Senate
15 May 1968

26th Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 985

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate noted that 6 of the 9 young Australians whose names appear in today’s casualty list as being killed in Vietnam were between the ages of .19 and 21 years? If so, does he still adhere to the statement he made yesterday that young Australians of the same age are not entitled to demonstrate peacefully or to petition against a conflict which the Government declares is not a war and in which they may be forced to make the same tragic sacrifice, within the immediate future, as was ma.de by the young Australians to whom I have referred?

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– What 1 said yesterday was not as is now portrayed by the honourable senator. What I said yesterday - I am suM Hansard has been circulated and will substantiate this - was that I saw no purpose in the march of students or school children to Canberra because they were being influenced by people who had definite motives in relation to political issues, and that in fact it was quite inappropriate and improper for children to be encouraged to do that kind of thing. Actually the question the honourable senator asked me yesterday related to the voting age. My reply on that aspect was that the voting age was a matter of Government policy and. as Mr President would tell us all, matters of Government policy are not matters in relation to which questions are answered at question time.

page 985

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT:

-] desire to direct the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of an Indonesian parliamentary delegation of six members led by Major-General Dr Sjarif Thajeb, Vice-Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Republic. The delegation is visiting Australia at the invitation of the Presiding Officers of this Parliament. On behalf of all senators, I extend to our visitors a warm welcome.

Honourable Senators ; Hear, hear!

page 985

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport by saying that last week a meeting was held at the Adelaide Chamber of Commerce to discuss shipping problems in connection wilh exports from Adelaide to South American and Caribbean ports by the K Line shipping service. The meeting was attended by fifty representatives of South Australian exporters who are deeply concerned that Port Adelaide bc retained as a regular port of call in the K. Line’s Australian schedules. Will the Minister refer this matter of the retention of regular services to the Minister for Shipping and Transport as one of great urgency on the grounds that if South Australia is to develop industry and attract population, regular shipping services are required to put South Australia on an equal basis with all other States where Commonwealth subsidies are involved?

Senator SCOTT:
Minister for Customs and Excise · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I have the greatest sympathy with the honourable senator in his concern about shipping services from South Australia to South America. I. noticed in the Press recently a statement to the effect that the Commonwealth Government had arranged for shipping services to be provided to South America. The honourable senator wants to have Adelaide included in those services. I will bring that part of his question to the notice of the Minister for Shipping and Transport and provide him with a reply.

page 985

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator ORMONDE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the Government concerned about the heavy drift of top public servants to private industry?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Yes, the Government is concerned at the drift of public servants of experience into private industry, but this Government’s belief in a free enterprise economy is a part of its philosophy. We believe in the inherent freedom of any person to choose his own calling and vocation. It is a fact, of course, that men and women who join the Public Service and spend many years in it become valuable advisers to the Government and to the machinery of government, and it is a disappointment when they go into private enterprise. However, there is always the consolation that as private enterprise is inherently part of the economy, they will continue to give good service to the community.

page 986

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. Will the Postmaster-General inquire into the truth or otherwise of a statement on page 3 of the ‘Canberra Times’ of Tuesday, 14th May, first, that pressmen were informed that they would not be admitted to the meeting last Monday of the Western Australian Executive of the Australian Labor Party unless they accepted in writing a set of conditions as to how they would report the meeting, and second, that though the other pressmen refused to accept the conditions, the Australian Broadcasting Commission representative accepted them and was admitted? If this statement is shown to be true, will the Postmaster-General, who has repeatedly insisted in this Parliament that the ABC must be free of political censorship, inquire why in this instance the Commission accepted censorship by one political party?

Senator Ormonde:

– I rise to order. Is it possible for a Minister to have such information as to be able to corroborate that story?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Let us first see whether there is any denial of it. I call upon the Minister to reply.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– Because of the detailed nature and importance of the question, I suggest that the honourable senator put it on the notice paper so that he may get a detailed reply.

page 986

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY OF GENERAL PRACTITIONERS

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health refers to the setting up in Australia of the Australian Society of General Practitioners. Has the Minister received any representations from this Society indicating that it wants to provide an authoritative voice for the general practitioners on matters of a medico-political nature? Does the Government propose to recognise the new society in any discussions on national health schemes and . medical pensioner schemes?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I do not know whether my colleague the Minister for Health has received the representations referred to by the honourable senator, but I shall inquire of him concerning this matter and advise the honourable senator.

page 986

QUESTION

DESALINATION

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. Is the Minister aware that an offer has been made to South Australia by Lord Brown, British Minister of State, Board of Trade, whereby Britain can arrange for South Australia to buy a nuclear power desalination plant on terms? As South Australia, because of its lack of natural resources, is logically the first State in which such a plant might be used, will the Minister confer with the Government of South Australia to see whether the offer is feasible? If it is, will the Federal Government give South Australia every encouragement and the required assistance to put such a scheme into operation?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– It is a fact that nuclear power stations are now competing satisfactorily with ordinary stations using coal as a source of power. Whether a nuclear power desalination plant in South Australia would be economic is another matter, but it is interesting to know that more than 50% of new power stations now being built in the world are designed to use nuclear energy. I shall bring the other matters asked by the honourable senator to the notice of my colleague the Minister for National Development and have an answer provided for him.

page 986

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Army. Bearing in mind the loss of nine young Australian lives and a number of other casualties in Vietnam in an action that took place last Monday, can the Minister explain why in the first instance it was reported in the Press that the casualties suffered by the Australians were light? Did this information come from any communique that was issued by the Army? Will the Minister agree that this country can ill afford to lose so many young Australians and that, contrary to the first Press report, the casualties should be regarded as anything but light?

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I did see the report - I think we all did - of these unfortunate losses in the Australian Army, but 1 also saw in one of the newspapers this morning the explanation that the Australian Army has adopted the same principle as the United States Army in reporting casualties as light when the unit concerned can still remain in battle. Whether or not this is the position I do not know, because I am relying only on Press reports, and we know from bitter experience not to take too much notice of them. Although these losses were not serious as losses in battle go. nevertheless it is serious when we lose any of our soldiers. But this is part of war and it is something that, unfortunately, we must expect.

page 987

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the

Leader of the Government advise what procedures arc to be followed by the Government in future in relation to promotions in the Public Service? Are seniority and outstanding service to bc disregarded in determining future promotions? Are the Minister and the Government fully aware of the great discontent and disgust within the Public Service regarding recent top Public Service promotions?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I do nol believe that there arc discontent and disgust, as the honourable senator suggests, in relation to the promotion system in the Public Service. The Public Service Board has established sets of procedures in relation to various positions in the Service. I am satisfied that those procedures are being appropriately carried out.

page 987

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Air. ls it a fact, as reported, that the Royal Australian Air Force intends to disband, or has disbanded, the aerobatic group based at Sale, Victoria, which is known as the Flying Telstars? Does the Minister feel that profit in knowledge and experience of flying have resulted from the existence in Australia of such an Air Force group? Will tha Minister reconsider the disbanding or will he consider the establishment of a similar unit at the Sale training base?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for Air has decided that for the time being there will be a cessation of the activities of the group referred to. This does not mean that the decision made now will remain in force for any great length of time, but that is the position at the moment. The other matter upon which I was asked to comment is not within my province.

page 987

QUESTION

ROAD SAFETY

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport a question which has relation to the ever-increasing toll of the road, which has already cost more than 1.000 Australian lives this year. Has the Minister seen the remarks attributed to two experts of the National Roads and Motorists Association. Sydney, to the effect that many new cars have gadgets which are inimical to safety and that manufacturers could well study old models for belter safety devices? Will the Minister investigate this matter?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– All governments and all organisations within the Commonwealth are anxious to reduce the road toll. Of recent times we have seen the recommendations put forward by the Australian Road Safety Council some 10 years ago being adopted by the various State organisations as a means of reducing the road toll. Of course, as more and more cars go on to the roads the number of road deaths increases. 1 shall take up wilh the Minister the question raised by the honourable senator, and forward the Minister’s reply direct to him.

page 987

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator HENTY:
TASMANIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the PostmasterGenera). lt is further to a question asked recently by Senator McManus. Will the Minister obtain from the PostmasterGeneral for the information of the Senate the conditions laid down by the Western Australian Branch of the Australian Labor Party which were presented to pressmen seeking admission to the recent conference between the Western Australian Branch and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Whitlam, and the Deputy Leader, Mr Barnard, and which were rejected by the Press but apparently accepted by representatives of the Australian Broadcasting Commission? Is it proposed that the ABC should accept censorship rules laid down by any political party?

Senator Cohen:

– 1 rise to order. I suggest, Mr President, that the question is out of Order. It does not relate to the ministerial responsibility of any Minister. The question asks for comment, for blatant political purposes, on conditions said to have been laid down by the Australian Labor Party, a political party. It does not ask the Minister about any matter within her jurisdiction or wi:hin the jurisdiction of the Minister she represents.

Senator Anderson:

– As I understand the question, Senator Henty inquired about the policy of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in relation to censorship. Since that matter is within the ambit of the portfolio held by the Postmaster-General, I suggest with respect that the question is a quite val’id one.

Senator Henty:

– The Minister has already undertaken to obtain information for Senator McManus. I merely asked whether she would attempt to obtain also the conditions laid down by the Australian Labor Party which kept pressmen from attending the conference and which the Australian Broadcasting Commission apparently had accepted. 1 suggest that the point of order is entirely without foundation, lt is raised by Senator Cohen merely to cover up a set of conditions which the ALP does not want ventilated. I believe that this matter should be ventilated because here we have a set of conditions which apparently kept pressmen from attending a conference which was attended by representatives from the ABC. If these are the facts, then I submit that no political party should be in a position to lay down censorship rules for either the Press or the ABC.

Senator Cavanagh:

– We must, get away from any question as to whether a particular political party has something to hide.

Senator Henty:

– No.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Irrespective of that, the point, here is whether the question that has been asked concerns a matter which is the responsibility of the Minister. Let me examine the facts. There was held in Western Australia a private gathering at which neither the public, the Press, the Australian Broadcasting Commission or anyone else was entitled’ to be present, but because we are not a secret society-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I remind the honourable senator that he is speaking to a point of order.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That is what I am attempting to do, Mr President. I am referring to what happened on this occasion. Senator Henty asked what conditions were laid down relating to the attendance by representatives of the ABC at a meeting of an organisation at which those representatives had no right to be present without: the approval of the organisation concerned. Senator Henty has questioned the right of that organisation to lay down conditions relating to attendance by the Press or anyone else. This is not a question that concerns the Postmaster-General. It is not a matter that his Department would know anything about. It is a question of whether one particular organisation was prepared to comply with a set of conditions for the sole purpose of gaining admittance to another organisation with the right to broadcast the activities of that organisation. This was not a public organisation but a private meeting of a political party. I respectfully submit, that it is not a question coming within the ambit of the Minister or his Department and it is not a question which the Minister can answer.

Senator Wright:

Mr President, 1 wish to speak to the point of order only because I submit that Senator Cavanagh’s speech completely distorted the view that this chamber should take in respect of this matter. Senator Henty asked the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) whether she would ask the PostmasterGeneral (Mr Hulme) to obtain, for the information of the Senate, the documents stating the conditions accepted by the Australian Broadcasting Commission governing the entrance of its representatives to the councils of a political party. It is quite wrong to say that the question was in relation to a private gathering or a secret society, as Senator Cavanagh said. It is quite wrong to say that was the focus of the question. The question was directed to the attitude of the ABC and its representatives in accepting conditions which perhaps required a slanted or distorted communication of the proceedings of that gathering. That is the matter of public concern which I suggest we in the Senate should uphold as the responsibility of the Minister, that is, to give to the Senate, as representing the public, information as to the conditions that the ABC will accept about distortion of its news.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I want to speak to the point of order. 1 believe that Senator Henty’s question is loaded with political prejudice and the nauseating prejudices of the Fairfaxes and Packers of this country in brainwashing the Australian public.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! ls the honourable senator speaking to. the point of order?

Senator O’Byrne:

– 1 am.

The PRESIDENT:

– This is an extraordinary way to be speaking to it.

Senator O’Byrne:

– J am saying that the Australian Labor Party has found it expedient, in view of the circumstances surrounding the dissemination of news in this country and because this prejudice is ingrained so deeply, to ask newsmen to observe certain ethics. They have refused to do so. The Minister, or any member of this Parliament, has no right whatever to attempt to reply to a question which is politically loaded on a matter which is purely internal and private to a political organisation in this country. I believe the question is out of order and I support the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Senator Cohen).

Senator Mattner:

Mr President, will you ask Senator Cohen to state the standing order under which he takes objection? I say in fairness to the Senate that, when a senator rises and takes a point of order he must stale to the Senate the standing order on which he relies. Sir, the matter is in your hands and you have been very considerate. You decide the matter. It is in your power. It is not for Senator Cohen to stand here and doubt your ruling. It is within your power to decide whether the question is in order or not in order. It is Senator Cohen’s prerogative to tell the Senate the standing order on which he relies to support his objection.

Senator McManus:

Mr President, 1 want to begin by saying that it appeals to my sense of humor when members on this side of the Senate suggest that any meeting of the Australian Labor Party could possibly be private. The next thing I want to say is that for years we have sat here and heard questions asked of the Minister representing the Postmaster-General about the administration of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. We are not asking what happened at this private meeting of the Western Australian Branch of the ALP. We can read what happened any time we want to. What we are asking for is an investigation of whether representatives of the Press were asked to do something on conditions which, on a previous occasion at a federal gathering of the ALP, Mr Chamberlain offered to them and which they rejected as being contrary to the ethics of their trade union. What we are asking is: Will the Minister investigate whether representatives of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, with other pressmen, were asked to do something which was contrary to the code of ethics of their trade union. I see nothing wrong with asking that question. I understand that this has been going on in Western Australia for some time. We have made inquiries’ about the administration of the ABC over the years. I have asked questions and the Minister has repeatedly answered by saying that there can be no political censorship of the ABC. I agree with him. He is right. That is why I would have hoped that my friends on this side of the chamber would all join with me in urging that this attempted censorship of pressmen in Western Australia, contrary to the code of ethics of their union, be stopped.

The PRESIDENT:

– My ruling is that the question is in order.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– 1 ask that the question be repeated so that I may know the details of it.

Senator O’Byrne:

Mr President, 1 raise a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 443, which reads:

The Senate will interfere to prevent the prosecution of any quarrel between senators, arising out of debates or proceedings of the Senate or of any Committee thereof.

Will the Senate intervene under that standing order?

The PRESIDENT:

– No, the Senate will not intervene.

Senator HENTY:

– I now repeat the question that I asked: Would the Minister obtain from the Postmaster-General for the information of the Senate the set of conditions laid down by the Western Australian Branch of the Australian Labor Party which was presented to pressmen seeking admission to the recent conference between the Western Australian Branch and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Whitlam, and the Deputy Leader, Mr Barnard, and which was rejected by the Press but apparently accepted by representatives of the Australian Broadcasting Commission? Is it proposed that the ABC should accept censorship rules laid down by any political party?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I thank the honourable senator for repeating the question. This is a matter of very real importance, lt concerns the Australian Broadcasting Commission and T will be pleased to place the question before the Postmaster-General and obtain a considered reply from him.

page 990

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN INVESTMENT IN INDONESIA

Senator O’BYRNE:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity of Minister representing the Prime Minister. Has he seen Press reports that some of the larger Australian industrial companies are examining potential fields of investment in Indonesia? In the event of firm arrangements being made for Australian companies to establish industries in Indonesia, would the Government make a proviso that a limit be placed on the percentage of profit to be extracted from the Indonesian people and that the object of the Australian investment would be the rehabilitation of Indonesia’s industry rather than the traditional object of exploitation by one country of another country’s natural resources?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I should have thought that the question of the margin of profit on foreign investment in a country would be subject to the fiscal policy of the country in which the capital was invested. The honourable senator’s question contains other implications. I suggest that he place his question on the notice paper and I will refer it to the Treasurer.

page 990

QUESTION

HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL BENEFITS FUNDS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 ask the

Minister representing the Minister for Health: Does the charter of the committee appointed by Federal Cabinet to examine administrative aspects of Australian hospital and medical benefits funds include consultation with leading Canadian medical and hospital funds administrators, as those funds operate under a federal system similar to that in Australia but give to contributors a better return than that given to their Australian counterparts?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I could not give the honourable senator a detailed reply to his question but I will be pleased to raise it with the Minister for Health to ascertain what information I can obtain for him.

page 990

QUESTION

TOURISM

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the MinisterinCharge of Tourist Activities noted that the splendid rains that recently fell in the Northern Territory and the northern area of South Australia have caused serious disruption of air, rail and road transport services in those areas? In view of the Minister’s desire to increase the flow of tourist traffic within Australia and from outside Australia, does he think that he could use his ministerial voice toward improving the means of ensuring a regular flow of traffic in central Australia in times of flood? Does he think that a joint committee comprising officers of the Commonwealth Railways, the Commonwealth roads authority and the Department of Civil Aviation - and possibly a representative of the South Australian Government - could urgently study such traffic questions in relation to the Northern Territory and the northern part of South Australia?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– 1 have noted with very great concern the dislocation of means of communication in the central area of Australia which is, of course, becoming of increasing interest to tourists. I have also noted what I consider to be a valuable suggestion of the honourable senator as to consultation between various State and Federal departments which have responsibility in this sphere. I have arranged to make an extensive tour of the Northern

Territory and central Australia when Parliament rises at the end of this sessional period, at the end of June. On that tour aspects of tourism and matters concerning the Department of Works will be taken into consideration. In the meantime, I shall give earnest consideration to the honourable senator’s suggestion of the appointment of a committee.

page 991

QUESTION

WOOMERA ROCKET RANGE

Senator ORMONDE:

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether the United Kingdom Government is resisting the intention of the Australian Government to increase the cost to the United Kingdom of its involvement in the Woomera rocket range.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Yesterday in answering a question by Senator Laught I indicated that Mr Stonehouse, the United Kingdom Minister of State (Technology) is at present in Australia and that I am conducting a series of conferences with him in relation to negotiations on the continuation of the Woomera rocket range. I would not want to make, nor will I make, a statement on that matter at this time. I expect to ask the Senate for leave to intervene at 8 o’clock tomorrow night and make a statement on the course of the negotiations.

page 991

QUESTION

MAIL DELIVERIES

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I preface my question, which I address to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, by advising that today’s newspapers carry a report of a statement by the Postmaster-General that most first class mail is delivered in Australia within 24 hours of posting. Can the Minister explain why letters posted at Townsville In north Queensland take from 2 to 5 days to deliver at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I could not give a reply, on behalf of the Postmaster-General, to the detailed question asked by the honourable senator, but I believe that since the Postcode system was introduced it has resulted in a noticeable speed-up in the delivery of mail. I will be pleased to discuss with the PostmasterGeneral the special case which the honourable senator has put before me today.

page 991

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ARMY

Senator POYSER:

– In view of the answer of the Leader of the Government in the Senate to my previous question, does he believe that youths of 17 years of age are being influenced to join the Regular Army with promises of useful careers and training in skilled trades on full adult pay, when in fact many of them have been sent to Vietnam at the age of 19 years and have paid the supreme sacrifice?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I am at a loss to understand the purport of the honourable senator’s line of questioning. Advertisements are placed in the Press by the Army authorities pointing out to young men. of appropriate age the advantages of entering the Service. 1 think it would be deplorable if we had reached the stage where one of the political parties in this country believes that this should not be done. Such a belief would imply that that party does not believe there should be any forces in Australia at all. If that is not a form of national suicide I do not know what is.

page 991

QUESTION

HEARING AIDS

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services aware that towards the end of last year the Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratories carried out hearing tests in the Newcastle area of New South Wales only for those pensioners living in that area who are aged between 65 and 69 years? Will the Minister ascertain why the age restriction was applied, and say how long it will be before, women pensioners aged between 60 and 65 years and male and female pensioners aged above 70 years will have to wait before their hearing can be tested by the Acoustic Laboratories?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I think that some little time ago in the Senate I gave a reply, on behalf of the Minister for Health, concerning the question of hearing aids for pensioners. Whether or not the further information that I have from the Minister for Health will assist Senator McClelland I do not know, but the Minister for Health recently announced that the Government’s scheme to provide hearing aids for pensioners would begin in Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart, Perth, Brisbane, Townsville and Canberra on 20th May. I do not know whether the honourable senator has this information, but it may be of assistance to him. The Minister for Health said that initially the scheme would be available to pensioners in these cities in the 65 to 69 years age group. However, he said also that it would be extended as soon as possible to include pensioners in the 70 to 74 years age group. He also pointed out that the scheme which began at Adelaide and Newcastle on 1st April for pensioners in the 65 to 69 years age group was extended to pensioners in those areas in the 70 to 74 years age group from 1st May. I think that information may be of some assistance to the honourable senator.

page 992

QUESTION

AID TO INDONESIA

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. What was the total amount of aid granted by the Australian Government to Indonesia during the financial year 1967-68, and what is the amount likely to be made available during the financial year 1968-69?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I have not that information available to me, but I will certainly get it and make it available to the honourable senator as quickly as possible.

page 992

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(Question No. 108)

Senator MURPHY (through Senator

O’Byrne) asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

For each of the years 1965, 1966 and 1967, what percentage of cases, (a) before a single justice, and (b) in the Full Court of the High Court of Australia, has originated in each of the States?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer:

The following table shows the percentage of cases instituted in each registry of the High Court and heard in the years 1965, 1966 and 1967:

Before a single Justice -

page 992

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 146)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. How many immigrants have been refused naturalisation since 1949 because of an inadequate knowledge of the English language?
  2. How many wives of immigrants, where the husband’s application has been granted, have been refused naturalisation for this reason?
  3. How many immigrants have been refused naturalisation for political reasons?
  4. How many immigrants have been refused naturalisation because of criminal or subversive activities, and from which countries did they originally migrate?
  5. Has an immigrant any right of appeal where naturalisation is refused because of his lack of knowledge of the English language?
  6. Has the Government considered establishing a naturalisation appeals tribunal similar to that which operates in the United States of America?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Immigration has supplied the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. When an applicant for naturalisation is found, upon being interviewed, to have an inadequate knowledge of English, the applicant is not refused outright, but the applicant is informed that consideration of his or her application has been deferred until his or her knowledge of English has improved. Statistics of persons so informed are available only as from 1961. The total number of applications deferred in this way is 8,687. This figure includes applications from the same person deferred more than once, and it should also be noted that 3,173 of the persons who had applications deferred on these grounds have had subsequent applications approved because of improvement in their knowledge of English.
  2. The figure is not available. Since 1966 the spouse of a person grained naturalisation has not been required to have any knowledge of English.
  3. In no case has naturalisation been withheld because of political views not involving security considerations.
  4. The following table shows the nationality and numbers of immigrants whose applications for the grant of citizenship by naturalisation have been cither deferred or rejected - a combined figure, statistics not being available to show deferred and rejected cases separately - since the beginning of 1961 because they were:

    1. not of good character; or
    2. the subject of security reports.

The table also shows the numbers subsequently approved on review following a further application from the same people.

  1. Applicants for naturalisation are not required to be able to read or write English; but only to be able to speak and understand it sufficiently well to enable them to earn their living in an English-speaking community and to engage in conversation on everyday topics. This normal standard is relaxed for aged persons, and persons resident in Australia for over 20 years are exempted by the Act from the language requirement. When an applicant requests review of a previous deferment of his application, he is invariably given the opportunity to demonstrate an improved knowledge of English. Where this is not demonstrated, the applicant may, if he wishes, have an interview with a more senior officer by way of review.

    1. Suggestions along these lines have been made from time to time and considered by the Minister for Immigration of the time, but have not been adopted.

page 994

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH PATENT OFFICE

(Question No. 196)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney -General, upon notice:

  1. How many applications for patents have been lodged at the Commonwealth Patent Office?
  2. How many applications are yet awaiting determination?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Attorney-General has supplied the following answer:

  1. During the period between 1904 and 26th April 1968, 443,626 applications for patents were lodged at the Commonwealth Patent Office. The following table showsthe number of applications lodged each year. It will be noted that there has been a substantial increase in the number of applications per year in recent years. The table reads:
  1. As at 26th April 1968, approximately 55,048 applications were pending. Of these applications, provisional specifications only had been lodged in respect of 2,698 applications, 7,690 applications had been reported on by an examiner but had not at that stage been accepted and had not lapsed, and 44,660 applications were awaiting a report by an examiner.

page 994

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 209)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

What steps are being taken or have been taken by the Department of Civil Aviation to ensure that safely standards are observed by Qantas Airways Ltd after the failure of Qantas on three successive occasions to demonstrate to the Department that its aircraft can be evacuated in reasonable time?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has replied as follows:

The first of the three unsuccessful emergency evacuation demonstrations referred to in this question was not an official demonstration by Qantas to show compliance with my Department’s requirements and was not timed for this purpose. Departmental officers, however, were present and, from general observations, noted a number of deficiencies in the exercise. Although it was not an official demonstration, these deficiencies were promptly taken up with Qantas with a direction that the necessary correctiveaction be implemented.

Of the two official demonstrations, the failure of the first was due more to misunderstanding than weaknesses in the Qantas safety precautions. The operator is required to demonstrate that the full complement of passengers and crew can be evacuated from the aircraft within 2 minutes, following a simulated abandoned take-off, using not more than 50% of the emergency exits. Among the emergency exits available there are two overwing exits on each side. To comply with the requirement to use only50% of the available exits, one of these overwing exits on each side was nominated as unusable for the purposes of this demonstration and this was denoted by the use of appropriately placed red lights. Unfortunately, the precise meaning of these red lights was not sufficiently stressed in the pre-demonstration briefing. As a result, the cabin staff assumed that the red lights meant the wings were on fire and consequently they did not use any of the overwing exits.

The failure of thesecond official demonstration, which was carried out with blue lights to indicate exits, which could not be used, was attributed to an unequal distribution of duties between the cabin staff - four ‘ ‘ stewards directed the evacuation through two exits arid a hostess was left to handle the other two available exits. Because the exits which would be available in an actual accident would depend on the circumstances prevailing at that time, it would not be realistic for Qantas to specify duties for a crew member in respect of a particular exit. As a result of the lesson learned in this exercise, however, special emphasis is now given by Qantas in the training of cabin staff in emergency procedures to the need for, as far as practicable, a proper distribution of duties in an emergency evacuation.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasise that it is the policy of my Department not to permit the introduction into service of new types of large passenger aircraft, or new configurations of existing types, until a satisfactory demonstration has been given that the emergency evacuation requirements can be met.

page 995

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 210)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. How does a person become a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer?
  2. On what basis is the licence endorsed by the Department of Civil Aviation?
  3. Would such a licence entitle a person to maintain and certify DC9 aircraft?
  4. Would a licence endorsement be withheld if an applicant had been involved in instances deemed ‘illegal interference with aircraft’?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has replied as follows:

  1. The detailed requirements with which a person must comply if he wishes to become a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer are prescribed in Air Navigation Orders Part 100.9. This part consists of many pages. Briefly, the applicant is required to satisfy the Director-General that he has obtained the minimum experience specified in that section of Air Navigation Orders Part 100.9 relevant to the category of licence he is seeking. Whilst the experience requirements vary slightly for each category, there is a common requirement that the applicant shall have served at least 5 years in the trade to which the licence is applicable. A portion of this time must have been spent in experience appropriate to the duties of a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer and, in respect of the airframe and engine licence, the entire 5-year period must havebeen served in the aeronautical industry. On the personal side, too, certain requirements must be met, such as minimum age, etc.
  2. Broadly speaking, airframe or engine licences are endorsed with a particular type, series or group of airframes or engines. In respect of electrical, instrument or radio systems it is usual 10 use only group classifications, with the exception that for the high complexity typesof aircraft such as airline aircraft, the licence is endorsed for the system installed in the particular type of aircraft.
  3. The maintenance of aircraft of the complexity level of the Douglas DC9 is under the direct control of approved engineering organisations provided by operators. Maintenance schedules are produced by the operators and approved by the Department. The inspectionsof maintenance work performed on such aircraft in accordance with those schedules must be certified by licensed aircraft maintenance engineers who have obtained their licences in accordance with the terms previously outlined.. On this basis, it can be stated that possession of an aircraft maintenance engineer’s licence endorsed for the DC9 entitles its holder to certify for the proper performance of maintenance on DC9 aircraft within the category of thelicence held. The complete maintenance programme of complex aircraft such as the Douglas DC9, Boeing 727 and others requires extensive support facilities and engineering qualifications beyond those contained in the technological scope of an aircraft maintenance engineer’s licence.
  4. Air Navigation Regulation 255 states that the Director-General shall not refuse to grant a licence except on one or more of several grounds, including:

    1. in relation to the initial issue of a licence or certificate - (i)……
    1. that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to have the responsibilities and exercise and perform the functions and duties of a holderof the licence or certificate for whichthe application was made’.

If the circumstances surrounding a charge of illegal interference with aircraft were such as to lead to the belief that the person involved was not a fit and proper person to exercise the privileges of an aircraft maintenance engineer’s licence, serious consideration would bo given by the Director-General to refusing the issue of a licence under regulation 255, or if the person already held a licence, to suspending or cancelling the licence under regulation 258, in the interests of public safely.

page 995

TARIFF BOARD

Reports on Items

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– I present reports from the Tariff Board on the following subjects:

Gas-fired water heaters.

Glucose and glucose syrup.

Sheepskin and hogskin leathers.

Tinsmiths’ snips and shears.

page 995

WODEN VALLEY HOSPITAL, CANBERRA

Report of Public Works Committee

Senator BRANSON:
Western Australia

– I present the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works relating to the following proposed work:

Woden Valley Hospital, Canberra.

I ask for leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator BRANSON:

– The summary of recommendations and conclusions of the Committee is as follows:

  1. As a basis for planning six hospital beds per 1,000 population is reasonable in the present circumstances.
  2. This ratio should be the subject of regular review in the light of changing circumstances.
  3. Temporary hospital bed shortages will occur between now and the occupation of the Calvary Hospital.
  4. Further shortages will develop from mid- 1972 onwards.
  5. There will be a need to provide additional hospital beds in Canberra at that time.
  6. The Committee endorses the proposal to build a hospital in the Woden area.
  7. The ‘ construction of a 600-bed hospital at Woden is appropriate.
  8. The proposed site is satisfactory for the Woden Hospital.
  9. The estimated cost of the work when referred to the Committee was $17m.
  10. Subject to the other recommendations in this report the Committee recommends the construction of the works in this reference.
  11. The Commonwealth should initiate discussions with the States with a view to establishing an agency responsible for the collection, evaluation and dissemination of hospital planning and design information.
  12. Should the population projections be exceeded or the construction schedule of either the Calvary or Woden Hospital fall behind, there could be a critical shortage of hospital beds.
  13. The Committee is critical of the short period allowed for the investigation and report.
  14. The various planning phases of this project should have been undertaken at least 12 to 18 months earlier than has actually occurred.
  15. Positive steps should be taken now to commence planning of the subsequent hospital accommodation.
  16. During the planning of the next hospital the necessity for providing staff accommodation should be reviewed.
  17. Both hospital blocks should be air conditioned. The cost of this additional work is estimated at $480,000.
  18. If the provision of four tennis courts for staff is found to be excessive, the saving in cost should be used for the construction of a small swimming pool.
  19. Each of the suggestions made by private witnesses about the design of the project requires close scrutiny during the preparation of the final drawings.
  20. The possibility of achieving continuity in the contractual arrangements should be studied closely. 1 direct the attention of honourable senators to paragraph 110 of the report, which states:

Woden Hospital Planning. The second recommendation of the Committee in the 1960 report on the Canberra Community Hospital’s new main block stated:

Preliminary planning should be undertaken now to determine the type of hospitals to be erected in the future and the relationship they would have with the Canberra Community Hospital.

This recommendation was not heeded and the suggested planning was not commenced until August 1964 when the Australian Capital Territory Hospital Planning Committee was established.

This is substantiated. I direct the attention of honourable senators also to the Ninetyfifth Report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts at pages 30 to 32.

page 996

WATER POLLUTION AND QUALITY OF WATER IN AUSTRALIA

Motion (by Senator Henty) - by leave - proposed:

That the Select Committee on Water Pollution consist of six senators, three to be appointed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two to be appointed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and one to be appointed by the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party.

That the Committee elect as Chairman one of the members appointed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

That the Chairman of the Committee may from time to time appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy Chairman of the Committee and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee.

That in the event of an equality of voting the Chairman or Deputy Chairman when acting as Chairman have a casting vote.

That four members of the Committee including the Chairman or Deputy Chairman constitute a quorum of the Committee.

That the foregoing provisions of this resolution so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

Senator COHEN (Victoria) [4.0J- I move:

The Opposition moves this amendment because we believe that in recent times there has been a dilution of or a decrease in the representation which the Opposition has had on select committees of the Senate. The normal practice under standing order 289 is for a select committee to consist of 7 senators. That, of course, may be varied by a contrary resolution of the Senate.

Under the practice of appointing 7 senators to a select committee, the Opposition had 3 members. In recent times, we had 3 of the 8 senators on the Select Committee on the Container Method of Handling Cargoes, 3 of the 8 members on the Senate Select Committee on the Metric System of Weights and Measures and 3 of the 8 members on the Senate Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources. What is proposed by Senator Henty’s motion is that the Opposition should have only 2 representatives of the 6 suggested for the Committee under consideration. This represents only one-third of the members of the Committee compared with some 43% when we had three-sevenths of the membership of committees. We believe that it would be fairer to expand the Committee to 7 and to allow the Opposition to have the same number of representatives as the Government.

We also believe that, as a practice, it is not correct that the Australian Democratic Labor Party, which at present has 2 representatives in the Senate, but which will have more after 1st July, should automatically be represented on all select committees of the Senate. We therefore have suggested that it would be preferable for the Senate to appoint the seventh member of the Committee and that selection of the seventh member should not be only from the Australian Democratic Labor Party but also from the senators who may be sitting here as independents. At the moment we have one independent senator. On other occasions there may be more in that category, but I cannot speculate about the future.

In effect, there should be three categories of senators from whom members of select committees are drawn. The first is the Government: Parties. The second is the official Opposition - the Australian Labor Party. The third category is the members of a third party together with those senators who sit as independents. I think that makes the Opposition’s position clear with relation to this matter. I have moved the amendment and would ask Senator Henty to consider accepting it. If he will not accept it, then we shall press the amendment.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– Speaking on behalf of the Government, we will not agree to the amendment. The fact is that it has always been traditional for the Government to have a majority on select committees of the Senate. The proposal contained in the amendment that the number of members of the Committee should be increased from six to seven would negate that tradition and would make meaningless the proposition that a Government representative should be chairman of the Committee and that in the event of equality of voting the chairman should have a casting vote.

There could arise a situation - 1 am not suggesting that it will - in which the traditional management exercised by the chairman of the Committee was taken from the Government representative. Senator Henty’s motion provides that a Government representative shall be chairman and that in the event of equality of voting the chairman shall have a casting vote.

I remind Senator Cohen of Senator Murphy’s motion with relation to the appointment of the Senate Select Committee on Hospital and Medical Benefits. Senator Murphy moved a substantive motion for the appointment of a committee of six members, three from the Government parties, two from the official Opposition, and Senator Turnbull., who is an independent. The Government agreed to that. The proposal was accepted by the whole of the Senate. I suggest, therefore, to have it one way when it suits the Opposition and then to switch to another way when it does not suit the Opposition and so fly in the face of the traditions of the Senate in relation to the appointment of select committees is not a good way to support the proposed amendment.

Senator Cohen referred to the fact that the Australian Democratic Labor Party had only two representatives in the Senate. I remind him that it will have four representatives after 1st July. I also remind the Senate of the intention of the mover of the motion and the intention of the Government regarding the appointment of the personnel of the particular Select Committee under discussion. The intention is to delay naming the personnel until after 1st July next because, after that date, we shall have probably one of the biggest turnovers we have had in the last 20 years in the personnel of the Senate. We recognise that a large number of new senators will be sworn in after 1st July. Because of this, it is the Government’s desire and intention that the personnel of this Select Committee and of any other select committee that we might agree to set up between now and the end of this sessional period shall not be named until after 1st July. Our aim is not only to give new senators a role to fill but also to spread the work load of those senate select committees that we already have.

Let us face it, we have appointed several select committees. So recently as last night we considered the appointment of another and we have still to consider a long list of recommendations for the appointment of further select committees. It is for this reason that the number of members of these committees has been reduced from eight to six. We are fast reaching the position where it will be impossible for honourable senators to give adequate and proper service to select committees and at the same time carry out their other normal functions. For all these reasons, the Government cannot support the amendment proposed by Senator Cohen that the number should be increased to seven.

We say that six is an adequate number. We believe that six is consistent wilh the motion moved by Senator Murphy in relation to the Senate Select Committee on Hospital and Medical Benefits, and to which the Government agreed. Senator Murphy’s proposal was that three of the six members should be Government representatives, that two of the remaining three should be. representatives of the Australian Labor Party and that the sixth member should be Senator Turnbull, who is an independent. He also proposed that a Government representative should be chairman, which is in accordance with the traditions of the Senate, and that, in the event of equality of voting the chairman should have a casting vote. For those reasons, the Government will not accept the amendment.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– In supporting the amendment moved by Senator Cohen I wish to refer to two matters mentioned by Senator Anderson. Firstly, the Minister seems to feel that there has been some gross inconsistency on. the part of the Opposition because on this, occasion we have moved an amendment which calls for a select commit? tee of seven .members whereas recently the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) moved a motion for the appointment of a select committee consisting of six members. I do not think there is any inconsistency in saying that on certain select committees there shall be a certain number of members and that on other select committees there shall be a different number of members. In fact, if the Government is going to make anything of this point, I remind the Senate that the Government itself is guilty of some error because, when it came to the appointment of the Select Committee on the Container Method of Handling Cargoes and the Select Committee on the Metric System of Weights and Measures, the Government moved for the appointment of committees consisting of eight members whereas the Committee which is now being discussed by the Senate is to consist of only six members. I cannot see any inconsistency or anything radically wrong with the Government’s argument in support of there being six members on the committee rather than eight as was sought on another occasion. At the same time T feel it is incorrect to say tha! there is inconsistency in the Opposition’s altitude because on this occasion it has asked for a different number of members for the committee than was sought in the motion submitted by the Leader of the Opposition in- relation to a committee to inquire into hospital charges.

As to the point which the Minister has raised regarding the Democratic Labor Party, I do not believe it has any bearing on the amendment moved bv the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The purpose of the Opposition amendment is not to exclude the Democratic Labor Party from the committee. The amendment’ provides that the committee shall have one member who does not belong to either of the Government parlies or to the Australian Labor Party and he shall be in addition to the members belonging to the Government parties and to members of the Australian Labor Party. At the present time there are three senators who fall into that category.* They are the 2 senators who are members of the Democratic Labor Party and I independent, Senator Turnbull. After the 30th June there will be 4 senators who are- members of the Democratic Labor Party and .1 independent senator.

Senator Ridley:

– There may bc more independents. .

Senator WHEELDON:

- Senator Ridley has pointed out that there even may be an influex of other independent senators from the ranks of the Government as the years move on. Even if this does not happen - and I am not seriously putting the idea forward - 1 do not think this move on the part of the Opposition can be construed to bc an effort to exclude the Democratic Labor Party from representation on the committee. The Democratic Labor Party would still comprise a substantial majority of the members of the Senate who were not either members of the Government parties or the official Opposition. If it is reasonable - and I believe it is - that the Democratic Labor Party should be represented on these committees, then equally, I think, a case can be made out for the proposition that there are certain committees on which the one independent senator should also be represented.

The Opposition submits that there should be in fact an equal number of Government and Opposition members on this Senate select committee. If we are to debate this matter in the way the Minister has debated it - that is, on the assumption that at some time in the future there will be divisions within the committee on party lines - the Australian Labor Party would still have 3 of the 7 members of the committee and, as the resolution calling for the constitution of the committee provides for the appointment of a chairman from the Government side, there is nothing which the committee could do to alter this because it would be a departure from the terms of the establishment of the committee.

At present there are in the Senate 29 Government supporters and 28 Australian Labor Party members. After the 30th June there will be 28 Government supporters and 27 Australian Labor Party members. With so little difference between the numbers, it seems quite reasonable that if the committee is to have a broad spectrum of opinion from the Senate, the representation of both sides of the chamber should be approximately equal. I have had experience of only one Senate select committee - that which investigated the container method of handling cargoes. Certainly there were no divisions of opinion within that committee that could be said to approximate thinking along party lines. In fact, I cannot recollect any par ticular divisions at all. That committee functioned as a committee of eight members of the Senate. I do not think any persons who attended its proceedings, unless they were pre-informed, would have been able to tell from the nature of the questioning or the deliberations of the committee’, which parties its members supported. From what I have been told, the same thing applied to the Senate Select Committee on the Metric System of Weights and Measures, and there were no divisions on party lines. I fail to see that there could be any division on party lines in such a committee as is now being constituted.

All the Opposition is trying to go by the amendment moved by Senator Cohen is to try to take some steps to see that this select committee will be a reflection on a smaller scale of the opinions which are to be found within the Senate itself. As the Senate has 60 members and this committee is to have only 6 or 8 members, it is certainly not possible that there could be a complete representation of the whole spectrum of opinions within the Senate but at least some effort should be made to provide representation approximate to that proportion of opinions. We believe that as the number of Government and Opposition senators is approximately equal then there should be the same, or approximately the same, representation of each of the two sides of the Senate on this committee and that there should be a representative selected from those senators who do not belong either to the Government or to the Australian Labor Party.

The Opposition is not trying in any way to exclude the Democratic Labor Party from these proceedings. Even when there are four members of the Democratic Labor Party in the Senate there will still probably be a great many committees on which it would be inconvenient for that party to provide a member. As Senator Turnbull is an independent senator he is entitled, we believe, to serve on some occasions on some of these committees if members of the Democratic Labor Party are willing to share with him. This amendment is not intended to be destructive. It has been moved for the purpose of assisting the Sena’te to form committees on which there is a representation of all strands of opinion within the Senate.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– I will be supporting the motion moved by Senator Henty. ,1, do not think this is a matter that we- need labour over for long. Firstly, it has . always been the custom, so far as 1 can recollect, for the Government to have at least a casting vote - and if not a casting vote then a majority - on any committee of the Senate. The proposal put forward by the Australian Labor Party would deprive the Government of this, although the practice has been recognised for many years. This proposal would place the Democrtic Labor Party senator or the independent senator on . the committee in the position that whenever there was a division on party lines-and divisions do occur - he would practically be the chairman and halve the casting vote. However much we may think that is desirable on other occasions, 1 do not think it is desirable in a select committee of the Senate.

Secondly, 1 think the principle set out in the latter part of the Australian Labor Party’s amendment is quite a good one. The principle is that the committee members should be chosen from those who do nol belong . to either the Government parties or the official Opposition party. In practice^ - in this particular case at any rate - this principle would not work. I have spoken to Senator Turnbull and. he has told mc that he will not be available to serve on this committee. He. will be tied down with the Senate select committee investigating hospital charges. Apart altogether from that. I can assure the Senate that on these questions of representation, Senator Gair. Senator Turnbull and I work together very well. We are quite happy and 1 think thai state of affairs will continue. We can gel on with almost anyone.

For those reasons - firstly, that we think the practice which gives the Government control of the committee ought to be maintained; and, secondly, that while the principle in the latter part of the amendment is a good one which we would support on other occasions, we cannot do so no.w because in this case Senator Turnbull will not be available - we of the Democratic Labor Party propose to support Senator Henty.

Senator HENTY (Tasmania) [4.19J-1 cannot accept the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator

Cohen). He suggested that there be 7 senators in all on the Committee, 3 representing the Government parties, 3 the official Opposition and I representing the remaining party and the independent. .Even if the chairman had a casting vote, if three members of the Australian Labor Party and the sole representative of the Democratic Labor Party were to find themselves in opposition in the committee, the committee could be divided four all. But the chairman would not have a casting vote because the numbers would be 4 to 3. The matter would be taken out of the hands of the Government. That is not the purpose of any select committee that we set up. Any select committee that we set up is in the hands of the Government.

Senator Wheeldon made the point two or three times that the amendment does not exclude the Democratic Labor Party. But it does exclude recognition of that Party. If there is no recognition of that Party, who is to appoint the person from the alsorans? The amendment suggests that three members be appointed by the Leader of the Opposition and three by the Leader of the Government. Who is to elect the seventh person? The amendment does away with recognition of the Democratic Labor Party as a party in this chamber which is entitled to appoint a member. If it appoints the independent senator, that is a matter for it. But the motion gives recognition to this Party which is represented in this chamber.

I believe that these things are done far better on an ad hoc basis. Senator Cohen asked why we should want to go from eight members to seven members to six members. If he looks at the proliferation of proposals for select committees that the Opposition has put on the notice paper he will see the very reason why we have had to limit the number of members of select committees. If proposals for select committees are put on the notice paper in good faith and because members of the Opposition want those select committees set up, the number of members has to be reduced, if all the committees are to work.

We do not propose to appoint the members of this Select Committee until the next sessional period; so we are not worried about personnel now. Who knows that the Senate will not reach a situation in which the number of select committees will require the number of members to be only five?

The Opposition might be in complete agreement with such a proposition. On an ad hoc basis, we could accept it. 1 do not believe thatwe should lay down any set of rules so that the Senate cannot take matters into its own hands and, on an ad hoc basis, appoint to a select committee the number of members that it wishes to appoint. For those reasons, I maintain that we should adhere to the numbers that I nominated in my motion, andI cannot support the amendment.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Cohen’s amendment) be left out.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin.)

AYES: 25

NOES: 29

Majority . . , . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in theaffirmative.

page 1001

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Cohen) - by leave - agreed to:

That leave of absence for1 month be granted to Senator Murphy on account of absence overseas.

page 1001

TRADE AGREEMENT WITH HUNGARY

Ministerial Statement

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– by leave - Today in the House of Representatives the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry, Mr Sinclair, made a statement in relation to the trade agreement with Hungary, which I now propose to make to the Senate on his behalf. It will be understood that when I use the first person singular pronounI refer to him. The statement is as follows:

I table a copy of the trade agreement between Australia and Hungary, signed by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry **(Mr McEwen)** on behalf of the Government on 5th December 1967. As with the other agreements between Australia and some of the countries of eastern Europe, this agreement formally confirms the reciprocal most favoured nation tariff treatment which has. in fact, applied between the two countries in the past. In a practical sense, however, it draws the attention of both Hungarian and Australian trading establishments to the existence of each other's markets, a factor of some significance in the context of a state trading economy such as Hungary. Trade between Australia and Hungary, although at present not large, has been increasing steadily in recent years. In 1964-65 the total trade in both directions was$A2,208m and in 1966-67 it was $A3,58lm. The Hungarian economy is expanding steadily and the potential for an increase in Australia's trade with Hungary is real. Prospects exist in Hungary for many Australian goods, both manufactured and primary, in addition to wool, hides and skins, and ores and metals which are already established on the market. Practical expression to the growing trade interest between our two countries was given at the time of signing the agreement, when Australia accepted an invitation to participate in the 1968 Budapest Trade Fair. The Fair is being held from 17th to 27th May and twenty-nine Australian firms are participating. Among the Australian products on display will be irrigation equipment,timber driers, radio telephones, aluminium products, specialised laboratory equipment and primary products such as canned fruit, grains and tropical products of Papua and New Guinea. In addition to Australian exporters, importers will also be represented at the Budapest Fair, and I am confident that a basis for future mutually advantageous business will be established. {: #subdebate-29-0-s1 .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'BYRNE:
Tasmania -I move: >That the Senate take note of the paper. I ask for leave to make my remarks at a later date. Leave granted; debate adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1002 {:#debate-30} ### ASSENT TO BILLS Assent to the following Bills reported: Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill 1968. Income Tax Assessment Bill 1968. Northern Territory (Administration) Bill 1968. Officers' Rights Declaration Bill 1968. Science and Industry Research Bill 1968. Native Members of the Forces Benefits Bill 1968. Removal of Prisoners (Territories) Bill 1968. {: .page-start } page 1002 {:#debate-31} ### APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 3) 1967-68 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Anderson)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-31-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-31-0-s0 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP -- I move: >That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill and of the associated Appropriation Bill (No. 4) is to obtain parliamentary authority for expenditure for which provision was not made in the Appropriation Acts (No. 1) and (No. 2) 1967-68. The total appropriations sought in this Bill amount to $155,135,000. The various items included in this Bill can be considered in detail at the Committee stage and I propose at this stage to refer to only some of the major provisions. The additional requirement for departmental salaries is$8.3m mainly because of the increases in salary rates arising from arbitration determinations, reclassifications of offices and additional staff. Further appropriations totalling $10.7m are required for departmental administrative expenses which cover a multiplicity of purposes. Additional appropriations amounting to $6.1m for departmental other services include $2m for cost of assisted passages for migrants, $547,000 for development of civil aviation and $700,000 for grants to eligible organisations under the Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Act. An additional amount of $22. 1m is sought in the appropriations of the Service departments to carry out the current defence programme but as there are shortfalls in some appropriations mainly due to rephrasing of payments on aircraft purchases, lags in delivery of equipment and stores and in the provision of accommodation and facilities, the estimated total expenditure on defence Services, from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Loan Fund, is not expected to exceed the original appropriation of $994. 9m. Including drawings on defence credits the total estimated expenditure for 1967-68 is not expected to exceed the original Budget estimate of $1,1 18.2m. Under business undertakings an additional amount of $8m is sought, including $6.4m for the Postmaster-General's Department mainly to cover increases in salaries and wages, $800,000 for the Australian Broadcasting Commission and $600,000 for the Commonwealth Railways. The payment to the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve is an internal machinery transaction involving the transfer of moneys from one Commonwealth fund within the Public Account to another and does not involve any actual expenditure by the Commonwealth. There is a distinct possibility that it might be necessary to make a payment to t he Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve greater than the $288m appropriated in Appropriation Act. (No. 1) 1967-68 and it is desirable that the additional appropriation should provide a margin of safety sufficient to meet all eventualities. To this end it is considered that the appropriation should be increased by $100m. Leaving aside the additional expenditure for payment to the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve, the additional appropriations being sought in this Bill amount to $55,135,000. This, however, is not to be taken as an indication that actual expenditure will exceed the appropriations in Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1967-68 to this extent. The greater part of the additional authority sought is expected to be offset by savings in expenditure under other appropriations in that Act. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by **Senator O'Byrne)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1003 {:#debate-32} ### APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 4) 1967-68 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Anderson)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-32-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-32-0-s0 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP -- I move: >That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to obtain parliamentary authority for additional expenditure in 1967-68 amounting to $31,335,000 on various items relating to capital works and services, payments to or for the States and certain other services. Although additional appropriations of $6. 6m are sought for capital works and services, it is expected that after allowing for savings in other appropriations the total expenditure on capital works and services will not exceed the budget estimate of $5 15.8m. The. major requirements are $500,000 for war service homes, $758,000 for acquisition of sites and buildings, $610,000 for expenditure of the National Capital Development Commission, $700,000 for construction of roads for the transport of beef cattle, $350,000 for the PostmasterGeneral's Department for acquisition of sites and buildings and $442,000 for broadcasting and television services. Additional appropriations of $3.6m are sought for payments to or for the States, including $3.4m for drought assistance in New South Wales. An additional amount of $21,143,000 is required for other services, the main item being $21 m for payment to industries in respect of losses arising from devaluation of sterling and other currencies. As I have mentioned, this Bill provides for additional appropriations of $3.1.335,000. However, there will be savings in expenditure under other appropriations in Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1967-68 which will offset this to a considerable extent. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by **Senator O'Byrne)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1003 {:#debate-33} ### SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1968-69 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. {:#subdebate-33-0} #### First Reading Motion (by **Senator Anderson)** proposed: >That the Bill be now read a first time. {: #subdebate-33-0-s0 .speaker-JUH} ##### Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania -- I welcome the opportunity that the presentation of the Supply Bill (No. 1) provides me with of making some comments upon a matter which is causing a great deal of concern in the north western part of Tasmania. I refer to shipping. It may be recalled that on the occasion of my first speech in the SenateI drew attention to the great problem of shipping and transport generally from the State of Tasmania which, as honourable senators know, is an island, and because it is an island is vulnerable to the vagaries of transportation. So from time to time I suppose it would be natural that I would attempt to keep my finger on the pulse of this commercial activity so that I could, when the occasion arose and I felt it necessary, draw attention to the inadequacies and shortcomings of shipping services to and from Tasmania. It will be recalled too that over the past 2 months I have repeatedly drawn attention to the problems which have arisen almost weekly regarding the inadequacy of shipping space particularly from the north western part of Tasmania but also from other areas of the State. On a number of occasions problems have arisen in the northern area around Launceston, particularly with regard to the export of timber by the sawmilling interests in that area. A short while ago an offer was made to supply the 'Empress of Australia' for use by New Zealand. I am still awaiting an answer to a question concerning this matter which I asked of the Minister for Shipping and Transport **(Mr Sinclair).** My understanding is that the Empress of Australia' was offered to New Zealand, and there has been no refutation of this suggestion. Despite the fact that I have seen Press reports to the effect that the offer has now been withdrawn for some reason or another, my question regarding this matter, which is question No. 239 on the Notice Paper, remains unanswered. Although I have taken some partial reassurance from the reports which have appeared in the daily Press to the effect that the 'Empress of Australia' will not go to New Zealand, I have received no ministerial assurance which one might expect to get as a responsible member of the Senate. So the question remains unanswered. So if one is to look at this matter in the proper sense, there is still a possibility that the Australian passenger ship the 'Empress of Australia', which operates between Sydney and Hobart, will be sent to New Zealand for an indefinite period of time to fill the gap caused by the tragic loss of the 'Wahine'. Of course, this does not solve the problem of Tasmanian shipping; in fact it only adds to it. I am greatly concerned about this matter. I only hope that I have the ability to apprise the Minister of the seriousness of it. Believe me, it is a very serious matter. Some few months ago a new industry was established in the Devonport area on the north west coast of Tasmania. Whether it indicates rather bad planning or insufficient attention to detailed planning on the part of the organisation that established the industry, 1 do not know, but the daily Press reports indicated that had the industry been aware of the problems of shipping from this area some second thoughts might have been had about establishing a very valuable industry in that part of Tasmania. As 1 said earlier in my remarks, the problem of shipping from Tasmania arises with great frequency - too great a frequency. Surely the time has been reached - in fact, it was passed a long time ago - when greater attention should be given to this matter. We are tremendously vulnerable in Tasmania. We rely to a large extent on the overnight ferry ships, the 'Princess of Tasmania', which plies between Melbourne and Devonport, and the 'Empress of Australia', which trades between Sydney and Hobart on one trip and between Sydney and the north west ports on the next. trip. In fact, so heavy was the loading of manufactured goods from Tasmania on one occasion on the 'Empress of Australia' - and this ques tion has never been explained - that I understand the deck or some part of the superstructure of the ship was damaged. That was a result of the endeavours of the Australian National Line to meet the requirement of an industry to get these goods away. This kind of thing happens from time to time. The plight of primary producers ought to be recognised in this context. For years primary producers in Tasmania have been subject to the vagaries of shipping. I have raised this matter on many occasions in the past, but I think it proper that I should do so again. The valuable potato industry in one part of Tasmania was virtually ruined because of the inadequate or insufficient supply of cargo space on ships operating between Tasmania and Sydney. Fortunately, the industry was not totally crippled, because it is a very valuable industry to that part of Tasmania. At the time, it supplemented farmers' returns from dairying and gave them an opportunity to keep going, as it were, in an age when the prices of goods and services which they require were increasing while returns from their labour were decreasing. On some occasions space in future shipping would be booked^ out so that all the available potatoes would be loaded on to ships that were then available and sent to Sydney. Immediately, the market would be depressed by the over-supply of potatoes. Then for weeks there would hardly be a ship available to take potatoes from Tasmania to Sydney, and the price of potatoes would rise. The trouble was that the farmers were not able to get the best return on the Sydney market because so much of their produce went there at the one time and the market was depressed. Had it been possible to graduate the supply of potatoes to the Sydney market by proper arrangement of shipping the farmers might have received a much better return for their produce and the economy of that part of the country to which I am referring would have been much better off. The former Minister for Shipping and Transport, **Mr Freeth-,** when he was requested to visit Tasmania very kindly did so. That was about 12 months ago. He was fair enough to say then that the situation regarding shipping from Tasmania had not been properly understood or assessed because the needs of the area were not sufficiently known. Many of us had been singing out at the top of our voices for additional shipping space to be made available on the 'Princes; of Tasmania' in its Bass Strait service, but to no avail. I believe that the Minister, on that occasion, realised that the situation was, as we had been representing it, a pretty difficult one. That state of affairs was impairing the proper development and progress of industry. It was impairing the opportunity for that part of the country to induce industry to establish there. It was causing a diminution of the returns to the industry already established there. It placed people concerned with the establishment and operation of industry at a considerable disadvantage when related to the freight cost of goods from other parts of the country, and so on. So, it is only natural surely that 1 should stand in my place in this Senate and draw attention to this matter in the hope that the Government may be seised of the urgency of the situation and prompted to do something about it. I know - and let us accept this fact - that orders have been placed for additional shipping to cover this service. Certainly I am prepared to concede that when attention has been drawn to these deficiencies and inadequacies every endeavour has been made through the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission to fill the gap by sending in such ships as the 'South Esk' and the Nilpena" and one or two other ships whose capacity is very, very much below that of the 'Princess of Tasmania' and substantially below the cargo handling capacity of a ship like the 'Empress of Australia'. Nevertheless, this is the sort of stop gap action that must increase costs. The small amount of cargo which can be handled per load and the high labour cost of operating this sort of ship must have a damaging effect upon the particular industries using the service of these ships. So, I rise on this occasion to draw attention once again to this matter. I ask that I be supplied with an answer to my question relating to the future of the 'Empress of Australia'. I make the plea that no such undertaking be given to anybody regarding the removal of any of the ships at present plying this mainland to Tasmania trade, and in fact that every endeavour be made to secure a ship which will meet the quite immediate developing needs of industry in that area. I have said that there has been damage to the timber industry in Tasmania. I am quite certain that this is so. Most certainly damage has been done to primary industry and particularly to the industries which keep people in the rural areas of Tasmania. Damage has been caused to the potato industry. We should bear in mind - I hope that all honourable senators will take note of this fact - that Tasmania supplied 62% of the total Australian production, of peas. Yet here is a commodity which can be transported across the Tasman Sea in a prepared form - I refer to the 'Surprise' pea which comes to Australia in large packages and which is ultimately repackaged in smaller packs for sale in Australia - for a freight charge of only 55c per ton more for that type of dry cargo between New Zealand and Sydney than is the freight cost for the similar product between Tasmania and Sydney. Here is another matter that I will throw into the ring on this occasion. This fact is probably causing some concern amongst primary producers in this part of Tasmania. This is the fact that, as I understand it. there is present right now a very serious threat to the continued existence of the market for canned peas in Great Britain. This will mean a reduction as far as one company is concerned, T understand, of approximately 14% in the acreage of peas to be sown for canning in this coming season. Surely here is an example of substantial damage to this industry. This is another aspect of primary industry which is being damaged by the present shipping problems. From time to time, one attempts to assess just what is happening and what level of over-supply of cargo to amount of shipping space available exists. It is very hard to determine this figure. I believe that hard-standing space for trailers in the terminal areas is limited. One cannot truly correctly assess the position on the basis of what vehicles have cargo awaiting transshipment from these hard-standing areas at the terminal. The various carting contractors - the people engaged in this line of business - are told that no space is available for their vehicles, their trailers, or whatever they may have. So, there can be - and in fact I believe there frequently is - a great deal more cargo offering than is actually at the terminal awaiting shipment to the mainland. It is necessary for the people receiving This cargo to reject deliveries until such time as sufficient space is available to take the containers offered. Surely it is necessary to attempt to assess the growth factor of this country. In just about everything in which 1 have been engaged throughout my life I have seen this great inability on the part of those planning anything to assess with any degree of accuracy the growth factor or the rate of development. Here we have a situation where a new form and a new concept in cargo handling came into operation. I refer to the roll-on roll-off type of vessel or ferry. The introduction of this new form of cargo handling did substantial damage, I believe, to the old conventional type of ship, the cargo of which had to be manhandled on and manhandled off. This is not to say that the consumer has received any benefit by the use of this new concept of transport. I believe that it cannot be established that any reduction in the cost of goods and services transported this way has been achieved. But this new concept has meant damage to the old type of cargo handling and to the old type of ship that was used for this sort of thing. Progressively as time has gone on fewer of those ships have been available. The old conventional ships have been sold overseas for one thing or another. Perhaps they have been sold for scrap. Therefore, it becomes even more imperative, particularly for a government instrumentality like the Coastal Shipping Commission, to attempt to assess with a reasonable degree of accuracy the needs of the- future and also to tell the country whether it intends or does not intend to carry on with this particular service. If it is to continue with this service, it should get on with the job of providing sufficient cargo space to meet the growing demands of industry. Throughout Tasmania, development is taking place. The population is increasing. Industry is expanding. It is necessary for all the factors making up the component parts of a virile, active and viable industry to work in consort and in accord in planning for the future. One of the things necessary, particularly in a State like Tasmania, is to look after transportation factors. One of the great problems relative to the matters about which I have been speaking is shipping. Let me on this occasion draw the attention of the Government to this serious matter. I believe that, even today, publicity is being given to the fact that the stage has been reached where it is beyond the capacity of shipping to move the cargo offering for shipment. Somebody recently said to me in a comment regarding the offer of the Empress of Australia' to New Zealand: '1 presume that backlogs of current cargo will be forwarded to Sydney in rowing boats?' This is the sort of facetious remark or comment that one gets. It flows from the feeling of frustration experienced by those who are engaged in the transport business or in industry or in producing primary goods for supply to the markets of the nation. 1 make this plea to the Senate. I welcome the opportunity to do so. I ask the Government to attempt to speed up the completion of the additional vessel which is to be provided for the Bass Strait run. I make the further plea for the Government not to regard this at the same time as the final need in this regard. The population of Tasmania is increasing along with the development and growth of industry there. I ask the Government to attempt to assess immediately the needs not of today but of the future so that hold-ups and bottlenecks of the type that we have been experiencing in Tasmania for quite some time can be overcome in order that industry can be developed in the knowledge that no impediment will be placed in the way of that development and in the knowledge that no damage will be caused to it as a result of inability to get the goods produced to the markets to which they are to be forwarded. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a first time. {:#subdebate-33-1} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-33-1-s0 .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP -- I move: The purpose of this Bill and the associated Supply Bill (No. 2) is to appropriate moneys to carry on the necessary normal services of the Government during the first 5 months of the financial year 1968-69. The total amount sought in this Bill is $1,119,1 10,000 comprising: In general these amounts represent approximately five-twelfths of the 1967-68 appropriation and make no provision for new services. However, the amount of $460,382,000 for Defence Services makes provision for large contractual payments due in the first 5 months of the financial year. An amount of $20m 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 on services of the Government, particulars of which will afterwards be submitted to Parliament. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by **Senator O'Byrne)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1007 {:#debate-34} ### SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1968-69 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator McKellar)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-34-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-34-0-s0 .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP -- I move: >That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate $250. 268m for certain expenditures to carry on the necessary services of the Government for the first 5 months of 1968-69. The total amount sought comprises: The amount for Capital Works and Services is required in general for the orderly continuation of works programmes. The amount of $20m sought for an Advance to the Treasurer is to make advances which will be recovered within the financial year, and to make moneys available to meet expenditures, particulars of which will afterwards be submitted to Parliament. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by **Senator O'Byrne)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1007 {:#debate-35} ### NAVAL DEFENCE BILL 1968 {:#subdebate-35-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 14 May (vide page 962), on motion by **Senator McKellar:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-35-0-s0 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator McCLELLAND:
New South Wales -- When this debate was interrupted yesterday I had said that the Department of the Navy, having regard to its recent industrial record and to some decisions of Commissioners of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, should be doing some rethinking on its industrial relations with employees engaged at Garden Island and Williamstown dockyards. I had pointed out that about 7,600 people are employed under the terms of the Naval Defence Act, comprising about 3,100 salaried staff and some 4,500 wages staff. I had mentioned also that the Minister for the Navy **(Mr Kelly)** in another place had indicated that he would not seek an - extension of the penal provisions contained in the present Act and that, as a result of discussions between members of the Industrial Relations Committee of the Parliamentary Labor Party with, firstly, a senior officer of the Department of the Navy and subsequently with the Minister, he had decided to withdraw the clause in the Bill which, in industrial and certain trade union circles was being interpreted, to say the least, as an extension of the existing penal provisions. In addition, I had stated that the Australian Labor Party did not oppose the Bill. Nonetheless I indicated then, and reiterate now, that great disquiet and suspicion were being generated in the minds of certain trade union leaders and workers on the job in relation to aspects of this legislation. In the interests of industrial harmony I sincerely trust that the Department will become much more conciliatory in its attitude to workers than it has been in the past, and that it will realise that not all the goodies are always on the side of the Department of the Navy or the employer in an industrial dispute, and that not all the baddies are always on the side of the workers and the trade unions. I know something about workers in industry and something about the ramifications of the Public Service, and I can well understand suspicion and disquiet existing in the minds of workers and trade union officials having regard to the history of recent disputes and the timing of the presentation of this legislation. For the record let me trace some of the recent history of the matter. In October last year an industrial dispute broke out - from recollection it concerned an aspect of safety on a naval ship - and as a result some 120 men were suspended or dismissed from the Department of the Navy. The matter was referred to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and **Mr Commissioner** Matthews, after hearing the facts concerning the incident, on 26th October last, amongst other things in his decision on the reference to him, had this to say: >Finally I want to say this concerning the 120- odd individual employees who have been suspended or dismissed, and I hope apply again tomorrow morning. The Department wanted to suspend the employees, apparently it is a practice that has gone on in the past, but there is no legal authority for it and maybe the Department should consider the advisability of getting legal authority to suspend as an alternative. {: .speaker-KV9} ##### Senator Sir Kenneth Morris: -- Does the honourable senator know what the dispute was about? {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator MCCLELLAND: -- I am not quite sure. I think it. involved an aspect of safety on a ship on which these workers were engaged and, as a result, the unions put a black ban on the vessel. A stoppage occurred and the matter was referred to the Arbitration Commission. The dispute was heard by **Mr Commissioner** Matthews who expressed the opinion that the Department of the Navy did not have the legal authority to dismiss the 120-odd workers who had been dismissed. I am mentioning these things to show how suspicion is engendered in the minds of workers on the job and how they become disturbed at the bureaucratic attitude being adopted by officials of the Department of the Navy. As I say. **Mr Commissioner** Matthews in his decision of 26th October held that the Department of the Navy was in fact acting beyond its legal limits. About a fortnight later a Bill to amend the Naval Defence Act was introduced in the House of Representatives by the former Minister for the Navy **(Mr Chipp).** That Bill contained, among other things, a clause, as does this Bill, prescribing that the Naval Board may by instrument in writing determine rates and conditions of employment. I emphasise that that Bill contained a provision which affected conditions of employment. As I have said, it appeared to the workers on the job and to the trade union leaders that the Bill, when it became law would extend the existing penal provisions. Whether this suspicion was well founded or not, the fear had been clearly and perhaps justifiably implanted in the minds of the workers that the Department of the Navy, having failed to get its way through conciliation and reference to the Arbitration Commission, intended to tighten up the legislation so that it would be able to exercise more disciplinary control over workers involved in a general1 industrial dispute. The Naval Defence Bill 1967 was introduced in November last year. The former Minister for the Navy made his second reading speech in another place, but the Parliament adjourned shortly afterwards for the November Senate election and the Bill was not debated further or enacted by the Parliament. Let me now come to this year. Another industrial dispute broke out at the Williamstown dockyard on Sunday, 18th February, concerning work on HMAS Swan'. When the men who had been working on that vessel for about 4 or 5 hours with no drinking or toilet facilities available to them indicated that they won I'd take a luncheon break, a dispute arose between them and the Department of the Navy. The dispute was referred to the Arbitration Commission on 21st February. On 28th February a conference between the parties was held before a conciliator, **Mr Conciliator** Wilson, and as no agreement could then be reached, although subsequently the Department of the Navy appeared to admit that il had breached the award, the matter was referred by the conciliator to **Mr Commissioner** Horan. **Mr Commissioner** Horan began hearing the dispute on 12th March. Before him; in addition to representatives of the Department of the Navy, there were representatives of the Plumbers and Gasfitters Union, the Painters and Decorators Union, the Amalgamated Engineering Union, the Ship Painters and Dockers Union, the Shipwrights and Ship Constructors Association, the Furnishing Trades Society, the Boilermakers and Blacksmiths Society, the Federated Ironworkers Association, the Transport Workers Union, the Federated Enginedrivers and Firemen's Association, the Australian Timber Workers Union, the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union, the Building Workers Industrial Union, and the Electrical Trades Union of Australia. So I think it is fair to say that a large number of men - certainly a great number of responsible trade unionists - were involved in the matter that came before **Mr Commissioner** Horan on 12th March. But the very day after this matter came before **Mr Commissioner** Horan - namely, 13th March - another Bill to amend the Naval Defence Act was introduced in the House of Representatives. Then, after the members of the Parliamentary Labor Party had seen the Bill for the first time, the Industrial Relations Committee of my Party met and had discussions with the Minister for the Navy **(Mr Kelly)** who, yielding to the persuasive arguments put to him, decided to jettison the proposed new penal provision. Again, one can see the timing involved. Honourable senators will note the proximity of the hearing before the Arbitration Commission to the introduction of this legislation. Having done this, they will appreciate that a fear was implanted in the minds of the workers that the Department, if it could not get its way by arbitration, would attempt to do so by legislation. I am not saying that this was a legitimate fear, but I submit that it was a real fear to the workers on the job who, unaware of the ramifications of the proposed legislation, knew only that they were involved before the Arbitration Commission in an industrial dispute affecting their conditions of employment. In the circumstances it was reasonable for them to be suspicious and to feel some disquiet about the legislation. Let me continue wilh the history of the dispute. As 1 have said, **Mr Commissioner** Horan began the hearing on 12th March. The hearing proceeded until 19th March when the Commissioner handed down his decision, which was against the Department. On the very day on which the Commissioner handed down his decision the 'Canberra Times' published a statement issued by a spokesman for the Department of the Navy to the effect that the time-table for returning the aircraft carrier H.M.A.S. 'Melbourne' to the fleet had been seriously disrupted by the series of running strikes which had hit the Garden Island Dockyard in recent months. The newspaper report went on: >An RAN spokesman said yesterday it had not yet been possible to ascertain how much lime would be lost, but the ship would not be back in service in the six months originally planned. > >The strikes, which have now been referred to an arbitration commissioner, have also delayed utilisation of new squadrons of Douglas Skyhawk fighter-bombers and Grumman Tracker antisubmarine aircraft which will operate from the carrier. A spokesman for the Department of the Navy issued that statement on the day before **Mr Commissioner** Horan handed down his decision. The statement could fairly be said to be inflammatory and to have had a bearing on some of the issues that were to be determined by the Arbitration Commissioner. It is very interesting indeed to read the transcript of proceedings in the case before **Mr Commissioner** Horan. First, the advocate for the Department of the Navy, a **Mr Mann,** seemed to adopt, in his opening address on 12th March, what might be termed in industrial parlance a hard line bearing in mind that the matter had been dealt with in the first instance by **Mr Conciliator** Wilson who, being unable to achieve settlement of the dispute, had referred it to **Mr Commissioner** Horan. In his opening address setting out the terms of the dispute, **Mr Mann** had this to say. amongst other things: >Navy will insist on running its dockyards, lt will insist that its intructions be carried out. The employees have already had this pointed out to them at Williamstown and Navy does not now intend to abandon a principle it went to so much trouble to establish - this. **Sir, was** back in last October when we had the situation where there were black bans placed on ships at Williamstown and men were dismissed. **Mr Mann** obviously was referring to the matter that was before **Mr Commissioner** Matthews, who had found against the Department of the Navy and had said that in his opinion the Department had acted beyond its legal limits. Again, in his opening explanatory address to the Commissioner the advocate for the Navy was adopting, in industrial terms, a hard line attitude. After the winesses had been heard the advocate for the Department, in his final address to the Commissioner, seemed to adopt a much more conciliatory approach. Indeed, he admitted on. behalf of the Department that the Navy had been in breach of the award. At page 85 of the transcript of proceedings before **Mr Commissioner** Horan on 19th March he is reported as saying: >Navy, in its section 28 notification admitted a misinterpretation of the determination. Navy is concerned that the employees on 'Swan' were not given an opportunity to say what time they wanted to go to lunch. Navy recognises that it should have discussed the matter with them: To this extent Navy was remiss. However, circumstances were such that it was expected that the operation would have been completed by 11.30, and Navy feels that the subsequent action of the gang on 'Swan' in handling lines up to 12.30 did constitute a tacit mutual arrangement and Navy is very appreciative of the way the gang accepted the situation, without which the ship could have been placed in a very awkward situation, lt will be seen that any non-compliance with the determination by management on Sunday was one of omission rather than commission in that it failed to give the 'Swan' gang an opportunity to freely accept a mutual arrangement but instead allowed the circumstances to dictate what was in effect a tacit mutual arrangement. The non-compliance with the determination was therefore not wilful but one which arose because of a situation caused by being unable to keep to the planned timetable because of a variety of reasons. When the matter was first before the Commissioner, the Navy said that it would not tolerate any interference with the administration of the Department. Evidence was presented and then the advocate for the Department in his final address admitted that - to put it at the very lowest - the Navy was remiss in this particular industrial dispute. The change of attitude was most marked. If the second attitude had been adopted by the Department of the Navy in the first instance the men would not have been dismissed, the case would not have had to be referred to a conciliator and would not have been referred to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Half of the disturbance, suspicion and disquiet that exist in the minds of the workers would not be in existence today. Certainly on the facts as they come out in the transcript of proceedings one can appreciate why there is suspicion, disturbance and disquiet not only in the minds of the workers involved but also in the minds of a great number of trade union officials. The Commissioner himself had some things to say during the course of the hearing. At one stage he seemed to go right to the kernel of the situation. After some argument as to whys and wherefores the Commissioner is reported at page 90 as saying: >There is not the liaison, perhaps, that there would be in private enterprise. In private enterprise there would be somebody around who would say yea or nay or make some firm decision immediately, but the impression 1 have been getting here is that staff officers at the Navy Dockyard do not arrive until a quarter to nine, and it is not until that time that the machinery can start . . . That is to say, the industrial machinery: {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . and this is the time that seems to be rather crucial in this dispute. If there had been somebody there to make a firm decision, I think it might have been nipped in the bud, and this seems to be the difficulty. Bear in mind that these workers had started on the job on Sunday at 7 o'clock. Apparently a disturbance or a discussion took place about the time at which they would knock off for lunch. There was noone with whom the employees or the representatives of the employees could discuss the matter, so far as the Department of the Navy was concerned, before a quarter to nine. In the course of giving his decision the Commissioner had this to say, as reported at page 95 of the transcript: 1 think that there was not sufficient liaison between the trade unionists and management at that point in time - there were efforts made for liaison but they were just not getting together and not only at that point of time but later on, again the next morning, later on in the day and right throughout the whole of the dispute. I feel that both Navy and unions must try to liaise better than they are doing in the dockyards. On the Monday morning I can quite understand the men coming to work, clocking on, and saying: 'What has happened about the dispute yesterday? We had better have a meeting', which is the usual thing on the waterfront to decide something, and they had a meeting of about 10 minutes duration, I think, on what I can get from the evidence, and the men decided to send for their union officials to come down and see if they could discuss it with the officers of the Navy. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Cormack: -- Did they decide to have the meeting before clocking on or after? {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator MCCLELLAND: -- The Commissioner stated: >I can quite understand the men coming to work, clocking on, and saying: 'What has Happened about the dispute yesterday: We had better have a meeting'. . . . The Commissioner said that he could understand the attitude of the men, they not having been able to get to officers of the Navy. They held their meeting, decided to get in touch with their trade union leaders to see if their leaders could get to the Department of the Navy to iron out the problem. We are worried not about when the meeting was held, but about the fact that no attempt was made by the Department of the Navy to consult with the workers. The Department, because these men had stopped, decided to suspend or dismiss them - whatever it might have been. {: .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop: -- The Department could have taken the initiative. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator MCCLELLAND: -- Exactly. Surely the Department of the Navy could have taken the initiative. It could have got in touch with the trade union leaders and said that there was a bit of an industrial disturbance at Garden Island or wherever it might be. Sitting suspended from 5.30 to 8 p.m. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator MCCLELLAND: -- Before the sitting was suspended I had referred to the proceedings before **Mr Commissioner** Horan and the timetable of events between recent industrial disputes at the dockyards under the control of the Department of the Navy and the introduction of legislation of the type with which we are dealing. I had indicated that in the minds of the workers and trade union leaders suspicion and distrust are engendered when the workers and management do not seem to be able to get together round a table and iron out the differences that naturally must occur from time to time. 1 hope, as my Party hopes that industrial relations between the Department of the Navy on the one hand and the workers on the job on the other can be improved in the future. I do not blame the advocate for the Department of the Navy at all. When all is said and done, he was only doing the job that he had to do. But there should be scope for trade union leaders and trade union officials, at the time of industrial stoppages in these important defence establishments to be able to get to the highest possible echelons within the Department in order to try to iron out the problems that naturally must occur between management and labour before industrial stoppages in fact take place. It is my firm opinion that a great number of the industrial disputes which occur in government instrumentalities are harder to settle than the great bulk of those that occur from time to time in private establishments. This is probably because the departmental officers involved have to stick strictly to the book. Unfortunately - and I am not saying that this applies only to the Department of the Navy; it applies throughout Public Service industrial relations generally - there seems to have developed a cult of bureaucracy. A much more conciliatory attitude must be adopted by the departmental people concerned if these industrial stoppages are not to continue to occur. I indicate to the Minister and to the Department that trade union leaders are not the bogymen that certain people on the other side think they are. They are practical men with very long and wide experience, men who are quite fair in their dealings and who want to see the right thing done by the people whom they represent. I mention this because there is great concern among trade unionists about proposed section 42a (1.) which reads: >The Naval Board may, by instrument in writing, determine the terms and conditions (including rates of pay and allowances) applicable to the employment of persons under the last preceding section. There is a feeling abroad that the Department, having regard to the Matthews decision and the Horan decision to which I have, already referred, might be trying to overcome the legal obstacles that previously were felt to be in its way by writing into the Acf a provision of this nature. I know that the Minister said in his second reading speech that flexibility in determining conditions of service is at present provided for in regulation 5 of the Defence (Naval Establishments) Regulations, and the Bill before us will resolve the situation by including in the Act this power for the Naval Board to determine terms and conditions of service within the general administrative instructions governing the conduct of government business. I would certainly like an undertaking to be given by the Minister in this place that the Department will not use this type of provision to stipulate terms and conditions of employment by instrument in writing relating to the power of suspension or dismissal of employees engaged in industrial stoppages. I hope that the Department, and particularly its industrial section, will be more conciliatory in its industrial attitudes and in its future dealings with workers on the job. I hope the. Department and the Minister will try to get some appreciation of the problems of these people and will try to work as closely as they can with trade union officials. I am sure that if a degree of preparedness to co-operate one with the other is shown the problems of the Department' of the Navy at these naval establishments will become much easier to solve as time goes on, and there will be greater progress with the work involved. {: #subdebate-35-0-s1 .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator CORMACK:
Victoria -- It is normal for me not to concern myself with matters that relate to the industrial area when legislation is before the Senate. I do so tonight with great reluctance because ] feel that honourable senators who sit opposite consider that those of us who sit on this side have no knowledge of industrial circumstances. Because I have many friends amongst honourable senators opposite, this adds to my reluctance to speak tonight. But I am perfectly aware, as 1 hope all honourable senators are, that the problem of the naval dockyards is not one that has gained some sudden importance as a result of decisions by or arguments before Commissioner Horan. The problem of naval dockyards goes back over a very long time. The more one looks at the problem of naval dockyards both here and in the United States of America, where a great deal of the industrial tradition has been inherited from the United Kingdom, and at the problem of the Royal dockyards in the United Kingdom, the more one realises that the problem of the dockyards has a long history. Whereas perhaps in earlier times the problem could be resolved because of the simplicity of the industry concerned with dockyards, it is much more complex in Australia at the present moment. The problem of naval dockyards is not one that concerns the normal pattern of industry in a country. Let me mention the firm of Vickers Ruwolt Pty Ltd by way of illustration. This organisation, operating in Melbourne, engages in patterns of industrial life which are the normal patterns in civil vocations in which speed is not involved and where there is no great sense of urgency. In a civil engineering shop like that of Vickers- Ruwolt there is not the constant pressure to get work out of the workshop that there is in a dockyard where the object of the exercise is to repair ships and get them out of the yard. I do not care very much what any honourable senator says to the contrary, but there is a distinction between the responsibilities of civil engineering shops and the responsibilities that accrue in a naval dockyard. A ship in a civil dockyard is a ship that is not at the disposal of those who are charged by the government of the day with the defence of Australia. The problem is not simply one of saying; 'We will have double the number of ships so that we can take care of the problem of dockyard repairs and whatever has to be done in dockyards'. The economy of the country cannot stand the condition in which we have to duplicate, as it were, the hardware with which we conduct the Defence Services. I mention this to illustrate to honourable senators, if I can, that no valid comparison can be made between a civil engineering workshop and a naval dockyard. The second thing I wish to say is that naval dockyards, historically, are involved in all sorts of problems. I have been informed, for example, that in the Garden Island dockyard or the Royal Australian Navy dockyard at Williamstown the repairing of a ship involves twenty-three separate unions. I would imagine that when I intrude into this area I am intruding into a highly sensitive nerve section of the industrial movement of Australia. To me it is credible that there are too many unions involved in dockyards. Because there are too many unions involved in dockyards there are too many unions fighting for a position within the industry. This leads me remorselessly to the conclusion that so far as naval dockyards are concerned there are industrial disputes inside them that are manufactured between unions. {: .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop: -- There is no evidence of that. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator CORMACK: -- Yes there is. I am making a categorical statement and I would be delighted if any honourable senator opposite would rebut it. At Garden Island and at the Williamstown dockyard there are twenty-three unions involved in dealing with, say, the repair of HMAS 'Swan' which is one ship which was mentioned by **Senator McClelland.** I do not know who decides the area of what is to be done inside a dockyard but it is inevitable, because of the industrial unions and craft unions, that there will be a constant struggle inside the dockyard and the dockyard complex as to who is to do this job and who is to do that job. There are union secretaries fighting for jobs for their men inside the dockyard. This itself provides an area of friction which leads inevitably to industrial disputes. I do not accept for one single moment that when there is an industrial dispute inside a naval dockyard, it has been caused by bad industrial management on the part of the Navy, thus bringing about a stoppage of work. There is a problem of demarcation. This is constantly bedevilling naval dockyards as it is bedevilling management in other areas. For example, at the Melbourne docks there has been substantial industrial trouble about where the job of a member of the Waterside Workers Federation ends and the job of a member of the Transport Workers Union begins. Because the unions themselves will not agree on their areas of jurisdiction there is a strike. The Melbourne wharves are paralysed as a result of a demarcation dispute. I realise that if I were a union secretary and was responsible to my union to see that my men were not out of work 1 would fight to see that the extent and limits of my responsibility protected the members of my union. But it is dubious, in the changing technological circumstances of Australia at the moment, whether the economic processes of the country should be held to ransom not because there is an industrial dispute existing between the employer and the employee but simply because unions cannot agree that certain work should be done by employees in category A and other work done by those in category B. This is the substantial area of trouble in the naval dockyards in Australia: A ship comes alongside the docks and work has to be done on it. There are twenty-three unions involved and immediately there is a source of friction because the various unions operating in the dockyard cannot agree on the union which is to do a certain class of work. 1. would like to hear that argument rebutted. Now 1 propose to tread upon the most tender of all ground. Any honourable senator sitting here tonight would be ill advised to deny that work in dockyards from time to time is held up because this suits the purpose of a particular shop steward or union secretary who is informed that it is proper, in the higher cause - if I may put it that way - that the ship concerned shall not be repaired in a hurry. I put the proposition in no broader terms than that. I throw the pebble into the pool of clear water and any honourable senator should be able to recognise the quality and type of stone that is lying at the bottom of the pool. I listened to **Senator McClelland** make out a good case for his point of view by skipping from one side of the argument to the other in relation to the dispute that came before Commissioner Horan. Commissioner Horan has been quoted at great length. He made some remarks or observations of a critical nature about the management of the Royal Australian Navy inside the dockyards. I have not had time to go through the transcript of evidence of the particular case the honourable senator mentioned because I have been engaged in some other matters relating to Bills that are to come before the Senate. However, this afternoon I made some investigations into what Commissioner Horan said about the management of the dockyards. Commissioner Horan did not categorically condemn the management of the dockyards at all. In a particular context, he made some observations of a critical nature relating to the management of the dockyard in a particular dispute. It appears to me, on the surface anyway, that the dispute could be termed a reasonable dispute in which perhaps there was some ill advised management somewhere down along the line inside the dockyard. It appears now that the Royal Australian Navy, in that particular instance and in the particular nature of the dispute, was thus totally condemned as being a bad manager of dockyards. This has not been made clear by previous speakers, either by my friend **Senator Bishop** or, indeed, by my friend **Senator McClelland.** I have been interested enough to extract some of the comments made by the Commissioners in the last 12 months. Commissioner Matthews dealt with a dispute in the Williamstown dockyard in October 1967. Williamstown is in my own Stale of Victoria. If one considers the problems of dockyards generally then I think the nature and category of problems that have occurred at the Williamstown dockyard are probably 5 or 6 times greater than the category of industrial problems that have occurred at the Garden Island dockyard. Nevertheless, by some sort of slight reference, **Senator McClelland** mentioned the Williamstown dockyard in relation to HMAS 'Swan', for example. At one stage or another I was not quite clear whether the honourable senator was referring to the industrial dispute at Garden Island involving HMAS 'Melbourne', which is undergoing a refit, or to HMAS 'Swan' at the Williamstown dockyard. But the matter became clear anyway. I want to mention what Commissioner Matthews said in October 1967. This illustrates that the management of the dockyards by the Royal Australian Navy is not as bad as it is made out to be. Commissioner Matthews, in his observations then, was critical of the stand taken by union representatives at the Williamstown naval dockyard and he ordered the men back to work. The Commissioner stated in clear and unequivocal terms that there was no cause for this dispute in October 1967. One was left, as I am left, wondering what was the cause of the dispute as the Commissioner said that there was no cause and then ordered the men back to work. Commissioner Horan, who is held up as the great authority on naval mismanagement, in dealing with a dispute in February this year, said that there should be better liaison between the unions and the Royal Australian Navy. That is what **Senator Bishop** said yesterday afternoon, and I agree. But after **Senator Bishop's** speech I was left with the impression that the unions had made an approach for liaison but it had been rejected by the Naval Board. Commissioner Horan went on to say that, if the men who normally tied up a ship would not do it, then he would go and tie up the ship himself. So it was not the Navy that was responsible for that dispute. This month Commissioner Winter, referring to the recent strike at Garden Island, stated that the issue was one for the Boilermakers and Blacksmiths Society to resolve internally. This is a problem of demarcation. It is not a problem of the management of the Australian naval dockyards. The problem is that the unions themselves are bringing into industrial disputes their inability to resolve their own internal differences and terms of demarcation. The history of our dockyards is similar to that of the United Kingdom dockyards. There it was found that in order to maintain shipbuilding yards and naval repair yards a rationalisation in terms of modern conditions was necessary. There was the old and ancient dispute in respect of the man who put a screw into a piece of wood. When sheet metal came along he said that because a screw driver was required putting in screws was a job for the carpenter and not for the sheet metal worker. The famous case was in respect of the Cammell Laird yards in the United Kingdom, where no work was done on any ship of the Royal Navy for a period of 9 months because the unions were unable to resolve a dispute as to who should put a metal screw through a sheet of metal. The carpenters said that a screw was a screw and that this was the historical role of the carpenter. The sheet metal worker said that this was a new technique and that putting in a metal screw was the role of the sheet metal worker. It is that sort of thing that is bedevilling our naval dockyards at present. I believe that the time has come for some rationalisation to be forced upon the twenty-three unions that quarrel among themselves about who is to do a particular piece of work in a dockyard, so that there can be clear designations as to whose responsibility it is to carry out certain work. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator Ormonde: -- The position should not get to that point. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator CORMACK: -- But that is where it is. As I said, as recently as 14th May, when referring to the recent strike at Garden Island, Commissioner Winter stated that the issue was one for the Boilermakers and Blacksmiths Society to resolve internally. That was not mentioned by **Senator McClelland.** {: .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop: -- That is only one case. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator CORMACK: **- Senator Bishop** quoted only one case yesterday and **Senator McClelland** quoted only one case this afternoon. So I reject the theory that the blame for the disputes in the Australian naval dockyards can be laid at the door of the Royal Australian Navy. It has transcendant problems which stand astride and well above the need to settle strikes on the civil front. It has the problem of keeping Her Majesty's ships at sea. That is an overriding factor which I believe has to be acknowledged. Let me leave this thought with honourable senators: All disputes in the Australian naval dockyards are not industrial disputes and all demarcation disputes between unions in the Australian naval dockyards are not genuine demarcation disputes. The Bill with which the Senate is now dealing should be passed without very much debate in order that the hand of the management of the Australian naval dockyards responsible for the maintenance and fitness of Her Majesty's Australian ships to defend this country may be adequately strengthened. I do not believe that this Bill adequately strengthens its hand, but at least it strengthens it to a degree. So 1 commend the Bill. {: #subdebate-35-0-s2 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia 1 appreciate the remarks made by **Senator Cormack** because he bears out the fears that 1 have had about this legislation. Obviously he can find much wrong with the unions. He wants the Naval Board to have the authority to put down the disputes which he says occur from time to time. My intention was to deal with the disputes that have occurred, but **Senator Mcclelland** dealt very capably with the two recent disputes and I do not want to be repetitious. If we look at those disputes we will see that demarcation was not. concerned in any of them. **Senator Cormack** must, have been hard pressed to support his case on demarcation when he had to refer to Great Britain and the case about who should put a screw in a metal plate. I do not know whether that case can be applied to what is happening in the Australian naval dockyards. It is very insulting to claim that there will be a dispute if it suits the purposes of the union shop stewards and that on many occasions disputes occur because it does not suit union shop stewards to complete jobs. That is an affront and is offensive to the whole Australian work force and especially to the dockyard workers who are making a magnificent contribution to the defence of Australia. I defy **Senator Cormack** to tell us one occasion on which the Australian working man has lacked the patriotism to assist in the defence of Australia whenever the need has arisen. This Bill relates solely to the employment of civilians in the naval dockyards. History shows that the Naval Board has not been a good employer. Let me refer to the disputes that **Senator McClelland** has mentioned today. One was a dispute on the HMAS 'Anzac'. The issue was whether the job was unsafe because of the littering of the deck. One worker had broken a leg and had been taken to hospital. That was mentioned in the transcript. The men decided that the job was unsafe and they would not work on it. That was at 7.30 a.m. when there was no-one in authority to allocate other jobs. There could be no consultation until 9 a.m. So there was a hold-up of work. The decision was that other employment would not be found. When the matter came before a conciliation commissioner a Naval Board spokesman stated that the Board would accept that danger was present on that job and that the men were justified in refusing to work on the job. The Board agreed to pay the men for the time that they lost. The other dispute was on the HMAS Swan'. Whatever else the conciliation commissioner may have said, he found that the Naval Board was in breach of the award in not permitting the lunch hour at the stipulated time, an arrangement having been made with the men. Accordingly he awarded the 120 employees their wages for the time for which they were stood down as a result of the illegal action of the Naval Board. Neither of those disputes involved demarcation. In both cases, firstly the Naval Board and secondly the conciliation commissioner found that the men were justified in doing what they did. On 8th May I asked **Senator McKellar,** who is the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, whether at that time a dispute was occurring at the Williamstown and Garden Island dockyards. The reply, which was given the following day,, was that there was a dispute. Trade union delegates in King's Hall today informed me that the dispute is still continuing. The dispute is over a reduction of pay caused by deleting marking-off by boilermakers and reducing them to a lower classification for the purposes of the work value case that is before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. {: .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator McKellar: -- Did not the honourable senator say that the dispute was brought about by the unions' objections to this Bill? {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- No, I did not. I was seeking information from the Senate. I did not want to go into that aspect. I asked whether the point of dispute was the markingoff rate and a resultant reduction in wages. I had been informed that a factor in the dispute was opposition to the Bill we are now discussing and I asked whether that was true. The reply [ received from **Senator McKellar** showed that the trouble not only lies with the Naval Board but stems from the Minister down through the whole set-up of the Navy. The Minister stated in reply to my question: >I have obtained for the honourable senator a statement dated yesterday, 8th May, which sets out the position. Boilermakers were on strike until 9th May-- It appears that that date is incorrect - at Garden Island dockyard because a member of their society had remained at work during a halfday stoppage earlier in the week. Members of the Federated Ironworkers Association, the Amalgamated Engineering Union and the Australian Society of Engineers went out on 8th May in sympathy. This has no connection whatever with the Naval Defence Bill. Departmental and union officials are holding discussions to resolve the matter. If the Minister's answer is correct, one man remained at work and the strike was prolonged as a result. Not one of the three recent stoppages has involved a dispute on demarcation. It has been said in another place that demarcation disputes have always occurred and always will occur in industry. In a successful industrial relationship, disputes over demarcation are settled before they develop to the stage of a stoppage of work. I have said before that there has never been an occasion when an Australian working man has not been prepared to pull his weight for the defence of Australia. Working men have never been induced to go out onstrike, no mailer what view is held by a shop steward, unless there is justification for their taking such action. In one case to which . 1 have referred the men were not prepared to risk their lives. One of them had risked a limb and as a result was taken to hospital with a broken leg. In theother case the men were expected to work for longer than 51/2 hours on a ship without a toilet, and without having a meal break. They were not prepared to do that. On the first occasion the Naval Board agreed that the action of the men was justified. On the second occasion a Conciliation Commissioner said that the action taken was in accordance with the award, and ruled accordingly. So it is not of much use to place the blame on the men alone. Recent disputes have occurred because of the Naval Board's noncompliance with the award, or the Naval Board's unreasonable demands that men work in unsafe locations. As **Senator McClelland** has said, immediately the decision went against the Naval Board a Bill was introduced in this Parliament for the purpose of altering the conditions of civil employment within dockyards on naval ships. When this matter was considered by the Industrial Relations Committee of the Australian Labor Party it was informed that clause 7 as then proposed was offensive because it sought approval of the imposition of 3 months gaol for civilian employees who breached employment conditions. The Committee decided that it should be deleted and accordinglythe Minister was approached. The Minister said that it was unimportant; that it was only a drafting amendment and he would agree to delete the offending provision. We agree with the Minister that only a drafting amendment was required, but in fact he deleted nothing at all. In the measure before the Senate the GovernorGeneral still has power to issue regulations providing for a penalty of 3 months imprisonment for breach of conditions of employment. Few courts in the land possess such power. It is an unusual procedure for the Government to approve of the imprisonment of working men for breach of employment conditions. Section 45 of the principal Act provides: >The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act. prescribing all matters which by this Act are required or permitted to be prescribed, or which are necessary or convenient to be prescribed, for securing the discipline and good government of the naval forces, or for carrying out or giving effect to this Act. and in particular prescribing matters for or in relation to - Then follow paragraphs (a), (b). (ba). (c) and (d). Subsection 2 provides: >The regulations may provide penalties for breaches thereof not exceeding imprisonment with hard labour for 3 months, in the case of imprisonment, or twenty pounds, in the case of pecuniary penalties. For those described in paragraphs (a), (b), (ba), (c) and (d) the Government has power to issue regulations prescribing a penalty of 3 months imprisonment. Clause 7 of the original Bill, which the Minister agreed to delete, sought to amend paragraph (b) of section 45, as follows: >The discipline of persons who - > >are receiving instruction or training in a naval establishment: or > >are employed in a civil capacity in or in connection with a naval establishment or otherwise in connection with the naval forces. That provision put fear into the minds of the members of our Industrial Relations Committee. The principal Act already prescribes a penalty of 3 months imprisonment for civilian employees. So the Minister agreed to delete the provision 1 have quoted. I will repeat part of that quotation: >The discipline of persons who - > >are receiving instruction or training in a naval establishment, or > >are employed in a civil capacity in or in connection with a naval establishment - The principal Act provides that the Governor-General may issue regulations for the discipline of persons receiving instruction in training, or employed in or in connection with naval establishments. Those regulations may prescribe for breaches penalties of up to 3 months imprisonment and the clause the Minister agreed to delete only changed the wording. It is a tremendous power and removes arbitration from its normal channels into the realm of regulations issued by the Governor-General. A regulation can be disallowed by the Parliament. A Minister must justify a regulation providing for imprisonment. The Bill provides for a new section 42a, which states: (1.) The Naval Board may, by instrument in writing - A note passed across a table may be an instrument in writing. Someone may scribble a note and for this purpose it is an instrument in writing. The proposed new section 42a continues: determine the terms and conditions (including rates of pay and allowances) applicable to the employment of persons under the last preceding section. That proposed new sub-section places complete power in the Naval Board, which is responsible to no-one. There is no hearing and there is no trial. Evidence need not be produced. The Naval Board, by instrument in writing, will determine the terms and conditions of employment. Sub-section (2.) of proposed new section 42a provides: >The Naval Board is, in determining a rate or a scale of rates of salary under the last preceding sub-section, subject to the directions of the Public ServiceBoard. The Naval Board, by instrument in writing, can determine the terms and working conditions, but onthe question of rates of salary it is subject to the directions of the Public Service Board. It is not subject to any direction on the question of conditions. Sub-section (5.) of proposed new section 42a provides: A determination may make provision for or in relation to terms or conditions of employment oy applying, adopting or incorporating, with or without modification - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. the provisions of any Act, or of any regulations, as in force at a particular time or as in force from time to time; or 1. any matter contained in any other instrument or writing as in force or existing at the time when the determination takes effect. Therefore, the Naval Board can incorporate in its determination working conditions, which will be applicable to all civilian employees, which are contained in any Act - not only an Act of the Federal Parliament, but any Act in force - or in any regulation or any other instrument or writing. When we consider the ramifications of the Crimes (Aircraft) Act which we were discussing last night and consider that in the Bill we are debating there is no right of appeal to anyone, we can see the possible dangers in the legislation. Sections of the community think that the Naval Board is beyond reproach. But a different attitude might be adopted as a result of the defeats which the Naval Board has suffered in hearings before industrial commissioners. **Senator McClelland** referred to portions of the submissions of **Mr Mann** who represented the Naval Board in the hearing before **Mr** Commissioner Horan. For the purposes of the record and to complete my argument I think that those portions of the submissions should be repeated. **Mr Mann** stated: >We will only take these men back on the condition they will obey orders. If they work for us we will expect that each employee do the work he is instructed to do within his ordinary working hours. If he has any complaints to make he has other avenues open to him. They are the employees who refused to work under the dangerous conditions which resulted in one employee breaking a leg. But **Mr Mann** for the Naval Board said: They will do as they told. They will work where we put them.' That was the attitude of the Naval Board in this dispute. **Mr Mann** later said: >Navy will insist on running its dockyards. It will insist that its instructions be carried out. The employees have already had this pointed out to them at Williamstown and Navy does not now intend to abandon a principle it went to so much trouble to establish - this, **Sir, was** back in last October when we had the situation where there were black bans placed on ships at Williamstown and men were dismissed. It looks as though it is a common practice to place black bans on ships when industrial conditions are bad. But the Commissioner found for the men on this occasion. The Naval Board, on its own admission, agreed that men should not work in dangerous positions. So the men were justified in refusing to work under these conditions which were admitted before the Commissioner. When the Naval Board found that it did not have power to enforce a decision, that the decision would not be upheld in an arbitration court, this Bill was introduced in order to enforce the decision to compel men to work under these dangerous conditions. Anyone who believes that the Naval Board does not intend to use this power should have listened to **Senator Cormack's** speech this evening. There we heard the direct intention of the legislation, when **Senator Cormack** said: 'We must get this work done. The men will have to work'. **Senator Cormack** referred to this dispute at the dockyards as a demarcation dispute. There are more than twenty-two unions working in establishments in the metal trades industry and there are not the serious disputes in those establishments that there are at the naval dockyards. Someone representing the Government who wants more power placed in the Naval Board has decided that there are too many unions engaged at the naval dockyards. We can see what the Government intends to do with the power given to the Naval Board under this legislation when we consider the declared intention of a Government supporter to cut. down on the number of unions operating at the naval dockyards. Will the Government say that there are too many unions and cut the number immediately? Will it declare war upon the trade union movement at the dockyards? This is not only my individual opinion. I can speak with the authority of the largest trades and labour council in the Commonwealth, the Sydney Trades and Labour Council, which at its meeting last Thursday night condemned this legislation and decided to send a protest to the Government over the Naval Defence Bill. We have seen the Government's intention expressed in **Senator Cormack's** speech tonight when he said that there was no justification for the workers to refuse to work. There can be justification even for a demarcation dispute. Possibly demarcation disputes should never arise, but nevertheless, there can be justification for them. **Senator Cormack** was so hard pressed to sustain his argument that he had to refer to something that happened in England and also to something that happened to waterside workers engaged on the docks at the port of Melbourne. **Senator Cormack's** speech indicates that the Government's attitude is: 'We must decide this question. The naval dockyards do not operate as civil engineering firms do. We, a dictatorship, have the right to decide this question.' **Senator Cormack's** whole speech reeked of a Fascist tendency. The Act itself makes it possible, if someone is so inclined, to put the Government's intention into effect. Is it any wonder that this legislation is opposed? After a brief consideration of the Bill the Labor Party decided not to oppose it, but it will suggest amendments at the Committee stage. It is time we realised that whatever the attitude of Government supporters or whatever the desire of the Naval Board in this direction, they cannot build ships and they cannot repair and maintain ships when they issue a direct threat against employees. There is justification on the side of employees as well as on the side of the employers. Justification for the men refusing to work was found when the Commissioner heard the dispute. The whole issue could have been ventilated if the Naval Board had not been determined to use its authority and not meet the representatives of the men who had refused to work on this occasion. There was never legislation of a more Fascist tendency than the legislation before us tonight. {: #subdebate-35-0-s3 .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McMANUS:
Victoria -- 1 listened to the closing remarks of **Senator Cavanagh** with some surprise. He stated that there has never been legislation that is more open to Fascist tendency than this legislation. But his own Party has decided not to oppose the legislation. That is a remarkable statement for a member of a political party to make, particularly a member of a Labor party. He asserted that his Party will not oppose a Bill which, he says, is more open to Fascist tendencies than any legislation in this particular sphere. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- Does the honourable senator think it is? {: .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McMANUS: -- **Senator Cavanagh** thinks it is. As I said before, he is paying a very poor compliment indeed to the members of his Party who examined this legislation and who came to the conclusion that it should not be opposed. I must admit that I was a little surprised when I found that the Australian Labor Party was not going to oppose this legislation. I, like a number of other senators no doubt, received from the dockyard a swag of literature on the question of this legislation. I think that it was sent to me by a **Mr Ritter,** who is the chairman of the union organisation, and who is one of Melbourne's leading communists. When I read this literature, I came to the conclusion that if a quarter of what he said about the legislation was true, we would have a 100% battle over it in the Senate. But it was indicated that the ALP would not oppose the BUI. I made some inquiries from trade unionists whom I know. They informed me that, as far as they could find out, the Labor Party was not going to oppose the legislation because men of considerable experience in the trade union movement and in the ALP had examined it and had come to the conclusion that what was said in the literature that we received from the dockyard was a mass of exaggeration. I was told by men who were experienced in these affairs that the advice given by the ALP members concerned who examined the legislation with the experienced trade union leaders was very good and very sensible advice, and that that is the reason why the ALP has not opposed the Bill on this occasion. I say that with all sincerity. I think they gave the unionists down there some very good advice. I disagree with the attitude of **Senator Cavanagh** which, as I said before, is a very poor compliment indeed to the men inside his own Party who studied this legislation. I think that a fair case exists for somewhat stronger discipline - reasonable discipline but stronger discipline - in a naval dockyard. It is a security establishment. It affects the security of the country. We had an example of this fact last year or the year before. One sunny day some school children aged 13 years or 14 years were taken by their teacher to the seashore at Williamstown and were told that they could do some sketching. We read in our newspapers that our security officers descended upon those children and confiscated their drawings. They examined them. Later they gave the drawings back to the children. That action was taken because there is a very strict regulation, I assume, that sketching or photographing in the vicinity of a security establishment is forbidden. 1 do not blame the Navy for the action it took. It has to carry out the regulations. This is just an example of the fact that a naval dockyard is in rather a special category. For that reason, 1 can understand it if people say that there has to be strong discipline in a naval dockyard. There can be strong unions also to see that the men get a fair deal. The combination of strong discipline and strong union organisation should be acceptable to both sides. Some talk has taken place as to whether one side is wrong or the other side is wrong; is the Naval Board wrong or are the unions wrong? [ have spoken to men who have been working in the dockyard. They tell me that a lot of the trouble that has occurred at Williamstown - and everybody knows that trouble has occurred there over the years - has been due to two things. There has been some loss of control on the management side. Some reference has been made to the case on which Commissioner Horan adjudicated. I understand that in that matter some trouble arose early in the morning. The decision was made to try to have it adjudicated. Then it was found that the only people who could represent the management side kept public service hours and they would not be available for quite a while. Following this, the matter blew up into a big show. No doubt, as a result of what the Commissioner said, this problem will be attended to. The men to whom I have spoken, and who have been at the dockyard, tell me that at times discipline has been loose. One thing that they say straight out is that some of the union leaders there at times have taken advantage of this state of affairs. They get around the dockyard at times as though they own it or as though they can please themselves what they do. If some disciplinary action has to be taken to see that people act in the same way as people do in other establishments, T can understand that. So, I say straight out that there has been a good deal of loose control at the top in the dockyards. 1 think that if that loose control is stopped, if a more efficient system is produced and if better liaison is established - **Senator Bishop** made a very powerful point, in this respect - then 1 believe that better industrial relations generally and better working at the dockyard will be achieved. I now turn to the union side. Let nobody who knows the Williamstown dockyard pretend that *the men who head the* .shop committee there, or who have headed it over the years, are equipped with haloes and wings. Everybody knows that the Williamstown dockyard for some reason over the years has had a strange attraction for top operatives of the Communist Party. **Mr Carmichael** graduated from there. Is anybody going to say that **Mr Carmichael,** the present secretary of the Amalgamated Engineering Union is an industrial angel? **Mr Carmichael** is one of the most difficult trade unionists in Victoria. He has conducted strikes including the General Motors-Holden's strikes which were a complete hash and from which he had to be extricated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. **Mr Carmichael,** when he left the dockyard, was succeeded by **Mr Ritter** as the head of the shop stewards organisation down there. He is a Communist. When **Mr Ritter** graduates into a higher sphere, he will be succeeded by a Communist too. {: .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: -- What union is **Mr Ritter** iri? {: .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McMANUS: -- lt is one of the engineering unions. What a strange attraction this naval dockyard which is producing instruments of war has for leaders of the Communist Party who are prominent in every post and on every platform in Australia. They get up and they attack the arms traffic. Then they look for a job in a naval dockyard. They get up and they say that they are for peace. Then they go and produce weapons of war. 1 must say that I doubt their sincerity. I doubt the sincerity of these ardent peacelovers whom we may see in every procession conducted by the Australia Peace Council. I doubt their sincerity when I see them going along to that Council and then 1 find that when they seek work they seek positions at the top in a naval dockyard. I think that the ALP politically has taken a very sensible attitude regarding this matter. I hope that my saying that will not do the ALP any harm. But I think that it has been sensible and reasonable. The men who made this decision have been sensible and reasonable. I am fortified by the fact that trade union officials at Melbourne Trades Hall, who are still friends of mine - and 1 have a lot of friends there - tell me that these men have been very wise in what they recommended to the Party. I conclude by asking: What is my recipe for a better deal and for a better system at Williamstown? I would say in the first place that a good deal could be done to make control at the top more efficient. Secondly, there ought to be better liaison, as **Senator Bishop** said. My third point is that the men down there in their own interests should vote the Communist union officials out of office and replace them with Labor men. Some people have often said: 'Well, the Communists are good union officials and that is why they get elected'. Let me say that no Communist can ever be a good union official. Whenever he is faced with a decision in a dispute, whether to do what is good for the Communist Party or to do what is good for the union, the Communist will always have to make the decision that is good for the Communist Party; otherwise he would not be permitted to remain a Communist. The ordinary rank and file men at the Williamstown dockyard do not' want strikes. They are men who have done a good job for their country. There has just been a strike at the dockyard and I must say that 1 was amazed that such a trivial issue could lead to a big stoppage. If the men do *not want* these ruinous strikes, let them vote out the Communists and vote in Labor men as their officials because when Labor union officials have to make a decision, it always follows the line of what is good for the union. They will not be dominated by a political group as Communist union leaders possibly are dominated. My recipe for a better system at Williamstown is, firstly, more efficiency at the top, secondly, better liaison between the two sides, and thirdly, for the men in their own interests to replace Communist union leaders by good Labor men. {: #subdebate-35-0-s4 .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator ORMONDE:
New South Wales -- 1 agree with **Senator McManus** that there must bc better management at the top and possibly better management at the union level but I disagree with his suggestion that the Communist Party has a good deal of influence in creating these situations. 1 am very closely associated with the men who work at Garden Island. I live amongst them, and I know them very well. In the early part of the recent strike I attended their shop committee meetings regularly. Never at any stage did I feel there was an attempt by the Communist Party to influence the decisions of the men at the shop committee level. **Senator Bishop** made a very good speech yesterday. He is experienced in the trade union movement and he covered the ground thoroughly. I think his main point related to liaison. 1 agree with him and go so far as to say that there should be better liaison even between our own unions. There is nothing that **Senator Cormack** can do about the trade unions. Some 17 or 18 unions are represented at Garden Island. I point out to him that the trade union movement was born long before he was, and it will stay put. I do not think the management of the dockyard would want it any other way because the unionists on the job are skilled operators. They build and repair battleships. In my movements around the KingsCrossDarlinghurst area where these men live I have heard them complaining bitterly about the lack of good management at Garden Island. They are concerned that it is taking so long to get 'Melbourne' to sea and have carried resolutions demanding that the rate of work be speeded up. They compl'ain about the contractors at Garden Island who they claim are filching money from the Government. If the men engaged in the industry were let loose on the management they would make great changes and it' is clear, to me at any rate and I have had only a cursory look at the relevant information, that the Naval Board is a bad employer. After all, members of the Naval Board are trained to be Navy men. They are not trained to understand workers in industry. They leave the giving of orders to sergeants and corporals - if I may use military terms. {: .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator McKellar: -- Oh no, not in the Navy. {: #subdebate-35-0-s5 .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator ORMONDE: -- I am sorry. I shoul'd have- said that majors give orders also. Members of the Naval Board are trained naval men who give orders, not take them. That is not the essence, of good management in an industry like the shipbuilding industry. Management has to run an industry with a very loose rein, even if some workers are Communist. Workers cannot be stood up all the time under orders, but I am afraid that is what is happening at Garden Island. 1 do not claim that the members of the Naval Board are inhuman monsters but I do claim that they are not (rained in industry, and workers should be responsible to people who are trained in industry. For example, the men al Garden Island were really horrified when the Naval Board had the brainwave of appointing as foreman I man in 7 from the rank and file. In the eyes of the workers at Garden Island the Board was promoting 1 man in 7 to be a stooge for the boss. Whether that view is right or wrong, that is how they felt about it. They regarded it as an assault on their behaviour in the workshop and they felt they had every reason to fear it. What section of private industry would appoint 1 worker in 7 as a foreman or overseer or staff man? **Senator McManus** referred to the Communist Party. I point out to him that the men at Garden Island and Williamstown dockyards have been screened for security purposes. There is not one man working there who has not been screened. If any of the men are a danger to security the screening has been a bit loose. My wise friend. **Senator Kennelly,** is smiling and saying: How naive you are'. But they are the facts. The employees have been screened, but employees who do defence work in private industry are not screened. It is true that the strike rate at Garden Island and Williamstown is probably higher than it is in other dockyards. 1 have before me a list of dockyards where the non-strike record is pretty good. Two of them are the Evans Deakin Yards in Brisbane and Walkers Yards at Maryborough. I think **Senator Gair** would agree with that. Tha record at Walsh Island, where the men were working under a bonus system, is also very good. The State Dockyard at Newcastle also has a very good record. There are ways of getting industrial peace but I do not suppose members of the Naval Board have thought of them because it is not their job to think of such things. They have said in evidence before various tribunals that their job is to give orders and to get things done. If it is possible to get peace in the places 1 have mentioned, why can we not get peace at Garden Island and Williamstown? Garden Island is continually in trouble and I. do not think it has anything to do with the Communist' Party. {: .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McManus: -- The honourable senator's experience would be different if he went to Williamstown. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator ORMONDE: -- 1 am speaking only from my experience. 1 know that at Williamstown there is possibly a combination of unionists who belong to the Australian Democratic Labor Party and unionists who belong to supposed Communist controlled unions, and that does not make for peace. That is an aspect' that must be taken into consideration. But at Garden Island there is no Communist influence behind the troubles that have arisen there. During the strike in the last Christmas period the men visited me and I visited them. They did not want to be out of work. I agree with **Senator Cormack** that part of the trouble was the result of disputes between unions, but those disputes are very real. One does not run away from them because they exist. After all, the trade union movement is comprised of human beings. There are demarcation disputes and probably everyone would be better off if there were fewer such disputes. But other industries have ways of getting around these problems. That thought may have occurred to members of the Naval Board. If it has not, I hope they take note of what I have said tonight. I was a public relations officer for the coal industry in the troubled days when Australia was sadly in need of coal production. {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator Gair: -- You had to get a Queenslander to help you out. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator ORMONDE: -- We will not go into that. He did a good job. He held together Liberal control in Canberra with Labor control in New South Wales. He was a miracle man from **Senator Gair's** State. I think **Senator Gair** had something to do wilh his promotion. The coal industry has certainly had its troubles, and 1 think the sort of thinking that was employed to improve conditions in the coal industry might with advantage be adopted by the Naval Board. After all, the Navy is dealing with free citizens in the dockyards. Men serving in the Navy are not free citizens, though they might be fighting for freedom. They have to do what they are told. Civilian workers do not like to be told to do anything. They have to be asked to do it. A good manager will sow an idea amongst the workers, and they will take it up almost as if it were their own thought. That is leadership. However, I cannot imagine the Naval Board thinking along those lines. Although what we did in the coal industry might *not be completely* applicable in the naval dockyards, the sort of thinking that we followed might with advantage be adopted by the Navy. In those days we had the support of what might be termed the semi-Communist leadership of the miners federation. We did not worry about that. They were anxious to get coal, too. We were all in together in those days. We had no divisions. Even a leading Liberal said that. We set up consultative committees which met every morning at the minehead. Those committees consisted of representatives of the employers on one side and of the men on the other. The first question asked every morning was whether there was any dispute to be dealt with. In those days there could be a dispute in the coal industry any day, particularly if danger to the miners was involved. The courts have ruled a dozen times that if mine workers thought conditions dan.gerous, perhaps believing that the roof was bad and might cave in at any minute, they were entitled to the benefit of the doubt. {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator Gair: -- And with the introduction of mechanisation there was the danger of producing too much. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator ORMONDE: -- That is a very uncharitable statement. {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator Gair: -- lt is a very correct one. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator ORMONDE: -- That is a matter for argument. 1 do not think it is true. {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator Gair: -- You know it is true. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator ORMONDE: -- I am talking about the safety issue. It seems to me that employers generally lean towards employees when they bring up a matter of safety. Many courts have ruled that way, particularly in the coalmining industry and the shipbuilding industry. I cannot imagine the Naval Board thinking along these lines, however. The Navy thinks that the bigger the risk one takes the braver one is. It reasons that a man taking a risk will probably get a medal for distinguished service. People who work for a living do not think like that, and any management that wants to keep the wheels of industry going, maintaining production, cannot think that way, either. As I have said, consultative committees were set up in the coalmining industry to determine disputes between the management and the men. Any dispute was first heard by these committees. Under that system nobody could take the mine over. Any dispute that arose was dealt with by the committee on the morning at the minehead. If the committee could not settle the dispute there and then, seeing that a wider issue was involved that would need to be. determined by a higher authority, the persons involved would be immediately put on the payroll. They would return to their homes knowing that they would get full payment for the day but that the mine must keep producing, just as a dockyard should keep working. This sort of thing can often arise in a dockyard where a great number of unions with members working on a ship might be involved in some small dispute over demarcation. Under the system as it applied in the coal industry, the dispute could be taken before the committee. If the committee could not resolve the issue, deciding that it would have to be determined by a higher authority, it would see that the management kept the men concerned on the payroll. They did not go out and take all the other men out with them. That is the way we ran the coalmining industry for years until mechanisation came in. Of course, mechanisation ended the necessity for this sort of thing. I have been speaking of a period of urgency, and there is urgency now in the defence of this country. I think the Naval Board should do everything possible to see whether it can settle the problems on the nob without letting them develop. It ought to be easier to do this in the metropolitan area of Sydney or Melbourne than it is in a mining community where everybody lives together. As it is now, when a dispute arises at a dockyard, the workers have to go home. This is a waste of time. They go to work, and they want to work. No human being who turns up for work wants to knock off and go home. {: .speaker-KPK} ##### Senator Kennelly: -- Apparently the Naval Board has not been co-operative. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator ORMONDE: -- That is putting it mildly. If I had my way, I would divide the Naval Board into two sections. {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator Gair: -- Like the Labor Party. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator ORMONDE: -- 1 refuse to answer that comment. It is not fair. I would divide the Naval Board into two sections. I would have at least one business section preferably where employees could confer on equal terms, if the Navy is to remain in the shipbuilding industry. The Navy has its requirements and needs to get its work done. With the naval dockyards it has been able to go ahead and get the work done. In the weeks and months that I have been associated with the men at Garden Island I have heard many legitimate complaints by workers in the industry about, for example, delays in the re-establ'ishment of HMAS 'Melbourne' and its refurnishing. These delays have been caused not by the workers doing the job but by the Naval Board's maladministration, with duplication of contractors and that sort of thing. These workers are very much interested in resolving the disputes and T think the Naval Board should make some attempt to enlist the support of the trade union elements at Garden Island in setting up the sort of consultative committee that I have suggested. lt is not impossible. It has been done before. It is being done now in many parts of the country in an effort to prevent disputes in private industry. I agree with honourable senators who have said it is wrong and wasteful for a place like Garden Island in particular to be delayed by strikes, especially when the men do not want to go out on strike. The employees say that the Naval Board almost invariably stands on ceremony in these disputes. The mere fact that workers in industry have to approach the Naval Board to discuss their employment conditions is a bit frightening. This is something the naval people do not normally do. They work to rules and regulations. The private shipbuilding undertakings have a much better record of industrial harmony than the naval establishments at Williamstown and Garden Island. This is no fault of the men employed at the naval dockyards. They have no wish to lose their wages week after week. They are not idiots and fools. They have families to support. But when they get nowhere with the Naval Board, they have nothing to do but strike. 1 cannot see any way out for them if a big issue is involved, unless the Naval Board is willing to adopt my idea of acting in concert with the unions to set up consultative committees to adjudicate upon differences before a dispute develops, not afterwards. Let the workers lay their complaints before a committee on which some of their own people sit, not before the Naval Board. Let them do the sort of thing that workers used to do in the coalmining industry in the days when coal1 was badly needed. The Naval Board would then get results. So far as I know, this method has never been tried in those sections of the shipbuilding industry that are under Government control. {: #subdebate-35-0-s6 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales -- This legislation stems fundamentally from bad relations between the trade unions and the Naval Board. Quite a lot of the discussion has been of an academic nature. Conditions in any industry where considerable risks are involved cannot be equated with conditions in an air conditioned office. People talk about industrial harmony and the political complexion of shop committees or of the federal or State secretaries of unions, but if one goes into an industrial establishment on a cold winter's morning - whether he be a painter and docker or a member of the Federated Ironworkers Association - and has to do dirty, arduous work when something is not as it should be, a flash reaction can be expected. Conversely, one might be working in a confined space on a hot summer's day. A boilermaker may be swinging a 81b hammer and because of the bad layout, with material lying about, he is afraid that if he is not careful he will damage his mate's hand. This kind of thing introduces an element of industrial psychology. **Senator Cormack** referred to some situations in Great Britain. As the years go by there is a constant tendency for men to say: J will not have my son go into a workshop.' This is exemplified by the fairly low intake of apprentices compared with the intake of young people into glamour industries. Management, whether Government or private, must realise that the accident risk has to be removed. 1 invite anybody to look at statistics of industrial accidents. It is futile to talk about industrial trends, knowing the risk of injury that exists. One or our parliamentary colleagues, the honourable member for Wide Bay **(Mr Hansen),** is minus a couple of fingers as a result of his work as a shipwright. Many boilermakers suffer from industrial deafness. These things must be borne in mind if some people say: 'We will have a couple of days off until we get this safety matter settled.' We can talk about award rates and demarcation. The risk of injury is faced every day of the week. I shall illustrate my point by reference in a moment to a couple of cases. These people know that their teenage daughters are working in nice, snazzy offices; I do not object to this and nobody else does. It is all very well to sit around a table and say: 'You have to be good boys and get the ship out at a certain time.' It is well known that **Senator Mattner** as a field commander in war time had the interests of his men at heart, but 1 suppose in his experience a few people at headquarters were just ciphers. This sort of situation applies in the industrial field too. In October one of my friends, Bernard Prendcast, an overhead crane driver at Garden Island, was telling me that he jacked up on using a particular crane because he felt there had not been proper maintenance on it or, if there had been, that the crane had not been cleaned up and there was grease and oil on it. I suppose this would be a normal beef for anybody. About a week later he was coming down from his crane cabin and he fell about 40 feet onto a pile of plates. He injured his spine and he died in December. I am not cavilling at subsequent happenings. Through the agency of **Mr Dave** Rees, Coast Branch Secretary of the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association, and myself, a reasonable settlement out of court was obtained. By 'reasonable' I mean that it was about $10,000. The man was a casualty of industry. I am regarded as middle of the road in the trade union movement. I assure **Senator McManus** that this man was well to the right of me on many political questions. He had been in industrial stoppages. Had he remained alive he would have been in more. In dockyards and other industrial establishments there is always a feeling amongst the men that if they do not dig their toes in on a certain matter - it may concern some new industrial technique - somebody will lose a hand or an eye or suffer some other injury. This tendency will always be there. Often a foreman will tell a welder to do a job while in a nearby area a crane driver or a rigger will find that the arc flashes affect his visibility when he is putting on slings or giving a signal for the load to be lifted. Trade unionists in industry are often working in dirty conditions where there are constantly industrial hazards. I do not expect that a man will go about with a vacuum cleaner to clean up where somebody is cooking rivets for a boilermaker. One is constantly confronted with the concept of industrial psychology. Reference has been made to the functioning of shop committees and area stewards. My Senate colleague, Reg Bishop, and 1 have served in these capacities on the way up. lt is a characteristic of Australians that they believe - probably rightly - that Jack is as good as his master. There is an idea that a strong shop committee, shop steward, State secretary or federal secretary, will tell fellows that they must get back to work. We cannot have it both ways. There is justifiable clamour for constitutional union ballots. If a union secretary gets the idea that he is like a character in 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' and can crack a whip, he will not be secretary for very long. The men will say: 'We pay you and we expect you to protect our interests'. I know that there are extremes. My idea - 1 know it is shared by **Senator Bishop** - is that we should stand by considered decisions of federal unions, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and our own industrial committee. But one would have to be completely blind when making decisions to deny that there will be other occasions when an industrial mishap will have flash reactions. L know that the position of secretary of a shop committee is not a bed of roses. **Senator McManus** knows as well as I do that in this age, which is affluent in some ways, there are easier ways to live, attracting fewer verbal brickbats, than being a shop steward or something a little higher. People say that there has to be a bunny. This is probably true in the trade union and political fields. Somehow I fell that **Senator McManus** was hoping that Labor senators migh err in their approach so that he could say that we were all following the Marxist line. Perhaps he did not mean to give that impression, but there was an implication. {: .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McManus: -- J thought I gave an opposite impression. {: .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL: -- I might have misunderstood the honourable senator. Like **Senator Bishop,** who led for us in this debate, I assure the honourable senator that we have our own responsibilities in relation to production. Amongst the personnel in dockyards is a pretty high percentage of men who served in various arms of the Services. What are the types of people who come out of dockyards into trade union politics and the higher echelon of politics? One of the most effective apprenticeship commissioners in New South Wales was Eddie Boland, who was at one time a boilermaker at Garden Island. T am not naive. I know as well as **Senator McManus** does that there are on shop committees people who are well to the left of the Labor Party. Sometimes they get these positions by default. There are various reasons. I do not care what their politics are. I know enough about industrial psychology lo know that unless there is some ingredient of grievance one cannot get people to walk off a job. There is talk about a multiplicity of unions. We cannot have it both ways. There is talk about little industrialists and big industrialists on the Government side. I believe in the federation of unions. I do not believe in cannibalisation. Some people may disagree. We of the Opposition have tried to be constructive. In dealing with matters of this nature we must remember that these men in industry are not working in nice, air conditioned offices. When they have to bear the heat of summer and the cold of winter, when they are working in confined spaces on the waterfront, people cannot be expected to be rational when some of these disputes occur. {: #subdebate-35-0-s7 .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator MCKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP -- in reply - This has been a valuable and very interesting debate and at the outset I express the Government's appreciation of the fact that the Opposition does not intend to oppose the measure. **Senator Bishop** clearly demonstrated that he had some genuine doubts about certain aspects of the legislation. In my view, he is quite right in expressing them and asking for clarification of the position. I hope to be able to remove those doubts for him. I do not intend to deal in detail with all of the points that have been raised by the members of the Opposition. There are certain matters to which I. do wish to refer, and I shall' not necessarily be referring to them in the order in which they were raised. There has been much talk about the need for liaison. I do not suggest there is no need for more liaison. It is evident that there is need for more of it, but, as I understand the position, there is some liaison now. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator Ormonde: -- Not much. {: .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator MCKELLAR: -- I think **Senator Ormonde** would make a very good liaison officer. From the way in which he explained to us happenings in the coal industry, I think he is the type of man who could do a good job as a liaison officer. I do not wish to see him leave the Senate but if ever he does leave it and is looking for a job, liaison officer is one job that I hope he will get because I feel sure that he would be a very valuable man in that capacity. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator Ormonde: -- I will put it to my nominators. {: .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator MCKELLAR: -- Please do. There has been a lot of talk about safety. I wish to refer briefly to what happened in connection with the ship 'Swan'. The question of safety was mentioned not only by **Senator Bishop** but also by **Senator McClelland.** It was mentioned too, by **Senator Cormack** and, in another context by, I think, **Senator Mulvihill1.** The ship 'Swan' was under construction. I understand that on the day in question she was near the wharf. The group on board embarked at 9.10 a.m. and went ashore at 12.30 p.m. At no stage in this period did the group request some special arrangement to have a luncheon break before the ship was secured They continued to work normally. The berthing party ashore demanded their lunch break at 12 noon. They were asked to defer their lunch break as it was impracticable safely to stop the movement of 'Swan' once it had been started. The men, nevertheless, went to lunch and it was necessary for whoever was available on the dockside to handle the lines and ensure the safety of the vessel. This small emergency ad hoc group comprised professional officers, foremen, sailors and two leading hands. Union members on board 'Swan' continued to handle the lines normally. We have had many references to **Mr Commissioner** Horan. In referring to the incident 1. have just mentioned, Commissioner Horan said: >If the men who normally tie her up would not do it I would lend a hand myself. This appeared on page 21 of the transcript, and it was not read by **Senator McClelland.** Later, at page 94, **Mr Commissioner** Horan is reported as having said: >I do not think Navy was in breach of the determination to the extent the union representatives or employees may think. In most of these disputes, there are faults on both sides. I am not one who thinks for one moment that the Department of the Navy is free from fault in many of these disputes, but if there is to be conciliation, there has got to be give and take on both sides. Who was at fault in not giving enough or in not taking enough, I would not know but I agree that there should be conciliation. I think this Bill will encourage conciliation. One of the things that have been emphasised over and over again is that the Bill provides for greater flexibility, and I think there is a great need for flexibility. I could say much more on this aspect. Suffice it to say that although I give **Senator McClelland** credit for doing his homework I feel sure that this is one occasion upon which he has failed to do so. For example, he gave a wrong impression of what **Mr** Commissioner Matthews said. The Commissioner found that the Naval Board had power to dismiss but nol to suspend. That is not what **Senator McClelland** said. I point to it now as one inaccuracy on his part. I do not suggest that he should be tied down to being accurate all the time. My point is that inaccuracies of this kind only lead to the suspicion on the part of unionists about which the honourable senator complained. II: things which are not proved are stated to be facts it is only natural that the men will become suspicious. There is another important point which was mentioned by **Senator Cormack.** He spoke of the number of unions engaged in these dockyards. 1 do not know, but it could well be that there is a need for so many unions. 1 am not suggesting for one moment that there is not. All I say is that where there are so many unions working in an industry as there are in a dockyard, each being responsible for the welfare of its members, then the possibility of trouble arising becomes greater. Perhaps the fact that so many unions are involved there could well be one reason for some of the friction that has occurred there in the past. Let me emphasise that I am not: suggesting that the unions themselves are to blame. **Senator Cavanagh** referred to the proposed section 45. I do not propose to deal with that matter. After all, the offending clause which was originally proposed has been deleted from the Bill. But I remind **Senator Cavanagh** that persons charged with offences which could lead to imprisonment in this instance are tried in civil courts. They ate the only courts that can sentence offenders to imprisonment. I do not think that fact was mentioned. **Senator McManus** mentioned **Mr Ritter** and complained that he was contacting members of the Naval Board. Surely if that action did not exacerbate things - I think it probably did - it certainly would not make for better relations between the Naval Board and the unions. Let me now remind honourable senators of some of the provisions of the Bill. Firstly, this amending Bill will not change the Department's present employment policy and practice. Nor will it affect the rights of employees and unions under the Public Service Arbitration Act. Thirdly, it makes no change in the existing disciplinary powers provided in the Act. But the Bill will do what I said earlier it would do. It will provide for flexibility which should surely help to make for better relations between the Naval Board and the employee. I agree with what has been said about this work. Some of it is very unpleasant. Indeed, in many instances it is arduous. Inevitably in industries such as this, there must arise occasions when the work is performed in conditions which are not pleasant, in tact, they may be unpleasant. These arc the types of things that employees must be prepared to accept when engaging in the industry. Persons should make themselves familiar with the conditions applying to employment in an industry before seeking engagement in it. Therefore, after they have obtained employment in these industries I do not think that it is much good their complaining bitterly about the conditions of service. Some honourable senators, when they come into this place, think that some procedures ought to be changed. But, after all, we come here with some knowledge of what we are expected to do. If, when we arrive here, we find that conditions cannot be changed then it is not much use complaining. 1 think that people who take work under these conditions should accept them. If the conditions cannot be tolerated then it is a good thing for those who represent the employees to try to get improvements. It is all right for them to try to make conditions as favourable as they can. But if conditions cannot be improved then the employees should put up with them. 1 expect that I will have some questions to answer in Committee so I will not continue. As the Opposition is not opposing this Bill I hope that it will be given a speedy passage through the remaining stages. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In Committee Clauses 1. to 4 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to. Clause 5 (Power to build ships and construct docks, etc., for Naval purposes.) {: #subdebate-35-0-s8 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP:
South Australia -- I have a number of questions to ask. Although the main question does not arise until we reach clause 6 it may be just as well if I mention all of them to the Minister for Repatriation **(Senator McKellar)** at this stage. The main questions that we would like answered, and which have been answered during the debate in another place, appear in a statement which the Opposition has prepared. The Minister has a copy of the statement so 1 expect that he will be able to reply to the questions. The questions relate to clause 6 which deals, in part, with two proposed new sections, sections 42a. and section 42e. J ask the Minister: Are not the conditions of employment able to be prescribed by regulation under the existing Act? ls not the exercise of that power subject to control by Parliament by way of disallowance of regulations? Would not the proposed new Section 42a. permit the terms and conditions of employment to be determined by the Naval Board itself from day to day by any piece of writing without the Parliamentary supervision provided in regard to regulations? Will not the power also be able to be exercised by anyone at all to whom the Board delegates the power? If the Board does not wish to prescribe a period of employment, why cannot the Bill be amended simply by deleting words in the existing section 41 (3.) referring to such periods; that is by deleting the words: shall be engaged fur such periods and shall bc . . .' Why cannot the provisions for fixing of additional rates for special jobs be incorporated in the regulations to permit the continuance of existing customs and practice? Finally, is not the effect of the amendment to change the method of fixing general conditions of employment from prescribing it by regulation to allowing the Naval Board or any delegate of the Board to fix or change these simply by writing any change on *a* piece of paper? {: #subdebate-35-0-s9 .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator MCKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP -- During the suspension of the sitting, **Senator Bishop** was good enough to give me a copy of the questions he has just asked and I had the opportunity of getting answers to them. Seeing that there are quite a number of questions I prefer to answer them now. The answer to the first question is that the effect of the existing Act is to require that all conditions of employment b'e prescribed. The sheer volume of such a task renders it impracticable. Furthermore, as I men tioned during the second reading debate, some conditions are not suitable for prescribing in regulations, being too variable or impracticable. The second question was: 'Under the existing Act are not the conditions of employment able to be prescribed by regulations?" The answer is yes. The third question referred to the proposed new section 41a. as to whether the terms and conditions of employment would be permitted to be determined by the Naval Board itself from day to day. The answer is that the determination of conditions of service will be made in the form of properly drawn up formal documents which will not be subject to disallowance by Parliament. However, I want to make it quite clear that the Naval Board has neither the desire nor the intention to set itself up as an independent wage or condition fixing authority. The basic rates of pay and conditions have been incorporated in Public Service arbitration determinations which have been made specifically to apply to most Navy employees. Nevertheless it is necessary to have some authority to apply appropriate basic rates and conditions to other Navy employees, small in number, and to apply ancillary rates and conditions to all employees. Just as important, it is necessary to apply desirable variations as soon as possible after they are made in the awards and regulations etc with which alignment is kept. Although these determinations of the Naval Board, as in the past, will not be subject to direct Parliamentary supervision, there are other safeguards which are considered adequate in the circumstances under which the determinations will be made. These safeguards are as follows: Firstly, in common with other Commonwealth authorities, the Department of the Navy is required by Government direction to consult with the Public Service Board and the Department of Labour and National Service, as co-ordinating authorities, with regard to conditions of service for salaries and wages staff respectively. Secondly, under proposed new section 42a (2.) the Public Service Board exercises a power of direction over the salaries which the Naval Board may determine. There is a similar provision in the existing Act. Thirdly, a staff association or a trade union can apply at present to the Public Service Arbitrator for a new or a varied determination if it is not satisfied with the Naval Board's determination. This right is protected by the new section 42a (7.). Furthermore, a determination of the Naval Board will not be able to override a determination of the Public Service Arbitrator but will be able to confer an additional benefit. The fourth question asked was: 'Will not the power also be able to be exercised by anyone, at all to whom the Board delegates the power?' The answer is yes. However, the Naval Board, in its own interests, must be selective in its choice of delegates and will impose suitable limitations of power. Delegation of a power of the Naval Board does not affect the Board's responsibility for the action of the delegate. The fifth question was: 'If the Board does not wish to prescribe a period of employment, why cannot the Bill be amended simply to delete the words in the existing section 41 (3.)?' The answer is that these words are deleted by the Bill but this does not resolve the problem presented by the requirement to prescribe all conditions of service, which I mentioned earlier. The sixth question asked by the honourable senator was: 'Why cannot the provisions for fixing of additional rales for special jobs be incorporated in the regulations?' The answer is that this is the present position in fact and is the main reason for the present Bill being introduced. Additional rates are at present determined by the Naval Board under regulation 5 of the Naval Establishments Regulations. The effect of using regulation 5 is that certain conditions are not actually prescribed by the regulations but are determined by the Board. This is inconsistent with section 41 (3.) of the existing Act which requires conditions to be prescribed by the regulations. The seventh question asked related to the effect of the amendment. The answer is really the same as that which I gave to the third question. However, in amplification of that answer, there are determinations of the Public Service Arbitrator directly applying main conditions of rates and pay to over 90% of employees under the Naval Defence Act. Nevertheless, delays in payments will occur if the Naval Board, by its own determination, cannot apply to its own employees benefits granted elsewhere or approve additional rates to meet special circumstances and must await formal amendment of the Arbitrator's determina tions. To await formal amendment of regulations will take even longer as many weeks are usually needed to take the steps necessary to draft and make a statutory rule. These difficulties have been overcome to a large extent in the past, with wages employees particularly, by the making of Naval Board determinations under regulation 5. However, as the Act stands at present, the legality of this course is open to doubt, and the main purpose of the Bill is to authorise properly and legally the continuance of this practice. {: #subdebate-35-0-s10 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP:
South Australia -- 1 would like the Minister to consider whether the amendments made by this clause will not mean that there will be two sub-sections marked (2.). Paragraph (d) of sub-clause (I.) states that section 41 of the principal Act is amended by omitting subsections (3.) and (4.). Then sub-clause (2.) adds something to the Act. This Bill will strike out sub-Sections (3.) and (4), but subsection (2.) will remain. It refers to the Defence Act. Then sub-clause (2.). as printed in the Bill, will be inserted. Could the Minister tell me whether I have misread the Bill or whether there is a printing error? Sub-clause (5.) states: >A regulation referred to in sub-section (3.) *si* this section that makes provision for the serving of a copy of a judgment of a court and for the making of deductions from the salary of a person for the purpose of satisfying the judgment has effect by virtue of that sub-section only in relation to a judgment a copy of which was served before the commencement of this Act. 1 would like the Minister to explain that provision. {: #subdebate-35-0-s11 .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP -- The answer to **Senator Bishop's** first question is that the '(2.)' to which he referred will not be inserted in the principal' Act. lt is put in the Bill only as a transitional arrangement. {: .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop: -- The second matter that I mentioned was sub-clause (5.). What does it mean? {: .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator McKELLAR: -- I am informed that this provision is needed in case a judgment is served before this Bill becomes law. Clause agreed to. Clause 6. {: #subdebate-35-0-s12 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP:
South Australia -- I have two questions in respect of this clause. The first relates to proposed new section 42, the side heading of which is Employment of persons in civil capacity'. This concerns the new scope of the legislation. Can the Minister tell us the classifications and locations of persons who will be covered when this Bill becomes law, and the circumstances that occasion the use of the words 'whether within or without Australia'? The second question relates to proposed new section 42a (I.), which reads: >The Naval Board may, by instrument in writing, determine the terms and conditions (including rates of pay and allowances) applicable to the employment of persons under the last preceding section. We have talked a lot about that last preceding section. What new procedures will be adopted as between the Naval Board and the unions in actual practice, as a result of the passage of this provision? {: #subdebate-35-0-s13 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales -- I also wish to raise a couple of matters in regard to this clause. I refer to proposed new section 42a. Sub-section (1.) reads: >The Naval Board may, by instrument in writing, determine the terms and conditions (including rates of pay and allowances) applicable to the employment of persons under the last preceding section. Sub-section (2.) reads: >The Naval Board is, in determining a rate or a scale of rates of salary under the last preceding sub-section, subject to the directions of the Public Service Board. lt would appear that the Naval Board will be able to determine rates of pay subject to the directions of the Public Service Board, but as regards determining conditions of employment the passage of this Bill will virtually give it a blank cheque. 1 know that the Minister said in his initial reply to **Senator Bishop** that the determination of conditions of service would be made in the form of properly drawn up and formal documents which would not be subject to disallowance by the Parliament. He went on to say that the Naval Board had neither the desire nor the intention to set itself up as an independent wage or conditions fixing authority. But the fact that under this clause the Naval Board is not subject to the directions of the Public Service Board in determining the conditions of employment of the people to be covered by the Act seems to me to fly in the face of the Minister's statement. The Minister went on to say that the basic rates of pay had been incorporated in Public Service Arbitrator's determinations which had been made especially to apply to most naval employees; nevertheless it was necessary to ha 'e some authority to apply appropriate rates and conditions to other employees who might be small in number. I ask the Minister: What are the categories of employees who might be included in his reference to 'employees who might be small in number' and to whom the Naval Board desires to apply appropriate rates and conditions? In other words, what class or classes of workers are involved in the Naval Board assessing not only rates, in respect of which it is subject to the directions of the Public Service Board, but also conditions, in respect of which apparently it is subject to directions from no-one other than the Public Service Arbitrator, perhaps, if an application is made to him at some future time? In short, T am asking the Minister why the words 'and conditions' have been left out of sub-section (2.) of proposed new section 42a. The Minister said in his second reading speech: >Flexibility in determining conditions of service is at present provided by regulation 5 of the Naval Establishments Regulations . . . Although this regulation has been in existence for many years, some doubt is now felt as to whether it is legally consistent with the present terms of the Act. In order *to* bring into play that which is desired by the naval authorities, this proposed new section is being written into the Act. I am anxious to have an answer to this question: Despite the fact that this regulation has been in existence for many years, to use the phraseology that the Minister used in his second reading speech, what has caused the doubt to arise at this stage and what has made the Government determine that it is no longer necessary to bring in these matters by way of parliamentary regulation, but merely by instrument in writing? T point out to the Minister that despite the fact that conditions of employment are subject to determinations of the Public Service Arbitrator, in many cases a considerable length of time elapses after an application is filed with the Arbitrator before it is heard and a determination is made. If the Naval Board were to act capriciously - for want of a better word - in a situation of this nature, it could well cause great industrial disturbance and suspicion. In fairness to the people who may be involved, from the point of view both of the Department of the Navy and of employees on the job and their trade union officials, I frame these questions for the Minister: What class of workers is involved in the term 'small in number' in connection with which it is thought necessary to apply appropriate rates and conditions? What is the Government's doubt that has occasioned it to act by amending this legislation at the present time? {: #subdebate-35-0-s14 .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP 1.10.1] - In reply to **Senator Bishop,** I am informed that the classifications he has asked for are too wide to enumerate separately. As to his second question, there is no change at all from the existing conditions. {: .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop: -- Is the Minister referring to procedures with the unions? {: .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator McKELLAR: -- That is what 1 am informed. **Senator McClelland** referred to the term 'small in number' in respect of employees. There are some employees in Darwin, an area to which the determination of the Arbitrator does not apply. The Navy has about six fuel oil installation attendants in various places. That is the information given to me and I pass it on to the honourable senator. {: #subdebate-35-0-s15 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP:
South Australia -- I will attempt to clear up the position of classifications. The Minister has said that the group is too wide to enumerate its members separately, Originally we were told by a representative of the Naval Board when we met him that some people not now covered were working in a technical capacity, generally in outside places where naval work is done on a sub-contract basis. 1 am seeking elucidation of whether this is just a broad definition or whether it is intended to cover the types of workers we were told about. {: #subdebate-35-0-s16 .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP -- I have additional information which I hope will clarify the position. Among the people who are in this classification are professional men such as engineers, scientists, journalists, technical and drafting officers, technicians, foremen, storehousemen, tradesmen and industrial labour; also, there are about half a dozen technical people in dockyard and naval establishments overseas for varying periods. {: #subdebate-35-0-s17 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales -- I appreciate the Minister's reply to one of the questions 1 posed to him, but the other question remains unanswered. I am hopeful that the Minister will provide me with information about the doubt felt as to the validity of the regulation upon which the Government has been acting for a number of years. Now it is proposed that this Bill will resolve the situation by including in the principal Act power for the Naval Board to determine terms and conditions. I have asked the question simply and I have explained it to the Minister for the sake of future industrial harmony. It is in the interests of the Department and the unions involved that this matter be explained. {: #subdebate-35-0-s18 .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP -- I am informed that this doubt has always existed and that the opportunity is now being taken to put the doubt beyond question by including in the principal Act this particular provision. **Senator COHEN** (Victoria) [10.6.1-1 wish to ask a question as to the meaning of the proposed new section 42a (5.), which reads: >A determination may make provision For or in relation to terms or conditions of. employment by applying, adopting or incorporating, with or without modification - > >the provisions of any Act, or of any regulations, as in force at a particular time or as in force from time to time; or > >any matter contained in any other instrument or writing as in force or existing at the time when the determination takes effect. What does this proposed new section contemplate? What is its purpose? My second question relates to the power of delegation provided for in the proposed new section 42e. Is this power of delegation new? {: #subdebate-35-0-s19 .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP -- As **Senator Cohen** appreciates, I am a layman in these matters. I am tow by my advisers that this provision is similar to a provision in the Acts Interpretation Act relating to regulations under the Public Service Act and determinations of the Public Service Arbitrator. As to the honourable senator's second question, the answer I have been given is that the power is new as regards this legislation. {: #subdebate-35-0-s20 .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia -- 1 wish to refer to the matter raised by **Senator McClelland** in respect of the proposed new subsections 42a (I.) and (2.) J wish to know whether my interpretation is correct. It seems to me to allow a rather loose sort of arrangement for the Naval Board in employing the type of person envisaged in the proposed new section 42. As **Senator McClelland** has pointed out. the Naval Board may act by instrument in writing. This is not a regulation. As I understand it, an instrument in writing can bc just about anything. {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator Cohen: -- It can be any piece of paper. {: .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE: -- It is any piece of paper that is written on. It is not necessary for it to be checked or for it to go before the Public Service Board, the Public Service Arbitrator or this Parliament. It seems that there is some sort of check in that the Public Service Board will instruct the Naval Board *as to rates* of pay. It is strange that the provision stops at the question of allowances. A check as to comparative wage justice will be applied by the Public Service Board, which may say: 'In respect of this type of individual we have checked in outside industry and determined the wage that we think ought to be paid'. But then it is left completely to the Naval Board not only to fix conditions but also to fix allowances. For that purpose the Naval Board may employ an instrument in writing - a sheet of paper - which I imagine would then go on hie in the offices of the Naval Board. It will never be done by a regulation which this Parliament could check. There will be no reference to the Public Service Arbitrator, except possibly in the distant future when an award is sought. Nor will it be checked by the Public Service Board. Many times in this Parliament I have raised the question of subordinate legislation being used to deal with matters which should be the subject of substantive legislation. However, I protest much more loudly when a further step is taken and even regulations are by-passed, as is provided for in this legislation, so that a representative of the Naval Board is given power to write on a sheet of paper the conditions of employment of persons without a check being made by anybody. What sort of power is being given to that representative? What right has he merely to write conditions of employment on a sheet of paper to be placed on a file? At the least it should be done by way of regulation so that a legal document will come before this Parliament to receive its sanction or otherwise. Then an individual could say: 'I am employed under this regulation - this subordinate piece of legislation - passed by the Commonwealth Parliament.' Al least he would bc given a right. But under this legislation the Government is not giving him that right, ft is giving power of threat to the employer, enabling him to say: The instrument in writing can be revoked and reissued tomorrow morning.' I think that this is a sloppy piece of legislation. I have always protested about this provision relating to an instrument in writing, and I protest about it no less tonight in the Naval Defence Bill. {: #subdebate-35-0-s21 .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP -- [ should like to remind **Senator Willesee** that in the past 15 years or so, I am informed, at least 30 Bills containing this provision relating to an instrument in writing have been passed by the Parliament. I think that the honourable member referred to his protests about this provision in the past. These Bills provided for statutory bodies of one sort or another to employ staff and to determine the terms and conditions of service. I am rather surprised that objection should be raised now to What has become an established principle in legislation which has been *found to be* adequate and expeditious in operation from the point of view of employer and employee alike. {: #subdebate-35-0-s22 .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia -- T cannot allow to go unchallenged the statement that so many Bills containing this provision relating to an instrument in writing have been passed by the Parliament and that this justifies the provision in this Bill. I know that such Bills have been passed from time to time. But another Bill a copy of which I have before mc at the moment is an example of what we did only a short while ago on the question of fixing salaries by regulation. The Minister for Repatriation **(Senator McKellar)** has been long enough in this place to realise that Bills frequently arc passed by Parliament by sheer weight of numbers and not on their merits. That is why this provision has crept into a number of Acts. But from time to lime we have rejected the provision relating to an instrument in writing. I have heard brilliant speeches from **Senator Wright** objecting to doing something by an instrument in writing. have heard brilliant speeches from other honourable senators opposite on the question of doing something by regulation. My withers remain completely unwrung when the Minister says that this Parliament has already passed Bills containing this provision. There are many provisions in Acts of Parliament which have got there through sheer weight of numbers or because the Parliament has passed 20 or 30 Bills at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning. There are a lol: of things in Acts of the Parliament which are wrong and which should never have been inserted. But the fact is that you have substantive legislation which should bc used to the point of practical politics. It is not practicable to give this right to the Naval Board to do something by instrument in writing or by regulation unless it can stand the scrutiny of this Parliament, and receive the imprimatur of the Parliament which gives to the employee a legal right as to his terms and conditions of employment. T say that the Government is doing this only in a very loose manner by the very vague reference to an instrument in writing which will be signed and put forward by the officer who at the time happens to be in charge of the section concerned. {: #subdebate-35-0-s23 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia -- In my speech during the second reading debate I dwelt a great deal on matters that were to be discussed at the Committee stage. I expressed fear about this provision relating to an instrument in writing and about sub-section (5.) of proposed new section 42a which gives the Naval Board power to adopt the provisions in any Act or regulations in force at a particular time. I rose only to refer to a matter which I omitted to mention in my speech during the second reading debate. 1 think it is important. I refer to subsection (4.) of proposed new section 42a which provides: >A determination - > >Shall not bc expressed to lake effect from - > >a date before the dale of commencement of this section; or > >a date more than two years before the date on which the determination is made; The Naval Board is subject to (he directions of the Public Service Board as regards rales of salary, so this sub-section has more effect as regards the question of conditions of employment. If my fears regarding these matters are well founded - and 1 have referred to the speeches of honourable senators opposite which indicated that they were well founded - this will be repressive legislation against employees. A determination by instrument in writing, which **Senator Willesee** described as a sloppy piece of paper, can be made retrospective to include a breach of conditions of employment which happened in the past, lt could well be that at some future date the Naval Board will make a determination to cover something which an employee did 2 years before. I think it is wrong to insert sub-section (4.) of proposed new section 42a in the Act to provide that a determination in relation to conditions of employment can be made retrospective. I make that point to strengthen further my argument relating to the power that is to be given to the Naval Board under proposed new section 42a. {: #subdebate-35-0-s24 .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria -- 1 rise only to allay the fears that **Senator Cavanagh** has expressed. T think that sub-section (4.) (b) of proposed new section 42a indicates that any retrospective effect which is given to a determination is not to take effect so that the rights of any person would be prejudically affected. I think that is a fair reading of sub-section (4.) (b). 1 should like to say in response - I do not say 'in reply' - to what **Senator Willesee** has said, that the provisions under which the Naval Board has been operating for many years have been the precise provisions which are now given statutory effect. In short, hitherto the Naval1 Board has been able to determine the terms and conditions of employment under the power given to it by regulations made under Naval Defence Act. In determining those terms and conditions the Naval Board has been at large, just as it will be at large under this proposed new section 42a, in the sense that there is no restriction on the conditions of employment, other than the rates of pay which are applied. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator McClelland: -- The regulations ought to come before the Senate. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -- The honourable senator is quite right, the regulations ought to come before the Senate, but the regulations which came before the Senate did not contain the terms and conditions which the Naval Board may have imposed. All that the regulations did was to give power to the Naval Board to fix terms and conditions and, of course, those terms and conditions did not come before the Senate. They were contained in an instrument in writing, just as under the amended Act they will be contained in an instrument in writing. Though I do not put myself forward as knowing the legal doubt which has prompted this measure and in respect of which **Senator McClelland** has asked a question, 1 should have thought that one legal doubt which must have arisen in regard to the existing provision was that the regulation purported to give to the Naval Board power more extensive than anything that was contained in the statute. Therefore, if there is an act of the Naval Board which is not in fact authorised by the statute, it cannot be authorised by regulation. This doubt, if it be a long standing one, would appear to me, from the legal' point of view, to have always been present. I do not know whether or not that is an answer to **Senator McClelland's** question, but it does appear to me to be one which is open. {: #subdebate-35-0-s25 .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator MCKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP -- 1 am indebted to **Senator Greenwood** for replying to the question raised by **Senator Cavanagh.** This was one question that I raised with the officers before I introduced the Bill. My fear was the same as **Senator Cavanagh's,** that retrospectivity might react against the employee. But after reading on and after the question was explained to me by the officers, I realised that clearly the provision regarding retrospectivity cannot take anything away from a person's entitlements. I mentioned that about thirty Acts of this type have been passed by the Par liament. I have a list of thirty-three here. 1 do not propose to read the titles to the Committee. These Acts have been enacted between 1953 and 1967 and are concerned with instruments in writing. This is what I had in mind when I said that this sort of thing has been done before and that it has worked quite satisfactorily. Even if **Senator Willesee** has fears about this provision, *I* think that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. This provision has worked all right in the past. Why. on earth would it not work all right in the future in relation to this Bill? Regarding proposed new subsection 42a (2.) which I mentioned earlier, this is virtually a repeat of the provision in the existing Act, as **Senator Greenwood** pointed out. {: #subdebate-35-0-s26 .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia -- 1 do not see that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. if a man has never had the chance to eat the pudding. I cannot see what a man can do about his situation if he is being inconvenienced by this provision and is not getting a fair go. He gets the terms and conditions of his employment in a letter, oh a piece of paper or on the back of an envelope depending on the tidiness of a clerk in the Naval Board, which is in effect bringing down this legislation. What can an employee do about this provision? He has not any real determination or any regulation by which he can do anything about it. To repeat the fact that similar provisions have been written into legislation already does not impress me one bit. 1 have seen a lot of things written into regulations. Five minutes later, I have seen the Government alter those regulations. This has some reference to what is happening at the moment. This provision is written into the legislation, it gets into the Act. This does not impress me at all. However, it is not much good talking backwards and forwards all night on the matter. The Minister seems satisfied; I am not satisfied. He says that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I say that these men have never had a chance to taste the pudding. The Minister made reference to proposed new section 42e. This section provides that the Naval Board may by instrument in writing again delegate to a person all the powers about which we are talking at the moment. I wonder whether the Minister can give me an idea of what the Naval Board envisages. For instance, the Naval Board may decide to delegate the authority which enables it to employ people and lo fix terms and conditions of employment and rates of pay. The only proviso is with respect to allowances which are laid down by the Public Service Board. I take it that it is possible for the Naval Board under this provision - 1 say 'possible', because I do not see any inhibition - to delegate this power to somebody not even connected with the Navy, lt could be anybody at all. lt could be a worker in another department or in private enterprise, or someone associated with the Press. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator Greenwood: -- Why should it be someone in the Navy? {: .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE: -- I am not saying that it should be someone in the Navy. 1 am asking the question. I am not saying that it should be someone in the Navy at all. I can quite see that it could be an arbitrator. But, after all, as **Senator Greenwood,** who is a lawyer, will agree, this is a tremendously sloppy piece of legislation. All 1 :im trying to get is some assurance on the subject or some idea of what this is about. **Senator Greenwood** is putting words into my mouth. I am not saying for one minute- {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator Greenwood: -- 1 agree with (he honourable senator, lt is a wide provision. lt could mean anything. {: .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE: -- lt is a very wide provision in the legislation. 1 would like some intimation from the Minister as to what the Naval Board has in mind. Will this instrument in writing be kept within the Navy? Will it be in the hands of a junior clerk? In this case, has the Board something in mind and will it give this power to some person? If the power is to be delegated outside (he Naval Board, has the Minister in mind an officer of the arbitration court? {: #subdebate-35-0-s27 .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP -- MiTemporary Chairman, the first question asked by **Senator Willesee** concerned what redress - that is not the word that the honourable senator used, but that is what he meant - would an employee have if he was not satisfied with the conditions laid down by an instrument in writing. The answer to that question is that for redress an employee can go to an arbitrator. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- Where is that? {: .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator McKELLAR: -- I think that satisfies that query. I come now to the other matter raised by **Senator Willesee.** He raised the query as to whom this instrument in writing would be given. Earlier, **Senator Bishop** asked me this question: 'Will not the power also be able to be exercised by anyone at all to whom the Naval Board delegates the power?' My answer to the honourable, senator was yes. However, the Naval Board in its own interests must he selective. This is just a delegation. There will be a limitation of power. The delegation of the power of the Naval Board does not affect the responsibility of the Board for the acts of a delegate. In other words, it comes back to the fact that the Board is responsible for any action performed by a delegate who has already received an instrument in writing from the Naval Board. {: #subdebate-35-0-s28 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP:
South Australia -- **Mr Temporary Chairman.** I rise to take part in the argument which has developed about proposed new sections 42 and 42a. Apparently, for some reason, the Minister has missed the point. In answer to questions previously he said that there would be no change in the existing practice of consulting and contracting with the unions on matters of wages and conditions for the employment of people covered by the unions concerned. This means in effect that the processes to effect determination are similar. The position as 1 understand it from direct talks with the Minister for the Navy **(Mr Kelly)** is that the processes of contracting a determination between the unions and the Naval Board will still obtain in their present form. We have been suspicious of this legislation. It has been argued that in fact a decision is necessary because some legal doubt exists about (he processes under regulation 5 of the Naval Defence Establishment Regulations. Because of this, these provisions are included in the Bill. The Opposition has criticised this Bill. In particular, **Senator Willesee** has criticised this provision. The most important matter to us is that the position has changed. The answers that have been given in another place and here today show that the position is different. The processes between the union thai negotiates a determination or an agreement and the Naval Board are to be changed. I understood that the present position was to obtain. While that position obtains, the unions have a certain protection. {: #subdebate-35-0-s29 .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP -- 1 repeat again a sentence from my second reading speech. I stated: >Firstly- the Bill: > >. will not change the Department's present employment policy and practices. **Senator Bishop** said that the answers given to him tonight were different from those given by the Minister for the Navy in another place. The second reading speech that I delivered was taken from the second reading speech presented by the Minister for the Navy in another place. Secondly, this legislation will not affect the rights of unions and employees under the Public Service Act. Understandably, honourable senators opposite are worried about this security. I repeat the words from my second reading speech that the Bill: {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . thirdly, will not make any change to the existing disciplinary powers under the Act. The processes of negotiation will not change. That is all the information that I have at my disposal to give to the Committee. {: #subdebate-35-0-s30 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia -- This matter is getting more worrying as the debate proceeds. We are told to accept an assurance that such a prescription as is causing us concern has been included in thirty-three Acts of this Parliament. Even if this provision has been written into those Acts, I do not see why we should repeat a wrong if we consider that it is wrong to have a determination of wages and conditions by an instrument in writing. If this is wrong, it is time that we corrected the situation. This matter is more important now because the allegation is that the provision for the delegation of this power in this repressive legislation comes right at the time of the settlement of a series of industrial disputes and right at the time when the advocate for the Naval Board made the statement: 'We will run our works as we desire.' This creates the suspicion that there may be some intention of altering the procedure. The Minister assures us that the procedure will carry on as it has in the past. Those who were in the Senate at the time will recall an assurance that I received from a Minister as to those who would qualify under the Homes Savings Grant Act. A subsequent Minister not only denied that assurance but also said that the Minister who had given it had no power to say that and added that the Act made no provision for the benefits to be given to the people about whom I inquired. This Parliament must not act upon the promises of a department or of a Minister. The only thing about which we are concerned is the provisions of an Act of the Parliament. What has the Parliament power to do? The Parliament is asked to agree to proposed section 42a under which the Naval Board is given power to issue an instrument in writing prescribing wages and conditions. The only tie-up with the Public Service Board is that the individual making the instrument in writing is obliged to accept directions from the Board in relation to rates of salary. That is the only thing. I am not suggesting that there is protection in respect of retrospectivity. 1 acknowledge that no award with retrospective effect shall be made that would affect or in any manner be prejudicial to anyone other than the Commonwealth. Of course that is subject to wide interpretation. Then there is the power of retrospectivity and I think we need some protection in regard to that. I do not know whether that is quite so important but. I raise it now because I omitted to do so earlier. The Minister said that if there is any injustice the men have the right to go to an arbitrator. We have heard that for the first time. Why is it not contained in the Bill? Where in the Act is there a provision which enables them to go to an arbitrator in relation to conditions of employment? I challenge the Minister now to tell us the section of the Act which gives them the right, to go to an arbitrator. {: #subdebate-35-0-s31 .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP -- I refer the honourable senator to clause 6 of the Bill which seeks to insert new section 42. Proposed section 42a (7.) is in these terms: >Nothing in this section affects the application of the Public Service Arbitration Act 1920-1966 > >In rel al ion lo persons employed under the last preceding section. I think that is a safeguard. If the honourable senator is looking for something in writing in the Act, surely that is it. {: #subdebate-35-0-s32 .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria -- 1 rise only to refer again to the instrument in writing mentioned in subsection .1 of proposed new section 42a in the context of the remarks last made by **Senator Cavanagh.** I do not know the precise Acts which have been mentioned in which similar provisions have been included but it would appear to me to be of little relevance whether there have been similar Acts in the past containing this provision. The whole purpose of a provision such as this is to provide what J would have thought was desirable in the situations which could arise between management and employees in naval dockyards. As the Minister mentioned in his second reading speech, there must be occasions when quick decisions have to be made. If the requirement were that terms and conditions had to be laid down by regulation, I think that would be stultifying the proper relationship between management and employees by requiring every decision to be put in the form of a statutory rule. To overcome that situation it is necessary to have a properly evidenced instrument in writing indicating the terms and conditions. {: .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator Willesee: -- What does the honourable senator mean by 'properly evidenced'? {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -- Properly evidenced simply because it is an instrument in writing. {: .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator Willesee: -- A sheet of paper. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -- A sheet of paper, I agree, but that is far better than having to rely on something passed on by word of mouth. {: .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator Willesee: -- And that is all that can be said about it. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -- 1 should have thought that in many cases such a piece of paper would be a very valuable thing to have. I should have thought that a desireable feature of this particular provision was that it provided for that flexibility and quick decision which should be an essential in relationships which could arise. Clause agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. {:#subdebate-35-1} #### Third Reading Bill (on motion by **Senator Mckellar)** read a third time. {: .page-start } page 1037 {:#debate-36} ### POST AND TELEGRAPH BILL 1968 {:#subdebate-36-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 8 May (vide page 856), on motion by **Senator Dame** Annabelle Rankin: >That the Bill be now read a second lime. {: #subdebate-36-0-s0 .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator COHEN:
Victoria -- The Bill before the Senate is, on the face of it, a machinery measure designed, as the Minister for Housing **(Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin)** put it, to bring the Act up to date in certain respects. It does not pretend to set the world on fire. There are a few provisions which cry out to be enacted. If one looks at what is achieved by the Bill, it is plain that a number of the provisions which it enacts are long overdue. It is astonishing in some ways that we should have had to wait so long to reach the position that is reached in this Bill. The Minister seems to make a very strong case for a complete overhaul of the Post and Telegraph Act; indeed, for a complete overhaul of the organisation and machinery of the Post Office. That is precisely what the Opposition proposes to do. We shall move an amendment to the motion for the second reading of this Bill to give the Senate an opportunity to express the opinion that we should have a good look at the whole organisation of the Post Office, and that the appropriate way to do that in the present circumstances in this country is by way of a joint select committee of both Houses of the Parliament to be appointed to inquire into the desirability and practicability of removing the Australian Post Office from the administrative influence of the Public Service Board, and of establishing a public corporation to control the business of the Post Office. I shall propose the amendment in precise terms in due course but the substance of it is that we add to the motion for the second reading of this Bill words to the effect that the Senate is of the opinion that such a joint select committee as 1 have mentioned should be appointed. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Was not that proposition advanced by the DLP in recent times? {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator COHEN: -- It is a proposition that was on the notice paper in the last sessional period of the last Parliament in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, **Senator Murphy.** {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator Gair: -- It is a proposition in relation to which 1 wanted a debate as a matter of urgency but the ALP voted against it. {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator COHEN: -- The honourable senator on one occasion did want to move in the same direction but on that occasion we were here for another purpose, namely, to disallow certain postal regulations that had been enacted by the Government. The Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party sought to move an urgency motion for the discussion of such a proposition but no vote would have been taken on it. I am very pleased to learn that **Senator Gair** is in agreement with what is proposed. {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator Gair: -- The ALP is in agreement with what I propounded here 12 months ago. {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator COHEN: -- Let us get a vote on this as soon as we can and the Government will understand perfectly well that the majority of the members of this Senate favour the amendment. I should like to say a few words now about the provisions of the Bill. I do not propose to' deal with them in detail as some of my colleagues propose to speak on the Bill and **Senator Bishop** in particular, will deal with the provisions that have a bearing on industrial issues. The Bill introduces some provisions which should have been enacted a long time ago. The Minister referred to the existing Act laying down conditions under which the delivery of the mails must be effected. Many of these conditions - I am using the Minister's words - are unreal in the light of modern arrangements. The provisions generally, said the Minister, are geared to the conditions pertaining when the original State Acts were drawn up. Again, the Minister has told us that one of the provisions in regard to outgoing mails - the authority to require vessels to take mail loadings - has existed in Australia since the New South Wales Postal Act of 1867. So we are dealing with an Act and some provisions that are hallowed in antiquity. When the Government tells us that these provisions need amendment, we can only say: 'Hear, hear! It is long overdue.' The Bill contains provisions relating to damage done to departmental cables by such things as roadmaking equipment. It contains minor amendments to definitions, and a series of provisions dealing with the delivery and dispatch of mails. The Government seems to have made the astonishing discovery that airlines as well as ships can carry mails, and that it is necessary to bring the Act into line with developments since the discovery of the aeroplane. I do not want to dwell on these things. They are merely examples of the fact that a close scrutiny of the Post Office has long been overdue. We shall give the Senate the opportunity to do this. It is not something that is entirely new. With the. increasing complexity of problems in the administration of postal and communication services, governments in many countries have reconsidered the method of tackling these problems. In Britain a prolonged investigation resulted in the presentation in March 1967 by the Postmaster-General to the House of Commons of a report and recommendations on reorganisation of the Post Office. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- But after last Saturday's municipal election results in the United Kingdom you are surely not going to rely on Harold Wilson's prognostications in future. {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator COHEN: -- Let us not play politics. The fact is that the Post Office in Britain was thoroughly investigated and an entirely new system implemented. With great respect to the Minister, that kind of observation does not get us anywhere. In Britain the authorities have moved for the establishment of a corporation, divorcing the Post Office from the direct Public Service administration and endowing the new' corporation with functions that are specified in that report. It reads: >The Government's objective is to create an authority which will be responsible for developing the most efficient services possible at the lowest charges consistent . with sound financial policies, that will carry on in a worthy manner the Post Office tradition of service to the public and that will develop relations with its staff in a orward looting and progressive way. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- Are you putting the proposition that we should follow the lead of the British authorities? {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator COHEN: -- I put it that we should follow the lead of advanced countries and should have a good look at the problem in the light of Australia's own conditions. My amendment will seek the establishment of a joint committee of both Houses of the Parliament to inquire into the desirability and practicability of such a proposal. {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator Gair: -- You are not saying whether it will be good or bad? {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator COHEN: -- I am not saying at this stage that it has to result in anything in particular. I assume it will result in a thorough review. I assume it will take account of the fact that the largest business undertaking in the Commonwealth should be run on businesslike lines. I assume it will take account of the fact that the great complexity of the problem calls for new techniques of management and administration. T am not assuming at the moment that there will be any particular result. Advanced countries such as Britain, Germany, Indonesia, Japan and Sweden are considering this problem for themselves. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- Have you any idea of the interest rates that are proposed in respect of commercial undertakings overseas? {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator COHEN: -- The honourable senator is putting the cart about 400 yards ahead of the horse. I am suggesting the sort of matters that ought to be considered and discussed. If a committee is set up, it might even have the benefit of **Senator Webster's** advice. I hope such a committee would not exclude any point of view. It would be a committee of both Houses of the Parliament. This problem is much too serious and important to be treated with levity. On previous occasions we have heard arguments in favour of the proposal. That is why I am merely sketching it at the moment. The authorities in Great Britain came to grips with this tremendous problem and after prolonged investigation decided to deal with it in a particular way. We believe that the problem in this country should be examined in a similar way. In the light of what we know about the problem I find it hard to believe that any honourable senator would see fit to resist the proposal. In recent times there has been important authority in favour of our proposal. It comes from no less a person than **Mr Frank** O'Grady, who retired last year as Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs. I do not think anybody would suggest that **Mr O'Grady** is not a man of great ability and with the widest experience in public administration. On 30th October last year he gave a lengthy account in the 'Australian' of his views on this important problem. He spoke of the need to break new ground in dealing with the running of the Post Office. He spoke of the need for a capacity for speedy decision becoming ever more apparent in the work of the Post Office and of the importance of separating the Post Office, or, as he put it, of divorcing it from the general Public Service administration. He went on to say: >The available evidence indicates that Australia will continue to grow in population, industrial strength and complexity and 1 feel that some change from the old-established system of regarding the Australian Post Office as another Commonwealth Government department will ba inevitable. > >I think it would also be inevitable that if the Post Office is to be put on the basis of being a true business undertaking in reality and not just in name divorcement from the Commonwealth Public Service Board would be quite essential. . . I think a public corporation would have a different approach to the public if it were given truly wide financial powers. It could arrange its business in a different way. At the present time, a purely government department must adhere to the budgetary system of Parliament. In effect, you must not anticipate parliamentary approval for years ahead. No one knows whether there might be a change of government and a new government might decide not to spend so much capital money on the Post Office but devote it to what it considers other more urgent needs. ... A statutory corporation, given proper financial powers, would be able to make long term arrangements with banks or other suppliers of funds and it could so arrange its affairs that it could commit itself to very high capital cost projects which wouldn't come into use until 5 years ahead and would still have sufficient funds for bread and butter items. > >There are many approaches lo this. I want to emphasise this point to honourable senators: >A public corporation might be empowered to raise money only through the Commonwealth Loan Fund system; it could raise money as Victoria's SEC does, with approval to go out on the market separately; it might borrow from banks on approved bases; or it might raise money from other sources. So it goes on. I cite the views of **Mr O'Grady** because he is perhaps in a unique position to express the opinion that he has given after such a lengthy and varied experience in the Post Office and in the Public Service generally. Those views are supported by the experience of Great Britain which has moved now into an entirely new situation in which a corporation equipped with statutory powers, including financial powers that it needs to run the Post Office services which are to be transferred to it, is to be established. The case I am making is that the Senate should resolve that in its opinion a joint committee of both Houses should be established and (hat there should be a thorough investigation by the joint committee. Let us have the answer. Let us see what the combined wisdom of representatives of both Houses and all parties can produce as to what the future of the Post Office should be. The challenge is immense. This is the largest business undertaking in the Commonwealth. {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator Gair: -- Let us hope that the personnel of the committee will be competent to deal with such a matter. {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator COHEN: -- One would assume that a joint committee of both Houses would have available to it some expert advice. One would assume that it would call as witnesses people who were capable of expressing an opinion. One would assume that it would look to overseas experience to see whether this could throw any light on our own needs and our own problems. These problems are open and this is an invitation to the Senate to act. I move: We do not oppose the Bill itself. We do not wish to see it held up or frustrated, but we do think it proper that the Senate should act upon the realities of the present situation and indicate its own firm opinion on this matter. Subsequently, if this were carried, I would propose that a message be sent to the other place to indicate the opinion of the Senate, requesting that the House of Representatives join in the appointment of a joint committee. For the reasons that I have indicated, speaking only briefly on this occasion to the motion, I would ask the Senate to deal with this amendment in a constructive way and to adopt it. {: #subdebate-36-0-s1 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON:
New South Wales -- In the few moments that remain to me this evening my first observation is that this is a most interesting exercise in unreality. Three Bill's relating to the Post Office are before the Senate; the Post and Telegraph Bill, which deals with the carriage of mail and damage to the equipment and cables of the Department; the Overseas Telecommunications Bill; and the Post and Telegraph Bill (No. 2) which deals with the financial status of the Post Office and proposes to change the department's organisation to a form that one might best describe as giving greater financial autonomy, having regard to levels of income and expenditure, lt would seem to me to have been a better exercise in reality in a debate in this chamber to propose to investigate POSt Office accounting, finances, general levels of profitability and forward capital expenditure, in relation to a Bill which of itself purported to deal with this particular area of argument. {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator Cohen: -- lt might have been if Standing Orders had permitted it. {: .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON: -- Or would it have been that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Cohen)** was anxious to avoid an implication of tampering wilh the money position? {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator Cohen: -- Not at all. lt is a question of what is permissible under the Standing Orders. {: .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON: -- The honourable senator must allow me to express again my view that this does seem to be an unreal approach to a matter which is of very great importance. {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator Cohen: -- J just cannot let you get away with that suggestion at this time of night. {: .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON: -- At any time of night I am happy to make these suggestions to the honourable senator. I again say to him that this is a little unreal. Now we will turn to the first Bill, in relation te which this amendment seems to be strangely out of place. The Bill has little regard for finance, financial autonomy or measures to make the Post Office more efficient in financial terms and proper interest rates. Let us bear in mind the great problem of the increased charges that the community may be forced to bear if the Post Office in due course under the proposal of the Deputy Leader were set up as a corporation. Let us think about the cost to the community if what might be engendered by this interesting proposal were to see the light of day. What would be its cost to the Australian community? After all, these exercises in financial legerdemain are all very nice, but what will be the cost to the Australian people? Undoubtedly we shall see this matter illuminated as the debate proceeds. The Bill is not a financial Bill, lt proposes a couple of amendments. One relates to the carriage of mail by sea. As pointed out in the speech by the Minister for Housing **(Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin)** a weakness was shown to exist when a vessel departed from an Australian port leaving behind a substantial amount of Christmas mail destined for the United Kingdom and the Continent. The ship concerned was the last to leave Australia which would arrive in Europe before Christmas. If we were not able to do something about this on future occasions it might well be that a Christmas cake going off to somebody's mother in London might arrive late in January which, I think all would agree, would be a matter for considerable regret. The Minister also pointed out that some of the provisions in the Act had been awaiting revision for about 60 years. This is quite a long time. The provisions of the Act are inappropriate to today. The Bill covers the authority of the Post Office to require a vessel to carry mail and gives the Post Office or its designated representative authority to detain a ship if it is felt that this is necessary in the interests of mail being put aboard at a critical time. This detention period may be of the order of 24 hours. I do not think any of us would quarrel with that situation. Mail is now being carried in huge quantities and under the new shipping arrangements that are likely to come before us- Debate interrupted. {: .page-start } page 1041 {:#debate-37} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-37-0} #### Department of Supply - Commonwealth Land Holdings The **PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin)** - -Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, 1 formally put the question: >That the Senate do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-37-0-s0 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales -- I wish to ventilate two matters briefly. The first concerns the Minister for Supply **(Senator Anderson)** and relates to an answer he gave to a question asked by me on 30th April. My question was in part: >Does the Department of Supply possess land in the region of the former Flemington sale yards area in New South Wales? The Minister for Supply stated in reply: >No. The Department of Supply does not possess land in the region of the former Flemington sale yards area in New South Wales. I passed that answer on to various people in the western suburbs of Sydney, including Alderman Frank Zions of the Strathfield Municipal Council. He has a vital interest in this matter because it is in the Strathfield municipality that the land is situated. I wish to inform **Senator Anderson** that I have in my possession a report by Messrs W. D. Scott and Co. Pty Ltd which had been asked by the State Government to investigate possible sites for the new Sydney city market. On page 156 of the report which was submitted, reference is made to an area that has access from Parramatta Road to Hill Street, lt also contains this information: >Ownership: Department of Supply (Commonwealth). I do not intend to canvass this matter any further tonight in the absence of **Senator Anderson,** but let me say in all fairness that this morning I advised the Department of Supply and the Department of Customs and Excise that I would be raising two matters during the adjournment debate. I suggest that **Senator Anderson** might read the report of my remarks in Hansard tomorrow morning and inquire whether I have been given inaccurate information or whether Alderman Zions and 1 have misunderstood his answer to me. The second matter I wish to raise concerns the Minister for. Customs and Excise **(Senator Scott).** It relates to the crusade on which I have been engaged over the last few years about the speeding up of the release by the Commonwealth of certain lands on the foreshores of Sydney Harbour now occupied by the Defence Department. Recently I noticed in a publication, copies of which most senators probably have received gratis, an article by a **Mr Graham** Pizzey. The publication to which I refer is the official journal of the Australian Institute of Parks and Recreation. It is entitled Australian Parks'. The editor is **Mr A.** E. Wilkie. The article by **Mr Graham** Pizzey appears on page 16. In it he advocates the dedication of certain land in the Point Nepean or Cheviot Beach region as a national memorial park. **Mr Pizzey** stated that he understood that the Victorian Government had approached the Commonwealth Government with this proposal. I wrote to **Mr Pizzey** telling him that the matter had already been raised with the Commonwealth. I stated quite frankly that I was counting on the support of all honourable senators particularly Victorian senators in order to establish in this campaign a common front comprising all the States. Let me make two further observations. Firstly, I know that the nature conservation authority of New South Wales feels that the mere transfer of land from the Commonwealth to State authorities or other instrumentalities might mean that the latter was not as conscientious about keeping the land open. That authority suggests that instead of transferring the land at no cost, it might be better to release the land under the lease for a peppercorn rental. Although I feel that there should be no charge, I do agree that the adoption of this suggestion might avoid delays in releasing the land. I noticed in the Sydney 'Sun' of recent date that **Mr Morton,** Minister for Local Government in the Askin Liberal Government of New South Wales is reported as having said, when referring to a plan to save Sydney Harbour land: >But Commonwealth co-operation is vital. They have made promises in the past and then done nothing about it. He is reported to have said that the Commonwealth had agreed 8 years ago to hand over land at George's Heights. He is then reported to have said: >But the Commonwealth is still holding onto it and we can't do anything about it. The Commonwealth doesn't need it. So we have now reached the stage where we are in unity with the Askin Liberal Government of New South Wales. It would seem, therefore, that there is obviously a good case for the Commonwealth Government to answer in connection with this matter. I say to **Senator Scott** that a delay of- 8 years is not good enough. I should be very interested to know when we may expect a decision. As an alternative to releasing the land free of charge, I suggest that if it is leased that will solve our problem and break the present bottleneck in negotiations. {: #subdebate-37-0-s1 .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Western Australia · LP -- **Senator Mulvihill** said he hoped **Senator Anderson** would read in Hansard what he had to say about the first point raised by him tonight. I shall certainly convey to **Senator Anderson** the honourable senator's suggestion and I can assure **Senator Mulvihill** that he will get a satisfactory answer from the Leader of the Government. As to the second matter raised by the honourable senator, 1 have seen the article to which he referred because he was good enough to tell me that he was going to deal with this subject on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate tonight. As he says, the article is published in the journal 'Australian Parks' and I read it with great interest. It appears on page 16 and is headed: 'Let this be our memorial to Harold Holt.' It mentions that there is an area of some 1,300 acres of land at Point Nepean and suggests that this land should be given to the State to be established as a memorial to our late Prime Minister. This land has been held by the Commonwealth since 1901. I do not deny that the suggestion is an excellent one but the Government and the Prime Minister have received many suggestions about the form and location of a memorial to the late Harold Holt. They have come from organisations and individuals in every State throughout the Commonwealth. These matters have to be- given a lot of consideration before a decision can be made, and consideration is being given to them now. It was very thoughtful of the honourable senator to raise the matter. **Senator Mulvihill** also referred to land at Georges Heights. He was good enough to advise me a month or so ago that he intended to mention the matter then, and he did. The answer that I give him now is the same as the one I gave on that previous occasion. I am sorry that 1 cannot say any more than that the release of this piece of land is being discussed by the Premier of New South Wales and the Prime Minister **(Mr Gorton).** Until such time as a decision is reached, I cannot say anything more, but I can assure the honourable senator that when a decision is arrived at he will be one of the first to know of it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.10 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 15 May 1968, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1968/19680515_senate_26_s37/>.