business is carried on outside Australia within the meaning of the provision, what is the conception that enables a separate statutory fund to be constituted for such part of that business carried on outside Australia as the company determines?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– First, I refer to clause 3, proposed section 4 (8.). Paragraph (a) requires life insurance policies registered in the external Territories to be treated as Australian business for the purposes of the act although the act does not apply to those Territories. That is consistent with the application of the recent amendments of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act to the Australian life insurance business of a company separately from its overseas business.

Senator Wright:

– It contains the words “ in a State or a Territory “. As I understand it, you are referring only to a registry in a Territory.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– That is right. The paragraph reads - the life insurance business of a company under a policy that is registered by the company in a register kept at a registry in a State or a Territory shall be deemed to be life insurance carried on by the company in Australia.

The explanation is that that is consistent with the application of the recent amendments of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act to the Australian life insurance business of a company separately from its overseas business. In other words, a business transaction in a Territory now comes into the Australian business of a company.

Clause 5 is designed to allow an insurance company to get its funds arranged in a manner which more readily and conveniently ties in with the new amendments which have been introduced. At present a company may establish a statutory fund for a class of life insurance business only with the consent of the Insurance Commissioner. Under proposed new sub-section (1b.) a company may, if it wishes to do so, establish separate statutory funds for superannuation business and overseas business without having to obtain the prior consent of the Insurance Commissioner. A company may subdvide its overseas fund into two further funds - a superannuation fund and an ordinary and industrial fund.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I am obliged to the Minister for Civil Aviation, and I regret to have to ask for further information. The point of my difficulty in regard to paragraph (e)-

Senator Spooner:

– You are the only one who is amused, you know.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I thought the Minister for Civil Aviation was amused, too, when he made a mistake in enunciation a moment ago. I regret it if my amusement is resented. Mr. Temporary Chairman, I am serious in seeking information. If this bill is to be passed, I believe that we are entitled to seek with patience an understanding of it. I intend to seek an understanding of the bill although my understanding may not be complete before the bill is passed.

My difficulty is that the registration of policies is made the criterion for determining whether business is carried on in Australia or outside Australia. Are policies in respect of business carried on by a company outside Australia not registered in any way at alP If they are registered and if policies are registered in a State or in a Territory, there is the difficulty of saying what proposed sub-section (8.) really means as a criterion for distinguishing between business that is carried on in Australia and business that is carried on outside Australia.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:
QUEENSLAND

– On what clause is the honorable senator speaking?

Senator WRIGHT:

– I am speaking on clause 3, paragraph (e), which amends section 4 of the act.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– May I approach the problem by taking the case of a company which carries on business both in the United Kingdom, for example, and in Australia? If policies are registered in Australia, in a State or in a Territory, they form one fund to which the assets and liabilities in relation to such policies are referable.

Senator Wright:

– But what life insurance policies constituting business carried on outside Australia are not registered by the company?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I am sorry, but I do not understand that question. Policies are registered either outside Australia or inside Australia, or a State or a Territory. If they are registered outside Australia, the assets in relation to those policies are referable to that fund which applies to policies outside Australia.

Senator WRIGHT (Tasmania [4.53 a.m.]. - The next provision to which I wish to direct attention is clause 8 of the bill, which reads -

Section thirty-nine of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (2.) the words “, but nothing in this sub-section shall prevent the allocation, under the next succeeding section, to a statutory fund of any such share or interest held at the commencement of this Act or require the re-investment of any such share or interest “.

I have not had an opportunity to see how that clause applies to section 39 of the principal act. I ask for information on that subject.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Aus tralia · LP

– Has the honorable senator a copy of the principal act?

Senator Wright:

– I have just obtained a copy, but I have not had a chance to read it.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I will give a brief explanation as the honorable senator reads the principal act. Clause 8 deletes a provision which was contained in the principal act to deal with certain conditions which may have obtained when the, act came into force. The words which are now proposed to be omitted from the principal act no longer have any application.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– The next provision to which I wish to refer is clause 9, proposed section 40 (4.) (a), which refers to “ assets included in a prescribed class of assets “. I know, as I said in my second-reading speech, that proposed new sub-section (6.) reads -

For the purposes of the last two preceding sub-sections, Commonwealth securities and public securities other than Commonwealth securities are prescribed classes of assets.

If we read that without any reference to the Acts Interpretation Act, the matter would be clear. Then one would read proposed new sub-section (4.), which uses the words “where the old fund contains assets included in a prescribed class of assets “, to mean “ where the old fund contains assets included in Commonwealth securities and public securities other than Commonwealth securities “. But I think there is a real doubt, notwithstanding what the Minister was good enough to say in his reply to the secondreading debate, as to whether the word “ prescribed “, in view of the operation of the provision in the Acts Interpretation Act, refers not only to those securities mentioned in proposed new sub-section (6.) - that is to say, Commonwealth securities and public securities other than Commonwealth securities. Although that provision says that they are prescribed classes of assets it does not say that no other classes of assets shall be embraced by the expression “ prescribed class of assets “.

While the Acts Interpretation Act remains in operation, I would think that the term “ prescribed class of assets “ includes assets other than those mentioned in proposed new sub-section (6.). When it is a question of taking power by regulation to specify different classes of assets in relation to which different investment arrangements are to be laid down, this is a matter which appears to me to be of some importance.

Motion (by Senator Spooner) agreed to -

That the question be now put.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1172

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1960-61

First Reading

Debate resumed from 10th May (vide page 863), on motion by Senator Paltridge -

That the bill be now read a first time.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– Mr. President, seeing that the very earnest appeal by Senator McKenna and, I would say, by Senator Wright to the Government relative to the stupidity shown in respect of these proceedings fell on deaf ears, I suppose honorable senators must do their best to carry out the work of the Senate. In the debate on a recent bill, discussed in the late hours of last night and the early hours of this morning, I heard many references to communism. I wonder what the people of Australia would think if they had been able to view the proceedings in this House over the last six or seven hours? It has been the greatest farce that any one could see.

Senator McKellar:

– Only one Opposition senator here!

Senator KENNELLY:

– One does not take any notice of members of the Country Party because, as 1 said some months ago, so long as they are placed in the second position on the ticket at election times they will keep on crawling. One never worries about them. Have we any respect for this institution? Do we believe that the methods by which this country has been governed should be carried on? Are we helping to inculcate into the minds of our people a desire that the forms of government that we have here, carried down from the Mother of Parliaments, shall be observed in a manner which will be a credit to the institution of Parliament itself?

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA · LP

– You forget how long we sat here when your party was the government.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I do not think the honorable senator was here- when we were in office. For the best part of the night he has enjoyed himself and is no doubt refreshed now. I went outside and refreshed myself. If he can be proud of this experience, it does not take much to make him proud. I think that what has been done here to-night is nothing more than treating the Parliament of this country with contempt. It is quite easy to make a bald statement as the honorable senator did, but the fact is that never in my life have I dreamed that any one would carry on as the Government has carried on during the early hours of this morning. Can any one who is not frightened to talk - some honorable senators opposite are frightened to talk because they are thinking of their endorsements for the future - discuss the legislation in the way that it deserves to be discussed in the interests of the nation? At some time - let us hope it is before the afternoon approaches - we have to discuss a bill that no one here has seen. In the case of this bill we had the opportunity of knowing that it was on the notice-paper, but there is another bill that the Government desires to push through which none of us has seen. It has never been produced here. How can it be given the consideration it deserves? I reiterate the words of Senator McKenna, who said it is no wonder at times that one feels ashamed to be a member of Parliament in this nation. One wonders when the people of this nation will realize that something that should be very dear and near to them is being treated with contempt.

This bill gives every honorable senator an opportunity to discuss any matter he wishes to deal with, but it is most appropriate that we should deal with the economic position of the country. In the short time that I desire to stand here I propose to review the economic policies that this Government has pursued over the last fifteen to eighteen months. It is interesting to recall the many somersaults of policy which this Government has performed. We all know that in February, 1960, the Government’s economic policy was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies). He stated that the situation was so disturbing that the Government was forced to oppose the basic wage application before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. That was the first time that any government ever intervened to oppose a basic wage application. The Prime Minister said that the Government would avoid budgeting for a deficit. He intimated that a credit squeeze would be applied and that important controls would be lifted. In July, 1960 - not twelve months ago - the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) stated that he was pleased to announce that things had never been better. Those are not my words; they are the words of the Treasurer. But in November last the Government found that the situation was so disturbing that further drastic measures had to be taken. One such measure was to increase the sales tax on motor cars from 30 per cent, to 40 per cent. Another measure proposed to compel life insurance companies to invest a minimum’ of 30 per cent, of their assets in government securities. The Government said that it would not allow interest charges on capital raisings by companies to be claimed as a taxation deduction; and it intensified the credit squeeze.

Shortly after those measures were forecast the Government performed its first somersault. In February of this year it withdrew the increase of sales tax on motor cars. We were told that the increase had served its purpose. I do not know whether Ministers who said that thought they were fooling anybody in this Parliament or outside; if anybody was fooled it was themselves. In April last the Government modified its scheme to force insurance companies to invest a minimum of 30 per cent, of their funds in Government securities. Instead, the Government offered taxation concessions to companies as inducements to invest in Government securities. Having its mind firmly fixed on some date in December next, the Government said that it would not go ahead with its original proposal in relation to insurance companies because it may set a bad example for succeeding governments. So the Government attempted to sugar-coat the pill.

Then only a few days ago we had evidence of another somersault in policy on the part of this Government, lt said that it would not allow the fringe financial institutions to claim as taxation deductions portion of the amount that they pay in interest on money borrowed. One wonders whether the Government will ever formul: r. policy and stick to it. How can business in this country carry on with any faith in toe Government’s future policies? If a feeling of confidence is to be created in the large manufacturing industries which employ the greatest number of workers the Government must present them with a stable economy. The Government cannot change its policy from day to day or from week to week. [Quorum formed.] Seeing that my friends opposite have returned, I will proceed. The Treasurer referred to these changes in policy as indicating the flexibility of the economy. Do honorable senators opposite believe that statement? Of course, they do not. The Government is keeping the Senate sitting until this hour in order to get into recess as quickly as it can. I have a hunch that something is going to be announced within the next 24 hours. I may be wrong but, in this game, it is not bad to follow hunches.

Senator Paltridge:

– You might be getting a knighthood.

Senator KENNELLY:

– You would be much more interested in that than I would. But I wonder whether there will be any change of policy within the next 24 hours. Is that the reason for terminating this session? I suppose that time will tell. I recollect that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) made an announcement in February just before he got onto an aeroplane to go and represent this country overseas. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that he could not trust the Minister who happened to be the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) to make an announcement on a financial matter. One wonders what may be in front of us in the morning.

The Government, after giving many soothing assurances, has introduced panic legislation. Such panic legislation - such putting on and pulling off - must disrupt the development of this nation. It has caused unemployment and hardship. The Government has created many new prob lems by its own acts. Of course, further emergency legislation will be necessary to meet the new crises which must result from the panic legislation that the Government has introduced up to date. Let us see what the Government has done. Unemployment is greater to-day than it has been for many years. Almost as bad is the great number of people who are on part-time worK. I he greatest worry among ordinary people to-day is how they are going to meet their normal commitments to the hire-purchase companies for the purchase of household goods. A young couple may have just bought a home when the young husband finds himself having thi if days a week of work instead of five, ms young wife cannot get a job as easily as sue used to be able to get one. What will happen?

The Government has tried lc do everything that it kidded itself that i’ could do. It has blindly followed certain advice, but that advice has not given the result Mat it wanted. Surely the Government does not still believe in the policy that it adopted. The number of people out of work has not been greater for a number of years than it is to-day. Like many others on the Government side of the chamber, no doubt, I thought that I would never see the day when unemployment would exceed 2 per cent, of the work force in this country in norma! times. But it does now exceed 2 per cent. Every one knows that June, July and August are the worst months.

Do not think that I wish the situation to be worse. I never want to win an election on the votes of people who are out of work. But the Government does not seem to worry about this situation. 1 wonder whether the Government has given it thought. Are the members of the Government tired? They have been in office for a long time. If the Ministers who have borne the heat and burden of ten or eleven years of office are tired, let the Government replace them. There are a lot of senators on the other side of the chamber. I recognize that it would be less than human for a man who had held an important federal portfolio for eleven years not to be tired. I urge that members of the Government be replaced, not from this side of the Senate, but from the Government side. The Government might then be less prone blindly to follow the advice that it has been following.

The only hope of providing employment for all the people is in secondary industries. The Government claims to have emergency tariff legislation with which to assist manufacturers, but it is not being used. In my State, in the pretty town of Daylesford, 60 or 80 employees have been dismissed from the woollen mills. If the average wage was £15 a week they would receive a total of about £1,300 a week. They would normally spend this amount in the town on the necessaries of life every week. Suddenly, that income is cut off. The town almost becomes like a mining town that is sliding down. Fortunately, this town has been something of a tourist centre over the years and the tourists continue to provide it with income. The dismissed workers to whom I have referred have no work at all. They are receiving unemployment benefit. Other people have only two or three days’ work a week. One wonders where it will all finish.

Up to a point, I agree with manufacturers who have a selfish interest in wanting import controls. Would it not be advisable to accede to the selfish request of these manufacturers and let them have their factories working so that the men and women of this country may be employed and so that work may be found for the 100,000 immigrants who come to this country each year? One wonders what the Government’s economic policy, if it can be called a policy, seeks to achieve. The Government has only itself to blame for the consequences of that policy. It is so stubborn and pigheaded that it is prepared to see people suffer because of its policy. Whether a country belongs to the Western nations or to the other group of nations, its government cannot adequately administer the affairs of the country without a planned economy. It is silly to suggest otherwise. 1 recognize that having a planned economy means the institution of certain controls, but is it not better to have some controls, for work to be available for the people, for the country to be advancing, and for the economy to be as we all want it to be?

This Government removed all controls. Honorable senators know how difficult it is these days for a young man to start out on a farming career. What would it cost an honorable senator who is a farmer to establish his son on the land and to give him a reasonable chance of success? He would have to provide the young man with so much money that if he were to invest the money in Commonwealth bonds instead he would be able to live on the interest without doing a hand’s turn. This Government did not want controls on land prices. The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) earlier in the week introduced a bill to provide for the making of a housing agreement with the State governments. He must be appalled by the amount of money that is spread over the States, and the few homes which it provides. If the Minister looks over his shoulder he may remember the time when he and other supporters of the Government advocated the removal of controls on land transactions. Land prices have reached such fantastic heights that they are beyond the reach of the average young person in the capital cities. I speak particularly of Melbourne. How can the average young person be expected to find £2,500 or £3,000 to purchase a block of land before he is able to build? Yet, land situated twelve or thirteen miles from the capital cities is costing as much as that. It may be said that some people are able to buy land for as little as £1,500. That may be so, for land that is fifteen miles from the city, in areas where there are no roads, no sewerage and none of the normal amenities.

Senator Kendall:

– What would be the size of the blocks for that price?

Senator KENNELLY:

– They would be about 50 feet by 150 feet.

Senator Wood:

– For £1,500?

Senator KENNELLY:

– I could take honorable senators to a block of land which I know only too well, about 9 miles from the city of Melbourne. Its area is about 50 feet by 150 feet. There is a sealed road in the area and there are also sewerage, gas and electric light services. The block is a mile from the station and the price is £3,000. This Government has done nothing about the increase of land prices.

The Government parties have boasted of their glorious action in removing all controls. They were elected to office with the aid of the press. To judge by some of the comments that one reads to-day they are not too friendly with the press at the moment, although I have no doubt that by the end of November the Government parties will be crawling, as they have always crawled, for the support of the press.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– We shall not be able to catch you people, though.

Senator KENNELLY:

– We have never had the support of the press and I should be the most surprised person in the world if we were to get it. I speak with a little knowledge of the subject. The Government parties wanted to give away all economic controls in the interests, they said, of providing freedom for the people. What have they done with the freedom of the young people of the city of Melbourne, of which I know a great deal? This Government has placed a millstone round their necks which prevents them from acquiring houses until they are 60 or 65 years of age. Because controls were removed, inflation was allowed to run riot.

In past years people had an opportunity to save sufficient money during their lifetime to ensure that they would not have to look to the age pension immediately they reached, the qualifying age. But consider the position to-day. Think of the proportion of people reaching the qualifying age for the pension who to-day must apply for the pension immediately.

Senator Kendall:

– Following eight years of socialist government.

Senator KENNELLY:

– That is a cheap and childish interjection. The honorable senator should try to adopt a wider outlook, if only for five minutes. He knows as well as I do that you do not build for to-morrow by harping on events that happened in 1949. 1 do not want to speak of the state of the economy at that time.

Senator Kendall:

– I did not mention the State of the economy in 1949.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Yes, you did. You said something about eight years of Labour or socialist rule.

Senator Kendall:

– I was referring to social services.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I am open to correction, but I think that between 30 per cent, and 35 per cent, of people who reach the qualifying age for the age pension nowadays apply for the pension immediately.

Senator Kendall:

– Relying on the Government.

Senator KENNELLY:

– They cannot help doing so. That percentage will continue to increase until it has reached 50 per cent, or 60 per cent. What hope has the ordinary person to-day, whether he is a fitter, a carpenter, a waterside worker, or a worker of any other kind, to save?

Senator Kendall:

– Just as much as he ever had.

Senator KENNELLY:

– He has not the faintest hope of doing so.

Senator Kendall:

– You are talking a lot of nonsense.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Look at the official figures and then say whether I am talking nonsense.

Senator KendalL:

– Everybody wants too much help.

Senator KENNELLY:

– If the honorable senator happens to be in Melbourne during the forthcoming recess I should like to drive him around some of the outer suburbs.

Senator Hannaford:

– In the vicinity of Flemington race-course?

Senator KENNELLY:

– No. I leave Flemington race-course to wealthy farmers. I would not know the way into the racecourse.

Let me refer to the consumer price index. The figures that I have before me have been supplied by the Commonwealth Statistician. For all groups covered by the index for 1950 the figure of 66 is shown, while that for food is 58.6. In December, 1960, the index for all groups had risen to 123.3 and that for food to 126.7. Even to-day, prices are rising continually at the rate of 3 or 4 per cent, a year. That is a little better than the rate at which they were galloping in the early 1950’s as a consequence of the Government’s desire to do one thing - remove controls. I remember hearing people say that the Australian Labour Party wanted controls in order to enable it to control every one’s daily life. Since Mr. Chifley has passed on, I have heard complimentary references to him on both sides of the Parliament. Indeed, nice things are said on the other side of the Parliament about a Labour leader only when he has passed on.

Senator Hannaford:

– Even the honorable senator has some hope, then.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I would never dream of aspiring to the heights attained by Mr. Chifley. The Government and its supporters seek only to win elections by the use of smart catch-cries. I want to be fair, however. This Government dishonours its election promises, but I do not suggest that it does so wilfully. It is quite content to make promises that cannot be fulfilled. I do not suggest that Government supporters, as individuals, behave dishonestly. The Government knows that its economic measures have not helped the Australian economy, but it believes that if it says those measures have helped everything will be all right. The Leader of the Government (Senator Spooner) answered a question asked by Senator Brown, I think, and said, “ Wait till the next figures come out “. I had hardly read the report of Senator Spooner’s remarks in “ Hansard “ when Mr. Carver, the Commonwealth Statistician, brought out the next lot of figures. Senator Spooner was just a little unlucky.

Senator Henty:

– Has the honorable senator ever heard of the radio serial, “ Blue Hills “?

Senator KENNELLY:

– The present situation is very serious for the people who are the main sufferers.

Senator Gorton:

– One of the honorable senator’s colleagues has just returned to the chamber to listen to him.

Senator KENNELLY:

– The Government has the job of maintaining a quorum, and the Opposition has made sure that it does so. If the Government wants to conduct the parliamentary institution in the present fashion, Government senators will see how quickly the bells ring if enough of them leave the chamber to reduce the number of senators present below the number required for a quorum. That number is twenty, including myself. The Government is obliged to maintain a quorum, and Senator Willesee has just returned to the chamber to count the numbers and ensure that a quorum is present. If the Government does not stop its present tactics, honorable senators opposite will not go home for a few hours yet. I dp not mind how long J stay here.

Senator Spooner:

– The Opposition has brought this on itself.

Senator KENNELLY:

– There is no need for the Leader of the Government to say with that patronizing air, “ The Opposition has brought this on itself “. We have had the satisfaction of seeing the Government try to maintain a quorum of twenty all through the night. We have caused the bells to be rung on a number of occasions in order to see that Government senators maintain a quorum. It is not our job to maintain it if the Government wants to use the Parliament as it is trying to use it for the purpose of governing the country.

Senator Kendall:

– We have had no opposition this evening.

Senator KENNELLY:

– That is just a repetition of the old clap-trap that we hear from Government senators. Senator Kendall need have no fear about not being endorsed again in order to make just another body to be counted on the Government side in this chamber, I am surprised at the annoyance of some of my friends opposite. I have been used to taking it all my life, and I have learnt to take it with a smile, but honorable senators opposite become a little annoyed when the bus does not stop right at the gate, They seem to find a little walk too big an exercise. We on this side of the chamber will be present as long as the Government wants to keep us here, but it does not do the country any credit by behaving as it has done and forcing senators who are ill to remain. I suggested earlier to the Leader of the Government that he send a certain senator home for health reasons. There is some respect for others on this side of the Senate at least. I have vivid memories of the episode when the Government forced Senator Arnold to remain here. If things do not go right for the Government, honorable senators opposite begin to look fierce.

We all are worried about the position in which this country finds itself at th. present time. About twelve months ago. I think, Dr, Coombs made a very important statement- He said, “How can you hold inflation in check when there is .only one section of the community whose conditions are determined by someone else! “ He was alluding to the big monopolies who just get together and decide to raise prices. As a result, the arbitration tribunals have to raise wages. The whole process is like a dog trying to catch its own tail. What does Senator Drake-Brockman, as a primary producer, care whether wages rise first, followed by prices, or whether the sequence is vice versa! The question of which rises first is of no importance to the person who has the bad end of the stick. Wheat farmers like Senator DrakeBrockman are lucky to-day, because they are guaranteed a price at least equal to the cost of production. And they are entitled to it. If they are lucky enough to get good seasons, they are not badly off. But what is the situation of some of the honorable senator’s farmer friends who are not engaged in wheat farming? Have a look at them. One wonders whether the bail fits. Let us look at the exports position. If we are to increase our export of primary produce, I believe that in the not fair distant future we will have to subsidize exports.

Senator Scott:

– What about the sale of wheat to mainland China?

Senator KENNELLY:

– Do not bring that subject up. I have already answered many questions that I have been asked by way of interjection. My friend who is interjecting was afraid to fire questions at the two honorable senators in this chamber who represent the Australian Democratic Labour Party - my erstwhile colleagues. He knows that he has to handle them with kid gloves if he is to obtain their second preference votes at elections in the future. That is the only hope he has of remaining a member of this chamber. When the honorable senator talks about the sale of wheat on credit to China, he reminds me of a cat on hot bricks. I imagine that he will bend over backwards on some new issue in order to please the D.L.P. senators and so get their second preference votes, because without those votes he cannot continue to sit in this chamber. The Liberal Party and the Country Party combined do not get as many votes as the Labour Party. Government senators are interjecting and saying how long the Government has been in office. I hope they will keep up their interjections, because I am running out of steam. Keep it up, 1 like it.

Senator Henty:

– There was no Democratic Labour Party when we came to office. You kicked them out after that.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I think you will agree with me that if there was no D.L.P. now you would not be in office.

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA · LP

– The people who formed that party did not agree with the policy you espoused on the Yarra Bank.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I say to Senator Henty that it is far better for a political party to adhere to a policy that it believes to be in the best interests of this nation, whether or not it is beaten at the poll on that policy. We all remember that the Government parties were elected on a promise that they would put value back into the £1. Although I hated to see the Labour Party get defeated, particularly in view of the fact that Mr. Chifley was then leading the party, I contend that it is far better to be beaten on a policy you believed in than to be returned on a policy that you know cannot be carried out. That is more honorable, and honorable senators opposite know it. I know that they do not want me to go back-

Senator Kendall:

– Why do you not go on with your speech? You do not seem to be able to speak without offering insults.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I can understand the honorable senator getting edgy, because it is now eleven and a half minutes to six a.m. and possibly our nerves are not as steady as they should be.

Senator Kendall:

– You have been offering insults for the last ten minutes.

Senator KENNELLY:

- Senator Kendall is one of only nineteen Government senators now in the chamber. I have been keeping count. I say to my friend, through you, Mr. President, that if he thinks I have insulted him I will do as the Minister did in connexion with one of his colleagues before I commenced my speech. If Senator Kendall feels that I have insulted him, I humbly apologize to him. Let usget on to a more serious plane.

Senator Buttfield:

– Why not act as a grown-up, instead of being childish?

Senator Spooner:

– This is the first time I have seen Senator Kennelly at a loss to provide an answer.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Honorable senators can see why 1 never like ladies to be in this game. They can give it, but the moment you start to give it back to them, they run for the skirts.

Senator Buttfield:

– - Let the honorable senator give one illustration in proof of that assertion.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I have been mixed up in conferences of various kinds for 30 years, and some of the women who were concerned with them were not bad, but frequently I thought, the moment I started to give it back, “ Oh, well, I shall forget them “.

I started to say, a moment or two ago, that we ought to be concerned about the condition of the loan market. Senator McKenna has mentioned this matter on many occasions. I think we should do our utmost to get sufficient loan money for the development of this country. I am not saying that I want taxation to be remitted, because I believe that we could do a lot more than is being done with the taxes that are collected. I have discussed with many people the condition of this country to-day, and particularly the state of the loan market. We need about £300,000,000 a year to undertake Commonwealth, State and semi-governmental works. Ever since this Government has been in office, public loans have been greatly under-subscribed. The people are being taxed heavily because the Government is unable to fill its loans.

Senator Henty:

– Taxation in Australia is still lower than it is in the United Kingdom.

Senator KENNELLY:

– What the honorable senator is saying, in effect, is that the present rate of taxation must be maintained because of the failure of the loan market. While I believe that the present generation should bear a proportion of the cost of capital works that are being undertaken, I also believe that posterity should bear its share of the burden. Has any thought ever been given to exempting from income tax the interest received on loans to government and semi-governmental institutions? Has it ever been looked at? We do not derive any taxation from the money we borrow from the other side of the world.

Senator Wright:

– What is your proposition?

Senator KENNELLY:

– I am discussing the idea that interest derived from money subscribed to loans should be tax free. I am asking those who have delved into economics, finance and so on whether they have ever given that proposition any thought. I know that in the United States of America federal tax is not levied on interest derived from money invested in loans for local governing authorities. We must find some method of inducing people to subscribe to government loans. It is neither right nor just to impose heavy taxation on interest derived from investment in government loans and at the same time finance our public works out of revenue instead of financing a fair proportion of them from loan funds.

We need about £300,000,000 a year to cover Commonwealth, State and semigovernmental works. If we got that amount of money from loans, we would have no worries about financing social services, hospitals, and so on. It is also possible that we would even be able to reduce taxation. If all the loans could be filled, it would cost the Commonwealth about £7,000,000, in round figures. Without some inducement such as I suggest, I cannot see how the Government can possibly fill its loans. It has no power to prevent the fringe financial institutions from offering 8 per cent., 9 per cent, or even 10 per cent, interest. How the Government ever hopes to be able to fill its loans when it offers the low rate of interest that it does and levies taxation on the interest derived from money invested in those loans, offering only a rebate of 2s. in the £1, I do not know. Something will have to be done and I am suggesting that we should consider the proposition that interest derived from moneys subscribed to Commonwealth. State and semi-government loans should be tax-free.

I recognize that there will be some complexities involved. For instance, I recognize that it would depress the market for existing bonds. The last time I made a check I ascertained that £100 bonds purchased in 1947 or 1948 and maturing next year are selling at £92 16s. to-day.

Senator Wright:

– And what is the purchasing power of that £92 16s.?

Senator KENNELLY:

– That is the important point. Some time ago I read what L thought was a very good speech. It was delivered in another place by the then honorable member for Balaclava, the present Mr. Justice Joske. In it he emphasized the difference between the return earned from investing £5,000 in housing in 1947 and that earned from investing a similar sum in bonds in that year. A sum of £5,000 invested in housing in 1947 would be worth £25,000 or £30,000 to-day.

Senator Wright:

– No. It would be worth from £15,000 to £16,000.

Senator KENNELLY:

– 1 can take Senator Wright to a big home in Queen’sroad, Melbourne. He will know where that is. The home to which I refer was sold seven years ago for £16,000. Less than three months ago, it brought £123,000 at auction. The size of the allotment is 100 feet by 100 feet.

Senator Wright:

– It was purchased for £16,000?

Senator KENNELLY:

– It was purchased fo- £16,000 seven or eight years ago, and it brought £123,000 at auction less than three months ago.

Senator Kendall:

– Is it on valuable land?

Senator KENNELLY:

– The house is to be pulled down. There is a little street off St. Kilda-road and then comes Queen’sroad. The person who purchased the house might have his fingers burnt because it has stood for longer than any one in the area expected, but that was due to the credit squeeze. 1 do not say for a moment that any one has a complete cure for our troubles. If we had a cure, everything would be easy. But I do think that all individuals in this nation should pool their thoughts. Unless we can revive the loan market, we shall never solve our problems. I do not say the scheme I have suggested will work but at least if we do give it a trial we will not be any worse off than we are at the present time. To keep the record straight, let me say that I should like to see officers investigate the idea of exempting from taxation interest derived from money invested in Commonwealth, State and semigovernment loans.

Senator Wright:

– They would be oyer-, subscribed.

Senator KENNELLY:

– That is true, and if they were we would have £174,000,000, in round figures, with which to do something. With it we could look after the aged, we could finance our hospitals and also do something about increasing child endowment, in which every one believes, although this Government has not made any attempt since either 1951 or 1952 to adjust child endowment according to fluctuations in the cost of living.

Senator Gorton:

– If your scheme were adopted, then, according to Senator Wright, we should be forcing people to put money into loans.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I do not propose to enter into any dispute with either the Minister for the Navy or Senator Wright at three minutes past six in the morning. If Senator Gorton wants to take on Senator Wright, I am certain Senator Wright will be delighted to accommodate him.

Senator Gorton:

– I am not entering into a dispute.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Do not whistle to keep your courage up. Not so long ago I saw an exhibition here which made me feel that the Minister did not have the political common sense that I expected him to have. Otherwise he would not have risked losing a vote at a time when the Government needed votes. A wise politician never does that.

I hope that the Minister in charge of the bill will give my suggestion a trial. We should all have but the one thought in mind. This country is ours, and our one thought in life should be to make it great so that those of our young people who will be carrying on in a few years’ time will not be burdened, as we have been, with the tremendous weight of inflation.

Declaration of Urgency.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I declare that the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1960-61 is an. urgent bill.

Motion (by Senator Paltridge)- agreed to -

That the bill be considered an urgent bill.

Allotment of Time.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

That the time allotted for consideration of the bill be as follows: -

For the first reading of the bill - until 6.1S a.m. this day;

For the second reading of the bill - until 6.25 a.m. this day;

For the committee stage of the bill - until 6.35 a.m. this day;

For the remaining stages of the bill - until 6.38 a.m. this day.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Of course the Opposition opposes this motion. We think it is tragic that a number of Opposition senators who wish to speak on this bill by which £57,000,000 will be appropriated should be allowed less than ten minutes in which to do so. It is bad enough to be debating matters of consequence at this hour without being curtailed and, in fact, gagged. It is not easy to speak under these conditions, and honorable senators who wish to make a contribution to the debate should be given the opportunity to do so, despite the handicaps that have been imposed upon us by the Government.

We resent what the Government is doing in this matter, in addition to the resentment that has already been generated in us by the Government’s harsh, brutal and inhuman treatment. I place that on record.

Looking around the chamber one sees Government senators asleep on the seats, and one wonders whether they are alive or dead. Yet the Government goes doggedly and determinedly on its way to close down this Parliament. Will some one on the Government side rise in his place and tell us why this is being done? There has been no reply to Senator Kennelly’s comments on this subject. Neither has there been any reply to my questions. We have been confronted with a dead silence from the Government leaders. It may well be that they have no reply and that they cannot justify the Senate’s sitting at this hour. The Government leaders have had two opportunities to tell us why the Government has adopted this attitude, but we have not heard one word from them. Is there any prospect of hearing from them now on this third occasion on which we have directed the attention of the Senate to this matter?

Senator SPOONER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– I cross swords with Senator McKenna. This is not so much a case of a bill involving a substantial amount of money as it is a case of the Government being forced into the unfortunate situation of using the forms of the Senate to break down what, in truth, has been an exhibition of filibustering for the last hour or so following a series of emotional statements by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) earlier in the sitting to which I did not reply, having a personal regard for him and feeling that he was making statements which were not justified by the circumstances. What is the situation? This is one of the closing days of this sessional period. There is no parliament in the world that does not have the problem of getting through its business in the closing days of a session. In the world in which we live events work out in the various parliaments in such a way that legislation always comes forward in the last days of the sessional period due to the complexities of government business that has to be dealt with. What did we do? As the Government, we met the Opposition and brought honorable senators back to this place for a further week so that we could conclude our business. On quite frequent occasions in the past we have lifted the Senate on Thursday nights to meet the convenience of honorable senators on both sides of the chamber.

We came back to this place for an extra week. Admittedly we. had a heavy programme for to-day, but nevertheless it was a programme that we could encompass. On, I think, only one occasion to-night have I used the forms of the Senate. I have remained in my place and have given the Opposition every opportunity to speak. In fact, Government senators have refrained from participating in the debate to give the Opposition that opportunity. I made no endeavour to use the forms of the Senate when the Stevedoring Industry Bill was before us, because I believed that members of the Opposition were very interested in it and I wanted to see fair play so that we could deal with our programme in a reasonable manner. This is the old old story - the Opposition can give it but cannot take it. The moment there is any suggestion of criticism of the Opposition honorable members opposite go off at a tangent. Although we had a heavy programme we never used the procedures of the Senate, because we thought that we would get reasonable co-operation. Had we received reasonable co-operation there would have been no need for us to be sitting at this late hour. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Kennelly) has just given an exhibition of filibustering and time-wasting. Therefore, we shall use the procedures of the Senate to complete our programme. I move -

That the question be now put.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion for Allotment of Time agreed to.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– In the two minutes remaining to me I should like to reply to one or two of the most amazing statements that were delivered most heatedly by the Leader of the Government (Senator Spooner). First, he said that he did not use the forms of the Senate when we were discussing the Stevedoring Industry Bill. The old gentleman seems to be losing his memory because I remember that he gagged the debate at the second-reading stage. Is not that using the forms of the Senate?

Then he talked about filibustering. We have just dealt with a series of bills in this place. There was the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill on which Senator McKenna spoke; there was the Cellulose Acetate Flake Bounty Bill on which I spoke very briefly; and there was the Defence Pay Bill on which I would have liked to speak for an hour. In fact, honorable senators will recall that I said I would like to read into the record a quotation from Herbert Morrison’s book but, because of the hour and because of the position in which the Senate found itself, I contented myself by simply underlining the words needed to make my point clear. I cannot see how we are using filibustering tactics. We then dealt with the Broadcasting and Television Bill, and again there was a very short debate. Only one senator from this side of the chamber spoke on the Life Insurance Bill.

Senator Gorton:

– The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has just spent an hour talking about nothing.

Senator WILLESEE:

– The Deputy Leader of the Opposition exercised his right when speaking to the Appropriation Bill which was introduced at such an unearthly hour. He devoted himself to matters associated with the Government’s economic policy of which the Government does not like to be reminded.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin). - Order! The time for the consideration of the first reading of the bill has expired. The question is, “ That the bill be now read a first time “.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill and of the associated Appropriation (Works and Services) Bill is to obtain parliamentary authority for certain expenditure for which provision was not made in the 1960-61 Estimates. The various items contained in the Additional Estimates can be considered in detail in committee and I propose at this time to refer only to some of the major provisions.

Some re-allocation has been made within the total defence appropriation of £198,153,000, with consequential increases and decreases in individual votes. The increases result in additional appropriations being sought for £4,415,000. Provision is made for additional expenditure of £2,400,000 on departmental and miscellaneous items. Savings on other items, however, are expected to limit net additional expenditure to about £800,000. Included in the provision is an amount of £269,038 for cattle tick eradication and control in New South Wales; grants towards the building of homes for the aged £300,000; Commonwealth scholarship scheme £144,000; a contribution towards the cost of the United Nations Force in the Congo £193,644; a contribution to the United Nations Fund for the Congo £334,932; and a supplementary grant for the running expenses of the Australian National University £262,800. The sum of £743,048 is provided for remission of duty under special circumstances. This refers almost entirely to duty remitted under a co-operative Australia-United States agreement for the establishment and operation in Australia of facilities for space vehicle tracking and communications. An amount of £612,460 is sought for Repatriation Services, including £343,000 for medical treatment.

Under Business Undertakings it is necessary to seek additional appropriations of £2,030,000 for the Postmaster-General’s Department, but the increase in overall Post Office expenditure is not expected to exceed the Budget provision by more than £1,200,000. The major item in the increase is increased payments for the carriage of overseas mail. The additional £166,000 sought for Commonwealth Railways mainly results from increased traffic and will be balanced by higher revenue. The Australian Broadcasting Commission needs of £115,000 are mainly to meet salary increases.

The amount sought for the Territories is £593,000, comprising Northern Territory £305,860, Australian Capital Territory £13S,990, Papua and New Guinea £146,300 and other territories £1,850. There will be compensating savings totalling £265,000. When the Budget was prepared, it was estimated that receipts of the Consolidated Revenue Fund would exceed expenditures from that fund by £125,700,000. Accordingly, provision was made in the Appropriation Act for the payment of this amount to the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve, whence it would be available to supplement loan proceeds available for State works and housing programmes and to finance other Commonwealth commitments.

At this stage, it appears likely that receipts of the Consolidated Revenue Fund could exceed expenditures from the fund by more than the £125,700,000 originally estimated. An additional appropriation is therefore sought for payment to the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve of an amount up to £40,000,000 over and above the £125,700,000 provided for in the Budget. There are still many elements of uncertainty as to the outcome of Consolidated Revenue Fund transactions for the year and this additional authority should be sufficient to meet all contingencies. [Quorum formed.] It would provide against the most favorable outcome of Consolidated Revenue Fund transactions which could at present be envisaged, but should not be taken as meaning that an improvement of this magnitude is expected. I must add that, so far as the overall budget result for the year is concerned, any improvement on Consolidated Revenue Fund operations might well be offset by increased requirements for commitments outside the Consolidated Revenue Fund. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– In his second-reading speech, the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Paltridge) said that some re-allocation had been made within the total defence appropriation of £198,153,000. Provision is also to be made for an amount of £269,038 for cattle tick eradication and control in New South Wales. The Government also proposes to make a contribution of £193,644 towards the cost of the United Nations force in the Congo. I should like the Minister, if he has a moment in committee, to inform me whether that is the full contribution by Australia to the United Nations Organization on account of operations in the Congo.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid). - Order! The time allotted for the second reading of the bill has expired.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Motion (by Senator Wright) agreed to -

That clauses 3 and 4 be postponed until after consideration of the Schedule.

The Schedule.

Proposed votes - Parliament, £70,150;

Prime Minister’s Department, £138,900;

Department of External Affairs, £208,080;

Department of the Treasury, £160,140;

Attorney-General’s Department, £91,020 - agreed to.

Department of the Interior.

Proposed Vote, £372,010.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– I again raise the question of the exorbitant rents that the Government pays for various offices. In Melbourne, and no doubt in other capital cities, many building workers are out of work. We have available in Melbourne land on which to build additional offices. Surely this is an appropriate time at which to build them. It would take up some of the slack among building workers. I cannot understand why the Government persists in paying rent for office space amouting to at least 18s. a square foot, and in some cases even more. Surely this is the time to proceed with the erection of another bigbuilding. The Department of Social Services building, in the Commonwealth square, gives great satisfaction, I think, to every one connected with the Commonwealth. In days gone by we used to say that we had the man-power but were short of materials.

I am certain that my friend, the Minister for Customs (Senator Henty), would be delighted to see ship loads of timber coming from Tasmania at the present time. Any one would be delighted. We now have both the man-power and the material. Why can we not get on with the job and stop paying exorbitant rents for office space? I believe that large Commonwealth buildings ought to be built when conditions in the ordinary building line are bad, and that when there is plenty of work in the normal building line we ought to divert labour or entice it - if that is a nicer word - to the building of homes and, factories. Every one knows that to-day we have a surplus of all the things that matter. What is stopping the Government? Why are we continuing to pay exorbitant rents for office space in the cities? There was quite a controversy over the western markets site in Melbourne because it was found that rent at the rate of about 22s. a square foot would be required for office space in the proposed building. I ask the Government to do something in this direction. Whether or not my request will fall on deaf ears, I do not know.

Senator Scott:

– You have a fair idea, though.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I have a strong feeling that it will fall on deaf ears, but that will not redound either to the Govern ment’s credit or to mine. This is the time when work of this nature ought to be done. I do not expect that it will be done, but at least the Government will not be able to say that the matter has not been brought to its notice.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I return to a theme that I developed in the Senate some time ago. It relates to the need for the Commonwealth Government to do something about establishing Commonwealth buildings in Hobart, Tasmania.I recall that when I made that plea, a similar request was made on behalf of other States. I think that when we dealt with the Estimates on the last occasionwe got no complete answer from the Minister. I did at some stage receive from him a letter indicating that the main reason why no Commonwealth buildings were erected in Hobart was that it was cheaper to use scattered private accommodation that is rented all round the city. There are many reasons why the Commonwealth should consider building.First of all, there is the matter of convenience, to have Commonwealth activities concentrated in one place. This would be convenient for Commonwealth administration, and also for people who have to deal with officers in Government departments.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

– Order! The time allotted for the consideration of the committee stage has expired. The question now is, “ That the remainder of the Schedule, postponed clauses 3 and 4, and the title of the bill be agreed to, and the bill be reported without requests “.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Paltridge) proposed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– I was speaking on another bill, Mr. Deputy President, either last night or this morning, which had to do with television licences. The Minister, who was taking the advice of his officers, did not seem to be altogether pleased when I asked, “ Why does not the Postmaster-General send out a letter- “.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid).- Order! The time allotted for consideration of the bill has expired. The question now is, “ That the bill be now read a third time “.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1185

APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL (No. 2) 1960-61

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10th May (vide page 864), on motion by Senator Paltridge -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Declaration of Urgency.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I declare that the Appropriation (Works and Services) Bill (No. 2) 1960-61 is an urgent bill, and move -

That the bill be considered an urgent bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time.

Motion (by Senator Paltridge) agreed to -

That the time allotted for consideration of the bill be as follows: -

For the second reading of the bill - until 6.50 a.m. this day.

For the committee stage of the bill - until 7 a.m. this day;

For the remaining stages of the bill - until 7.2 a.m. this day.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– We have seen a perfect example from the Minister in charge of this bill of love’s labour lost because I propose to address myself exceeding briefly to this measure.

Senator Paltridge:

– That is why I gave you ten minutes.

Senator McKENNA:

– I will not need anything like that. The Minister has obviously overlooked the fact that this is a relatively minor bill, designed to adjust differences between estimates and actual expenditures at the end of this financial year. It is found that an additional amount of £2,900,000 is required. The details have been given in the Minister’s secondreading speech. In actual fact, when regard is had to the amounts that were not expended, and to these further additions, there will be no real change in the amounts provided under the Appropriation Bill that was considered last August. The total figure comes out at something like £139,000,000. The main item in the increase of £2,900,000 that is sought is a progress payment of £1,600,000 in relation to Qantas Empire Airways Limited. That is the only item worth commenting upon. We have no objection to the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 1185

SUPPLY BILL 1961-62

First Reading

Debate resumed from 10th May (vide page 864), on motion by Senator Paltridge -

That the bill be now read a first time.

Declaration of Urgency.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I declare that the Supply Bill 1961-62 is an urgent bill, and move -

That the bill be considered an urgent bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time.

Motion (by Senator Paltridge) proposed -

That the time allotted for consideration of the bill be as follows: -

For the first reading of the bill - until 6.55 a.m. this day;

For the second reading of the bill - until 7 a.m. this day;

For the committee stage of the bill - until 7.5 a.m. this day;

For the remaining stages of the bill - until 7.7 a.m. this day.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I will be very brief, Mr. Deputy President. The proceedings of this Parliament have now been reduced to a complete farce. The Senate is addressing itself to the appropriation of £275,000,000 of the taxpayers’ money, and the Minister proposes that we deal with the first reading of the bill in ten minutes. The good faith of the Opposition was made abundantly evident a few minutes ago, when we discussed a bill which was lacking in significance, and merely provided for some tidying up action for the current year. We let it go through in about two minutes. Will the Minister indicate what was the filibuster that would justify the gagging of debate on a bill covering an expenditure of £275,000,000? This shows that the Government is determined at all costs to finish the sittings at an hour which the Ministers have in their minds.

Senator Dittmer:

– They have arranged for the aircraft.

Senator McKENNA:

– I do not doubt that. Apparently we are to be deprived, not only of sleep, but also of food and drink. I do not propose to make any further comments, beyond directing attention to the farcical state to which the Government has reduced the procedures in this place.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– Mr. Deputy President-

Motion (by Senator Paltridge) agreed to -

That the question be now put.

Motion for Allotment of Time agreed to.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– We have only a few minutes in which to discuss the expenditure of about £275,000,000, covering practically every aspect of the field of government. In the time available to us we cannot deal adequately with even one section of the bill. There are matters connected with the Department of Social Services to which I should like to refer. For this portion of the financial year, £800,000 is to be spent on providing assistance to organizations building homes for aged people. We all recognize the very great value that such assistance has been in this field, but there is one aspect which should receive full consideration by the Parliament.

Many of these organizations are calling upon prospective tenants of the homes to contribute sums of £500 upwards, but when the people pay this money they have no equity in the homes. A sum of £500 is subsidized to the extent of £1,000. In some cases up to £2,000 is paid for a tenancy. A sum of £2,000 is subsidized to the extent of £4,000, and for £6,000 you can buy a pretty good house. I do not think the legislation ever intended that assistance should be given to provide housing for people who could afford to pay up to £2,000 for a home. I think that the

Government has a much more important duty towards people who are helpless and who need homes.

I should like the Government to consider the plea that was made to the Prime Minsiter (Mr. Menzies) personally, I understand, when he paid a visit recently to the head-quarters of the Civilian Maimed and Limbless Association in Sydney, where he was given full details of the case in favour of providing adequate housing for paraplegics. Assistance given to this association to enable it to provide housing, and to help paraplegics in other ways, could result in a great saving of money, because these people would be assisted to get back into full employment, and so would no longer be drawing invalid pensions. They need special types of houses - one-story buildings with ramps instead of steps, with wide doors and with special furniture and fittings. If the Civilian Maimed and Limbless Association were provided with money on the same scale as organizations that are catering for aged persons, I think that it could do a very worthwhile job. Subsidizing the work of this association would be better than subsidizing people who could pay £2,000 and who are not in any immediate need of community housing.

I am amazed to find the number of government organizations that are dealing with external affairs, with trade and so on. In addition to the trade commissioner service, we have a commercial intelligence service. We also have a consular service and an ambassadorial service. Probably we are represented overseas by more people than any other country with a population of similar size. I should like the Minister to tell us, if he can, the difference between the consular intelligence service and the trade commissioner service. Could not the trade commissioner service be a commercial intelligence service as well? As I have said, we have a consular service, an ambassadorial service and other services overseas. I think the time is coming when this Parliament will have to discuss whether Australia is over-represented in some of the smaller countries, and whether we are getting an adequate return for our expenditure.

Turning to the Department of Immigration, there is one matter which I think is causing a good deal of concern, particularly in Western Australia, where there are hostelsforchild migrants. I refer to the almost complete cessation of child migration .Very few child migrants are coming to this country. I feel that the facilities whichexist for the reception, training and assimilation of child migrants could perhaps be used to better advantage if there was a drive to secure child migrants. They, after all, are the best type of migrants because they can be more easily assimilated into the community than adults.

I turn to the Department of Health. Earlier in the session we hoped that we would be given adequate time to discuss the health of the community, a subject which we touched upon very cursorily in debating a bill to amend the National Health Act which was before the Senate last week. I wanted to discuss the high cost of hospital treatment, which is not always met by the payments from hospital benefits funds and the Commonwealth allowance. I should have liked to discuss the terrific cost, not only to the Australian public, but also to the Australian Government of the drugs supplied under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. There has been, I would say, exploitation of the Government by some of the big drug houses, which are being paid many millions of pounds a year by the Government for drugs. All these are mattersthat should be explained to the Senate, and we should be given an adequate opportunity to discuss them. The Labour Party is in favour of an adequate national health scheme, but Labour senators do not think that the present scheme is adequate. It is loaded to the advantage of some of the big drug companies - to the detriment, I would say, of the Commonwealth’s own organization, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, which we shall discuss presently.

I have time enough only to touch on one other department, the Department of Territories. We were told yesterday afternoon of the appointment of Mr. Ephraim Jubilee and Mr. Raymond Gadabu, from New Guinea and Nauru, as advisers to the United Nations. That is a very forward step. I had the privilege of meeting Mr. Gadabu some years ago in Nauru.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid). - Order! The time allotted for the first reading of the bill having expired, the question now is, “ That the bill be now read a first time “.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to appropriate £275,970,000 to carry on the necessary normal services of government, other than capital works and services, during the first five months of the financial year 1961-62. These are services placed before the Parliament in the Appropriation Acts 1960-61. The several amounts provided for ordinary services are -

Senator Kennelly:

– Mr. President, I raise a point of order. I direct your attention to Standing Order No. 406 which states that no senator shall read his speech.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin). - The point of order is not upheld.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– The other amounts are -

With minor exceptions, these amounts represent approximately five-twelfths of the 1960-61 appropriations. The amount of £83,530,000 for Defence Services provides for expenditure on the existing programme, and the amount of £41,885,000 for War and Repatriation Services provides for expenditure on war pensions and repatriation and rehabilitation services. There is no provision for new services except in the defence section. However, an amount of £16,000,000 is sought for an “Advance to the Treasurer” to make advances which will be recovered within the financial year; and to make moneys available to meet expenditure, particulars of which will afterwards be submitted to Parliament.

Honorable senators will observe that the bill no longer makes separate provision for Miscellaneous Services, lt has been decided to adopt the recommendation made in the Forty-ninth Report of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and, with the commencement of the new financial year on 1st July next, expenditures previously shown under the heading of Miscellaneous Services will be presented with the administrative expenditure of the departments concerned. Within each department’s expenditures the distinction between annual running costs and those special payments which arise from its responsibilities will be continued. I believe that the new form will represent a clearer presentation of the relevant part of the Estimates and that it will assist the parliamentary examination of the annual appropriation measures.

I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– This, of course, is another of the supply bills. When we look through the bill itself, we find that a sum of money is set aside for the Parliament. Of course, the people believe that we should conduct Parliament in a proper manner and even Senator Spooner, as recently as 12th May last, had something to say on this subject. He said -

I believe that we have yet to see the Senate come to fullness of stature. We have yet between us-

Senator Henty:

– Mr. President, I direct your attention to Standing Order No. 406.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The time allotted for the second reading of the bill having expired, the question now is, “ That the bill be now read a second time”.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

– Is it the pleasure of the committee that the bill be taken as a whole?

Senator Wright:

– No.

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Motion (by Senator Wright) agreed to -

That consideration of clauses 3, 4 and 5 be postponed until after consideration of the Schedule.

The Schedule.

Parliament

Proposed Vote, £535,000.

Senator KENNELLY:
Western Australia

– I have always thought that if one is persistent enough he can make his point. I do not want to waste time, but I want to read this statement made by Senator Spooner, which I tried to read earlier. It is a classic. He said -

I believe that we have yet to see the Senate come to fullness of stature.

Senator Gorton:

– I want to raise a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I understand it is out of order for a passage to be read from “ Hansard “ for the same session.

Senator Dittmer:

– How do you know this is out of “ Hansard “?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Senator Gorton:

– The honorable senator said it was, and I raise the point of order.

Senator KENNELLY:

– The Minister is going against your ruling, Mr. Temporary Chairman. Senator Spooner went on to say -

We have yet between us to evolve ways and means to make the Senate an even more powerful influence than it is to-day in the parliamentary life of the community.

After the proceedings in the Senate in the last six or seven hours, what can one say?

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I want to direct attention to the standing order mentioned by Senator Kennelly a few moments ago. It is Standing Order No. 406, which clearly says that no senator shall read his speech. I was amazed and appalled to hear the ruling that the point of order was not upheld. I emphasize the point mentioned by Senator Kennelly. If we have a set of Standing Orders, which for two years I have been trying to have amended, and we ignore them entirely, we bring this chamber into complete disrepute. I stress the word “ complete “. One of the Standing Orders says that no senator shall read his speech. The Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Paltridge) was obviously reading his speech-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The time allotted for the committee stage having expired, the question now is, “ That the Schedule, postponed clauses 3 to 5 and the title of the bill be agreed to, and the bill be reported without requests “.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Paltridge) proposed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I simply take advantage of this opportunity to indicate that I came to this sitting armed with material on Supply which I badly wanted to put to the Senate. It related to the International Monetary Fund, the loan of £78,000,000 and the £45,000,000 earmarked for the future. Those matters relate to the most fundamental difficulty facing Australia to-day. I also wanted to talk about the vast change in the accounts of the Postmaster-General’s Department and the majority and minority reportsof the committee of inquiry which raise matters which are vastly important and exceedingly interesting, to me at least.I had looked forward to the opportunity to have a complete discussion of those matters in the Senate at a high intellectual level.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid). - Order! The time allotted for the bill having expired, the -question now is, “ That the bill be now read a third time “.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1189

SUPPLY (WORKS AND SERVICES) BILL 1961-62

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10th May (vide page 864), on motion by Senator Paltridge -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This bill covers the year 1961-62. (Senator Paltridge having risen) -

Senator Kennelly:

– Mr. Deputy President, I rise to order. Is it in order for the Minister for Civil Aviation to rise after you have called Senator McKenna?

Senator Paltridge:

– Nothing has been called on.

Senator McKENNA:

– I have been called on.

Senator Kennelly:

– You have to be quick.

Senator McKENNA:

– I understand that you called me, Mr. Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT.- Yes, I did.

Senator McKENNA:

– I had proposed to do on this bill what I did on the last bill relating to works and services, but I am not certain what I shall do now. My first intention was to take only a very brief time. The bill before the Senate appropriates £54,900,000 for capital works and services and covers the first five months of the next financial year. It is the usual type of bill. It makes no particular provision for extraordinary items. At this stage of the year it is invariably the practice of the Opposition to pass this bill with very little comment.

Senator Henty:

– If you do not, it may have an effect on the next bill. We may not give you a go on the next one.

Senator McKENNA:

– Just let me consider that interjection.

Senator Henty:

– No, forget it.

Senator McKENNA:

– Let me consider that interjection for a moment. The Minister intimates to me, presumably, that I will not be given a go on the next bill. Is that the intimation? Since the Minister has raised the matter of the next bill, I. shall refer to it. That bill has not yet been introduced into the Senate. It is a bill of very great importance. On that bill I propose to move an amendment to the motion for the second reading, and the Opposition desires to move eight amendments at the committee stage. All I can say is that I hope that I will be given a fair go in relation to that bill. The first request that I will make will be that the bill be adjourned at the second-reading stage. If that request is denied we will have reached a very low pass in the Senate. In the hope that the Opposition will be given an adequate opportunity to debate that bill and that the debate will not be gagged or guillotined, I will curtail what I have to say on this bill and merely say that this measure has the usual lack of opposition from the Opposition.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

The Schedule.

Proposed votes - Parliament, £7,000;

Prime Minister’sDepartment, £430,000;

Department of External Affairs, £100,000;

Department of the Treasury, £540,000;

Attorney-General’s Department, £20,000;

Department of the Interior, £1,095,000- agreed to.

Department of Works.

Proposed Vote, £296,000.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– Mr. Temporary Chairman, you are going through these votes too easily. Can the relevant Minister give me some indication of the works that are proposed to carried out with this proposed vote?We are rushing through these proposed votes of millions of pounds. I admit that because of inflation they are about one-third greater than they used to be; but, after all, this is not our money. Only a little bit of it is mine, and many other honorable senators could claim to have provided much more of the money included in these millions of pounds than I have provided. We are entitled to know on what the money will be spent. Surely we will not make a farce of the matter altogether. I do not know how far we have to go before this becomes a complete farce. At least the Government should give the Senate an idea of what works are to be done, or commenced, or are planned, and are covered by the proposed vote for the Department of Works.

Senator WADE:
Minister for Air · Victoria · LP

– I have here a very large schedule of works. I will endeavour togive the honorable senator a summary of some of the larger amounts. If I fail to meet his needs I will endeavour to have the full information given to him. The additional appropriation for rent of buildings for the Navy is £8,000, and for the Army £154,000, which amount provides for the acquisition of sites and buildings. Honorable senators will be interested to learn that this item includes the acquisition of ten married quarters in Brisbane at a total cost of £50,000 and five married quarters in Melbourne costing a total of£25,000.

Senator Kennelly:

– They were cheap at £5,000 each. Are they of wood or brick construction, and how many rooms have they?

Senator WADE:

– I have not those details.

Senator Kennelly:

– I want to know whether the occupants are living under good conditions.

Senator WADE:

– The conditions under which they live are governed by a set of standards adopted by the three Services, and they are uniform. There is an item of £37,000 for the Army, for the acquisition of 21 married quarters at Booligal in New South Wales. An extra £19,000 is required by the Department of Air. A further £73,000 is required by the Department of Air for the transfer of civil aviation workshops at Villawood to the department. The Department of Supply requires £43,000 for a tropical testing station in Queensland. Those are the major amounts involved and if further information is required I will try to supply it.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– From the information which the Minister for Air (Senator Wade) has given the committee, does it not appear that each of these is a new item and that the bill which is to grant Supply for the first five months of the next financial year does not make provision for the normal services of government by allocating approximately five-twelfths of the 1960-61 appropriations? I doubt whether anybody has any knowledge of any of these items under consideration. It seems to me that the sort of information supplied does not enable the committee to form a judgment regarding the justification for some of the items. I am impelled to make that commentary because I am appalled at the utter irresponsibility in respect of expenditure by government departments in various ways. It is difficult to form a judgment and make comments upon large items. As I travel through Canberra I see great works in progress here and I am not satisfied that reasonable restraint is being exercised with regard to them. In all sorts of places, as indicated by the items the Minister has enumerated, I find evidence of the expenditure of small amounts - £800, £1,000 or £4,000 - and I feel that sufficient supervision or scrutiny is not being given to them. I make those comments uninfluenced by the general atmosphere in which this House is meeting, and 1 will have something to say on the matter later to-day.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Department of Civil Aviation.

Proposed Vote, £1,825,000.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– Can the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Paltridge) tell me when work is to begin at Tullamarine? I notice that the Government has paid a lot of money for land there. I want to know whether arrangements have been completed with people, and particularly young people, who own homes and land there. It will be recalled that I brought to the notice of the Minister a year or two ago the circumstances of a young couple who bought a block of land in the area. I think a decision in their case was delayed for a couple of years. Later, he told me that the property owned by the young couple was outside the area concerned. Has he given any thought to giving them some compensation, even though he has not acquired their land? I might own a block of land just outside a jet airport, although when I bought it no one had any idea the airport was to be placed there. In those circumstances the land must automatically lose value through its close proximity to the airport. Has the Minister given any thought to the position of people who are adjacent to airports? I know that the noise of the Boeing jets landing at Laverton is terrific. I should like to know what the Minister has done in regard to the land adjacent to the Tullamarine airport. Some people have made plenty of money out of it. I have no idea how much they paid for the land, but the law says that the land must be acquired on just terms, although no buildings had been erected on it, and the increase of value was unearned increment. I would like the Minister to give me some idea of what he has done.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– The Department of the Interior actually carries out the acquisition programmes for all departments, including the Department of Civil Aviation. The Tullamarine acquisition is going forward extremely well and is rather in advance of the original estimate. Speaking from memory I think about threequarters of the area has already been acquired and that the department is to complete the acquisitions during the first half of the next financial year.

Senator Kennelly referred to the noise nuisance and the loss of values which occurs as the result of the proximity of property to an airport. It has been the experience at metropolitan airports over the three years that despite the fact that homes on the border of or close to an airport are subject to some noise nuisance their values, as such, are not affected disadvantageously to the owner. On the contrary, values invariably rise.

Senator Kennelly:

– You must remember that jet aircraft will use that airport. Jet aircraft do not use Essendon.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– The Boeing jets have been operating out of Sydney airport for some time and the experience there has been that land affected by noise nuisance has in fact appreciated in value. The noise nuisance will not be in existence at Tullamarine to the extent that it exists at airports elsewhere in the world, for the simple reason that the Department of Civil Aviation has made provision for the establishment of a buffer area which will give protection to homes around the Tullamarine airport. Such protection exists at very few other airports in the world.

Proposed vote agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

– Is it the wish of the committee that the remainder of the bill be taken as a whole?

Honorable Senators. - Aye!

Senator Wright:

– No!

Proposed votes - Department of Customs and Excise, £20,000; Department of Health, £205,000; Repatriation Department, £100,000; Department of Trade, £19,000; Department of Primary Industry, £2,000 - agreed to.

Department of Social Services.

Proposed Vote, £111,000.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I refer to Division No. 905, “ Buildings, works, fittings and furniture, £110,000”. What type of buildings are envisaged under that division?

Senator SPOONER:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council and Minister for National Development · LP

– The sum of £110,000 represents, I assume, an accumulation of comparatively small works.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– Have we reached the situation where nobody in this chamber really knows what are the main components of the item to which I have referred? I have exercised the greatest restraint over some of these items, such as the one to which Senator Wade referred, but I submit that the committee is entitled to have precise information from the Minister as to the components of particular items.

Senator SPOONER:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council and Minister for National Development · LP

– All I can say is that this is an accumulation of small items and it is not usual to provide a detailed list.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Department of Shipping and Transport

Proposed Vote, £1,023,000.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I refer to the promotion of road safety practices. Is the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Paltridge) aware of the conference being held or to be held shortly in Victoria to promote road safety? What provision is made for participation by the Commonwealth in this most important conference?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– -This bill deals with capital works. The provision of funds for road safety purposes is a revenue item.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed votes - Department of Territories, £1,000; Department of Immigration, £167,000; Department of Labour and National Service, £25,000 - agreed to.

Department of National Development.

Proposed Vote, £22,062,000.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I refer to Division No. 935, item 1 - “ Expenditure under the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Act, £6,500,000 “. Will the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) tell the committee whether that sum is allocated specifically to any particular project or whether it is simply an amount included in the appropriation?

Senator SPOONER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– This is a normal provision at this time. The provision of £6,500,000 is necessary to finance expenditure in respect of the scheme as a whole during the five months up to November, 1961. Some of the amount will go to pay contractors constructing approved major projects and the remainder will finance the normal activities of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority for administration, planning and minor construction work. The proposed expenditure in 1961-62 is somewhat less than the £18,500,000 provided for 1960-61 and is considerably less than the high rate of expenditure in 1958-59 and 1959-60. I am sorry that I cannot provide the honorable senator with details. My usual procedure is to have monthly budgets each allocated to actual expenditure in that month and contrasted with the expenditure set out in the Budget appropriation. I do not have that information here. The amount of £6,500,000 is the amount necessary to keep the works operating during the five months supply period.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– May we be informed of the real significance to be attached to recent newspaper references to cessation of some works in this scheme? As I recall, the references were directed to the tunnel that is being extended into the river on the southern watershed. I am interested to know just what work is in progress and what is projected for the next financial year. Does projected work include further power stations on the Tumut River, agricultural projects or further tunnelling to utilize the waters on the southern watershed?

Senator SPOONER:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– The programme for the next financial year will be defined in the next

Budget. As things stand at the moment the Utah Construction Company has finished a contract on the Tantangara project and Thiess Brothers have finished their work on the Tooma project. The result is that two major contracts have recently been concluded. There is a normal seasonal fall in the level of employment. Tenders have now been invited for the first section of the Snowy-Murray works. That is the tunnel from the Adaminaby dam to the Island Bend reservoir. I have also approved of tenders being invited for the second stage of these important works - the tunnel from Island Bend to the Geehi pond. I do not know whether those tenders have actually been invited yet. Those will be the major works in next year’s programme which is part of an over-all programme to open the Murray 1 power station in 1965.

Proposed vote agreed to.

Proposed votes - Comonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, £420,000; Commonwealth Railways, £500,000; Postmaster-General’s Department, £17,640,000; Broadcasting and Television Services, £1,058,000; Northern Territory, £2,125,000; Australian Capital Territory, £4,898,000; Papua and New Guinea, £298,000; Cocos (Keeling) Islands, £1,000- agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1193

COMMONWEALTH SERUM LABORATORIES BILL 1961

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing Orders.

Motion (by Senator Henty) proposed -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the bill being passed through all its stages without delay.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– This is the usual motion that is put to enable the Senate expeditiously to consider and dispose of legislation. But in the present circumstances I think the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty) should justify his proposal that the Standing Orders should be suspended at this stage to enable the bill to be passed through all its stages without delay. I think that the Standing Orders require an interval of 24 hours between the first and second readings of a bill. I expected that this bill would come before us at about 2 o’clock this morning. Then I would have been content, with some respite in the meantime, to go on with consideration of it at say 10 a.m. to-day. However, the obligations of the Senate were such as to preclude the measure from being introduced at 2 o’clock this morning.

I have glanced at the measure and I am not cognizant of any provision to which I have objection. But I have been able to give the bill only a glance while others matters were being considered in this chamber. I think that the Senate would do itself less than credit if it were to agree to a suspension of the Standing Orders to enable a bill which should have reached us at 2 a.m. to have immediate consideration. I think that some period should be allowed for private consideration of the measure by honorable senators before the Senate engages in consideration of it.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– I support the remarks of Senator Wright. I believe that this is taking the farce a little too far. This is an important bill. I understand, Sir, that it was in another place yesterday. It went through all its stages there because of the use of what is commonly called the “ gag “. It reached this place at about half-past one this morning. There might have been a case for suspending the Standing Orders to consider this bill immediately if it had passed through all stages in another place 36 or 48 hours ago, because, those of us who are interested in it might have had a chance, in between sleeps during this long sitting, to have a look at it. Who has had an opportunity to learn what is in the bill? I say that the proposal of the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty) is not a fair thing.

As far as the supply bills were concerned, at least we recognized that they would be introduced at the end of the sitting. We knew that the money involved, either had been spent or was about to be spent. In addition, we had an opportunity of going into those matters during the Budget session. But this is a most important bill, not only to city people, but to rural people - to farmers. The laboratories have saved the farmers of this country a tremendous amount of money. They have helped greatly to increase our export trade, a matter with which we have all been concerned in recent weeks, because vaccines manufactured at the laboratories have saved the lives of many millions of lambs which otherwise would not have survived. For all those reasons, we should have ample opportunity to debate this measure.

I have heard in the corridors that the Parliament will re-assemble after the recess on 15th or 16th August next. Why cannot the bill be held over until then? Is there any need for it to be passed at this time, particularly in view of the fact that we have not had an opportunity to study it? We did not have a chance to do so when it was being debated in another place because we were kept here morning and night. I do not mind making light of certain things, but that process can be taken too far. To my way of thinking, this is the straw that broke the camel’s back. I ask the Government to allow the measure to stand over. After all, the laboratories will still be there in August. Your friends who eventually will get them will just have to be content to wait. The laboratories will not be affected if they remain under the present management until August.

It is usual with contentious measures, such as bills relating to marriage and divorce, to introduce them in one sessional period and let them stand over for two or three months until the people who are interested in them have had an opportunity to offer constructive suggestions. Why does not the Government allow the people who are interested in the subject-matter of this bill to study its contents? I believe there will be a story to tell if we are allowed to study the measure. We might have a look at the imports of penicillin and ask why we are importing the stuff when we have a lot of it locked up at Parkville. The Government comes into this place and moans about the balance of payments position. How long is this farce to continue? We are entitled to an adequate opportunity to study this important measure.

From the little I have heard of the bill, I understand that it is proposed to place the laboratories under the control of a commission. That will be only the forerunner of something else. It is wrong to suggest that there is a need for such desperate haste to pass the legislation. The Government cannot make out a case on that score. Is there any valid reason why the Government should want to rush it through?

Senator Henty:

– I will tell you all about it later.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I suggest that the Minister do so after we have eaten.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I rise to order, Mr. President. As this is now Thursday, and as the proceedings of another place are not being broadcast, have any arrangements been made for the proceedings of the Senate to be broadcast to-day?

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin). - I do not know. I shall have to look into the matter.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Why rush the measure through? I do not want to be placed in the same political category as honorable senators opposite and classified as a ninny by people outside this place. That would hurt my pride, if I had any. I ask those honorable senators opposite who are awake, what they think of the matter. With the greatest respect to them, are they content to act like cattle? Surely this matter should be given the serious thought that it deserves. We are all practically exhausted. I cannot see myself, of course, but as I look around the chamber it is obvious that honorable senators are very fatigued.

Sitting suspended from 7.52 to 9.30 a.m.

Motion (by Senator Spooner) put -

That the question be now put.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin.)

AYES: 24

NOES: 12

Majority . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Declaration of Urgency.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP

– I declare that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Bill 1961 is an urgent bill and move -

That the bill be considered an urgent bill.

Question put. The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin.)

AYES: 24

NOES: 14

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP

– I move -

That the time allotted for consideration of the bill be as follows: -

For the second reading of this bill - until 10.50 a.m. this day.

For the committee stage of the bill - until 12.10 p.m. this day.

For the remaining stages of the bill - until 12.15 p.m. this day.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Of course, the Opposition opposes the proposal and I shall take the opportunity that was denied me on an earlier motion relating to the suspension of the Standing Orders to say now what I had proposed to say then. The Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty) has not given one reason for declaring this bill to be an urgent bill and he has apportioned the time without reference to or consultation with the Opposition. He has arbitrarily appointed a time for completion of each stage, obviously to suit the Government’s convenience, and imposed an obligation on honorable senators to address themselves at short notice to this measure.

What is the history of the bill? Last week, when it was expected that the Parliament would rise, the Opposition was told that this bill would stand over until the Budget session. That meant that it would not be looked at until at least September or possibly not even until October. So last week in this Parliament there was no urgency about this bill. Then, all of a sudden, the bill was introduced in another place and it was presented to us at 7.40 a.m. to-day. most of us having been sitting in this chamber and working from 3 o’clock the preceding afternoon, with a suspension of the sitting for breakfast of only one and one-half hours. That is all the time we have had to study this very important measure. We are now threatened with the guillotine procedure. We oppose that. I shall not take time by dividing the Senate on the proposal; I merely record the opposition to it of honorable senators on this side of the chamber.

Senator SPOONER:
New South WalesVicePresident of the Executive Council and Minister for National Development · LP

– The bill is a very important measure, although it does not cover a wide range. In essence, the purpose of the bill is to change the form of management of a very important and large undertaking by putting it under a commission. That intention having been announced, it was thought by the Government to be most undesirable, as the Parliament was sitting for a week beyond the date on which it was originally expected that this sessional period would conclude, for this important change in relation to the management of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories to become a matter of public gossip. As we were to sit another week, it was decided that the time was appropriate to put the measure on the statute-book and thus avoid discussion about the pros and cons of it and obviate unrest among the staff.

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has objected to the allotment of time for the various stages of the bill. All I can say is that I made as good an effort as I could to provide the most equitable basis, not for the Government but for the Opposition, as I had heard that the Opposition intended to submit a number of amendments. I thought that the time-table which has been proposed would allow ample time to the Opposition to debate the measure at the second-reading stage and then to submit its amendments in committee. I move -

That the question be now put.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Second Reading

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to establish a statutory commission to administer the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories at Parkville, Melbourne. Before explaining the reasons for this proposal and the manner in which it is proposed that the commission will operate it may assist honorable senators if I outline, briefly, the growth and development of the laboratories since their establishment in 1916.

The laboratories had their origin in the events of the 1914-18 war, when serious difficulties occurred in obtaining supplies of antitoxins from European or American sources to meet Australian requirements. This was a matter of considerable concern and following examination by the various authorities connected with this matter, approval was given to the establishment of a federal institute for the production of sera and vaccines to meet our needs and requirements.

This approval provided for the establishment of the laboratories under the auspices of the then Department of Trade and Customs, which, at that time, was responsible for the administration of the Quarantine Act.

Steps were taken for the erection of the necessary buildings and engagement of the requisite staff. Dr. W. J. Penfold was appointed first director of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, and, on his arrival from England, in November, 1916, he commenced work in the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute at the Melbourne Hospital. The permanent buildings for the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories were then being erected at Royal Park, and were first occupied in July, 1918.

Prior to taking up duty as director, Dr. Penfold visited laboratories in England, France and America in order to obtain the latest information so as to ensure that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories would be built and equipped on the most modern lines. This was also to enable effect to be given to their two-fold purpose; first, production of sera, vaccines and other bacteriological products, and secondly, research in relation to such products.

This two-fold purpose has been the basic approach to the activities of the laboratories since their inception and explains, in simple terms, why the laboratories have been an important national institute in Australia for almost half a century.

Dr. Penfold resigned as director in 1926 and was replaced by Dr. F. G. Morgan, in March, 1927. Dr. Morgan gave very distinguished service as director until his retirement in July, 1956, when the present director, Dr. P. L. Bazeley, was appointed.

The laboratories have been very fortunate in the service rendered by the three gentlemen who have occupied the position of director. The growth of the laboratories is surely a matter of national pride and satisfaction and has been made possible by the service and efforts of the staff of the laboratories, assisted and encouraged by the many and varied organizations operating in like or associated fields of endeavour.

Honorable senators will be aware of the activities of the laboratories in the production in Australia of biological products originated by epoch-making advances in the field of medicine. Probably the most notable of these are insulin, penicillin and poliomyelitis vaccine. However, there are many important fields which are not so widely known and these include a wide range of products to meet the requirements of the Australian and Allied forces in the South-West Pacific area in the last war; the production of a wide range of veterinary products; processing blood for the Red Cross in the Blood Transfusion Service and the supply of immunizing material against diphtheria, whooping cough and tetanus which are used in mass immunization campaigns. These are but a few examples of the wide area of medicine served by the laboratories.

Naturally, this wide area of activity has required substantial capital investment and development. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories now occupy a 23-acre site at Parkville, Melbourne, and operate a 325- acre farm at Broadmeadows and a 1,361- acre farm at Woodend. The capital invested in the laboratories exceeds £6,000,000, the annual turnover is approximately £2,400,000 and the staff employed is approximately 1 ,000. From a small beginning, the laboratories have grown into a large-scale undertaking devoted to production and research designed to prevent disease and treat serious illness in our community.

Tt is a matter of national importance that the laboratories continue to maintain their position in the various health fields, and, to meet changing and growing needs, a flexible and efficient management is necessary to direct the affairs of such a large and important undertaking in a businesslike way. Since their establishment, the laboratories have operated within the Public Service framework, originally within the Department of Trade and Customs and since 1921 within the Department of Health. While the laboratories have reached their present high status in the Australian and overseas communities within the framework of departmental methods and administration, it has been felt that this form of administration is no longer the most effective for the purposes for which the laboratories exist. The production and research activities undertaken by the laboratories now range over a much larger and essentially more specialized field than in earlier years and problems of market- ing, research, administration and management have become increasingly complex.

The Government has been conscious of the increasing growth and complexity of the laboratories’ activities and has very carefully examined ways and means to improve overall administration. I emphasize that this review was designed towards ensuring the continued progress and development of the laboratories as an integral part of the activities of the Commonwealth Government in the field of public health. Following this review, the Government has come to the conclusion that the establishment of a statutory commission comprising both business and medical men of wide experience would provide the most flexible, effective and therefore efficient form of administration.

Details of the structure and authority of the commission and its relationship with the Commonwealth are set out in the various clauses of the bill. I will be pleased to supply honorable senators with further information which they might want on particular aspects during the committee stages of the discussion. At this stage, therefore, I propose to outline the broad principles on which the commission will be established.

The commission will consist of five commissioners including an experienced medical man and the director of the laboratories. Of the five commissioners, two will thus be medical men of very wide experience. It is intended that the remaining three commissioners shall be men of wide and appropriate experience in business and financial fields. The commissioners will be appointed by the Governor-General and will include a chairman and a vicechairman. It is proposed that the director will, be appointed for a term of five years and two of the commissioners will be appointed, for a term of four years. The other two commissioners will be initially appointed for two years, but succeeding appointments, will be for four years. The maximum number of commissioners retiring at any one time will thus be two and the continuity of the work of the commission will not be adversely affected by any changes, in personnel. The commission will havethe usual powers of a body corporate with perpetual succession. The normal provisions regarding appointment of acting commissioners, the making of the oath or affirmation of allegiance, leave of absence,. remuneration and allowances, dismissal, vacation of office and meetings of the commission are provided in the bill.

It is proposed that the biological products which will be manufactured and sold by the laboratories will be prescribed by regulations. In accordance with the usual approach adopted in business activities of this nature, the commission will adopt a policy aimed at obtaining sufficient revenue from the sale of products to cover the expenditure of the commission plus a reasonable return on the capital invested. In other words, the commission will follow accepted business lines in relation to this aspect of its activities. It is intended that all products currently marketed by the laboratories will continue to be produced. The Government is fully seised of the importance of the research activities of the laboratories and special provision is accordingly included in the bill for the commission in accordance with a determination of the Minister, to undertake research appropriate to its functions. Special provision is being made for the Commonwealth to meet the cost of this research where the commission’s operations result in a loss.

In order to ensure that ample production capacity or stocks of products are maintained by the commission to meet any particular emergency, such as the taking of precautions against an outbreak of smallpox or to meet the health requirements of the community generally, it is proposed to permit the commission, subject to the determination of the Minister, to take the necessary steps in this direction with financial support from the Commonwealth.

Quite a large proportion of the production, for example polio vaccine, of the laboratories is currently purchased, directly or indirectly, by the Commonwealth Government. This position will continue, and provision is accordingly being made for the prices of these products to be determined by the Minister after consultation with the commission.

An important consideration in the transfer of the activities of the laboratories to the control of a commission, is the position of the existing staff who have rendered most valuable service over the years. This matter has been carefully considered by the Government and provision is being made for the existing officers of the Common wealth Serum Laboratories to retain their existing rights as public servants and in particular their rights to furlough, superannuation and compensation. The assets of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories including such items as plant, machinery, equipment, book debts and a wide variety of other items will be transferred to the commission. The value of these assets plus the net amount of capital provided, from moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purposes of the commission, will represent the capital of the commission, lt is not proposed that the commission pay any interest to the Commonwealth on its capital, but the commission will make payments out of its annual profits to the Commonwealth. The commission’s advice will, of course, be taken into account in determining the amounts of these payments.

The bill provides that the profit of the commission shall be determined in accordance with normal accounting principle.’, for an organization of the type of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. As with other statutory commissions of this nature, the accounts and records of the financial transactions of the commission will be subject to inspection and audit by the Auditor-General who will have the usual rights and responsibilities in this regard. The commission will be subject to taxation under the laws of the Commonwealth but not to taxation under State or Territorial laws to which the Commonwealth is not subject. In order to ensure that Parliament is fully apprised of the activities of the commission, the bill provides that the commission shall prepare and furnish an annual report to the Minister for submission to Parliament.

Before concluding, I would like to reiterate that the Government’s foremost thought in introducing this bill to provide for the establishment of the commission, is to ensure that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are provided with the most effective organizational set-up possible. This will enable them to continue to operate and progress in fulfilling their national responsibilities in the most effective way.

I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I am greatly disappointed that I have to address myself to the subject-matter of this bill under present circumstances. I have a particular personal - I might almost call it paternal - interest in the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories at Royal Park, or Parkville, whichever it is called. I knew the site, and the activity conducted upon it, before 1918 when, as a very young man on the staff of the Auditor-General’s Department, I was assigned to the audit of the calf lymph depot at Royal Park, lt was a little tin shed only a few square yards in area. Its activity was the production of calf lymph for the prevention of small-pox, and the audit occupied me for half a day a year.

In due course, when, in 1918, the concept of the laboratories as they now are was envisaged, I saw erected upon that site a residence for Dr. Penfold and a twostory building fronting on to the railway. When I was not auditing there, I passed it in the train every day. I saw the organization grow and develop to the great 23 acres of buildings at Parkville and Royal Park with their supporting farms. I have been interested in its activities and development in the intervening years.

In due course I had the honour and privilege of holding the portfolio which entailed responsibility for the administration of the laboratories. At that time penicillin had just come on the market. I recall the work that was done at the laboratories. Penicillin was developed in bottles that looked very much like whisky bottles. Dealing with every batch meant handling literally thousands of those bottles. During my term a system of deep culture of the base for penicillin was developed which meant that a whole tank could be impregnated and yield the matter from which penicillin was won.

I have had a particular interest in the laboratories. I should have liked to have had the time to look at the accounts of the institution. We are told now - this is the only piece of information on finance that was given in the Minister’s second-reading speech - that the institution’s assets are worth something like £6,000,000.

I am glad that reference has been made to Dr. Penfold. I knew him very well. He was responsible for my always pronouncing the word “ laboratories “ with the emphasis on the first syllable. When I referred to them in the other way very many years ago he read me a lecture. He was very concerned that 1 should be so misguided. He made such an impact upon me that I have never used the word other than in the way in which he directed me. In due course, when I first entered the Parliament and used the word as Dr. Penfold had taught me to use it, there was a searching of dictionaries to see whether by any chance I was right. It was discovered that not only was that pronunciation, permissible but also that it was completely acceptable. So when I say the word my mind always harks back to my tutor and mentor in that matter, Dr. W. J. Penfold. He was a brilliant scientist, a man dedicated to the work that he undertook on behalf of the Commonwealth.

His successor, Dr. Morgan, another brilliant indefatigable man who controlled the destiny of the laboratories for nearly 30 years, was succeeded by the present brilliant director, Dr. Bazeley. I should have liked to have seen some reference to one other man in particular - Mr. Ted Farrell, the Public Servant secretary of the institution. He played a great and vital part in co-ordinating lay and professional activity there. He was appointed for that purpose. He played a major part in helping in the marketing and dissemination of the products under great difficulty and in competition with the products of other organizations, and also in smoothing out the ever-present conflict between the lay and professional staff in an institution of this kind. The professional men are dedicated to their research activities. They are less interested in production - in. treating their institution as a factory - or in marketing. It has been left to the competent members of the Public Service to achieve the very good results that have been obtained in that direction.

Honorable senators may recall that when we met on Tuesday last I asked instantly for certain information to be made available to me before the debate on this bill. I asked for a great deal of information, including the capital investment in the laboratories from the time of their inception to the present. I was particularly interested to know how much of the early development of the laboratories had been financed out of the profits they had” earned in the early years. My recollection of the figures is faulty, andI have not had time to obtain the information, but I think that in those years the laboratories did particularly well, and that the great bulk of their development was financed out of profits.

The laboratories were set up, in particular, through the thought and activity of one riian - the late Mr. William Morris Hughes. He realized Australia’s extreme isolation from the vital drugs thatwere essential in both war and peace; and it was his political drive, probably more than the efforts of any other man, that led to the establishment of the laboratories. It is one thing for which he should be remembered very favorably, because the institution has stood Australia in very good stead “in more ways than one”.

The Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henry), who represents here the Minister for Healthpromised to obtain, if possible, the information that I sought. I learned at 2.45 p.m. yesterday that it was in transit between his office andmine.I think it must have been entrusted toaturtle because it did not arrive in this chamber until 8 p.m., and then per medium of the Minister himself.’ In the light ofintervening events I am certain that the Senate will accept the proposition that I was not able even to look at the figures, let alone study them, until breakfast time this morning. I sought to digest the figures and the breakfast together. The figures do not help very much,because there are vital gaps in them. The figures that I wanted particularly, and to which I have referred,have been stated to be not readily available. The earliest year for which information is supplied is 1943-1944. But it is interesting to note that in the seventeen years that have been recorded a loss was incurred in only three years. In 1948-49 the undertaking lost £40,000, in 1949-50 it lost £29,000 and in the last financial year, 1959-60, it lost £192,000. The figures for the current year are not available. The figures for the other years varied appreciably, but a profit was earned each year, and for the seventeen years a total profit of £1,581,000 in round figures was earned.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, net profit. The profit and loss accounts that are available for the past three years show, if not wonderful profits, or a wonderful return upon what is claimed to be the capital investment, at least the cleanest balancesheet that I have seen for many days. As at 30th June, I960, assets amounted to £6,500,000 and liabilities to only £263,000. Again, I am using roundfigures. I repeat thatI have not seen a cleaner balance-sheet for a very long period.

Senator Vincent:

– The accounts must havebeen started off many years ago by a very good auditor.

Senator McKENNA:

– Do not ask me to talkabout the accounts of the initial period. They were a little like the accounts that we had at Bell Bay in the early stages of that undertaking. There were difficulties with the accounts, and I had something to do with straightening them out, but I do not claim to have played any part in the results that have been achieved. However, it is consoling to see that a business of this magnitude, which is handling up to £2,500,000 worth of products each year, can show such a very clean result. That balance-sheet is typical of the two or three that have beenput my hand.

I thank the Minister for what he did, because quite an effort was made to obtain the figures for me; but I would have been greatly advantaged had it been possible to havehad set out in one document, recorded perhaps on one sheet, the activities and financial operations of the “institution through the years: If we could analyse the trading results, ‘we could see what the weak spots Were.Above all, I want to get at what has not been disclosed in the information available to me and see how much of the profits was put back into capital development in the early decades of the history of these laboratories. I cannot rely on my memory for the details of what happened. I have a thought about what happened, but I hesitate to express it, because I could be wrong.

I ask: What are the reasons for this bill? The speech just made by the Minister for Customs and Excise was a copy of that made in another place by the Minister for Health. The second paragraph of the roneoed copy of Senator Henty’s speech which has been circulated states -

Before explaining the reasons for this proposal and the manner in which it is proposed that the commission will operate it may assist honorable members if I outline briefly the growth and development of the laboratories since their establishment in 1916.

After looking through the very interesting facts that are recorded in the material which I have, and after perusing the speech made by Senator Henty, in a search for the reasons for the introduction of this measure, I still do not know what the reasons are. The nearest that Senator Hentys entire speech gets to the real reasons is in two statements which appear in the last two paragraphs on page 2 of the roneoed copy, as follows: -

The Government has been conscious of the increasing growth and complexity of the laboratories’ activities and has very carefully examined ways and means to improve overall administration. . . .

Following this review, the Government has come to the conclusion that the establishment of a statutory commission comprising both business and medical men ‘of wide experience would provide the most flexible, effective and therefore efficient form of administration.

What does all that add up to? It adds up to no more than that the Minister and the Government have told the Parliament, “ We are making the change because we have decided to make it”. That is all it means. I defy anybody to find in this speech of four closely typed foolscap pages anything that approaches more closely to a reason than do the passages which I have read. Because of this, even if for no other reason, we are entitled to probe and to require information. An institution of this kind which has a clean balancesheet, is regarded highly from the technical stand-point, and has high professional status throughout the world, ought not to be lightly disturbed in the absence of grave reasons for a change. Although the second paragraph of the roneoed copy of Senator Henty’s speech held out a promise of reasons, I have still to hear one real reason for the change that is contemplated in this bill.

I should like to know on what basis the assets of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories were valued. I should like to know whether they . have been depreciated. I expect that they have been. Are we looking at depreciated values of build ings still extant, still functioning and still earning profits although probably almost completely written off the books against profits earned over the years since 1918? We ought to be told whether the value of more than £6,000,000 is the depreciated value of the assets of the laboratories and whether that value bears any relation to the present market value. That is not a matter that can be inquired into in a minute, but the facts concerning it ought to be before this Parliament.

I criticize the presentation of this bill to the Parliament in the complete absence of information from the Government about the trading operations of the laboratories, with particular reference to the point which I have mentioned. In no single particular has the Government pinpointed anything that is wrong with the laboratories as a reason why the proposed change has to be made.

Senator Poke:

– The Government cannot tell us that.

Senator McKENNA:

– That may be. All I say is that it has not told us. This matter is not one for the Opposition. The Government and its supporters have a duty to tell us the reasons for this change. We were promised those reasons, but they have not been given to us. We want to know why this change is taking place. T say without hesitation that the Opposition is suspicious of the dealings with this enterprise. We see the whole matter against the background of a situation in which, not very long ago, a kite was flown and, as a result, there appeared in the newspapers of Australia reports which indicated that drug houses which are part of the great world cartel were seeking to buy the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories.

Senator Sandford:

– That was the first step in the sell-out.

Senator McKENNA:

– That was the old. familiar technique of flying a kite in order to see how many bricks would be. thrown at it. I think that the Government was amazed at the hostile reception that reports of an impending sale received, not only from the Opposition and the Parliament as well as the public of Australia, but also, perhaps surprisingly, from quite a number of members of the Government parties. In due course, the Government washed its hands of this proposal in public and said, “ We never contemplated selling the laboratories and we will not sell them. The suggestion is most unworthy.” Nevertheless, Sir, our fears remain when we see taking place without any clear reason assigned to them events such as we have seen. We are unable to guess what the true reasons are. Of course, we do not forget the philosophy enunciated on behalf of the Government by Senator Spooner, who is now at the table. Time and time again, he has stated that the Government, if it participated in any undertaking, should get out of that activity immediately private enterprise was prepared to take over.

Senator Spooner:

– That did not apply to an undertaking in the category of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. There never has been the slightest intention on the Govenment’s part to sell them. We have not at any stage entertained the remotest idea of doing that.

Senator McKENNA:

– Then I hope that Senator Spooner will pardon the Opposition’s suspicions. In a speech made some years ago - I could not in the brief period during which the sitting was suspended pinpoint the actual speech - he said in extenso very much what he said about the sale of the Australian Whaling Commission’s undertaking in 1956. His exact words, as recorded at page 537 of “ Hansard “ of 3rd May, 1956, were -

In all cases-

Will the Senate please note the word “ all “- the Government would desire to liquidate its investment in any undertaking as soon as private investors were willing to take it up.

Senator Wright:

– What was the context in which that statement was made?

Senator McKENNA:

– I shall come to that point. In the same speech, Senator Spooner said -

In all cases, it would be the intention to withdraw government investment as soon as the project has been soundly established, and Australian interests have demonstrated their capacity and willingness to continue the development.

Those remarks were made in Senator Spooner’s second-reading speech on the Fishing Industry Bill 1956, which provided for the allocation of funds for the establishment of new fishing projects. I agree that these remarks were concentrated, as 1 indicated at the outset, on one industry and one phase of that industry. But I recall the Minister making those observations, in the most express terms, as a declaration of the general philosophy of the Government. In these circumstances, therefore, I ask him to pardon the Opposition’s suspicions about any move affecting the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories.

Senator Ridley:

– And the suspicions of the voters throughout Australia, too!

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes. I think that the electors would be gravely disturbed if they thought that this national undertaking were to go the way of so many others and be relegated to the hands of the drug houses, which are mostly foreign-owned and part of the world cartel that wa9 shown quite recently to be making profits on drugs of some thousands per cent.

Senator Spooner:

– Such fears could be justified only if Labour ever gained office.

Senator McKENNA:

– We shall see what happens when Labour gains office. There will certainly be no worry about the continuance and proper development of these laboratories if Labour ever forms a government.

Senator Spooner:

– There is no worry at the present time, either.

Senator McKENNA:

– We shall know more about that in the future. We see considerable significance and much cause for alarm in the fact that these laboratories, which are predominantly a technical, medical and research institution, are now to pass out of the control of medical experts and be handed over to a commission on which private businessmen - men with business qualifications - will predominate. The director of the laboratories may not be the chairman or the vice-chairman of that commission, and he may not be counted in a quorum as specified for meetings of the commission. Generally, he is relegated to a junior position. I merely say that that strikes a blow at a vital spot in this institution - its research section. The research is of two kinds. There is practical research relating to new products and improved products, and there is research that seeks remedies for the ills of the peoples of the world. In that field there are opportunities for pure research of various types.

It is that opportunity that has attracted to the institution some of the best scientific minds in the world and held them there; but if, as 1 see is likely under the type of control that is vested in the commission, the place is to be turned into a factory, the technical and professional status of those people will be damaged, not only in their own eyes - which is exceedingly important - but also in the eyes of the professional institutions of the world. This is a move to turn the laboratories into a factory rather than to maintain the technical and professional level as it is to-day. This is certainly not a business only.

When we come to see how the control is to be exercised and look at clause 19 of the bill, under Division 2, which sets out the functions, powers and duties of the commission, we find that the activities of the new Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission are to be circumscribed. The clause provides -

The functions of the Commission are -

to produce and sell such biological products of a kind used for therapeutic purposes as are prescribed and to undertake research in connexion with any such prescribed product;

The products that the commission may undertake to produce must be prescribed in the “ Commonwealth Gazette “, and they are limited to biological products that are used for therapeutic purposes - for purposes of the treatment of ills. That ignores the whole great field of preventive medicine, prophylactic medicine and the rest. The Opposition will propose amendments to paragraph (c) of clause 19 to provide that the limited scope now inflicted on the laboratories will be removed and to ensure that the functions of the laboratories will beopened out. I have had circulated the amendments we propose to move in committee. The Senate will find that there are two definitions, one relating to biological products and the other relating to therapeuticpurposes. That will open out the scone for activity that will be available to the commission.

There is one other extraordinary and tough condition to be imposed on the laboratories.If the Minister for Health directs that a particular project be undertaken in research or in the development of aparticular product and a loss is incurred, then, if you please, the Minister’s mistake is to be buried in profits from other sources made by the commission, at least to the extent of those profits. If this is a business, what a burden that is to impose on a business institution! If the laboratories are to be run on business lines, if they have to pay income tax - which they have never paid before - and to be responsible for paying a fair proportion of their profits to the Treasury, determined by the Treasurer and the Minister for Health, after consultation, then let them be run as a business proposition.

The Commonwealth, being the greatest buyer of the biological products, proposes to take unto itself the power to fix the prices of the products it buys. What a perfectly delightful situation for a business concern, to have its main buyer dictating the price at which it may sell. How do you run a business on those lines? It would be very interesting to hear the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty) justify these provisions, with his experience in business.

Senator Henty:

– I have a different interpretation of the whole undertaking; that is the difference.

Senator McKENNA:

– I shall be quite happy to have the Minister’s interpretation, because we have very little information before us to-day.

Senator Robertson:

– Will not the commission relieve the director of a lot of the work associated with the business activities of the institution, leaving him free to devote himself to the technical side?

Senator McKENNA:

– Dr. Bazeley has taken a most unusual course - and I have no doubt that it is justified - in publicly opposing the Government’s proposal. That is my answer to Senator Robertson. The director may welcome a commission to help him. The Opposition will make a proposal to constitute a commission. We are not opposing that idea ourselves. We go some part of the way with the honorable senator, as she will see if she studies our. amendment. We are proposing, not a part-time commission of four with the director in a subservient position, but a commission of two medical men, including the director, and one businessman. Further, it would be a full-time commission. If the proposal has any virtue and if the commissioners are to make this concern develop properly, they should have full opportunity to do so.

Incidentally, the laboratories could be a very useful adjunct to our export trade. I have known the time when they had a substantial export trade, but I do not know what the position is to-day in that regard. I know the potential is there, and it should not be depressed. The Senate should have an opportunity to probe that sort of thing. We should be able to study that aspect and to learn more about the various matters I am raising, on which we lack information.

Until the Opposition suggested it, there was no protection against directors of drug houses or executive officers or officers of any type of the drug houses being appointed to the commission. Apparently, the Government did not think it necessary to safeguard against that, but on the matter being put in another place to the Minister for Health (Dr. Donald Cameron), he proposed an amendment to this effect -

A person who -

has a financial interest, whether direct or indirect, in a company that is engaged in, or a business enterprise that is carried on wholly or partly for the purpose of, the production or wholesale distribution of pharmaceutical products (including biological products of a kind used for therapeutic purposes); or

is a director of a company that is so engaged, shall not be appointed under this section as a Commissioner.

Then the Government accepted a further amendment to provide also that an officer or employee of a company that is so engaged shall not be appointed as a commissioner. That pleased the Opposition. It removed a little bit - but only a little bit - of the suspicion we had in relation to the commission as it was proposed.

We will propose another clause designed to safeguard this institution as a truly national one. It is not a novel clause. It is. similar to those that appeared in the aluminium agreement made between the Tasmanian. Government and the Commonwealth Government and in the original agreement between Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, as it then was. Our proposal is con tained in amendment No. 6 that has been circulated and it states -

The Commission shall not enter into or be in any way concerned in or a party to or act. in concert with any commercial trust or combine, but shall always be and remain an independent Australian undertaking.

That would be a statutory safeguard. If the Minister means what he says, there is no thought of selling the laboratories. Then 1 say, without offence, let the sincerity of that protestation be tested by this amendment when I get an opportunity to move it. I understand that the position to-day in Australia in relation to two of the great products of the laboratories - penicillin and insulin - is this: There is a world surplus of penicillin and penicillin is being dumped in Australia by drug houses to such an extent that they have captured two-thirds of the Austraiian market. The serum laboratories have enormous stocks of penicillin which they cannot sell, and their penicillin production plant has been closed down since October.

Senator Henty:

– Did you say “ dumped “?

Senator McKENNA:

– That is what I am told; I am not stating this from my own information. Frankly, I state it on the basis of what was said in our party room by somebody who, I hope, was well informed.

Senator Henty:

– We have had a dumping duty on it for months.

Senator McKENNA:

– I am interested to hear that. What does the Minister say to the allegation that overseas penicillin has taken two-thirds of the Australian market? Is that correct? I normally check for myself every, allegation of fact that I make in this place, but I think the Senate will pardon me for not haying done so on this occasion as the only opportunity I have had to look at the bill and the Minister’s second-reading speech was at the breakfast table this morning.

Senator Henty:

– I raised the matter only because if it was being dumped the Department of Customs and Excise should pick it up.

Senator McKENNA:

– That was the information with which the party was supplied from a source in which I havesome confidence. There is a very similar story with regard to insulin. There is approximately the same difficulty, with a shooting-in of insulin at a price less than that at which it is sold overseas. It is in the same situation as penicillin.

Senator Ridley:

– Do you mean by “ dumped “ that it is dumped at a price lower than cost or dumped in the literal sense?

Senator McKENNA:

– I do not mean dumpedintheliteralsense,Imeanthatitis brought in at a price below that charged in the country of production.

Senator Ridley:

– The Minister may have taken you up on the wrong interpretation ofthe word.

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA · LP

– No. We have been taking cash depositson penicillin since January.

Senator McKENNA:

– The Minister did nottakethewordinthemeaningsuggested by Senator Ridley?

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA · LP

– No.

Senator McKENNA:

– I suggest that the penicillinwasdumped,inthatitwas broughtinatlessthanthecostofproduc- tion.IamobligedtoSenatorO’Byrnefor putting in myhand a document purporting to be minutes of evidence taken by the Parliamentary Standing Committee onPublic Works at Canberraon 18th April, 1961. In paragraph8,in replytoMr. O’Connor, Dr.Bazeley is reported to have stated-

In regard to competitive prices, there is nothing in the internal market in this field at all. There is one other producer of “penicillin in Australia but most ofthe penicillin is at present imported. We do not meet the lowest imported price. There is no question about that. But on Australian production and on production in countries with the same living standards as Australia we are quite competitive in our prices.

That advances the matter somewhat; but I say again that on this occasion I am in the difficulty that the usual amount of research and study which I devote to these subjects has not been possible, to my great regret and disappointment. We in Australia have, with our great meat consumption, access to the raw material of insulin which is extracted from the pancreas of animals. It is in good supply. I understand that we make the purest insulin in the world and that we are about one-third of the way into the Australian market. We have been pushed out of a market that the laboratories had won. I am suggesting that there are, in truth, many matters in relationto this bill that should be looked at by the Senate. We should not allow this change to take place without clear, good and sound reasons. We shouldnot allow itto happen without information as to the accounts, the profits, the capital and its source and whether the assets are shown at the depreciated or market value. We should look at the public objections of Dr. Bazeley. We should have an opportunity to examine those matters. We should look at the export potentialof the serum laboratories. We areentitledto hear Dr. Bazeley’s viewpoint before a select committee which this Senate could usefully appoint.

On another motion preliminary to this one, I explained that the Government obviously was in no hurry last week. Last week there was not the urgency mentioned bythe Leader of the Government, and the Governmentwas prepared to let this bill lie for three months. Now it has been brought to light suddenly.

Senator Scott:

– I think you should be fair and say that we thought we were risinglast week, but because you kicked over the traces and used filibustering tactics we have been here all night.

Senator McKENNA:

– Let the honorable senator not accuse me of being unfair; When I spoke a few minutes ago on the earlier motion, I made it perfectly clear that withthethought that bothHouses of the Parliament wouldrise last week, the Government decided to let the billgo for three months.

Senator Scott:

– You did not say that then.

Senator McKENNA:

– I understand that the people in this place have good ears, that theyare intelligent, and that they pay some attention while I speak. I was givingthe honorable senator credit for all those things.

Senator Scott:

– I am sorry if I misinterpreted what you said.

Senator McKENNA:

– I did make it completely clear, and frankly I do not like the charge of unfairness.

Senator Dittmer:

– And the charge of kicking over the traces is not fair.

Senator McKENNA:

– I have no hesitation in pleading guilty to the charge that the Opposition determined to force the Government to come back and to give us something like adequate time in this Parliament. I am proud and happy to say that we succeeded. What shockingly inadequate consideration could have been given to the bill we discussed all day yesterday. Look at the shocking consideration the Senate gave in the small hours of this morning to bills disposing of hundreds of millions of pounds. Look at the completely inadequate consideration with which the Senate will, under the guillotine procedure, dismiss this very important measure.

I am rather intrigued to know that in this bill somebody saw fit to include in the functions of the commission all the elements of constitutional base that could be scraped together. The functions are exercisable m relation to the defence of the Commonwealth, external affairs, trade and commerce with other countries or among the States, the provision by the Commonwealth of pharmaceutical, sickness or hospital benefits or of medical or dental services, quarantine, and a Territory of the Commonwealth. Those are, I think, all perfectly accurate, but what was the fear in seeking the invocation of that plenitude of power? I never thought that the serum laboratories as a valid institution was being attacked, or was likely to be attacked.

Senator Wright:

– What clause is that?

Senator McKENNA:

– Clause 19(d). Every element of constitutional power that could be invoked has been invoked. On behalf of the Opposition, I express regret that I am not better informed to put a more adequate case. I doubt whether anybody in this place, other than, perhaps, Ministers themselves, has any knowledge of the real reasons that actuate this bill. I move an amendment to the motion before the Senate, in the following terms: -

Leave out all words after “That”, insert “the bill be referred to a Select Committee of both Houses to report to Parliament in August next

There could be great advantage in that procedure not only for ourselves, the Parliament and the nation, but also for the serum laboratories. I do not know how much other honorable senators know about the serum laboratories. I knew a lot about them years ago. I have taken an interest in them in the intervening years and, in the way that this bill is presented, I do not feel qualified to give it the consideration that it deserves. Accordingly, I seek support for the amendment

Senator Henty:

– Mr. President-

Senator Dittmer:

– Does the Minister intend to close the debate?

Senator Henty:

– I merely want to reply to one or two questions that have been raised.

Seenator O’Byrne. - But if the Minister speaks now he will close the debate.

Senator Henty:

– That is not my intention.

Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia

– I would have thought that the members of the Opposition, having asked specific questions of the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty) and having invited him to answer them, would have been most willing to hear his reply in the few minutes that remain before the time allowed for the second-reading stage of the bill expires. We find, however, that when the Minister gets, up to speak, honorable senators opposite raise objections. However, the Minister will no doubt have an opportunity to reply to the Opposition’s criticism at the committee stage, if sufficient time is available. I remind the Senate that when other measures were before us yesterday and this morning, Opposition senators filibustered as long as they could, and gave honorable senators on this side no opportunity to speak.

Senator Ridley:

– The honorable senator is supposed to be talking about this bill.

Senator SCOTT:

– I am just making a few introductory remarks concerning the behaviour of Labour senators before I deal with the bill in detail.

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) made some comments about a speech made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Spooner) in 1956 during the debate on the Fishing Industry Bill. Senator McKenna stated that Senator Spooner had said that if the Government embarked on any new projects and established undertakings to carry them out, it would take the first opportunity to sell those undertakings if it were at all possible and if a reasonable price could be obtained for them. Selling projects of the kind then envisaged is quite a different proposition from selling the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. Some honorable senators opposite were members of this Parliament in 1956 when the Fishing Industry Bill was introduced to provide for the sale of the Australian Whaling Commission’s station at Carnarvon. When the bill was introduced into the Senate, the Minister said in his second-reading speech that the Government would use the fishing industry fund that it was then proposing to establish to start new fishing industries in Australia, and that if such industries were started, the Government would, at the first favorable opportunity, dispose of them.

Senator O’Byrne:

– What has this got to do with the bill now before us?

Senator SCOTT:

– I am answering the Leader of the Opposition, who spoke about the sale of the whaling station in Western Australia. Surely I am allowed to refute the accusations of the Leader of the Opposition. He criticized this Government, and in’ particular the Leader of the Senate, and honorable senators opposite do not like to hear me refuting his allegations. However, some Opposition senators will not be here much longer, because an election is approaching.

I have recounted what the Minister said about the sale of certain government enterprises, but honorable senators are completely off the track if they seek to relate those comments to any projected sale of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. The Government has stated that it has no intention of selling that institution. This legislation will simply place the control and management of the laboratories in the hands of a commission of five persons instead of in the hands of a single person. Let me say immediately that the person now controlling the laboratories, Dr. Bazeley, is doing an excellent job, but can any honorable senator opposite point to another industry or business in Australia, with assets of £6,000,000, which is controlled and managed by one person?

Senator Ridley:

– Yes, this Government.

Senator SCOTT:

– I agree that the director of the laboratories is under the control of the Minister for Health (Dr. Donald Cameron). I contend, however, that this commission will efficiently control and guide the activities of the laboratories.

It is good policy, I suggest, to have such a commission in control of an undertaking of this kind. Trans-Australia Airlines is controlled by a commission, and the Australian National Line is likewise controlled by a commission. I believe that this kind of control achieves the best results.

We must remember that these laboratories represent an investment of £6,000,000, and the idea of placing them under the control of a commission is to ensure that they will be guided by people with experience in the business world, who will know the most efficient way to run an establishment which is worth £6,000,000.

The Leader of the Opposition also asked what the Government is doing about the importation of certain vaccines. These preparations can be purchased only with the approval of the Minister. Quite a large proportion of the polio vaccine produced by the laboratories is purchased, directly or indirectly, by the Commonwealth Government. This procedure will continue to be followed, and provision is accordingly being made for the price of such products to be determined by the Minister after consultation with the commission. In practice the commission will recommend what the price should be; and approval of that price can be given by the Minister if he chooses to do so. A recommendation will be made by the director, through the commission, to the Minister. lt has been stated quite clearly that additional research work, as recommended by the committee, will be carried out by the laboratories. The commission will readily obtain from the Government finance necessary for carrying out such research.

Senator Toohey:

– How do you know?

Senator SCOTT:

– The information was given in the Minister’s second-reading speech, which some honorable senators opposite may have read.

The whole idea of setting up this commission is in line with Government policy, and I have mentioned two other organizations that are controlled by commissions such as the one envisaged by this bill.

I believe the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories have done a wonderful job since the undertaking was established in 1916 under Dr. Penfold, who, I understand, occupied the position from 1916 to 1926.

Senator Dittmer:

– Until 1927.

Senator SCOTT:

– The Minister said in his second-reading speech that it was 1926.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The time allotted for the second reading of the bill having expired, I therefore put the question, “ That the words proposed to be left out be left out “.

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bil] read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4.

In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears - “ Commissioner “ means a member of the Commission and includes an Acting Commissioner;

Senator McKENNA:
‘Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move -

Before the definition of “ Commissioner “ insert the following definition - “‘biological products’ includes antibiotics, antigens, antitoxins, blood derivatives, insulin products, sera, toxoids and vaccines; “.

The relevance of the amendment will be apparent from a perusal of clause 19, which I read when we were in the Senate. It provides that the functions of the commission are - to produce and sell such biological products of a kind used for therapeutic purposes as are prescribed . . .

There are many things associated with biological products of the type I have indicated. I should think that the learned doctor on my right would be in a better position to explain to the Senate the difference between the various elements that are included in the definition. The purpose of the amendment is to widen the scope of the activities of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories beyond that provided for under this bill. I invite any one who wishes to consider the amendment in its context to turn to clause 19 of the bill.

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– The amendment provides for a specific definition. Actually, biological products have a significance of their own. The Opposition is suspicious that the Government intends to apply what it terms the process of rationalization to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, just as it applied such a process to Trans-Australia Airlines. In other words, if it finds that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are going ahead of their competitors it will either drag the laboratories back or push the competitors of the laboratories up to the same level. The Opposition feels that by specifically defining biological products to include this range of products the productivity and the objectives of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories will not be limited, and the institution will be able to serve the functions for which it was originally established.

Frankly, I think it is politically disgraceful that the Senate should have been handed a bill of such importance at halfpast six this morning. This is the second time within three days that 1 have been Ned Kelly-ed out of making a secondreading speech. 1 think the Government should accept some of the amendments to be moved by the Opposition in order to allay dissatisfaction and suspicion in the minds of people. In this particular case there must be a large measure of doubt in people’s minds because Dr. Bazeley, the director of the laboratories - a quiet man of world eminence in the field of research and production - has seen fit to be critical of the bill. We believe that on this occasion the Government should take some notice of the Opposition. There is no valid reason why it should not do so.

Subsequently Senator McKenna will move an amendment to provide for a specific definition of therapeutic purposes, and an elaboration of the term. I believe that that amendment will not do otherwise than add value to the legislation, just as a definition of the term “ biological products “ will add value to the legislation. Irrespective of what honorable senators opposite may suggest is the significance of the term “ biological products “, the amendment that has been moved is definitely tied up with the production of these products in the interests of the people. These products should be bought from the Government’s own laboratories and not purchased from overseas drug houses, as is being done in the case of the pharmaceutical benefits formulary at present. We are spending £26,000,000 a year on drugs for pharmaceutical benefits. Rather than seek to restrain the activities of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, the Government should be seeking to extend its activities in the near future in order to enable it to provide the medical and veterinary requirements of the Australian people and Australian primary industry.

As 1 said, £26,000,000 is spent on drugs in the pharmaceutical benefits formulary. How much more is spent by people buying outside the formulary no one knows. Only recently a congressional committee in America conducted an inquiry which revealed that enormous profits were being made by the recognized, so-called reputable and ethical drug houses of America. When you compare the price of penicillin with the price of other anti-biotics you find that the price of penicillin is about one-sixth that of the average price of the other antibiotics. This is because Sir William Fleming and Dr. Florey did not seek a royalty. Admittedly the firms I have mentioned obtained their products as the result of research, but the cost of the research was met from the enormous profits they made, and did not affect the extraordinarily large dividends they paid.

I commend the definition to the Minister. The Opposition does not intend to take up too much time on it, as we wish to speak on other amendments, particularly those which have to do with the position of the director of the laboratories.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP

– I should like to deal with these points as they crop up. Dr. Dittmer suggests that the Government accept the amendment moved by Senator McKenna. He suggested that we should define the term “ biological products”. Of course, by defining that we would only make the position static, but by not defining it we widen the whole position. The proposition is that we should accept these amendments because they are put forward by the Opposition, which seems to be feeling a little ill-used the last day or so. If you put forward a proposition, doctor, that has some common sense, the Government would be prepared to accept it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

– Order! The Minister will address the honorable senator as senator.

Senator HENTY:

– I am sorry - Senator Dittmer. If the Opposition were to put forward a common-sense proposition, the Government would accept it as it accepted an amendment moved in the other House.

With reference to the penicillin position, I should like to make it quite clear that there were allegations of dumping drugs produced in the United Kingdom, Denmark, Holland and France. The Government investigated the matter and found that in the case of the United Kingdom, Denmark and Holland, penicillin was being dumped, but not in the case of France. The Government immediately insisted on cash deposits and has done so since the beginning of this year. I have also referred this matter to the Tariff Board.

The Parliamentary Draftsman has examined the amendment that has been moved and he has said quite clearly that everything in the amendment is already covered in the bill. An amendment such as this would only clutter up the bill with a lot of words and provide for nothing that is not already in the bill. The Government, therefore, is unable to accept the amendment.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I should like to ask the Minister a question. Can he point out in the bill specifically where mention is made of these particular products?

Senator Henty:

– In clause 19.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I support the amendment moved by Senator McKenna to insert in clause 4 a definition of biological products. The Opposition believes that in setting up this commission the Government wants to develop the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories commercially to the stage where they provide the Commonwealth with revenue in the form of interest on the capital invested, in the laboratories and income tax on any profits that may be made. The Government is also carrying out its policy of not allowing public undertakings to compete with private enterprise.

Throughout the long and valuable history of the laboratories, the emphasis has been on research. Research has been successfully conducted in the fields of antibiotics, antigens, anti-toxins, blood derivatives, insulin products, sera, toxoids and vaccines. Important research has also been done in bacterial prophylactics and diagnostic reagents for veterinary and human use and into tuberculin diagnostic agents and culture media. These, of course, are more or less stock matters. However, there is not a great deal of profit in these activities, although they are essential if the nation is to discharge its normal responsibilities in maintaining the health of the community and preventing epidemics and outbreaks of disease.

When the bill is before us, it is most important that we make certain that the definition of biological products is clear and that there is no doubt as to what the future activities of the laboratories must be. Later we will have an opportunity to debate other definitions which I think should be included in the bill, and I will reserve any further comment until then.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– It is essential that the definition contained in the Opposition’s amendment be written into the bill. The Government has made a shameful and sinister move, but it has not acted suddenly. Over two months ago, I asked a question based on information given to me by sections of the medical profession. In addition, civil servants had criticized the departments and the policies of the Government, and this criticism has been justified. When Victoria was swept by an influenza epidemic, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, the source to which we usually look, had difficulty in providing sera. I asked a question in the Senate and received an assurance that everything was all right. Again’, Oh 19th April last, I asked a question in which I referred to the following remarks by Dr. Bazeley: -

If we don’t get some increased accommodation of this type of laboratory space we cannot either look after the natural increase or any kind of emergency whatever.

Lack of space at the laboratories has prevented proper investigation into the failure of several batches of Salk anti-polio vaccine.

Such a failure in laboratories which have a glorious record is a very serious matter.

The Government has permitted the dumping of vaccines, drugs, toxins and other medical supplies in this country at a price below that obtaining in the country of origin. I travelled with Dr. Doric, an American doctor, during the last war. Vaccines then were held for six months only. They could have been used over longer periods, but to be absolutely sure that no mistake would be made, they were destroyed after six months. Dr. Dorio spoke very highly of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, and said, that the excellence and absolute reliability of their product could not be challenged. Now the Government wants to restrict the activities of the laboratories.

Senator Henty:

– The Opposition wants to restrict them.

Senator COOKE:

– The Government wants to restrict them. If it did not, it would have no objection to the broad definition that we seek to include in the bill. The Government, at this late hour of the sessional period, has introduced the legislation hurriedly and has not allowed proper time for its consideration. A proper investigation should be made into all aspects of the matter. The criticism by public servants was justified, and they said as little as they could in their efforts to bring to public notice the grave deficiencies that had developed in the laboratories. The Government seeks to restrict the activities of the laboratories and to limit their research work. It speaks about putting the laboratories on a business basis. If this is to be done, they should be given the protection that is given to other business undertakings and should be allowed to continue with the development of various types of sera.

I think the amendment is necessary and should be accepted by the Government. It would provide the widest possible scope to the activities of the laboratories. If an emergency decision must be made concerning sera or other products, the laboratories should have the authority to make it.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I think that this amendment is necessary. It focuses attention on the wonderful work that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories have been doing for many years. I have been interested in them for a very long time and have been absolutely amazed at the extent of the work and the wholehearted devotion of the men and women scientists at the laboratories. It may not be widely known that all the sera, vaccines and penicillin used during the last war in the areas under the command of General MacArthur in South-East Asia and as far afield as Lord Louis Mountbatten’s commands in Egypt and Burma came from the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories.

I was in the laboratories at the time the first penicillin was produced in commercial quantities for civilian use, and I realize what a great debt we owe to the devoted scientists in the. laboratories who were engaged in this research work.

For the Government to propose an amendment to provide for businessmen to run the laboratories as a business proposition seems to me to be completely wrong. It is just the same as appointing a committee composed of a majority of businessmen to run. an educational institution which conducts research, such as a university. There would be an outcry from the whole community if that were done. Yet these laboratories are on a much larger scale than such an institution and their activities affect the welfare and health of all members of the community. Because of the work that has been done in the laboratories the cost of the drugs, vaccines, insulin, blood sera and other products manufactured there has been kept down and the products have been given to the public free in many cases, and in other cases at the lowest possible price, in order to safeguard the health of the community.

If the laboratories are to be made a business proposition and run on a commercial basis, we have to give them a substantial statement of the research that they have to conduct so that they will not be limited if certain lines of investigation are found to be unprofitable. Therefore, I believe that it is in the best interests of the laboratories and research generally that these biological products should be defined so that there is no limitation of the activities of the laboratories in that direction simply because of business considerations. I should say that the products included in the definition would represent the very minimum of research that one might expect from the laboratories if they are to continue to give scientific assistance. The scientists who are working on research there are people with a vocation. They are dedicated to this job. I do not believe that they should be limited by business or financial considerations.

SenatorHENTY (Tasmania- Minister for Customs and Excise) [11.12 a.m.]. - I should like to repeat to both Senator Tangney and Senator Cooke that the inclusion of this definition would limit the activities of the laboratories. At the present time the matter is wide open. The laboratories may undertake any activity. If this definition is included in the act the laboratories will be able to do only the things that are referred to in the definition. The amendment would restrict the activities of the laboratories.

Amendment negatived.

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– I move -

At end of clause add the following definition: - “ ‘ therapeutic purposes ‘ means -

preventing, diagnosing, curing or alleviating of a disease, ailment, defect or injury in persons or animals;

influencing, inhibiting or modifying of a physiological process in persons or animals; or

testing of susceptibility to a disease or ailment in persons or animals.”.

In clause 19 of the bill the term “therapeutic purposes” is used. I am not particularly happy with this proposed definition of “therapeutic purposes”, but at least it enlarges the significance of the term contained in the bill. The Opposition has moved that the term be more specifically defined in order to clarify its meaning from the point of view of the work of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. Thus, their research activities would be improved. It is unfortunate that the Government has vested the sole authority for directing research in the Minister for Health. Research projects will emanate from him. I am not quarrelling about the authority of the Minister. Being a member ofthe Ministry and a representative of the people, he must have authority over the projects under his control. But the men who realize the really important medical or veterinary problems that face us are the scientists who are engaged in research. I believe that the definition of “ therapeutic purposes “ should be widened. “ Therapeutic “ is not the most suitable word, but it is the one that is in the bill and it has been included in the amendment and elaborated.

The three paragraphs of the amendment give real scope for research. The amendment would provide real opportunities, particularly if the Government agreed to the appointment of a commission such as outlined by the Opposition. At no stage have we quarrelled - nor has Dr. Bazeley quarrelled, as far as I can understand from the press reports of his statements - with the establishment of a commission. The only point that we quarrel about is the composition of the commission. We consider that there should be a preponderance of scientific and medical personnel. We suggest that a fourth scientific man should be on the commission. If he were a full-time official, he would be able to do much more than a businessman working part tune would be able to do to improve the efficiency of the laboratories and make them a successful business.

The terms of the definition are simple, but they are all-embracing. It is apparent from the terms of the definition that we are seeking the prevention of disease. That should be our prime objective. At the present time, of necessity, too much attention is devoted to the curative side of medicine. We should foe aiming at the prevention of disease. It should be the responsibility of an organization such as the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, as a result of research, if it can to manufacture products that will prevent the occurrence of disease. If they can manufacture products to immunize people against various medical catastrophes, that is all to the good. It contributes to the well-being of every one. It also contributes to efficiency and productivity.

There should not be any objection to our effort to explain the term “ therapeutic purposes”. I want to make it quite clear that I am not happy with the word “ therapeutic”. I do not want to quarrel about the actual meaning of the word, but it has been included in the bill and for that reason the Opposition has sought to define it so that it will be all-embracing not only from the point of view of treatment but also from the point of view of prevention.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP

– The Government cannot accept this amendment. The reason is the same as the reason for rejecting the other definition amendment. In the opinion of the Parliamentary Draftsman, and of the officers of the Department of Health, “ therapeutic purposes “ covers all the matters that are included in the amendment, and a great deal more. It is not the intention of the Government to restrict the definition. For that reason, the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment.

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– In regard to the statement just made by the Minister for Customs and Excise, I certainly quarrel with the Parliamentary Draftsman on the definition and significance of the word “ therapeutic “. For that reason, I cannot do other than protest, and protest strongly.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I rise merely to indicate to the Minister for Customs and Excise that both the terms that the committee has been debating - “biological products” and “therapeutic purposes “ are defined. The first is defined in the Therapeutic Substances Regulations, Regulation No. 20 of 1956, which was re-enacted in March, 1961. The one with which we are now dealing, “ therapeutic purposes” is taken verbatim from section 4 of the Therapeutic Substances Act 1953, which was amended in 1959, but not on the definition point. Speaking as a layman in the matter of medicine and medical terms, T say that I have always understood “ therapeutic “ to refer to treatment as opposed to prevention and other types of activity in the medical field.

The Government has imported those terms into the key clause of this bill, clause 19, which determines the functions of the commission. If what the Minister has said is correct - that the intention is to expand and not to restrict - I say emphatically to him that if the activities of the commission are confined to producing and selling biological products of a kind used for therapeutic purposes, on the face of it that is a delimitation. Obviously, if the commission is entitled to produce and sell biological products, which comprise all the products that the Government rejected in the first amendment proposed by the Opposition, the Government is delimiting the functions of the commission when it ties it down to activities in one direction for therapeutic purposes. In the Therapeutic Substances Act and the regulations made under the act it was found necessary to define therapeutic purposes so as to include preventing, diagnosing, curing or alleviating of a disease, ailment, defect or injury in persons or animals. The draftsman found it necessary to make that provision in denning therapeutic purposes for the purposes of that legislation. Quite obviously, the draftsman thought that the elements of preventing, diagnosing, curing or alleviating were not covered by the two words “ therapeutic purposes “, and for that reason he expanded the meaning for the purposes of his bill. “Why was that not done here? If, as the Minister says, the desire is to expand the activities of the laboratories, why does he not embrace a definition which obviously has the purpose of expanding the scope of these activities?

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I support the amendment. I have here Collins’ English dictionary, which defines “ therapeutic “ as “ of healing, the art of healing”. I feel that the words “ therapeutic purposes “ are the key words of the bill, because anything that would confine the activities of the laboratories must be avoided. The amendment that we propose refers to preventing and diagnosing a disease in persons or animals. Prevention and diagnosis do not come within the dictionary definition of “ therapeutic “. The same remark applies to other words used in the amendment - “ testing of susceptibility to a disease “. On a strict definition of the word “ therapeutic “, none of the activities of preventing, diagnosing or testing of susceptibility are included.

I believe the use of the words “therapeutic purposes” definitely restricts the activities of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories to healing. If their meaning is not extended, the laboratories may not be able to undertake research into prevention and diagnosis. Therefore, I hope the Minister will accept this amendment, which expresses the idea underlying the charter of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories.

This should be an all-embracing organization, not one for profit-making or trying to wring the last penny from the sick people of the community. It should work specifically for the good of the Australian people and of mankind generally, besides reducing the cost of the national health scheme and of the commodities sold in chemist shops. Those should be the purposes of the laboratories. This organization should not work on the basis of the Government’s greedy, grab-all idea that everything must carry the highest price that the market will bear, with the idea of taking everything into Consolidated Revenue. In the final analysis, what happens? The sick people of the country have to pay. The people who need the products of the laboratories pay as heavily as the Government can make them pay. The whole purpose of the setting up of this commission is to turn the laboratories into a factory, to make them work in with the drug houses and to have rationalization of drug prices.

At the present time, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories can more than compete with private-enterprise organizations. The distribution of the products is done through private organizations, and I think the establishment of the committee which has been suggested would give the Australian people an insight into one of the greatest rackets that is going on in this country. I refer to the distribution of things such as aspirin and other proprietary drugs that people use. These proprietary lines are being sold at a profit of from 500 per cent, to 1,000 per cent, comparing the cost of the basic ingredients and the cost to the public. That is what is occurring in relation to all of the proprietary medicines and drugs which people, through brain-washing and conditioning and expensive advertising, are in the habit of buying. If the public knew what some of these private companies were doing with regard to the prices charged, they would be right behind any government which set up an organization such as the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and said to it, “ Supply the whole of the market in Australia with drugs similar to these proprietary drugs”.

I think it is of great importance to extend the meaning of “ therapeutic purposes “ to include not only healing but also prevention, diagnosing, testing, experimenting and the carrying out of research in all branches of health-giving serums and antibiotics.I support the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Determinations by Minister to be in writing).

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I would like to know from the Minister in charge of the bill whether this provision means that the Minister for Health will determine what research and so on the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories can undertake? Surely every one knows that great results have been achieved in the scientific field, not exactly accidentally, but when some other type of research has been in progress. Will this provision put a stopper on research? Will the laboratories be directed by the Minister to do work only along lines which are profitable and will ordinary scientific research work be stifled because the work done will be only such as is directed by the Minister?

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP

– Clause 5 merely says that the Minister must define everything in writing.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to..

Clause 8. (1.) The Commission shall consist of -

  1. four Commissioners, one of whom is a medical practitioner registered under a law of a State or a Territory of the Commonwealth providing for the registration of medical practitioners; and
  2. the Director.
Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

.- This is a clause which constitutes the commission, which is to consist of four commissioners and the director. The commissioners are to be appointed by the Governor-General, some of them to bold office for four years and the others, for two. A’ system of rotation of some of them every two years is proposed. The first objection of the Opposition is to the proposal to have five commissioners, with only one of the four referred to in paragraph (a) a medical practitioner. With the director he will constitute a medical minority on the commission. That set-up will stultify the activities of this body. It certainly will depreciate it in the eyes of the world from a professional and technical point of view. The emphasis on the business angle - there will be three businessmen to two medicos on the commission - will tend to convert the premises of the laboratories into a factory. At present the laboratories are attractive to men and women with high scientific qualifications because they are under medical control and because there is scope for research of various kinds.

On behalf of the Opposition I move -

Leave out paragraph (a) of sub-clause (1.), insert the following paragraph: - “ (a) three Commissioners, of whom at least one is a medical practitioner registered under a law of a State or a Territory of the Commonwealth providing for the registration of medical practitioners and another is a person possessing scientific qualifications, and all three of whom shall devote the whole of their time to the duties of their office; and”.

We think that the commission should comprise two technical persons. The other scientist, apart from the director or the medico, might well be a veterinarian, because one of the great services rendered by the serum laboratories has been the provision of drugs for use on sheep, cattle and horses.

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA · LP

– Would the officers whom you propose should be appointed be full-time officers?

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes. I do not know what other interpretation could be placed on my amendment. The serum laboratories are already doing a lot towards the production of biological products for use in connexion with the animal wealth of Australia. The laboratories have rendered great service in that field - service comparable with that rendered by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. In the amendment to clause 4 that we moved, paragraph (b) referred to therapeutic purposes related to both persons and animals. I would have hoped that members of the Australian Country Party in this place would have been keen to ensure that the element of therapy was expanded by definition to include treatment of animals. As the bill now stands there is no certainty that that will be done. I strongly feel that the committee has made a mistake in rejecting our amendment to clause 4 and failing to ensure that the commission shall include a scientist with a bias towards the veterinary field, and research and production in that field, who would have an opportunity to develop freely a very fine aspect of the activities of the serum laboratories.

The Opposition sees no virtue in having a commission of five men, most of whom are part-time officers. If the laboratories are to be run by a commission they will demand the full-time attention of at least three persons, two of whom should be scientists. I saw the working of the laboratories in their early days. I have seen the contact between the professional people, who are interested in the academic side but who, nevertheless, have applied great skill to the merchandising activities of the laboratories. The laboratories will be strengthened immeasurably if the right men are nominated to the commisison. One of them should be the director.

Let us look at the prospect of developing the Australian market and the overseas market. The laboratories should be able to sell their products with advantage in Asia and the Pacific area, thus helping our balance of payments position. The laboratories could direct their attention to the human field as well as to the animal field. I hope that the committee will be concerned to uphold the principles that are contained in the Opposition’s amendment.

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– I support the amendment. This Government has been awkward in handling many things, but it has never been more lop-sided than in its determination of the personnel of this commission. The enterprise to be controlled is a highly scientifically organized research and production unit. The Government proposes to hand it over to three businessmen, a medical man and the director. Incidentally, the director’s term is not to be longer than five years. That is a new provision. I do not know whether the Government intends to appoint Dr. Bazeley to the position. Perhaps the Government is not so keen on Dr. Bazeley as he had the courage to ventilate his opinions in the interests of the enterprise that he serves.

It is useless to claim that scientifically qualified men cannot handle this undertaking from the executive angle. In many American drug houses the chief executive officers are scientists or medical men. They are in control not only of production but also merchandising. In the serum laboratories there should be a preponderance of scientific or medical thought. There are two major facets to the activities of the laboratories. One facet is research and the other is production for sale. What contribution can the three businessmen make to research? One of the most valuable aspects of the operations of the laboratories has been their research work. What would happen, for example, if you had on the commission a medical man who has not done any research? I am not decrying Dr. Donald Cameron, but the very nature of the occupation that he followed prior to his entry into politics precluded him from doing any research work. It is important that we have a preponderance of medical and scientific personnel on the commission.

I do not know what the Government has in mind in relation to this matter. It has been secretive. It introduced this bill at 7.40 o’clock this morning and brought on the second-reading debate at 9.44 o’clock this morning, after honorable senators had been sitting through the night. I cannot see the reason behind the Government’s action. Certainly it has not acted in the interests of the nation. Plenty of time is available to discuss this legislation fully. The Government is anxious to rush into recess. If we were to sit for another day or two we could give this legislation mature consideration.

Does the Government intend to turn the laboratories into a cold-blooded business enterprise? Does it intend that the laboratories shall compete with Abbott laboratories Proprietary Limited, Eli Lilly (Australia) ‘ Proprietary Limited, Burroughs Wellcome and Company (Australia) Limited or Drug Houses of Australia Limited, which, over recent years, have spent millions of pounds in establishing laboratories in this country? Those organizations are seeking their pound of flesh. They are obtaining it in no small measure under the pharmaceutical benefits formulary at government expense. Over the years the Government has been in a position to modernize the facilities of the serum laboratories. The organization has not had a new building, I understand, since 1940. Only now is it proposed to give it a further laboratory block. If the Government intends to go into business coldbloodedly, let it have its businessmen. But if it intends to continue the practice of serving the people and carrying out valuable research which will be expanded only under scientific and medical personnel, not under accountants or solicitors or managing directors of T. C. Beirne Limited, Myer Emporium Limited or David Jones Limited, the Government will have to adopt a different course to that proposed in the bill.

Business people are not particularly interested in research. They are interested in profit. That is their outlook and 1 am not condemning it. It is the result of their training throughout their lives. They see pounds, shillings and pence on every tree and, in every corner and they will see them on every corner of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories if we are not careful and if the Government has its way.

I do not know of any greater humiliation that could be inflicted on the director of the laboratories than that which is proposed in the bill. I do not know whether the Government is satisfied with Dr. Bazeley or not. It has never made any statement, either to the Parliament or to the public, that it has been dissatisfied with him. He did an efficient job in the preparation of the Salk poliomyelitis vaccine. It excited the admiration of the world and he was acclaimed all over the world. I have never heard anything adverse of him. I have heard only praise of his accomplishments. If the Government intends to retain his services, it should call this the “ Dr. Bazeley Humiliation Bill “. The Government will not let Dr. Bazeley be chairman of the commission. It will not let him be vice-chairman. It will not let him be one of those members of the commission who form a quorum. His appointment will be only for five years. If I were

Dr. Bazeley, I would not take the job. If he does not take it the Government will not get any one of world reputation nor of outstanding scientific qualification to accept an appointment for five years or less.

The Government proposes to give Dr. Bazeley a minor role to play on the commission. Yet if it did not appoint him as a member of the commission the Government might be left with its accountants and a mediocre director. That could happen because of the awkward way in which the Government is handling the whole matter.

I commend the proposed amendment to the Government. Apparently the Government is not interested in it. Dr. Bazeley has given magnificent service as director of the laboratories since 1956, but he has been humiliated. The Government proposes to appoint him only for a term of five years.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP

– The Opposition has approached this matter as if a board of directors of a research laboratory was something novel. One of the most famous medical research laboratories in the world, the Connaught Medical Research Laboratories, owned by the State of Ontario, Canada, had a committee of six board members appointed over two years ago to control them because the laboratories had grown beyond the control of one man. The chairman of this committee is Mr. Justice Arthur Kelly. He had not been elevated to the bench when he was appointed to the committee. The committee men are businessmen, none of whom has any technical or professional competence. This illustrates that the Government’s approach to this matter is not based on a new principle.

The amendment proposed by the Opposition provides for the appointment of three full-time commissioners. The Government proposes that there shall be a board of four and the director, and that the only full-time member will be the director. He will be the chief executive officer. This is a set-up which exists in many of the best business organizations in Australia, where the chief executive officer is a director who is answerable to the board. Very few efficient organizations have a chief executive officer who is also the chairman of directors. That would be a weakness in the organization.

The Government proposes that the director shall be the chief executive officer or general manager of the whole show and have a seat on the board. The board will have four members, apart from the director, one -of whom will be a medical practitioner registered under a law of a State or Territory of the Commonwealth providing for the registration of medical practitioners. The director, of course, is a technical man. The three other commissioners will have had business and financial experience. This organization is a big business.

Senator Tangney:

– It is not only a big business.

Senator HENTY:

– That is so. It is a two-pronged show. It is a shanghai business. It has its research and its business, but this is a big organization which employs a thousand people. It turns over more than £2,000,000 a year. It has a capital of £6,000,000 and it has grown beyond the capacity of one man to manage. This is not a one-man band now. It is a show which needs a competent board of directors, experienced in all fields, further to develop both research and the manufacture and sale of products some 4,000 of which are being made at the moment. I think that the Government’s approach to the matter is eminently practical and sensible for the purpose of further development.

I have had many experiences in my business lifetime of a small business growing and growing under one man. The time comes when it is beyond the ability of that one man to hold all the strings in his hands. Consequently, a board takes over control of the business. It is a normal practice in the sensible development of any organization when it reaches a stage at which it turns over more than £2,000,000 a year, has a capital of £6,000,000, and affects the welfare of a staff of a thousand persons. It is quite practical and sensible that commissioners should then be asked to bring their experience to assist development of research and the manufacture of products for sale. The Minister explained in the course of his second-reading speech on the bill that research activity is specifically provided for and that the Commonwealth Government can make additional money available to finance special research. That is stated in the Minister’s secondreading speech, and that is clearly the position. Frankly, comparing the amendment with the Government’s proposals, I think that the Government’s proposals are far sounder and that they will lead to more efficient growth of the laboratories than would be possible if the Opposition’s proposal were accepted. Because we believe that the approach of the Minister and the Government is so much sounder than that of the Opposition the Government is unable to accept the amendment.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I think all honorable senators would agree with the Minister’s remarks if they applied only to a business. I should like to know the yard-stick of the business efficiency about which he spoke so much. We all know that in a business efficiency is gauged according to sales promotion and the profit that can be made from sales; but when we speak of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories we are speaking of an organization that is not merely a business. The main function of the laboratories is to undertake research. The value and the extent of medical research cannot possibly be measured by the same yard-stick as that which is used to measure the value of an ordinary business undertaking. Therefore, we say that to compare the laboratories with an ordinary business is ridiculous.

I have no doubt that some hard-headed businessmen may think that the main function of the laboratories is to make profits and to continue to turn out some of the profitable pills and potions now made as a result of research - articles that have proved their worth, and the increased production of which would be 100 per cent, profitable. But that is not the aim of the laboratories. What brought them into being was the need for scientific research. So we do not want the scientists on the commission to be out-numbered three to two by hard-headed businessmen who will be out only to make profits.

It has been proved over the years that those in control of the laboratories are not absent-minded professors. They are scientists who also are quite good businessmen. In addition to the wonderful research work that has been undertaken, and the great success that has been achieved in various fields of scientific research, the laboratories have shown a profit although that has not been the motive behind their operations. We therefore differ from the Minister on this point. We say that the main purpose of the laboratories is to conduct research for the betterment of the health of the whole community, and not merely to make profits. If it is desired to place the business side ot the laboratories on a sounder footing than it is on at the moment why not appoint a business manager to deal with the retail or business side, and leave the purely scientific research side to the scientists?

I know quite a number of very good businessmen who, like myself, do not know much about science. They may think that much of the dabbling with bits and pieces that goes on is a waste of time and money, because they cannot see what the end of the research is to be; but a lot of the dabbling is really essential because it suddenly may lead to a discovery that will be of considerable value. Therefore, we ask the Minister to reconsider the decision to place the laboratories under the charge of a board on which the majority of the commissioners will be businessmen instead of scientists and professional people.

Senator DITTMER (Queensland) [11.35 a.m. J. - I wish to ask the Minister a couple of questions. He referred in passing to shanghais. I do not know whether he has been using a shanghai lately, but the Government certainly has been using a shillelagh on us for the last two days. The Minister mentioned a research institute which is now under lay control. I ask him: When did the lay people take charge of that institute? He also referred to enterprises that have lay boards. We know how the drug houses are established and how their directors obtain their positions. Usually they are either large or small shareholders with certain business credentials. Sometimes they have not much in the way of business credentials other than a large shareholding. I am not decrying them in any way, but their one objective is to make profits to be passed on as dividends. The enterprises they control are in large measure different from the enterprise whose control we are discussing at the moment. I ask the Minister to answer the two questions that I have put to him.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP

– The information I have is that the institute I mentioned came under lay control as late as two years ago.

Senator Dittmer:

– Does the Minister know of any other instances?

Senator HENTY:

– 1 have no knowledge of any.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 15 agreed to.

Clause 16. (1.) Subject to this section, the Chairman shall convene such meetings of the Commission as, in his opinion, are necessary for the efficient conduct of its affairs. (8.) At a meeting of the Commission, three Commissioners other than the Director constitute a quorum.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move -

In sub-clause (8.), leave out “ other than “, insert “ including “.

The effect of the amendment will be te enable the director to be included in those who may constitute a quorum on the commission of five members. I think the Minister should tell the committee why the Government objects to the director being among those to constitute a quorum. The director is the chief executive officer, and I should like to know why a veto, as it were, has been placed on him. The Government proposes to allow the businessmen and the medical practitioner to constitute a quorum. Is it not possible that sometimes there will be difficulty in getting these people together? Would there not be advantages in having the director eligible to be counted for the purpose of constituting a quorum?

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP

– As I pointed out in reference to a previous clause, the director is in effect the general manager. He is the chief executive officer and he is also a government servant. He has a vote on the board, but in’ the opinion of the Government he should not be counted when a quorum is being formed.

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– The Minister has simply said that in the opinion of the Government the director should not be counted when a quorum is being formed. The Government must have a reason for that opinion. Will the Minister state the reason? I point out that in many cases executive officers are also directors and, in other cases, managing directors of boards of directors.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– Under the clause as at present worded, if three commissioners other than the Director constitute a quorum, a professional man may not form part of the quorum. Any decisions arrived at would be made by these hard-headed businessmen who are out for profit and those decisions might be at variance with the research work being undertaken by the laboratories at the time.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.

Clause 19.

The functions of the Commission are - (a)……

  1. if the Minister so determines -

    1. to undertake research towards the production of biological products of a kind used for therapeutic purposes, being products other than products prescribed for the purpose of the last preceding paragraph; and
    2. to install or maintain plant or equipment capable of being used for the production of biological products, and to produce and hold stocks of biological products, for purposes other than the immediate sale’ of those products’, in accordance with the determination; and
Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move -

Leave out paragraph (b), insert the following paragraphs’. - “ (b) to recommend to the Minister and, if he so determines, to undertake research towards the production of biological products of a kind used for therapeutic purposes, being products other than products prescribed for the purpose of the last preceding paragraph, in accordance with the determination; (ba) to install or maintain plant or equipment capable of being used for the production of biological products, and to produce and hold stocks of biological products, for purposes other than the immediate sale of those products, in accordance with a determination made under the last preceding paragraph; and”.

Clause 19 provides, inter alia, that the functions of the Commission shall be to undertake research towards the production of biological products of a kind used for therapeutic purposes and to install or maintain plant or equipment capable of being used for the production of such biological products, but only if the Minister so determines. The substantial difference between the clause and the amendment is that the amendment is designed to interpose the commission as a body that will make a recommendation before the Minister makes a determination. As the clause is now worded, the Minister will act without any obligation to consult the commission. The idea inherent in the amendment is to let the expert body, backed by its technical advisers, give proper consideration to the matter in question before the Minister makes up his mind. I commend the amendment to the Government.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP

– Ever since the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories came under the control of the Department of Health, the Minister for Health of the day has approved any research programme that has been submitted by the laboratories for his consideration. The course of action that the Opposition proposes in the amendment would naturally be followed under the clause as it stands. The Government cannot accept the amendment.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– A little while ago I asked a question which apparently was out of time. Probably this is the appropriate time at which to ask it. I ask the Minister: Does this clause mean that the research work that is to be carried out by the laboratories is to be determined solely by the Minister? Will there be no original research on the part of the scientists? If that is so, we may as well close up the laboratories. A lot of the work of the scientists has been done independently and their discoveries have been presented to us as a fait accompli.

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– The clause we are considering is just too ridiculous for words. Irrespective of the assurance that has been given by the Minister for Customs and Excise, I point out that the Minister for Health has not always been a medical man. This could easily happen again. That, of course, is no reflection upon Senator McKenna, who at one time was Minister for Health. I do not think he would assume responsibility for determining the research programme of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. At least he would listen to the submissions of the director of the laboratories. Who is to advise the Minister for Health? As has been stated, Dr. Cameron is the present Minister for Health. Perhaps he is interested in certain fields of medical science, but he has not been engaged in research. If a layman is to advise the Minister, will that person be the Director-General of Health? Does he know the particular aptitude of the men who are employed at the laboratories? Does he know the facilities that are available there and how they can be utilized to the maximum advantage?

Senator Gorton:

– Why do you refer to the Director-General of Health as being a layman?

Senator DITTMER:

– I do not describe him as being a layman. I said that the Minister for Health could well be a layman and that he would have to depend upon the Director-General of Health for advice. There may be some things I do not know, but there are not many. The fact that the Director-General of Health is not a layman is certainly not one of them. It is so patently clear that suggestions relating to research should emanate from the scientific establishment itself that I would be the last to accept the Minister as being the final authority. We could quite easily have a situation in which the Minister for Health would have no idea about what project should be embarked upon or of the aptitude of those who may wish to explore some field of research. Under the clause as it stands, all sorts of practical difficulties could arise. If the Government were to adopt the amendment moved by Senator McKenna, the Minister could still veto a project. But those who are employed at the laboratories and who are eager to improve medical products would be encouraged. The Government should accept the amendments as being a sensible one.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP

– If Senator Tangney turns to clause 19, she will find that it provides -

The functions of the Commission are -

to produce and sell such biological products of a kind used for therapeutic purposes as are prescribed and to undertake research in connexion with any such prescribed product;

Paragraph (b) relates to pure research, to which the honorable senator has referred. Under this provision the Minister has a responsibility to say, in effect, “Well, you have put a scientific programme before me. I have so much money with which to finance it. What would you say if I said I could not finance the whole programme? Please tell me what we should do or what part of the programme we should proceed with.” That is the procedure that has been followed for years.

Senator Tangney:

– That is what we wanted to know.

Senator Dittmer:

– The clause does not say that.

Senator HENTY:

– If you read clause 19 intelligently, you will see that it does say so.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 20 agreed to.

Proposed new clause.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move -

After clause 20, insert the following new clause: - “20a. The Commission shall not enter into or be in any way concerned in or a party to or act in concert with any commercial trust or combine but shall always be and remain an independent Australian undertaking.”.

Governments of different complexions have included that very clause–

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

– Order! The time allotted for proceedings in committee has expired.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Remainder of bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Henty) proposed -

Thai the bill be now read a third time.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I would like to lodge an emphatic protest against the way in which this bill has been presented to the Parliament, particularly to the Senate. As the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has already pointed out, it was only this morning, just before 8 o’clock, after the Senate had sat continuously for sixteen or seventeen hours, that this very important bill was brought before us. There has not been allowed to us sufficient time even to read the bill intelligently, let alone to discuss all its implications.

Senator Dittmer:

– We were able to read it, but insufficient time was allowed to us to debate it.

Senator TANGNEY:

– Yes, we could read it, but there are so many underlying meanings in quite a number of its clauses that it has been impossible for us to absorb the full purport of the measure in the time that the Government has allowed for it to be debated. During this sessional period, there were days on which the Senate did not sit because there was insufficient business awaiting its attention. At other times, we have sat for hours and hours to dispose of business that was not of much concern. Yet a bill - a very important bill - relating to the ramifications of an organization that extend over a very great part of the community is brought before us when everybody is tired out after a marathon sitting, and honorable senators, when in a state of exhaustion, are required to pass it through all stages.

Both the way in which this bill was introduced to the Senate and the way in which the third-reading stage is being disposed of are insults to the Senate and to the intelligence of the electors of this country. We are elected to come to Canberra to transact the business of this Commonwealth in a proper manner. I suggest to you, Mr. Temporary Chairman, that it is impossible to give a bill of this nature the full consideration that it deserves unless ample opportunity is afforded to the members of the Senate to express their opinions upon it. I know that many more honorable senators would have liked to speak to this measure, and they would have done so if the debate had not been curtailed in such an unseemly manner.

As I have said, it is only a few hours since this measure was introduced in the Senate and read a first time. Under the guillotine, when the time allotted for the completion of the committee stage expired, we had reached a point at which half of the bill had not been considered. I feel quite certain that the people of Australia will show the Government how they feel about this matter.

I hope that when the commission takes over the management of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, the wonderful work of the scientists, which has gone on so wholeheartedly over the last 40 years, will not be in any way impaired. As far as the scientists themselves are concerned, I know that, because they are true scientists and their heart is in their work, they will continue to give of their very best to the Australian community no matter who is in control of the laboratories. I hope and trust that, by establishing this commission, the Government will not place any insuperable obstacle in their path, but will enable them to continue to give to the people of Australia the wonderful service they have given for so many years. They have given valuable service also to people beyond our shores who have come to depend on the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories for life-saving drugs, sera, plasma, vaccines, and so on.

On behalf, not only of the Opposition, but also of the many people who owe their lives to the scientists of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, I would like to express thanks to those scientists for the wonderful work they have done over the last four decades, and also to express the hope that they will continue to carry on their work in the future as they have done in the past, though governments may come and go. I express our gratitude to them.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1222

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Spooner) - by leave - agreed to -

That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.

page 1222

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Spooner) agreed to -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till a day and hour to be fixed by the President, which time of meeting shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 1222

ADJOURNMENT

Motions (by Senator Spooner) agreed to -

That the Senate do now adjourn. and

That the question be now put

Senate adjourned at 12.17 (Thursday) till a day and hour to be fixed by the President.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 17 May 1961, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1961/19610517_senate_23_s19/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant