Senate
17 April 1969

26th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 26th Parliament
  3. 1969

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 1 1 a.m.. and read prayers.

page 877

EDUCATION

Petition

Senator WHEELDON presented a petition from 106 citizens of Western Australia showing that there is a crisis in education in Australia; that a transformation of the class room situation is necessary, where children will have reasonable freedom to develop as self-reliant, independent individuals and where they can learn to function as members of a democratic community; that proper preparation for school and thorough guidance there by qualified teachers are crucial to a proper education for Australia’s children; that the present rate of teacher training is far below the requirement determined by the Martin Report which shows that 75% additional teachers in government schools alone will be required by 1975 compared with those in service in 1963; that to obtain maximum benefit from the education system pre-school facilities should be available to all children; that insufficient State or Federal assistance has been made available to meet these requirements; that adequate finance to meet these requirements can only be provided by the Commonwealth Government; that there is an urgent need for a national inquiry into all aspects of Australian education.

The petitioners pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will give earnest consideration, during Human Rights Year, to this most vital matter.

Petition received and read.

page 877

QUESTION

TOURISM

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Does the MinisterinCharge of Tourist Activities feel concerned about the effect on tourism of the present United States airlines dispute concerning which airline will join Pan American World Airways on the Pacific route to Australia?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– It will be recalled that in the time of President Johnson approval was given for a United States airline to be nominated for inclusion in the Pacific schedule. Until the time of that decision it had been expected that Eastern Airlines, a United States airline, would be nominated for that position. On the change of the United States Government, 1 understand the decision was subjected to review. The outcome has not yet been announced. Of course, if the airways organisations approve of a second United States airline to service the Pacific region, it will have an important impact upon providing American tourists to this country.

page 877

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. He may recall that earlier in the sittings I asked him a question regarding notification by the British Government of an aircraft carrier being for sale. I ask: Has the Australian Government taken any action in this matter? Does the Government not see good reason for adding a vessel of this type to the Royal Australian Navy?

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

– I recall the honourable senator asking a similar question on a previous occasion. I think my answer today should he along the same lines as the one 1 gave previously. The honourable senator is asking me at question time to give judgment on the Government’s policy in relation to naval requirements and strategy. Quite clearly it would be improper for me to do so. However, I will refer the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for Defence.

page 877

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND

– I desire to direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. Has ibc Minister seen the results of a recent gallup poll in which 2,000 people were asked their opinions of the proposals incorporated in my private member’s Bill for the payment of $50 a year for each secondary student and $30 a year for each primary student in independent schools? Is the Minister aware that 60% of those interviewed said that they were in favour of the proposals and that 62% of the voters who support the Australian Labor Party and 56% of the voters who support the Liberal-Country Party expressed support for my proposals? Can the Minister give me an assurance that this Bill will be discussed and voted on by the Senate and transmitted to the House of Representatives before the conclusion of this sessional period?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Leader of the Democratic Labor Party is no doubt aware that during a recent debate the Senate’s viewpoint was expressed as in favour of aid to independent schools. That, together w/h the information which has been supplied by the Leader of the DLP concerning the result of a gallup poll, indicates that there is an area, of deficiency here which should attract Government attention. As to a discussion and a vote on his Bill, the Leader of the DLP is no doubt aware of the parliamentary programme. I have no doubt that if he engages in talks with the Leader of the Government in the Senate on this matter he will find that any adjustment which is necessary to the programme to enable a discussion and a vote on his Bill will be considered.

page 878

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who is the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that no appointment is made to a permanent position in the Commonwealth Public Service of an applicant who is known to have been convicted of an offence against the law? ]f so, will the Minister suggest to the Prime Minister that wide publicity be given to this matter from time to time, not as a threat but as a warning to persons interested in joining the Commonwealth Public Service, particularly young people who. through lack of knowledge, may be enticed to take part in protest demonstrations and, unwittingly or by provocation, be led into, charged with and convicted of breaches of the law?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Section 34 of the Public Service Act states, in part, that a person is not eligible for appointment unless the Public Service Board is satisfied that he is a fit and proper person to be an officer of the Commonwealth Public Service. It is my understanding that the interpretation of that section has to be dealt with on an individual basis. Tn exercising this power the Board determines on its individual merits each case of an applicant who has been found guilty of an offence against the law. The

Board has regard to such factors as the nature and circumstance of the offence, the conduct of the applicant since the offence was committed and any other relevant matters. At this point of time I would like to leave my answer on that basis. So, whilst there is a section in the Act to provide for such matters, it is interpreted, used and applied on an individual basis for each circumstance that arises.

page 878

QUESTION

US NAVIGATIONAL SYSTEM STATION

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Supply. I refer to a matter which was raised on 19th March this year by Senator Rae and which was referred to in the ‘Canberra Times’ of 5 th April. That is the proposal that the United States of America build an Omega navigational system station in Australia. Was the proposal to erect such a station in New Zealand rejected by t’he New Zealand Government because of the danger to its people of having such a prime nuclear target in that country? Is the Government still considering the proposal to have the station built in Australia and, in particular, is it considering sites on the eastern coast of New South Wales? Will the Minister state what stage the negotiations have reached?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– As I recall Senator Rae’s question, the matter with which he was concerned did not come within the jurisdiction of the Minister for Supply. I undertook to have some inquiries made. Subsequently I informed Senator Rae and the Senate that at that point of time no specific proposition was under consideration. The matter is an important one. I would prefer now to have another look at the matter and give a completely accurate reply. But that is my understanding of the situation when last I examined it.

page 878

QUESTION

FARM MACHINERY

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it not a fact that the Commonwealth Government has assisted primary producers in many ways with their cost of production problems? Can the Minister inform the Senate what consideration is being given by the Government to the very serious problem of the cost of spare parts for farm machinery? Is the Minister aware that ten ordinary finger bolts costing $1.62 at the manufacturer’s establishment in Adelaide cost SOc each in country towns in Western Australia, while a washer costing 17c in Adelaide costs 30c in those same towns? As these are common examples of the high prices primary producers have to pay for parts, what action can the Government take to assist with this ever-increasing problem?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The honourable senator has directed a question to me as Minister representing the Treasurer. It may well be that his question should be directed to me as representing the Minister for Trade and Industry because it would seem to me, on the face of the question, that parts for machinery for primary producers may well be a matter for consideration by the Tariff Board. I do not know. I could not imagine, for instance, that it would be thought that the Treasurer or the Government could take some spare parts for machinery in isolation and say: ‘We will make some special arrangements in relation to these spare parts.’ The total number of spare parts would run into billions. As I see the situation, it may well be that the whole question is one related to tariff. In that case I will direct it primarily to the Minister for Trade and Industry.

page 879

QUESTION

CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATIONS CONVENTION

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– When the Minister for Works was in South Australia earlier this week looking at tourist potential did he also take any part in the Ninth International Federation of Asian and Western Pacific Contractors Associations Convention which is being held in that State at the present moment? If so, can he give the Senate any indication of the nature and purpose of the Convention?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The honourable senator’s question gives me the opportunity to say with what great regret I was deprived of the honour of addressing the conference to which she has referred, due to a mechanical failure of the aircraft in which I was travelling on Tuesday afternoon.

Senator Gair:

– Was it a VIP aircraft?

Senator WRIGHT:

– No, it was a twinengine small aircraft that had been chartered for the purpose. I wish also to inform the Senate that the International Federation of Asian and Western Pacific Contractors Associations is an organisation the importance of which we will need to be aware in increasing measure in the future. This was one of the earliest organisations established in the Australian-Pacific-Asian region. It was established on the initiative of private enterprise, originating from the Philippines and now attracting the membership of no fewer than thirteen Pacific countries whose building contractors and engineers gather biennially in member countries to discuss common problems.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Is this the speech that the Minister was going to make to this Convention?

Senator WRIGHT:

– Not at all. Is the honourable senator not interested? I should have thought that the Senate would have perceived in this information an indication of the growing integration of the Pacific area, not merely in the realm of politics but also in the realm of substantial building as represented by these very formidable contractors. When one understands that in Japan alone, which is one of the countries which are members of this Federation, there are at least five firms with a turnover in excess of that of the Federal Department of Works, and that in the other member countries there are substantial contractors, it can be seen that the whole region, so organised, is contributing in a most dynamic fashion to the integration and building of goodwill and facilities for the progress’ of mankind in the area of Asia and the Western Pacific.

page 879

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it not a fact that all the talk of restrictions on production is, so far as the next wheat harvest is concerned, entirely futile? Is it not a fact that wheat authorities admit that certainly just as much wheat and probably a lot more will be sown for the next harvest, despite the certain inadequacy of storage facilities and the uncertainty of markets? When can we expect action from the Government to make up for the obvious failure of wheat authorities to deal with a situation which, within 7 or 8 months, may well be catastrophic?

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

– Again I remind the Senate that the Commonwealth Government is not in a position to say to the wheat growers that acreage must be curtailed. Any action of this nature must come from the States. As the honourable senator would know, the wheat growers organisations have already had meetings right throughout Australia and, in the main, have decided that there should be a curtailment of deliveries. This does not touch on the point made by the honourable senator who was referring to the possibility of an increased acreage being sown and the possibility again of a huge crop. Conditions are very favourable through most of the wheat growing States at the moment for a large planting, but I can assure the honourable senator that to my personal knowledge growers are looking at this point individually and seeing whether alternative crops can be grown. That will help the situation but it is still too early to say what the harvest will be. Naturally the growers would like to know what the position will be and particularly whether the amount of the first payment will be $1.10. That is the amount for which they have asked.

Senator Little:

– And we would like to know the price at which they sell wheat to China.

Senator McKELLAR:

– The wheat sales to China have stood Australia in very good stead in the past, as the honourable senator should know, and I hope they will continue to stand Australia in very good stead in the future too. The remainder of the matters raised can be decided only after the States have made up their minds and unanimity has been achieved and when the meeting between Commonwealth and State legal authorities which I mentioned yesterday has taken place.

page 880

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science refers to the broadcast report this morning of a meeting of vice-chancellors at which the statement was made that many students would be better suited to another type of tertiary education, at which concern was expressed regarding the failure rate in universities, and at which it was stated that some effort should be made by universities in the area of teaching facilities. Will the Department receive a report from the vice-chancellors’ meeting? Will the Department consider further widening the types of education in the tertiary field? Will the Minister advise the Senate in due course of the Department’s response to the universities’ plea for better teaching facilities?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I have no doubt that any deliberate statement by the vicechancellors’ committee will be transmitted through the Australian Universities Commission to the Department for consideration. The problem of the failure rate at universities, as well as the other matters to which the honourable senator has referred, has bedevilled not only Australian universities but also other universities during the past decade. It is a matter to which Sir Hugh Murray’s committee, which was set up by the Government in the mid-1950s, directed attention. It would be premature for me even to comment on behalf of the Minister on the deliberations of the vice-chancellors until I saw the text of their statement. No doubt the Minister himself will either communicate with them or make a statement in regard to the matter.

page 880

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator ORMONDE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is the Government’s decision to fix a ceiling advance of $400m for next year’s wheat crop just another method of controlling wheat production?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– If the honourable senator reflected a little he would know that the Government has not made any decisions.

Senator Ormonde:

– lt has not been announced.

Senator McKELLAR:

– It has not been publicly announced. I again say that the Commonwealth Government has no power to restrict wheat acreage in Australia.

page 880

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. In view of the fact that member companies of the National Safety Council of Australia show an industrial accident frequency rate 70% lower than do other companies, will he request the Minister for Labour and National Service to consider further promoting the membership and work of the National Safety Council by way of an increased allocation of Commonwealth funds?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– In replying to the honourable senator’s question I wish to recognise the interest he has maintained in this most important subject. I have seen it stated that it is reckoned by experts in the industrial field that industrial accidents cost Australian industry something of the order of $l,000m. I am very glad to acknowledge that in recent weeks Senator Rae has engaged in correspondence with me in relation to this subject to endeavour to have firstly, for the information of industry, statistics kept that will enable us to evaluate the actual loss to industry through industrial -accidents. Of course the promotion of the Industrial Safety Council is a step in this direction. I will pass the honourable senator’s suggestion to the Minister and add .my own view that it should be encouraged.

page 881

QUESTION

PRIMARY INDUSTRY

Senator WEBSTER:

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: Can he assure the Senate that the Government recognises the economic problems now facing some Australian citizens involved in primary production? Is the Minister aware that in some advanced countries finance for special purposes is made available to primary producers at rates of interest as low as 3%? Does the Minister believe that a major contribution could be made by this Government to the primary industries by making finance available to farmers at a lower cost than that approved today? Will the Minister put the proposition to the Government that the Government give urgent consideration to lowering the interest rate to the special category of primary production and directing the Reserve Bank in this matter?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– It is true that the (Government recognises that there are problems in certain areas of primary production in Australia. I suppose it would be true to say that this is quite a common feature of primary industry because of variations in seasons. Indeed, because the industry is influenced toy overseas prices and marketing, it also has an additional inbuilt problem. The honourable senator mentioned what is done in other countries where special interest rates are made available to primary industry and a very low interest rate is charged. Yes, I have heard of this. The honourable senator then went on to suggest that the Government might give consideration to these matters. All I can say is that I will refer the proposals he put forward to the Minister for Trade and Industry in the first instance. It does seem to me that there are many problems inherent in the proposals. In the event of special circumstances, such as a drought disaster or something of that nature, the Australian Government always has responded to meet the situation. As I understand the honourable senator’s question he is suggesting that primary industry should have some continuing concessional provision in banking in the form of a special interest rate. Of course, this may involve constitutional problems. However, I will put the question to the Treasurer and to the Minister for Primary Industry.

page 881

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

Senator LACEY:
TASMANIA

– Will the Minister representing the Attorney-General inform the Senate whether a person who is entitled to enrol as an elector of the Commonwealth but who is not so enrolled is eligible to contest parliamentary elections, either in the division for which he is entitled to enrol or for any other division of his choice?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The honourable senator indicated an interest in this matter some few weeks ago. I am able, on behalf of the Attorney-General, to advise him that a person who is qualified to enrol as an elector under the Commonwealth Electoral Act but has not so enrolled is eligible to contest a House of Representatives election for any division provided he is otherwise qualified to be a candidate in accordance with the Act and the Constitution. Such a person is also eligible to contest a Senate election for any State.

page 881

QUESTION

COMMEMORATIVE POSTAGE STAMPS

Senator MARRIOTT:

– I address a question to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. In view of the importance of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association as a forum at which members representing the Parliaments of the Commonwealth of Nations meet to discuss the development ot parliamentary government and also to exchange ideas on important international subjects, and as the 60th annual meeting - the diamond jubilee meeting - of the Association will be held in Australia in 1971, can the Minister inform the Senate whether this meeting will be honoured by the issue of a special set of postage stamps to commemorate the occasion?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I appreciate very much the interest that Senator Marriott shows in this particular meeting because I believe he was at the last one which probably decided that the next meeting would be held in Australia. It will be the 60th anniversary of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and the Postmaster-General has announced that there will be a special stamp issue during that year.

page 882

QUESTION

CHEMICAL WARFARE

Senator GAIR:

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Defence been drawn to a report of a speech by Mr Barnard, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in another place, at Mosman, Sydney on 11th April 1969, when he alleged that an Australian soldier had died, although wearing a gas mask, when CS gas and smoke were being used to clear Vietcong tunnels in Vietnam? Is this allegation merely a repetition of the now discredited claim which first appeared in the ‘New York Times’ of 13th January 1966 that a Corporal Robert Bowtell of Sydney was killed by this gas? Was this allegation, which has now been repeated by Mr Barnard, discredited once and for all when the Army revealed that Corporal Bowtell had died not from inhaling gas or smoke but from lack of oxygen when he ran into a pocket of foul air?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Yesterday Senator Cohen asked me a question about CS gas. I made the point - with some vigour, I thought at the time - that CS gas is in fact a nontoxic, non-lethal form of tear gas and that in fact it is a gas which is commonly used all over the world by police for the purpose of moving civilians who are in disorder. I repeat that it is non-lethal and non-toxic. Indeed, I remember reading in the New South Wales Press several weeks ago of an instance where, under circumstances in which they needed to get a person out of a building, the police used tear gas for that purpose. As to the honourable senator’s direct question about a statement made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in another place at a public meeting in Sydney, I did read the Press article to which he referred. Whilst, as I understand the position no names were used by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, he was clearly referring to the CS case in Vietnam. It is equally true, as Senator Gair has said, that this story was run as far back as January 1966. It is a fair commentary on the paucity of argument that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had in this instance that he had to go as far back at that-

Senator Murphy:

– Mr President, I raise a point of order. I have not interrupted until now because what the Leader of the Government was doing was answering the question; but now he is proposing to depart from the question that was put to him and to comment on the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in another place. I ask that he not be permitted to do that. Question time cannot be used for purposes other than the asking and answering of questions. The Leader of the Government is now proposing to make adverse reflections on the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in another place.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Mr President-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Is the Leader of the Government speaking to the point of order.

Senator ANDERSON:

– No.

The PRESIDENT:

– I want to make a decision on the point of order.

Senator Anderson:

– I will speak to the point of order, if you wish me to, Mr President. I simply say that I am giving a reply to a specific question that Senator Gair has directed to me, and that everything I have said up to this point has been relevant to the question.

The PRESIDENT:

– I suggest to the Leader of the Government that he should not go any further along the line he is pursuing, and that if he does so he will be departing from the question.

Senator ANDERSON:

– If I may make a comment, Mr President, you have always said that it is the responsibility of a Minister to answer a question as he sees it. The fact is that Senator Gair asked me about a statement or speech that was made by Mr Barnard at Mosman in New South Wales.

Senator Bishop:

– And you do not know about it.

Senator ANDERSON:

– I read the” Press report, which referred to an Australian soldier who, Mr Barnard alleges, died as a result of CS gas being used in Vietnam. Dr Forbes, who was then the Minister for the Army, dealt with this matter by way of a Press release on 13th January 1966.

Senator Bishop:

– How do you know that it was the same case? Have you made inquiries?

Senator ANDERSON:

– No other case has ever been raised. I will qualify my statement, if it will make Senator Bishop any happier, by saying that if Mr Barnard is referring to Corporal Bowtell - I repeat that no other case involving either an American or an Australian has ever been referred to by the Opposition - on 13th January 1966 the then Minister for the Army, and on 14th January 1966 the Department of the Army, made it abundantly clear that the corporal concerned did not die as a result of the effects of this gas. It is true, as Senator Gair said, that the proposition was completely discredited as early as January 1966.

page 883

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Senator MARRIOTT:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories in the fervent hope that it conforms with Senator Murphy’s idea of what a question should or should not involve. In view of the success of, and the wide public interest shown in, the display ‘Papua and New Guinea Progress’ at the Royal Easter Show in Sydney, will the Minister ask his colleague to inform the Senate whether, and under what conditions, that or a similar display could be made available, if requested, for exhibition at agricultural shows elsewhere in Australia?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Department of External Territories is currently planning a major display on Papua and New Guinea on a similar scale to that which was recently exhibited at the Sydney show. The proposal is that the display will be exhibited successively in Brisbane, Melbourne and Hobart. Because of the size of the exhibit and the time taken to dismantle it and to transport it from Melbourne to Hobart and re-erect it, it is not practicable - it is regretted - to include Launceston in the circuit for this display. The Department, however, at the request of Senator Devitt is planning a minor display on Papua and New Guinea to be provided for the Devonport show and is prepared to consider a similar minor display for Launceston.

page 883

QUESTION

INFLUENZA VACCINE

Senator BISHOP:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I again refer to the question of shortages and confusion in relation to the distribution of influenza vaccine. The Minister will recall that she thought that the announcement of the Minister for Health satisfactorily covered the position in relation to the complaints. I now draw the Minister’s attention to very substantial complaints contained in yesterday’s Adelaide Advertiser’ from doctors and other people, which indicate shortages and a great deal of chaos in distributing the drug. Will the Minister take immediate steps to investigate the position and to look into the situation in South Australia as reported in the Adelaide Press?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I have not seen the comment in the Press to which the honourable senator refers and I do not know whether the Minister for Health has seen it. I shall certainly draw his attention to the point raised. I think I should again make the point that I made the other day, that is, that there is an unusual demand for the serum and that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories have already issued 2.25 million doses of the vaccine. The present production programme is designed to produce and release 250,000 doses a week as long as the demand continues. In addition, approval has been given for the importation and distribution of vaccine by another company. I do believe that a very big supply of this vaccine is programmed for the Laboratories.

page 884

QUESTION

BIAFRA

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister representing the Prime Minister advise what assistance, if any, the Australian Government has given to the starving people of Biafra by way of food or in any other way? Whilst we are all concerned at the rebuff by the leaders of the Biafran people to the Prime Minister of Great Britain, these people should not ‘be forgotten and let starve. What role has been taken or will be taken by the Australian representatives in the United Nations discussion, by voting or initiating discussion, to save these unfortunate people?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– It is a very comprehensive question which would be in the portfolio of External Affairs. I would prefer to submit the question and get a considered reply from the Department of External Affairs and I certainly undertake to do that. I may have some notes here in relation to it but I would rather get an answer in full.

page 884

QUESTION

MERINO RAMS

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry seen a report in the Sydney Press of today’s date of a meeting at Armidale of New England wool growers, reputed to be amongst the most influential in Australia, which unanimously passed a resolution of protest against the lifting of the ban on the export of Merino rams and a vote of no confidence in the Australian Wool Industry Conference and the Australian Wool Growers and Graziers Council? Is it the Government’s intention to pursue a policy that is creating deep and growing resentment amongst an important section of the wool growing industry?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The answer to the first part of the honourable senator’s question is that I have read a report of the decision taken by Armidale graziers. I have not read any reports on the other two subjects referred to by the honourable senator. I am not suggesting that he has not seen them, but I have not. So far as I know, it is the Government’s intention to carry out the wishes of the Australian Wool Industry Conference, which has been looked upon in this connection as the parliament of the wool growers. I have not any information to the contrary.

page 884

QUESTION

TOURISM

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities. As a number of major festivals conducted throughout Australia on an established annual or biennial basis are receiving international attention, does the Minister see scope within his Department’s activities to bring further international tourists to Australia by virtue of these festivals? I refer, for instance, to such festivals as the Adelaide Festival of Arts and the Barossa Valley Vintage Festival.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– Of course, the Australian Tourist Commission cultivates and sees great value in the festivals, examples of which were referred to by the honourable senator. The Federal Government gives assistance to the Adelaide Festival of Arts which we now recognise as having achieved international prestige from ‘the point of view of attracting to Australia and to Adelaide artists of great renown. With regard to the Barossa Valley Festival held biennially, it will be of interest to honourable senators to know that the Australian Tourist Commission had a film unit in the Barossa Valley at the time of the Festival for the purpose of recording incidents associated with it for transmission on a very wide circuit in countries from which we draw our tourists. Permit me to say ir conclusion, Mr President, that with great pleasure I acknowledge the invitation I had from Senator Laucke to visit the Barossa Valley Festival last week, which I found to be a most stimulating experience.

page 884

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. As the latest statistics reveal that on a comparative basis with other States the employment position in Queensland is a continuing problem, will the Minister favourably consider a proposal that his departmental officers convene and preside at a meeting of representatives of industry in Queensland to examine ways and means of improving the employment position in that State?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I find the honourable senator’s suggestion one of real interest and I will transmit it to the Minister for his decision.

page 885

QUESTION

CHEMICAL WARFARE

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

– 1 direct a question to the Minister for Supply. It relates to an answer given by the Minister to Senator Gair on the use of the chemical CS by Australian forces in Vietnam. 1 ask: ls the Minister aware that as recently as 12th April it was reported from Nui Dat that combat engineers of Australia’s 1st Field Squadron had suffered several accidental casualties 2 weeks earlier when they started seeding Vietcong bunkers with CS crystals and that what was said about the gas was not that it was harmless but that it was not used by the Australian Army as an offensive weapon? Will the Minister make a full statement on the effects of this chemical on those on whom it is used? Does the Government say that the chemical is harmless or simply that it is not used as an offensive weapon?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I am not aware of the subsequent report to which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has referred. Yesterday I referred to a statement that had been made in the other place on a previous occasion by the then Minister for External Affairs.

Senator Cohen:

– Some time ago.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Yes. In fact, it was made as far back as .1965. On that occasion the Minister drew attention to the fact that CS gas was a tear gas and that it was a more potent tear gas than CN gas. As I recall it, more recently the commander in the field in Vietnam made it abundantly clear that CN is not a lethal gas and that it was being used to clear bunkers. If one views the matter in the long term it possibly has the effect of saving the lives of Services personnel in action.

Senator Cohen:

– They said that about the atom bomb.

Senator ANDERSON:

– The Deputy Leader of the Opposition makes a remark which shows his complete lack of appreciation of the position. As I have said, this gas is used for civilian purposes all over the world.

Senator Cohen:

– What is ils effect on children?

Senator ANDERSON:

– It is a tear gas. I suppose it causes nausea, but it is not lethal. 1 shall be perfectly happy to give a further explanation after the question has been processed through the appropriate department. But one cannot get away from the fact that it is a non-toxic, non-lethal gas which is used for civilian purposes. No doubt it has been used in Australia.

page 885

QUESTION

TOURISM

Senator McMANUS:

– My question is directed to the Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities. Is the Minister aware that, except in the case of vessels of the larger companies, facilities for the transfer from ship to shore and vice versa of the heavy luggage of passengers arc frequently scant or even non-existent? Will the Minister confer with representatives of tourist and shipping bodies about the provision of satisfactory luggage handling facilities at Australian ports and so eliminate a serious cause of complaint by passengers and tourists?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I shall be very pleased to take up the suggestion made by the honourable senator and, after consultations with the shipping companies and travel agencies, I shall advise him whether or not we can suggest any improvement.

page 885

QUESTION

SHIPPING

(Question No. 878)

Senator ORMONDE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Will the Minister call for a report regarding the recent break-down of the passenger liner Fairsea’?
  2. Did the vessel have a certificate of seaworthiness before it left Sydney for London?
  3. How often have passenger-carrying vessels to pass seaworthiness tests in Australia?
  4. What is the age, weight, and origin of all passenger vessels trading between Sydney and London, and in which countries are such ships registered?
Senator SCOTT:
Minister for Customs and Excise · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ). No. The ‘Fairsea’, registered in Italy, caught fire on 23rd January 1969 when between Tahiti and the Panama Canal Zone, and her engineroom was disabled. She subsequently had to be towed to the canal. At the time of the casualty, the vessel was on a voyage to Southhampton and had called at Tahiti after leaving Australia, Section 268 of the Navigation Act requires the master of a ship not registered in Australia to report an accident or other casualty in which the ship is involved only where the accident or other casualty occurs during a voyage to a port in Australia or within the limits of Australia or Australian territorial waters, and therefore no such report was required in respect of the accident to the ‘Fairsea’.

  1. Yes. The ship, being a ship of a type to which the Safety of Life at Sea Convention, 1960, and the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966, apply, at the time of its departure from Australia was in possession of the certificates required under those Conventions. These included a passenger ship safety certificate issued under the provisions of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1960, valid until 25th February 1969.
  2. Both the Safety of Life at Sea Convention, 1960, and the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966, contain specific provisions relating to seaworthiness and require that passenger ships be surveyed at 12-monthly intervals. A provision of each Convention is that valid certificates showing compliance with the Convention are to be accepted, within their period of validity, by other Convention countries provided the ship continues to comply with the conditions shown on the certificate. Overseas ships are thus rarely surveyed in Australia, but are frequently visited by surveyors of my Department to see that their certificates are valid and that the ships do in fact comply with the conditions stated in their certificates. ‘Fairsea’ was visited for this purpose at Fremantle on24th December 1968 and no irregularities were found.
  3. Details of age, gross tonnage, country of building and port of registry of all known passenger ships which trade between Sydney and London are as follows:

There are, in addition, many other passenger ships which trade between Sydney and Southampton.

page 886

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 928)

Senator BISHOP:

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

  1. Is it a fact, as recently claimed by the manager of the Royal Aero Club of South Aus tralia, that some pilots in South Australia with only private flying licences were operating illegal charters and consequently breaking Department of Civil Aviation regulations?
  2. If so, what action is being taken to prevent these hazardous flying operations?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: 1.It is true that, as in any other activity, breaches of the regulations do occur. In fact, legal proceedings have been instituted in some fourteen cases for breaches of the Air Navigation Regulations which have occurred in South Australia within the past 12 months. Although there may have been other breaches which have escaped detection, there is no reason to- believe that the degree of observance of the regulations is diminishing.

  1. In every instance, specific allegations of breaches of the Air Navigation Regulations are fully investigated. The particular problems in certain areas, arising from the rapid growth of the industry, are being overcome by the appointment of additional examiners of airmen to ensure that close surveillance of the industry is maintained.

page 886

QUESTION

CANBERRA AND AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

(Question No. 946)

Senator KEEFFE:
through Senator Murphy

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

  1. Is it a fact that Australian Capital Territory uniformed police and members of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation have been instructed to take the numbers of all stationary cars at the Regatta Point public forum on those days on which public speakers are at the forum?
  2. Is the Minister aware that the practice is offensive to local residents and interstate tourists?
  3. Will the Minister issue the necessary instructions to terminate this offensive practice forthwith?
Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– The Minister for the Interior has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

No members of the Australian Capital Territory police force have been instructed to take the numbers of stationary cars at the Regatta Point public forum on those days on which public speakers are at the forum, and no such details have been reported by members of the force.

The object of detailing a member of the Australian Capital Territory police force to perform duty in the vicinity of the Regatta Point public forum is to prevent any breach of the peace, and protection is offered to both speakers and members of the audience. This is a practice adopted by other police forces in Australia and overseas.

See also answer to Question No. 333 - Hansard 21st August 1968.

page 887

QUESTION

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL MARITIME CONSULTATIVE ORGANISATION

(Question No. 953)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Is Australia a member of the InterGovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation IMCO?
  2. If so, did its representative attend a meeting of IMCO, in London, in late 1968?
  3. What altitude did its representative lake to proposals giving nations . the right to sink any ship on the high seas endangering its coasts through oil pollution?
  4. Will Australia be attending the next IMCO meeting, in Brussels, in November 1969, and will its delegate be supporting the proposal mentioned in 3 above?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes. An Australian delegation of four attended the meetings of the IMCO Assembly and the IMCO Council inNovember 1968.
  3. No such proposals were on the agenda of these meetings, nor were any such proposals discussed.
  4. Australia has advised the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation that it proposes to send a delegation to the Brussels meeting in November 1969 which will consider a draft convention on oil pollution. The draft convention is at present being studied in order that Australia’s attitude may be determined and the Australian delegation to the conference suitably briefed.

page 887

QUESTION

OIL POLLUTION

(Question No. 954)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that long overdue action is contemplated by BP, ESSO, Gulf Mobil, Shell, Socal and Texaco oil companies to draft an agreement to be known as the Tanker Owners Voluntary Agreement Concerning Liability for Oil Pollution?
  2. Is the Minister aware of the altitude of this group that the scheme will only work when all oil companies become part of this organisation?
  3. To hasten the creation of such an indemnification body for victims of oil pollution, will the Government fix a deadline to ensure that, after a given date, no oil tanker of a company which refuses to join this group will be given port facilities in Australia?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport has provided the follow ing answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. A voluntary plan for compensation of governments of countries whose coast lines are damaged by oil has been agreed on by the companies mentioned.
  2. It is understood that the plan will become effective when it has been joined by companies representing 50% of the world’s privately-owned tanker tonnage. This has not yet been achieved.
  3. Any action to deny right of access to Australian ports to foreign tankers which would, of course, also have to be taken in conjunction with the Slate governments, would conflict with Australia’s obligations under the Convention and Statute on the International Regime of Maritime Ports, negotiated in 1923. As a party to that Convention, Australia is committed to allow complete freedom of access to its main ports for merchantmen of all contracting parties on the basis of full reciprocity.

page 887

QUESTION

MILITARY DISCIPLINE

(Question No. 972)

Senator McCLELLAND:
through Senator Murphy

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

  1. Has a departmental committee of inquiry been established to inquire into and report upon practices and procedures of the Navy, Army and Air Force in respect of servicemen under detention?
  2. Who are the members of the committee?
  3. When is it likely that the committee’s report will be tendered?
  4. Will copies of the report be made available to senators and members?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Defence has providedthe following answer:

  1. Yes.
  2. Mr F. J. Mahony, Deputy Crown Solicitor, Sydney. Chairman; Mr J. A. Morony, former Comptroller-General of Prisons, New South Wales; Mr G. P. Temme. Principal Executive Officer (Legal), Department of Defence; and Brigadier O. H. Isaksson, Deputy AdjutantGeneral, Army Headquarters.
  3. The Committee’s report has been presented to me.
  4. A copy of the report will be laid on the table of the Parliamentary Library.

page 887

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

(Question No. 997)

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– by leave - asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Was Mr R. D. Nichols employed as a senior motor mechanic atYuendumu Settlement?
  2. Was he charged with a breach of section 55 of the Public Service Act?
  3. Was a letter dated 16th January 1969, notifying him of his dismissal on 24th January 1969, delivered to him on 25th January 19697
  4. As notification of dismissal was received the day after dismissal took place, what chance did this employee have to exercise the benefit of resignation as extended to dismissed employees of the Department of Cur’ s and Excise?
  5. In order to give Mr Nichols the same rights as employees of the Department of Customs and Excise, will the Department now accept a resignation seeking to resign as from 23rd January 1969?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for the Interior has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. Ye*.
  3. Yes.
  4. The charge and suspension notices under section 55 of the Public Service Act were handed to Mr Nichols at 3.30 p.m. on 6th September 1968. The notice of punishment stating that it had been recommended to the Public Service Board thai Mr Nichols should be dismissed from the Service was dated 1st October 1968. His appeal against the proposed action was considered by the Appeal Board on 11th and 12th December 1968, and the Appeal Board on 12th December 1968 confirmed the recommendation of the Chief Officer that Mr Nichols should be dismissed. Mr Nichols could have submitted his resignation from the Commonwealth Public Service at any time up to the effective date of his dismissal from the Service, viz., 24th January 1969. However, I am advised by the Public Service Board that once the dismissal certificate became effective he could no longer terminate his employment by resignation.
  5. See answer to 4.

page 888

QUESTION

AVIATION

(Question No. 1030)

Senator DEVITT:
through Senator O’Byrne

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

  1. ls there serious and growing concern on the part of responsible organisations and individuals in Tasmania referred to in the ‘Examiner’ of 20th March 1969 regarding inadequacies and general shortcomings of commercial air services to and from that State?
  2. Will the Minister cause an immediate inquiry to be made to ascertain the nature and extent of these criticisms?
  3. If inquiries prove these complaints to be valid will the Minister require the airlines which enjoy substantial Government backing and protection to lake steps to meet these criticisms by improving their services in the interests of the travelling public of this country?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The Minister for Civil Aviation has received representations from interested public bodies concerning the air service pattern to and from. Tasmania.
  2. Following a visit by the ‘ Minister for Civil Aviation to Tasmania in February 1969 he arranged consultation between the Department of Civil Aviation and the two major airlines with a view to achieving an improvement in the pattern of services available to the residents of Tasmania.
  3. Following these consultations the airlines have reached an agreement whereby commencing 1st June 1969 the airlines will double the direct evening flights from Melbourne to Hobart from four to eight services a week and introduce four direct early morning flights from Hobart to Melbourne. These arrangements will continue until 30th September 1969 and prior to this time the airlines will consult with a view to seeing whether any further improvements in the air service pattern to Tasmania are possible.

page 888

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

(Question No. 1031)

Senator DITTMER:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice:

  1. In 1968, (a) how many appeals were made to the Entitlement Appeals” Tribunals, (b) how many appeals were successful, (c) how many were unsuccessful, and (d) how does the percentage of successful’ appeals compare with those in each of the preceding 5 years?
  2. In 1968, (a) how many appeals were made to the Assessment Appeals Tribunals for T.P.I, pensions, (b) how many appeals were successful, (c) how many were unsuccessful, and (d) how does the percentage of successful appeals compare with those in each of the preceding 5 years?
Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

Statistics of appeals to Entitlement and Assessment Appeal Tribunals are published annually on a financial year basis in the annual reports of the Repatriation Commission. Actual numbers of successful and unsuccessful appeals in this reply are taken from the Commission’s annual report for 1967-68, and the percentages are based on figures for that and the preceding 5 years. Because there is necessarily some overlap in dealing with appeals, i.e., those lodged towards the’ end of one financial year are not dealt with until the following year, the numbers and percentages cover the appeals actually heard in each financial year. The relevant information is as follows:

Entitlement Appeal Tribunals - Of 9,651 appeals heard in 1967-68 1,564 were allowed and 8,087 were disallowed. The percentage of appeals allowed was 16.2. The comparable percentage in each of the preceding 3 years was as follows:

  1. Assessment Appeal Tribunals - Statistics are not kept which show the information sought by the honourable senator. In practice pensioners appeal against their current pension assessment, rather than appeal for an increase to a particular level.

However, it may assist if I indicate that of a total of 11,534 appeals heard during 1967-68, 6,086 were allowed and 5,448 disallowed. The percentage of appeals allowed was 52.8. The comparable percentage in each of the preceding 5 years was as follows:

page 889

QUESTION

CUSTOMS STAMPS

(Question No. 1058)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

Have any Customs ‘Passed’ stamps and Customs wax seal stamps, numbered in sequence, been found to be missing from any section of the Department in Sydney?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

Since federation, a number of these stamps have been reported missing. The last muster in 1968 in New South Wales revealed that three ‘passed’ stamps and one wax seal stamp were missing since the previous muster. The search for these stamps is continuing.

Passed’ stamps and Customs wax seal stamps are subject to periodic muster to ensure their safekeeping.

I point out for the honourable senator’s information that the ‘passed* stamp has no legal significance and is used purely as an administrative device.

As specified in section 39 of the Customs Act. the legal requirement is that the Collector shall place on the entry the word ‘passed’ and add thereto his signature. The stamp has no validity without the signature being added.

The wax seal stamps are used mainly for the sealing of samples and occasionally for the sealing of doors, of hatchways, etc. They have no relation to the Customs Seal, specified in section 13 of the Customs Act which has a particular legal significance.

page 889

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

(Question No. 1064)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

In connection with the charges laid against the twenty officers of the Department charged under section 55 of the Public Service Act with improper conduct, what action, if any, was taken by the Department or the Public Serive Board against any of the superior officers responsible for administration of the particular branches?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

None. Extensive inquiries indicated that none of the superior officers concerned was considered to have committed an offence under the Public Service Act.

page 889

QUESTION

AVIATION

(Question No. 1070)

Senator DEVITT (through Senator

O’Byrne) asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

In view of the fact that other airlines around the world have off peak concession fare systems operating what is delaying a decision on the application by Trans-Australia Airlines to provide such a scheme in Australia for which it sought authorisation many months ago?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

In the answer to question No. 819 which was along similar lines to this question, it was advised that a Reference was before the Rationalisation Committee relating to fare concessions and that this was unresolved. The last report of the Minister for Civil Aviation to Parliament referred to this matter and also mentioned that questions of this nature are always hard to resolve unless it is clear that a net increase in revenue will result in this relatively marginal industry.

The airlines have had discussions on this matter but the situation has not changed significantly from that indicated above.

page 889

QUESTION

UNITED STATES NAVIGATIONAL SYSTEM STATION

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Earlier today Senator Murphy asked me a follow-up question in relation to the navigation system known as Omega. I have looked at the answer that I gave on this subject on 19th March and at this stage I have no further information. However, I shall certainly instigate further inquiries today. On that occasion the concluding sentence of my answer was in these terms:

As no formal request that such a station should be established in Australia has been received at this stage, no decision has been reached on whether a station will be established in Tasmania or anywhere else in Australia. 1 shall deal with the other implications of his question in a considered reply.

page 890

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 27th March in replying to a question asked by Senator Kennelly I indicated that J would obtain casualty figures for the Services in Vietnam. Details as al 1 1th April 1969 for all Services are:

page 890

COMMONWEALTH FIRE BOARD

Report of Public Accounts Committee

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– As ViceChairman, 1 present the one hundred and sixth report of the Public Accounts Committee which relates to the Commonwealth Fire Board. Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) - There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator FITZGERALD:

– Honourable senators will recall that in the one hundred and fifth report which was presented on 20th March, your Committee stated that, arising from the fire at the naval establishment at Nowra in December 1967, it had reviewed the arrangements of the Commonwealth Fire Board and proposed to present a separate report on the matter. This report relates to the Commonwealth Fire Board.

The evidence tendered shows that since 1909 the Commonwealth, to the greatest extent possible, has acted as its own insurer for all property under its control. When that policy was adopted a Commonwealth Fire Board was established but was abolished in 1930 due to a reduction that occurred in Commonwealth building activity. It was not until 1946 that a Fire Board was reappointed. The evidence also shows that since its re-establishment the’ Fire Board has relied to a large extent upon the delegation of its work, particularly to the Department of Works which has a responsibility for the maintenance of Commonwealth property. We were disturbed to learn,, however, that adequacy and effectiveness survey reports prepared by the Department of Works are not forwarded, as a matter of course, to the Fire Board for examination.

Since 1963 the Fire Board lias engaged in interstate visits to improve its liaison with State fire-fighting authorities and to inspect Commonwealth buildings. Your Committee believes that the Fire Board should plan its own interstate inspections rather than rely mainly for this purpose on the Commonwealth Directors of Works located in the Slates. We also believe that these programmes should include the re-inspection of buildings where the Board has previously discovered sub-standard fire protection features.

A further matter arising from the evidence is the need for the relationships between the Fire Board and. Commonwealth statutory authorities to be clarified. In this regard we believe that where the Fire Board inspects a building occupied by such an authority it should, without fail, tender a report on its inspection to that authority. So far as the fire that occurred at Nowra is concerned, your Committee believes that, consistent with the requirements of Treasury Direction 33/11, the Department of the Navy should have advised the Fire Board of the value of the loss incurred, when that loss had- been assessed. We further believe that when- the Chairman of the Fire Board discovered from other sources the value of the loss that had occurred at Nowra he should have sought confirmation of the figure involved from the Department of the Navy for inclusion in the Fire Board’s report for 1967-68.

Your Committee’s examination of the annual reports of the Fire Board shows that these reports relate each year to information reported by departments during that year rather than to the fires that occurred in that year. We believe that this is unsatisfactory and that the basis on which the Board’s reports are compiled should be reviewed. Your Committee also believes that the reports of the Fire Board should be furnished to the Minister for presentation to the Parliament, a practice which has not been followed in the past.

In its report your Committee has made several recommendations which, on the evidence, it believes would improve greatly the effectiveness of the Fire Board in the public interest. Under its present arrangements, however, the Fire Board is advisory in nature and lacks any form of statutory authority. Your Committee believes that, if the need for such an advisory body exists, consideration should be given to the reconstitution of the Board with clearly stated responsibilities. I commend the report to honourable senators.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 891

SCHOLARSHIPS BILL 1969

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The main purpose of this Bill is to provide a basis in legislation for the five major scholarship schemes under which the Government makes awards to students in schools, technical colleges, colleges of advanced education, universities and similar institutions. These are Commonwealth schemes for post-graduate awards, university scholarships, advanced education scholarships, technical scholarships, and secondary scholarships. At present only the first three of these schemes, that is the schemes at the tertiary level, are covered under the Commonwealth Scholarships and Awards Regulations drawn up under the Education Act. The technical and secondary scholarships schemes have been handled on an administrative basis under ministerial direction.

The Bill also repeals the Education Act 1945-66, thereby formally abolishing the Commonwealth Office of Education and the Commonwealth Scholarships Board. Honourable senators will know that when the Department of Education and Science was established at the end of 1966, it embraced most of the functions of the former Education Division of the Prime Minister’s Department which included the Commonwealth Office of Education. The present step therefore completes the formal arrangements of transforming that Division into the Department. These arrangements have applied in practice since the Department was set up.

The Commonwealth Scholarships Board has, however, continued to function, but in accordance with provisions under existing legislation - the Commonwealth Scholarships and Awards Regulations - has had responsibilities in respect of the tertiary schemes of scholarships only and has been subject to ministerial direction. Whilst the Scholarships Board is to be abolished, the Minister has undertaken to examine what other arrangements might be made so that the Government may continue to receive advice on specific matters affecting assistance to students.

I would like now to run briefly through the Bill drawing attention to its main parts. Clauses 1 to 4 are largely formal, and include the repeal of the Education Act. Clauses 5 to 9 outline the kinds of scholarships and the institutions in which they may be held. In addition to normal publicity, approved institutions will be notified in the Commonwealth ‘Gazette’. These clauses also provide for regulations dealing with the conditions under which scholarships are to be granted, for example, on such questions as conditions of eligibility and methods of selection. Clauses 10 to 17 deal with scholarship benefits. Clauses 11 to 14, in particular, outline the kind of benefits for each class of scholarship. The amount of the benefits and any conditions of payment will be outlined in regulations. Clause 18 deals with approvals, directions and determinations of the Minister and provides, in view of the discretion to be left with the Minister on certain matters, for the Minister to notify his decisions in an appropriate way.

Clause 19 outlines arrangements for delegation. Clause 20 provides for the presentation of an annual report to Parliament on the operation of the Act. Clause 21 covers transitional provisions for existing scholarship holders so that they will continue to receive their entitlements. Clause 22 provides for the making of regulations under the Act.

In framing the legislation, the question of the extent of ministerial responsibility and discretion has received a great deal of attention. The Government recognises the arguments in favour of an adequate framework of legislation, and the Bill has made provision for regulations in all important respects. But, if unreasonable treatment and possible hardship in individual cases are to be avoided, a measure of ministerial discretion must be preserved by the legislation.

As honourable senators appreciate, the scholarship schemes form a very significant and long-standing part of the Government’s activities in the field of education. This year some 56,000 students hold Commonwealth scholarships under the five schemes. In 1969, 24,150 new scholarships were offered. Estimated expenditure in the current financial year on the scholarship schemes is $28.9m, compared with expenditure of $l2.7m in 1964-65. Without further changes in rates or conditions expenditure is expected to rise to nearly $35m by 1971- 72. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cohen) adjourned.

page 892

PUBLIC SERVICE ARBITRATION BILL 1969

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 16 April (vide page 874).

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I have not yet restated the position taken by the Opposition. Although I have already canvassed the reasons why the Opposition was opposed to the proposals which we seek to amend, think I should state them again. Our intention is to delete the provisions which seek to limit the scope of the deputy arbitrator. We feel that he should be allowed to proceed with any matter which has been put to him, and to determine it. As honourable senators know, clause 8 of the Bill relates to a proposed new section 12A of the principal Act. Proposed sub-section (3.) is the one which offends the point of view of the Opposition. It reads:

Before determining a claim, application or matter referred to him under this section, a Deputy Arbitrator shall consult with the Arbitrator as to the determination that he proposes to make and, if the Arbitrator does not concur with the proposed determination, the Arbitrator shall withdraw the reference and shall, after such further hearing (if any) as he thinks necessary, himself determine the claim, application or matter.

The amendments which I have proposed all relate to this main question. We submit to the Senate that the deputy arbitrator would be a qualified person. Many of the persons holding this position would have had experience in this particular category themselves. The chances are that even though they had not served in the Public Service on this type of work they would be people experienced in this field and would be qualified to make a judgment, lt is now proposed that, having had given to him the task of settling some matter or hearing some application, and, having arrived at a certain judgment, the deputy arbitrator must arrange for a consultation with the arbitrator and it is provided that, before, the decision can become effective, the arbitrator must concur with the opinion of the deputy arbitrator. 1 have already mentioned the references by the Public Service Board in its reports to its intention, when evaluating a number of new wage standards, to have regard to certain special matters. I have also referred to the emphasis placed by the Board in its report for 1963-64 on bringing the question of work value into some perspective by having regard to certain factors when evaluating certain positions. Under the Government’s proposal, a deputy arbitrator could have completed the hearing of a matter relating to classifications and could have made up his mind as to what the decision should be but, unless the arbitrator concurred with his point of view, the whole matter could be abandoned or prevented from developing in the normal way. Under the Government’s proposal, it will be possible for the arbitrator to say: ‘I am going to have a complete new hearing.’ Honourable senators will note that proposed new sub-section (3.) reads:

  1. . if the Arbitrator does not concur with the proposed determination, the Arbitrator shall withdraw the reference and “shall, after such further hearing (if any) as he thinks necessary, himself determine the claim, application or matter.

That is a very tight provision. The arbitrator has imposed upon him an obligation to make sure that there is a general move towards this consistency about which the Minister speaks. 1 would point out that although the Government says that there has to be some consistency, the Public Service Arbitration Act imposes upon the arbitrator an obligation to make up his own mind about matters. He is not bound by any principles of consistency under that Act. Section 13 (I.) of the Public Service Arbitration Act contains this provision relating to the obligations of conciliation and arbitration commissioners and judges: lu relation lo every claim or application made to him in pursuance of this Act, the Arbitrator shall act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case . . .

The balance of the provision relates to technicalities. Now we have a situation in which, in addition to being required to observe certain principles, the arbitrator has imposed upon him some notional requirement by the Government that he must observe consistency as between classifications.

The Government says that its proposals are necessary to make the Public Service industrial system work, but it will be remembered that f have already pointed out that the Public Service Board’s reports disclose that there are many occasions on which the Board is forced to depart from these sorts of standards and make specific evaluations and assess classifications on their merits. Frequently on these occasions the Board gets away from the consistency principle. For these reasons we submit that the proposed provisions should be deleted and we have submitted the appropriate amendments.

What is proposed by the Government does not accord with the best principles of industrial practice. I and many other honourable senators on this side of the chamber as well as many other people on the employers’ side who have had some experience of industrial matters know that quite frequently one of the greatest obstacles to settling industrial disputes quickly is the fact that the parties concerned do not submit the problem to the people who can make a determination. If frustration and delay are to be avoided it is essential that the approach be made to those who have the authority to settle disputes, wages claims or even formal matters. The unions and staff associations become dissatisfied, as they are in the Public Service today, when they cannot get quickly to the person who can determine matters. The system proposed by the Government in this legislation, in my opinion, means that there will be a lack of confidence in the system. The unions and staff associations will say: ‘It is no good going to the deputy arbitrator because when we have presuaded him that our case is a good one and he has come down on our side the Arbitrator may decide to act himself. In fact, the Arbitrator has to act himself if he does not agree with a proposed determination. He has to say: “That is the end of it. We will start anew. I will make a new determination’. He may make his own evaluation without even a hearing.

Last night 1 mentioned that the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the High Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations had put this point of view to the Government. 1 quote the following from a letter Mr Souter wrote to me in answer to our inquiries:

The ACTU has had conferences with the High Council of Public Service Unions and ACSPA. . . .

One specific objection which is raised by the ACTU refers to section 12A(3.) containing the provision that before determining a claim, application or matter referred lo the Deputy Arbitrator under this section the Deputy Arbitrator shall consult with the Arbitrator as to the determination he proposes to make and, if the Arbitrator does not concur with the proposed determination, the Arbitrator shall withdraw the reference and shall, after such further hearing (if any) as he thinks necessary, himself determine the claim, application or matter. This, in the trade union view, is an unwarranted exercise which can only lead lo procrastination and delay in the settlement of the claims before the Public Service Arbitrator.

Then Mr Souter refers to another problem, namely, the question of retrospectivity. We recognise that the Bill contains some improvement in relation to retrospectivity. But this is what the trade unions say:

It is the practice, and in many cases a rigid policy, of the Public Service Board to refuse retrospective operation and, as you arc aware, the dale of operation has customarily been that the determination would take effect from a date upon which the Arbitrator makes the determination, provided it is not disapproved by Parliament. Therefore, should an arbitrator have the power to withdraw a reference and compel further hearing, which in all practical sense would require a

Rearing de novo, this of necessity would be justice denied by delaying the finality of the claim in dispute.

What the trade unions say is that whatever progress is intended towards meeting the complaints made over the years about the retrospective operation of determinations - something that has operated in outside industry and industrial practice generally in recent years - this Bill sustains a situation that can lead to continuing complaints.

They are the main complaints of the trade unions. This Bill is an effort to make improvements to the Act which are long overdue. There are fairly heavy complaints from sections of the Public Service staff associations about long delays. Despite what the Minister has said, and what I have read in the reports of the Public Service Board about the large number of consent determinations, a number of cases take too long to determine. For these reasons we believe that our amendments are necessary. Therefore, I ask the Government to consider them again.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

’- Senator Bishop has given us notice of five amendments. The substance of them is contained in the two that relate to page 5 of the Bill. Therefore, I suggest to the Committee that it would be convenient for. the first two amendments to be put in order to determine the acceptance or rejection of the proposal. As Senator Bishop has indicated, the proposal is to leave out sub-section (3.) of proposed section 12a. That sub-section provides:

Before determining a claim, application or matter referred to him under this section, a Deputy Arbitrator shall consult with the Arbitrator as to the determination that he proposes to make and, if the Arbitrator does not concur with the proposed determination, the Arbitrator shall withdraw the reference and shall, after such further hearing (if any) as he thinks necessary, himself determine the claim, application or matter.

It is a fact that section IS of the principal Act provided for assistance to the Arbitrator by means of an assistant whose function was not to make an award but to report to the Arbitrator. We are now putting forward a proposal that the assistance to the Arbitrator should be not by means of an assistant but by means of deputy arbitrators in such number as the Government appoints from time to time according to the demand of business. The deputy arbitrator’s function is not to report to the principal Arbitrator but to make the award himself after consultation with the principal Arbitrator.

It is surprising that after a period of experience of not less than 10 years, I believe, there has been no complaint of the nature to which Senator Bishop has referred; that is, a complaint directed to the way in which the system of having an assistant to the Arbitrator has worked. It is highly imaginary to suggest that any development such as Senator Bishop envisages would occur; that is, that a hearing before a deputy arbitrator would be completely frustrated by the principal Arbitrator saying: ‘That can all go by the board. I will start a rehearing from the beginning and disregard what has happened before.’ I submit that the Opposition’s argument in criticism of the mechanism provided does less than justice to the improvement that is involved in the Government’s proposal, under which the deputy arbitrators have power not merely to report to the Arbitrator but to make the award themselves after consultation with the principal Arbitrator.

Why should there be any such consul- ‘tation? Everybody acknowledges that the appointees to the positions of deputy arbitrator will be experienced persons in this regard. It would be less than proper if the appointments to these positions were made on any basis other than independence. The importance of their office is acknowledged by the fact that they will have statutory appointments for at least 7 years. So their experience and independence are assured by the legislation.

The second reading speech states that the Public Service now involves about a quarter of a million personnel, or about 6% of the Australian work force. I would be surprised in the ultimate degree if Senator Bishop or any of his colleagues advanced the suggestion that industrial equity and industrial peace would not be threatened by inconsistent awards. I suggest that sectional, inconsistent, unequal awards would be the chief generator of industrial unrest and discontent. This has been an acknowledged principle of administration in the field of private arbitration which is presided over by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission under the Conciliation and

Arbitration Act. There are a number of commissioners, and by reason of the diversity of the industries to which they are attached we have one commissioner operating in a number of industries that are nominated as his responsibility, with provision for appeal to the Commission itself, so as to ensure consistency.

Here we do not have a number of industries. We have a whole variety of classifications numbering upwards of 1,000 in various activities of the Commonwealth Public Service. It would be completely impracticable to attach any specified sections of that Service to Deputy Public Service Arbitrator A or to Deputy Public Service Arbitrator B, or to the Arbitrator. It would not only be impracticable but it would also frustrate that degree of flexibility and usefulness that we wish to get from the appointment of a number of arbitrators. 1 do suggest to Senator Bishop that on reflection he will feel that the mechanism that he suggests of three independent arbitrators, without that obligation to consult, and with me statutory authority to issue independent awards unqualified, would not run with the degree of effectiveness that can be obtained from a system whereby, by arrangement between the three arbitrators, when a dispute occurs in a particular section, Arbitrator A can be asked to take over the dispute, hear it, and then after consultation with the principal Arbitrator, make an award. It is suggested that the system would involve the possibility that the Arbitrator would say: ‘No, I disagree with you. Your work has been futile. The hearing in which the parties have been engaged has been rendered completely without effect. I will start a new hearing.’ That position in administration would be reached only in unforeseeable circumstances.

Senator Little:

– Probably it would be necessary-

Senator WRIGHT:

– Never.

Senator Little:

– It would be necessary if it went that far.

Senator WRIGHT:

– If we got a completely intransigent person in the form of a deputy arbitrator, in whom had developed, unfortunately some element of unsoundness of mind and he insisted on exercising and abusing authority, that may be the position, but in the normal run of sensible business the principal Arbitrator would never in commonsense take over a hearing, render a previous hearing futile, and substitute himself without cause. The power is there for reference to him by the deputy arbitrator by way of consultation, which would consist of matters of detail, to enable consistency to be assured, arid certainly would never be a holus-bolus displacement and rendering futile a previous hearing. The principal Arbitrator would have to be on extremely sound ground before he would render futile a co-ordinate officer of the status of a deputy arbitrator. As I pointed out, the requirement for a co-ordinated approach k not novel. In the general arbitration system the co-ordination is provided by way of appeal. Therefore I would urge that the Committee should on reflection accept this mechanism as a great improvement and not press for the amendment that Senator Bishop has put to us.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I just cannot agree with what Senator Wright is putting up. There is no intent or prescription in the Arbitration Act that there shall be consistency. All that is being argued by the Government is that ‘ a consistent approach to industrial matters is a good approach. The Minister has used an argument that is used in outside industry, that is, that if we do not have a consistent treatment of kindred grades with ‘ related work structures we create dissatisfaction. This is true. The second point argued by the Minister is that conciliation ‘commissioners in the field of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act are in a different position in that their work can be related to particular assignments which have something in common. If the Government accepts the principle that it is good to have commissioners determining disputes and applications for wages and conditions as they do in relation to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, it is possible to apply the same principle in relation to the Public Service Act, because it is possible under this Act to relate classes of work.

The Public Service Board itself has already done a lot of this work. If we read its 1967-68 report and previous reports we find that it has grouped workers in various classifications into related categories. It has simplified the system, so it is possible for one deputy arbitrator to be assigned to a particular sort of work. The difference between what Senator Wright is arguing and what the legislation provides is that the latter is mandatory. It does not say that a deputy arbitrator has to confer before he makes a determination. We know that in the arbitration field commissioners and conciliators have regular conferences, as one would expect. Private employers and their representatives in industry have regular consultations about arbitration trends and history in relation to cases, and they reach uniformity in somewhat the same way as do unions, which meet regularly in regard to applications to courts. The position could be the same with deputy arbitrators. As I pointed out, under proposed sub-section 12a (3.) the Arbitrator must not only concur in the proposed determination but also, if he does not concur he must withdraw the reference and, after such further hearing, if any. as he thinks necessary, he must himself determine the claim. So he is the final arbiter, it is possible to start off completely anew.

Senator McClelland:

– De novo.

Senator BISHOP:

– Yes, even though the Deputy Arbitrator, as Senator Wright has said, is a qualified person. Under clause15 of the Act it has been possible for many years -I think since about 1952 - for the Arbitrator to refer any claim or application submitted to him under the Act, or any matter arising out of the claim or application to a person authorised by the GovernorGeneral in that behalf for investigation and report. He may delegate to that person such of his powers, other than the power to determine the claim or application, as he deems desirable. The Arbitrator may. on the report, with or without hearing further evidence or argument, or both, determine the claim or application. That is the old system. That was necessary and found to be workable when the Public Service was smaller, when most of the classification were of clerical grades or administrative officers or managers, but it is certainly not the situation which fits the modern Public Service with all of the newly enrolled technical and professional people who require a more specialised system of arbitration, as the Government obviously appreciates.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator BISHOP:

– Before the suspension of the sitting I was dealing with what I believed to be answers to the points raised by the Minister. I referred to the strong prescription contained in the proposed new section 12a (3.) which makes it mandatory for the Arbitrator to do certain things which I believe to be wrong. Even if the Government and the Public Service Arbitrator felt that there ought to be some agreement on the principle that a deputy arbitrator should be guided by the Arbitrator, the prescription is much too rigid and should be modified. I have made the additional point that the real argument for the sort of legislation which is being introduced lies in the fact that there should be a general conformity of standards.

  1. have mentioned before that in respect of Public Service classifications and evaluations of work there is still a great deal of scope for evaluation of individual categories - individual classifications. The proposed legislation may mean that a Public Service Arbitrator is not fulfilling his correct function by adhering to a uniform pattern. I wish to quote from the report for 1966-67 of the Public Service Board. It states at page 18 in dealing with a review of the pay rate structure:

Without denying the reality of the factors which in the course of time have produced the preexisting pay relationships, the Board considers that in the handling of pay claims it should examine the category concerned in its own right and ensure that its decisions reflect the current and prospective situation.

The Public Service Board states at page 19 of its report for 1967-68:

In determining rates of pay for each employment group, the Board therefore pays due regard to the information available to it on rates paid by other employers in the market for comparable work. It has, however, to be recognised that -

For certain groups in the Commonwealth Service there is no suitable outside counterpart group with which appropriate pay comparisons can be made.

All relevant information on pay rates paid elsewhere in the community is not always available.

All relevantinformation on duties, responsibilities and organisation of the ‘outside’ positions is not always available.

The circumstances which led to the fixation of certain outside pay rates may not necessarily apply to the Commonwealth Service.

Commonsense and experience have shown that in respect of many Public Service classifications it is impossible to adopt a uniform standard or to try to relate them to a standard commonly accepted outside the Public Service. The Arbitrator and deputy arbitrators must employ their skills and, on the evidence submitted, make a determination. The point we make is that after a deputy arbitrator has heard the evidence and submissions he is still handicapped in that he makes his judgment having regard to the motivations pronounced upon in the Board’s report. The Arbitrator may decide for personal reasons - I hope not, but it is open to him - to decide not to agree with a determination. This could lead to general dissatisfaction, due to the policy of the Government that there ought to be consistency. For these reasons we are not convinced about the provision for a very tight prescription in the legislation. This should be relaxed, even if the Government wants some acceptance of consistency.

The CHAIRMAN:

-(Senator Drake-Brockman).- I point out to the Committee that Senator Bishop sought leave of the Committee to take his five amendments together. Senator Wright has suggested that perhaps to take the first two amendments together would be a wiser procedure. There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Senator BISHOP:

– I now move:

  1. In clause 8, in proposed section 12a (2.), leave out ‘Subject to the next succeeding subsection’.
  2. In clause 8. in proposed section 12a, leave out proposed sub-section (3.).

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Bishop’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator T. C. Drake-Brockman)

AYES: 23

NOES: 28

Majority . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause 10.

Section 14 of the Principal Act is amended - (a)……

Clause 12.

After section 15 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: - 15aa. - (1.) …….. “ (4.) Sub-section (3.) of section twelve of this Act applies in relation to the determination under this section by a Deputy Arbitrator of a matter or part of a matter to which section twelve of this Act applies as if the matter or part of a matter had been referred to that Deputy Arbitrator under sub-section (1.) of section twelveAof this Act.

Clause 13.

Section 15a of the Principal Act is amended -

” (7.)……

(8.) In relation to the determination under the last preceding sub-section of a claim, application or matter to which section twelve of this Act applies - (a)……

Amendments (by Senator Bishop) negatived:

In clause 10, proposed new sub-section (1A.) of section 14. leave out ‘Subject to sub-section (3.) of section twelve a of this Act’.

In clause 12, in proposed section15aa leave out proposed sub-section (4.).

In clause 13, leave out paragraph (b) of proposed new sub-section (8.).

Remainder of Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Wright) read a third time.

page 898

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION BILL 1969

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 20 March (vide page 524), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 898

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1969

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 20 March (vide page 524), oh motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in theaffirmative.

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

page 898

OFFICERS’ RIGHTS DECLARATION BILL 1969

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 20 March (vide page 525), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 898

SUPERANNUATION BILL 1969

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 20 March (vide page 525). on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 898

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL (No. 2) 1969

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 March (vide page 692), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– This Bill purports to provide for an increase in the number of judicial members of the Commonwealth Industrial Court. This is a matter of considerable consequence, although the Bill is rather short. The adequate and proper complementing of the judicial offices of the community is of very great importance. Due to the development of the federal judicial system, this appointment has new significance, as has been pointed out in another place.It is common knowledge now that it is intended to establish a new area of federal judicial jurisdiction which will embrace many of the matters now coming before the High Court. A considerable burden will be taken from the High Court. At present members of the Commonwealth Industrial Court operate within a confined jurisdiction, although their services arc made available for many other purposes. As we know. Mr Justice Spicer. the President of the Court, on a number of occasions has conducted judicial inquiries. He inquired into the Voyager’ disaster, for instance, and into a major air crash in Queensland. Justices of the Commonwealth Industrial Court also preside over courts of the Australian Capital Territory. Therefore the term ‘Industrial Court’ is to some extent a misnomerinsofar as the duties of members of the Court extend quite beyond the area encompassed by the title of the Court itself. The genesis of the Commonwealth Industrial Court, as distinct from the former judicial arbitral commission, was in the boilermakers case in the High Court. As a result of that case there was a severance of the judicial and arbitral functions of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court.

Appointment to federal courts is amatter of consequence to the States. It is amatter of very grave regret, andI think it is not good for the community generally, that out federal courts are in large measure composed of justices taken from a limited number of States. This may be accidental. It may be because of the availability of suitable professional personnel to staff the courts. But at present the High Court of Australia has a preponderance - almost exclusive membership - of members from New South Wales. It has only one member from Victoria. There are no members from any of the other States. This court cannot be properly constituted merely on a State basis. I agree that that would be a completely improper way of constituting it. Nevertheless, as the superior court in Australia it is in large measure entrusted with responsibilities for the whole nation, and other things being equal, it is desirable that there should be, as far as possible, representation on the High Court bench from all States.

This brings us to the question of the availability of suitable personnel. 1 have mentioned the High Court of Australia. I include in the same context any federal court such as the Commonwealth Industrial Court or the proposed new federal secondary court or court of appeal. It may be that because counsel in some States are not frequently briefed in matters heard by the Commonwealth courts there does not emerge in those States a pool of trained, professional men suitable for appointment to those courts. But at this stage I make a plea for a greater dispersal of Commonwealth constitutional work throughout the various bars of Australia. Already we know that due to the trend in business aggregations counsel in the larger States, where these aggregations are controlled, acquire a certain professional competence in areas of litigation involving these business enterprises that may not be available to those in other States. A professional group tends to develop which has limited opportunities for judicial appointment to or preferment for the Commonwealth Industrial Court. With the extended jurisdictions I hope that the principle I. have enunciated will be kept in mind and that as far as possible the federal courts will reflect the various interests of our society and of the individual States. After all, problems arise which, while not peculiar to particular States, are more intense in one State than in another, and persons appointed to a federal court from a particular State, with a knowledge of background within that State, could be of immeasurable value to the court. Even though it is overall a judicial body, nevertheless in the new context it becomes a tribunal also of fact.

So, Mr Deputy President, we welcome the appointment of an adequate number of judicial officers. It is particularly important in proceedings in the field of industrial arbitration and industrial law that justice should not only be readily available but should be exact. Perhaps of those two things the emphasis should be on availability. We hear many criticisms about delays in courts, but we know how assiduous judicial officers can be in the performance of their duties. Those of us who stand close to the administration of the courts realise that the burdens on the judiciary are very many and very heavy. Members of the judiciary form a dedicated body of public officers. We know that it is almost impossible for the laity outside to estimate the real technical demands imposed on the judiciary by the nature of their work. What may appear to be a matter of little consequence that could be handled briefly and quickly may be something which in the field of professional competence may require a great deal of skill and a great deal of consideration. This applies in the field of civil and criminal law, but no less relevantly in the field of industrial law. As our society becomes more complex and the components in it multiply, as our relationships become more complex, so indubitably the legal consequences of the application of awards and of master and servant relationships, and of the relationship between public authorities and bodies of organised labour, will become more complex and more demanding and will require a constant application of the judicial mind at the highest possible level and with the greatest possible speed.

I congratulate the Government on showing awareness of these implications; firstly in the creation of the new federal court and, secondly, in increasing the number of judicial officers in the Commonwealth Industrial Court. These things are a reflection of our extending and developing community, and we only hope that the federal courts, in their personnel, will reflect the whole community. 1 do think it would be of tremendous benefit to the professional practitioners in the various States if they could see that the avenues of promotion to the superior courts were available equally to all and that there was no discrimination because of a lack of professional opportunity which circumstances may have forced upon them over the years, ff that is kept in mind, I think we can expect - and most importantly in the field of industrial law- - a greater opportunity for all States to be represented.

One of the disabilities from which a State may well suffer in this matter of appointments to the Commonwealth Industrial Court or the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission may be that in that State federal awards do not prevail to any great extent. Labour and management may operate substantially under State awards. The practitioners there may well not get the practice before the Commonwealth Industrial Court or the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that they need except in isolated, unusual and sporadic instances. This is a matter that needs to be taken into account. I do not think practitioners should be in any sense denied the opportunity of proceeding to the Commonwealth Industrial Court bench simply because their practice has been substantially before the State arbitration tribunals. While the actual practice may be different, the principles would be essentially the same.

I do not venture these opinions in any critical sense, nor do I suggest that what J have claimed could operate to the disadvantage of a State has occurred to any great degree. 1 merely raise counsels of caution which I trust the Minister at the table, the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) will - as I am sure he will’ - take heed of to ensure that the courts, in the wider sense, and particularly the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the Commonwealth Industrial Court, enjoy the benefit of the services of people from as many States as possible. That is a vital principle in industrial law. If the courts reflect by personnel, by background, by professional competence and in every other way the community as a whole, the courts are much more likely to be effective in the important task that they are called upon to discharge. We support the Bill.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I want briefly to indicate that the Australian Labor Party intends to oppose the

Bill because we are not prepared to see any increase in the number of judges who would bc acting on what we call the punishing court. That is the term used in the trade union movement in reference to the Commonwealth Industrial Court. SenatorByrne has talked very broadly about the Commonwealth conciliation and arbitration system, but I believe that we must have regard to the two forms of conciliation and arbitration which have developed in Australia. Unfortunately, in recent years the Industrial Court, which is part of the arbitration system, has become much too active in dealing with proceedings which are punitive in nature against trade unions which have acted in the ordinary and just application of their mission in the economy. We can see no reason why this avenue of the activities of the Court should be increased. In fact, we suggest that the reverse should be the case.

It is our contention that with a proper examination by the Government’s own agency, the Department of Labour and National Service, in conjunction with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and employers, great benefit could be achieved through negotiation without in any way limiting the activities of the Industrial Court. This has happened in the past. I refer to what took place from 1962 to 1964 when the ACTU, on behalf of the trade union movement, persuaded the Government that there should be a relaxation of the punitive clauses of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. After wide discussions between the parties the Government introduced improvements to the legislation with relation to the sanctions clauses.

We believe that in’ Australia the penal powers of the Industrial Court are relied upon too much to the exclusion of negotiations. We feel that the Court should not be engaged to the extent that it is engaged on applications which concern purely the exercise of punitive powers against the union movement. For many years the fines imposed on the trade union movement have grown and, generally, have been met by the unions, until in very recent months when some of the unions decided to test whether the validity of the Act could be successfully challenged in this respect. I am a great advocate of the system of negotiations which has been developed by the ACTU, lt is my view that the activities of the Industrial Court should be minimised as much as possible, other than in respect of proceedings which relate to specific matters of organisations of employers or employees. It should not be dealing with matters concerning the normal pursuit of claims for increased wages or improved conditions which are matters which ought to be solved by conciliation.

Unfortunately, too quickly issues between employers and unions come to a deadlock and are taken to the Industrial Court when they might easily have been the subject of conciliation. For these general reasons we feel that there should be some rearrangement of the present officers of the Court in the discharge of their duties and that there should be an endeavour to use the machinery provided in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act for conciliation to a greater extent than if is now used. We believe that the sanctions which are applied by the employers against trade unions by resort to the Industrial Court should be minimised as much as possible.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– This Bill provides an opportunity to discuss the circumstances in which a new appointee to the Commonwealth Industrial Court will be called upon to operate. It gives me the opportunity to mention a matter to which Senator Bishop referred to a degree and a matter which has been brought to my notice by a number of trade unions which nobody could accuse of being Communist sponsored or extreme in their views. I shall refer to matters which have been brought to my notice by a number of persons who have had experience of the Commonwealth Industrial Court and who are very concerned about the manner in which the powers to which Senator Bishop referred are being employed at the present time.

It has been pointed out to me that there has been a very considerable increase in the number of cases coming before the Commonwealth Industrial Court under section 109 of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which refers to an order not to take part in strike action, and to cases under section 111, which relates to contempt of court arising from a failure to observe an order made under section 109 of the Act. In present circumstances this is rather a topical question. The increase in cases applied particularly in regard to unions operating under the Metal Trades Award which for many years has had a bans clause in it. I am informed that under section 1 16 of the Act the Commonwealth Industrial Court is empowered to make such orders as it thinks fit in regard to the costs of proceedings coming before it.

It is the invariable practice of the Court to award costs against the union or unions concerned whenever it makes an order under either of the sections, apart from an adjournment order under section 109. In section 109 proceedings the employer will join in the same proceedings all unions against which a section 109 order is sought. In contempt proceedings brought under section 1 1 1 this arrangement is not followed; it is necessary for separate proceedings to be taken against each individual union and, in addition, separate proceedings must be taken against the same union in each day of any protracted stoppage. The position is, therefore, that if a section 109 order is made against four unions and those four unions stop work for 5 days, the employer issues twenty lots of documents under section 111. As I have said, the Court invariably grants costs against the respondent, which invariably means the unions. The awarded costs are costs to be taxed and the scale of costs is virtually that prescribed in the High Court Rules. For ordinary section 109 proceedings taken in Melbourne the cost would be between $400 and $500 on average. It is understood that in Sydney the costs are usually higher. This is quite a serious thing for a union.

Senator Greenwood:

– But the union must be in default before the order is made. That is relevant, I think.

Senator McMANUS:

– I shall make my speech and then Senator Greenwood may comment on it at a later stage. Usually agreement is reached as to the amount of costs to be paid by the unions without going through the procedure of taxing those costs. By and large, where several’ matters are heard together, even in section 1 1 1 proceedings, a compromise is reached, although strictly speaking each matter is entitled to be costed separately. The position reached its absurd peak over the national stoppage of the metal trades unions on 6th February 1968. About ten matters were disposed of by the Court in Sydney in about 2 hours of sitting, yet the barrister appearing for the employer, so it is understood, claimed $130 on each brief. 1 can understand Senator Greenwood being sensitive on that point. That charge, in my view, is ridiculous, particularly when it is realised that there have been so many cases of this nature before the Industrial Court over so many years that, with very few exceptions, the disposition of the Court is known in advance and the task of the employers’ legal representative no longer requires any special skill. Despite this, without exception, the employers always brief a barrister, even though the unions usually have their secretary or industrial officer conducting their case.

Senator Greenwood:

– Not always.

Senator McMANUS:

– Usually, 1 said. That would be another term for ‘not always’, J take it. In the case of the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia in Melbourne, the union’s sol’icitor usually appears. If Senator Greenwood prefers ‘not always’ then I shall say ‘not always’. The original purpose of sections 109 and 1 1 1 has been lost. I agree to a large extent with Senator Bishop on that. The report of parliamentary proceedings covering the introduction of these sections discloses that it was the intention to use them only in very special circumstances. These days in many cases it is obvious that an employer has recourse to them as a first step in industrial management when an industrial dispute arises. The court invariably grants an order or adjourns the case for a period of 6 months with the right of either party to bring it on on 48 hours notice. Either way, the employer is placed immediately in a distinct advantage in negotiations, whether it be over the matter that prompted him to go to the court or some other matter that crops up in the meantime.

It cannot be denied that there are cases where the employer does go to the court as a last resort. However it is a common union view that the Act should be amended to provide that no order as to costs should be made against the respondent in either section 109 or section 111 proceedings where the employer rushes to court without exhausting negotiations and other means of settling the dispute. The fact that he will have to outlay money for the privilege may deter him, but if it does not then he should have to pay for the privilege. On the other hand where the employer feels that because of the seriousness of the position, he has no alternative but to go to the court it is likely that he will consider the cost of the proceedings justified.

Whenever the court has been told that section 1.09 carries with it a penalty, this is invariably corrected with the statement that all the court does- is to give an injunction against striking and so on, but the true penalty argument is that the costs awarded against the union in the giving of the injunction constitute a very considerable monetary penalty and the existence of an injunction immediately places the unions at a disadvantage in subsequent negotiations on a matter of dispute which may arise during the period in which the injunction applies. Under section 111 the court may impose a monetary penalty of up to $1,000 in respect of each offence. In contempt proceedings in other jurisdictions an offending party is not saddled with costs as though the proceedings were civil proceedings contested by two parties.

Senator Wright:

– What contempt proceedings have you in mind when you say that in other jurisdictions contempt proceedings do not involve costs?

Senator McMANUS:

– In this case I am quoting representations which have been made to me. 1 am not an expert in these matters but 1 will inquire from those who have been making representations to me what particular cases they had in mind.

Senator Wright:

– Whenever a newspaper is up for contempt invariably costs are dealt with by the court and the defaulter pays.

Senator McMANUS:

– But in other cases 1 presume that would not apply.

Senator Wright:

– I do not know what other contempt proceedings are in mind.

Senator McMANUS:

– I will endeavour to obtain further information on that point. Some time ago, as Senator Bishop said, the Government took some action in regard to these matters and regulations were introduced purporting to limit the awarding of costs. However the court is directed not to award costs except where action is taken under section 109 (i) (b) alone. Only one such application, as far as is known, has been made to the court in the past 6 or 7 years, and that was a long time ago. In all other regards the court has a discretion and when the matter has been raised the court has decided without difficulty that costs would be awarded against the respondent.

Naturally this is a very tender topic at present when we have had some strikes and cases where the employers have taken the action indicated. 1 do not think that we should legislate for periods of crisis. When representations are made, as they have been made to me. by people on behalf of trade unions which have a reputation for conducting themselves in a reasonable and sensible way and with regard to the welfare of the community, notice should be taken of their representations. I hope, therefore, that as a result of what has been said the Government will take a look at this question of costs because at the present time it is regarded as a serious defect in the Act, not by the extremists and So on for whom I have no brief but by trade unions which are reputable, decent organisations and which claim that it is a barrier to the effective confidence of trade unions in the system of arbitration.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– 1 have the feeling that much of what has been said by Senator Bishop and Senator McManus relates to a situation in the conciliation and arbitration field which centres upon an attitude and an approach which are not altogether the attitude and the approach adopted today. I feel that much of what Senator McManus has had to say referred to the desirability of the legislation under which the conciliation and arbitration procedures operate being sufficiently flexible, and the tribunal officers being vested with a discretion under it so that what is often regarded as the necessary consequence of costs awarded against an unsuccessful parly may be varied in those cases where it can be shown that the conciliation procedures have not been fully exploited. I think that was the essence of what he was saying and 1, for my part, have a great deal of sympathy with him.

In our industrial set-up the greatest emphasis must be placed upon conciliation, upon negotiation and upon the various antagonistic parlies coming together and endeavouring to resolve their problems without someone standing over them and saying: ‘You have not resolved your problems. This must be the result’. Unless that process has been tried and all the avenues open have been exhausted, I feel it is proper that if one or other of the contesting parties seeks arbitration thai party should seek it at its own expense. If section 116 of the Act as interpreted does not give sufficient discretion to the tribunal, I would hope that the Minister would look at the section and make it quite clear that it is the intention of this Parliament that there should be a discretion exercisable by the judges of the court and that they take account of whether the conciliation processes have been exhausted fully before they make an award as to costs.

However having said that, I feel that one must have regard to the procedures which the Act at present permits. Paragraph (a) of section 109 of the Act to Which Senator McManus referred empowers the court: to order compliance with an award proved to the satisfaction of the court to have been broken or not observed.

In paragraph (b) the court is empowered: to enjoin an organisation or person from committing or continuing a contravention of this Act or a breach or non-observance of an award.

If a court makes such orders as those to which 1 have just referred and a union contemplates continuing in defiance of the court order, then the contempt provisions come into operation. Of course when the contempt provisions come into operation the court has the power to fine and the power to award costs. But. of necessity, a great deal of negotiation must occur before that position is reached because before a provision in an award is proved to have been broken or not observed there must have been some discussion about the terms of the award, lt is not, as I understand it, the common practice for an award made upon the settlement of an industrial dispute to contain clauses which thereafter may be somewhat defiantly broken by one or the other of the parties to that award. I. am not saying that this does not happen; I am saying it is not always the case that it happens.

Often the position arises that, because there is a situation which involves a strike by employees within the industry, the employer seeks to have inserted a clause which would enjoin that union not to go out on strike. Before such a ban can be inserted in the award there are of necessity discussions which the Conciliation Commissioner causes to occur. There is then the opportunity for common sense to prevail. Often the parties are not prepared to see what we hope would be common sense and it is usually in those circumstances thai the Commissioner, on cause being shown to him, considers it appropriate to insert a bans clause. Up to that stage there has been some negotiation and discussion. If the clause is imposed and thereafter a union is in breach of that clause, the facilities offered by section 1 09 and 111 are able to be utilised by the employer. Therefore I suggest that there has been at all stages cause for reflection by a union as to whether it desires to proceed with a course which, to its own knowledge, because it is aware of the provisions of this Act, must lead to the imposition of an order, a fine and inevitably some costs.

I think that this is the other side of the picture painted by Senator McManus. While we have a situation which, in a compromising sort of way and in a somewhat unique and Australian way, seeks to combine the direct action, which we are all loath to say shall never occur, with the arbitral and conciliation procedures which are part of Australia’s industrial history, we may have the particular problems to which reference has been made. We cannot avoid these problems and it is a matter of the willingness of parties to recognise that this is the sine qua non if the system is to be able to continue and provide the benefits which over a long time it has been recognised that it can provide.

Of course, it is in this context and against this background that this Bill proposes some small changes in the composition of the Industrial Court. I think it is important that the Court be strengthened and that it should have the numbers of people - interested and commonsense lawyers - who will apply the powers which they have with discretion and with a sense of the function they are exercising. I hope that above all else these things will be recognised as important considerations when the appointments are made.

I sense that this will be a year in which industrial strife, strikes and disputes of one character or another will be seen to be on the increase. These disputes may well be due. in some degree, to problems which are a part of our system and which in the ordinary course will require to be resolved.

But quite apart from this - and I concede that they are bound to occur - there are those disputes which are not at all categorised as industrial disputes having a genuine basis but rather are disputes which are Fostered in order to provide the occasion for an assault upon our’ industrial arbitration system. 1 do not care to go into those matters which were debated in the other chamber yesterday but we have seen instances in which law and order are set at nought and an attempt is made to denigrate the guardians of law and order so that there will be created a situation in which public confidence is lessened in” the persons required to see that law is respected. I was interested to read, in this context of the industrial sphere, what was written by Mr Sam Lipski in the ‘Australian’ on Wednesday, 26th February this year. Mr Lipski wrote a series of articles on the face of Communism in Australia. In the third of those articles he referred to the position as he saw it with regard to Communist activity in industrial matters in 1969. He said:

Without their influence in the trade union movement the Communists would have even less power than the scientologists.’ This comment came from a right-wing industrial observer emphasising the crucial importance of the struggle for control of the ACTU which is now going on and which will reach a peak at the biennial congress in Sydney next September.

The assessment is exaggerated. Even without their trade union strength the Communists would still have some ideological influence on the left among some intellectuals and politicians.

But the general point is valid. The CPA is worth considering seriously as a political force largely, if not only, because of the quite disproportionate strength it can muster in the trade unions.

Whatever the internal wranglings over Czechoslovakia, there is agreement in the party that 1969 is, in the words of Laurie Aarons, ‘the year of industrial showdown.’ In a series of articles in Tribune last month, remarkable for their directness, leading party figures made it clear that their tactics for 1969 will be:

An escalation of strike activity throughout the union movement.

A militant attack on the arbitration system aimed at its destruction.

Special emphasis on white-collar union involvement in strike action.

Embroiling of moderate unions in ‘joint action’.

The article continues: 11 the strikes which have occurred already in 1969 are any indication, then the prediction for the rest of the year seems quite accurate. These tactics are aimed at the ACTU congress in September when the Communists hope lo confirm and extend their present .influence on the ACTU executive.

That article was written in February this year. Of course, in light of what the author said about strike activity, we recall that there were strikes not only of railway workers but also amongst certain workers in the aircraft industry. Of course, we are at the present time threatened with a stoppage not, it would appear, because of any dispute between employer and employee over matters traditionally regarded as fields of dissension and disputation and, ultimately, resolution between employer and employee, but because there is a difference of opinion between unions as to what fields of activity each has the right to engage in, as recognised over the years. Because of that sort of activity and because there is involved in it a denial of the authority of the industrial arbitration and conciliation system that wc have, there is to be a strike which is going to cause a tremendous amount of inconvenience and maybe suffering to the people of Australia. I searched out to the extent that I was able the sources upon which Mr Lipski had relied for his article. I think it is relevant to look at the Tribune’, which is a Communist Party paper-

Senator Cormack:

– ls that the one which is Marxist-Leninist, or the other?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I do not think it matters. I think it is probably not the one which is Marxist-Leninist, but the other. 1 think it was the issue of 22nd January 1969. Certainly, it was issued in January of this year. In it, Mr Aarons, who is Secretary of the Communist Party of Australia said, under the heading: ‘The Stage is Cleared for A Showdown’:

An industrial show-down is looming this year. The employer-arbitration-government power structure is determined on pushing through its economic strategy, enforced by the penal powers.

There was then a statement which, in the event, has been shown to be wrong, that the Federal Cabinet has decided on legislation to bring the Public Service union under the penal powers. Of course, the legislation which was before this chamber recently did not have any such provision in it. The article continues:

Penal legislation against strikes is creeping authoritarianism which has already cost the unions millions of dollars in fines and robbed workers of hundreds of millions of wage increases that have been converted into super-profits for the monopolies.

I stop there to say that this is a statement which I am quite confident could not be demonstrated to be correct. If, as is suggested, the workers have been denied hundreds of millions of dollars in wage increases, that is not because of the penal power or any part of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act; it is because of the action of the unionists themselves. If the issue upon which they are fighting is regarded by them as sufficiently strong, then they will regard that sacrifice as a worthy sacrifice for the benefits they will get. But I suggest that practice has- demonstrated that they never recover what they have lost, and the reason they never recover is that invariably the issue upon which they strike is not one which is devoted to utilising the power they have for the ends which they are seeking in the way which is best fitted to achieve those ends. The article continues:

This authoritarianism is the immediate and dangerous threat to civil liberties, lt must be resisted by the union movement and all democratic movements and groupings. 1 would have thought that this is a clear indication that the policy which the author is suggesting should be followed is resistance by the union movement and all other democratic movements to the existence and exercise of any penal powers in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The article, at a later stage, continues:

Workers are looking for a new policy now that the deadlock is broken on the ACTU Executive. If a firm stand is taken now, when-

I ask the Senate to note that the word is when’ and not ‘if - a new tide of industrial action is on the flood, the Government’s bluff can bc called. For there is a large element of bluff in the penal powers. Unjust legislation like this is only able to intimidate if it is accepted or even tolerated. Boldly confronted, it can be beaten.

The article concluded:

The whole arbitration concept is based on integrating the unions into the Capitalist system. A new stage of industrial struggle may emerge in which the arbitration system itself is challenged.

  1. invite the Minister in this chamber and the Minister whom he represents to recognise that much of what is occurring on the industrial front today is not industrial dissension which is flowing from genuine disputation as to the rewards for and conditions of employment. There is always, of course, some element of genuine dispute over emoluments and conditions of employment, but these aspects are slight when set alongside the real objective and purpose of those who are engaging in many of these disputes.

It is recognised that these elements, which can be broadly categorised as Communist left wing or common front forces have as one of their targets the overthrow of the arbitration system in this country. Implicit in the overthrow of the arbitration system is the overthrow of law and order in one field in which, if lawlessness or the law of the jungle were to prevail, then the basic securities and the basic protections and all the advantages which this offers the community can be set at naught and made of no value.

Senator Bishop:

– Would you say that is the position in the United States of America? The punitive system is operating there and that position does not obtain.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am not prepared to draw analogies with the American system with which I am not conversant. I am reluctant to draw any international comparisons because I think that what has developed in Australia is a unique system which I think can be described as typically Australian. It has involved a lot of suffering and hardship in the past by many people, tout it has a value and is recognised an having had its benefits. 1 feel that a basic Australian idea of what is fair has underlined and motivated much of what has occurred and I do hot think that element prevails amongst many of these people today. I certainly do not want by what I have been saying to categorise every person who has been engaged in industrial action on behalf of his members as being tarred with the brush that I am wielding today. But so many of the actions which have been taken have been taken for the object of securing the political advantage of overthrowing the industrial arbitration system.

I would hope that at some stage the Government will test to the full, in an appropriate case, these penal powers which the Arbitration Act does impose upon the court. If a court exercises those powers, I hope the Government will lend its support to the principle that law and order must prevail. I think the procedures which the Act lays down do provide for conciliation and negotiation.

Senator Bishop:

– In some countries where industrial strife obtains to the point of straightout srike, for example in the United States, that is not accepted as a challenge to the general law and order of the community. There, strikes obtain until they are settled.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I would think that Senator Bishop would probably be right in the isolated instance which occurs from time to time, but I do not want to say that it must always be right even in those cases. I can appreciate the thinking behind what he is saying, but my point is that when you have a’ concerted attempt by groupings to bring down the arbitration system - and these people have made public what they are trying to do - then I think that when they say the penal powers of the arbitration system are a bluff they themselves are bluffing and their bluff should be called. 1 think that basically, if the Australian people are faced with a recognition of what is involved, then the Australian people will accept some inconvenience in order that there shall be established what they regard as vital and important. If the situation then arose, I would hope that the whole force of Government and the whole of the resources of the Government would be available to minimise the inconvenience.

Senator Ormonde:

– In a different way, though.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– lt depends on the way it is done, as Senator Ormonde says. He will well remember that, when the occasion so required, a government that he supported was prepared to take that action. It was not always prepared to take action of that sort; but in a particular case, when there was a challenge to taw and order and an invitation to go to the law of the jungle - I think those were Mr Chifley’s words - Mr Chifley was prepared to utilise all the resources of government to protect the arbitration system.

I believe that in the light of what is disclosed by those who would seek to overthrow the arbitration system we may be reaching the point at which the Government will be required to show the same fortitude. I hope that if it does see that that is what has to be done it will lose no opportunity to utilise all the publicity media at its disposal to show the people of Australia not only that it is prepared to act but also the basic reasons why it considers it has to act. This is part of the context in which this matter comes before the Senate. It is significant that this matter comes at this stage because it enables senators to give consideration to what should be looming large in their minds as vital1 issues.

Senator ORMONDE:
New South Wales

– 1 do not think Senator Greenwood made a very good contribution to the debate

On this Bill. He made a nice speech, but it could well have been left for a time when we had an all-round discussion on arbitration, i believe that we are well and truly due for an all-round parl’iamentary discussion on arbitration. 1 want to talk about the Bill. I will not speak for very long. My conflict with the Bill is that the appointment of extra judges or arbitrators will not effect much change unless the arbitration tribunals of various kinds keep closer to where the action is.

The art of having industrial1 peace is to stop friction and disputes arising. That will not happen if a judge or arbitrator is hundreds of miles away from the scene of the action, if he has no method of knowing what is happening until a strike occurs, or if he cannot see, for instance, that containerisation is and will be the cause of disputes now and in the hear future, irrespective of what some fellow called Lipski has said about the Communist influence in the struggle of the trade unions. Every judge should know the problems that face the unions.

Senator Wright:

– But the judge in the case to which the honourable senator is referring ruled on the dispute 4 or 5 weeks ago.

Senator ORMONDE:

– I know that. But we should have a department continually working these things out and keeping itself informed on what is happening. Senator McManus was trying to get to the point but not making it. Too many people run away with the idea that industrial peace is a union responsibility alone and that disputes cannot be nipped in the bud. That is not so. I trust that I will be pardoned for going back to my mining and union experience. I agree that when the industrial crisis occurred Mr Chifley did what Senator Greenwood said he did. But he also did something else. The nation wanted coal. It was agreed between the unions, the government and the employers-

Senator Wright:

– I thought the honourable senator said that he would talk on the Bill.

Senator ORMONDE:

– I intend to talk on the Bill, although nobody else has done so.

I am having only 10 minutes, whereas other people have had half an hour.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Cormack) - Order! I am allowing the honourable senator proper latitude.

Senator ORMONDE:

– Let me refer to something which was part of the arbitration system at that time and which probably is still part of it but is never used. When there was a dispute in a mine the workers could not go out on strike until they brought the matter in dispute before the miners’ lodge as a body. Then, if a settlement could not be arrived at with the government’s approval, the matter in dispute was left in abeyance, the men went to work, a conciliation committee was called into being and the men involved were kept on the payroll. If the Committee thought that there was an argument worth discussing or that the men had a genuine reason for being in dispute, it did not call in the federal arbitration tribunal; the matter was discussed at the conciliation committee level and the men were kept on the payroll.

Senator Wright:

– And they kept working.

Senator ORMONDE:

– Yes, of course. The coal kept coming out. That was the attitude right through the industry. The difference between then and now is that then the nation wanted coal and the employers and the government wanted it. So they provided the machinery to get it. In those days there was never a big strike because, with 40 or 50 mines spread all over Australia, the disputes were settled at the minehead. Senator Lacey will remember these things happening in the industry. It was impossible for men to strike. Men do not really want to have general strikes. Senator Greenwood probably thinks they do, but they do not. They want to avoid these issues. I would like the Senate to take note of what happened then. It is not so very long ago that it happened. I believe that the same thing should happen today. I cannot see why it cannot happen today.

To an extent, the Government has done this sort of thing in the stevedoring industry. I am not saying that the Government has not done good things in relation to these matters.

Senator Dittmer:

– It has wrecked tha waterfront industry.

Senator ORMONDE:

– I am not prepared to say that. I am only speaking of my experience with the Miners Federation and the colliery proprietors organisation. They were equally involved in these things. For instance, mine workers always went home and had 2 days off when somebody was killed in a mine. That was a regular occurrence. Plenty of people were killed in mines. Every time somebody was killed the mine workers had a day off for the accident and a day off for the funeral. So the colliery proprietors, the Federation and the government subsidised those men to stay at work. The mine workers were told: ‘You stay at work and we will meet the cost of the burial of the person who has been killed’. That was the atmosphere in the industry then. Conciliation worked. One of the reasons for the success of that scheme was that the settlement took place where the action was or where most troubles occur, namely, on the job. The result was that we got the coal production that we wanted. If we can forget for the moment the 1949 dispute about which Senator Greenwood spoke and on which we could have another discussion-

Senator Little:

– lt was not a dispute at all, it was a political plot.

Senator ORMONDE:

– That is how it turned out, but it started off as a dispute. The honourable senator sees it only as a Communist issue, but at first it was not a Communist issue. It started off as a dispute. Had the dispute been settled there would have been no 1949 strike. But nobody was able to deal with the dispute at the base. That is the basis of my disagreement with the present arbitration system. It does not get to the heart of things quickly enough. lt ought to know about the causes of strikes. After all, a committee considered the subject of containerisation for 6 months, examining the issue and what was involved in it. I do not know how much time it gave to the industrial side, but this should have been discussed. This court ought to know all about it and it ought to know where every demarcation dispute could take place. I referred to the financing of settlements of disputes in the mining industry so that they would not develop into big disputes. The same sort of thing could be applied on the waterfront and to transport workers and to any other people involved in demarcation disputes over containerisation.

If these new developments such as mechanisation are to take place quickly and if new methods of industrial production are to continue, the Government ought to be really up with them. I have seen officers belonging to the Department of Labour and National Service running around trying to settle strikes after they occur. They could have equally well run round before the strikes started, but they never do. We could well do with a Judge Foster on the court today. He was a man who really understood what made the workers tick and what made trade unions tick. We have such a man, in a sense, in Judge Gallagher. He does that sort of thing. He is trying to stop a dispute at the moment. He is out on a boat on the high seas, examining the conditions under which men are working because he knows that there is a dispute pending. Whether or not he settles it on the ship, he will be correctly informed so that he will be able to do the job.

Senator Greenwood:

– With all of the publicity attending his visit to the ship, do you think that he gets the true picture in those circumstances?

Senator ORMONDE:

– -If he had been brought up on straight anti-Communism, attributing to the Communists every little reform that is fought for in the trade union movement - which is a habit of honourable senators opposite - he would not do any good. If he knows that the men are all sensible people who want to work and do not want trouble, he will get a following and the men wilt know that they will get a sympathetic hearing when the matter comes before the court. That is what he is striving to do. I think he could do with a bit of assistance from a man like Judge Foster. I remember him well. He did understand and he had a great record in the court. I can see no reason why the courts and the judges could not be completely informed of any dispute that is to occur, why it is to occur and what they can do about it. They should have all of this knowledge at their fingertips before a dispute starts instead of afterwards. The courts are too far away from where the action is. The courts should start to get where the action is - not on the employers’ side, because surely to goodness the employers ought to be well-informed. They know all about it. They have been preparing for containerisation for years and know exactly what will happen. They know how many men they will have on the wharves and how many transport workers. Why do they not tell the men and give them advanced knowledge?

Senator Greenwood:

– Why do not the union secretaries do some homework themselves?

Senator ORMONDE:

– They do plenty. Their homework is principally trying to correct mistakes made by the employers. Reference has been made to briefed lawyers today. I agree with Senator McManus that there are many union secretaries who are equally as capable. He was talking about penalties and the salaries of judges and legal men who attend as attorneys. Generally speaking, union secretaries arc wellinformed, but if they could say to their members: ‘We are guaranteed a sympathetic hearing in this court’ there would be much more chance of having success than if they had to start all1 over again, restamping the papers and rereading the briefs. The containerisation argument at the moment is that containerisation is lowering the cost of production for one section and making it impossible for another section to get work. These two issues should be brought into harmony if one can harmonise two opposites. Something should be done. We on this side want containerisation just as do honourable senators opposite and the employers and most unions, but the unions want it brought about in an orderly way. They do not want their members to be thrown into the melting pot without, notice, and that has happened largely. All of the knowledge that they had that something was to happen in their industry was from reports about the committee inquiring into containerisation and new ships that were being built. The subject of human relations has not been touched at all and that is where great mistakes are being made. Arbitration courts, as well as being custodians of the laws regarding industrial conditions, ought to be human relations courts.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– The speech to which we have been treated by Senator Ormonde deserves only the comment that it illustrates how wise it is that legislators or parliamentarians should not meddle with the solution of industrial disputes. I intend to abstain entirely from any reference that may from any quarter be taken as designed to generate a dispute. Senator Byrne, when he led this debate, was completely pertinent to the Bill. He offered to the Senate some observations that merited real thought. He reminded us that the Bill was one to increase the membership not of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or the number of commissioners, but of the bench of the enforcement court, the Industrial Court. I share with Senator Byrne the view that those who recruit that bench should seek from all quarters of the Commonwealth where competence within the profession lies the best judges, with special wisdom in industrial matters if possible, lt is hoped that it will be kept in mind that not merely Sydney or Melbourne provides people who would qualify on those conditions. I can say these things, having passed any stage of possible personal application.

The honourable senator referred to the fact that the name of the Industrial Court was really now a misnomer, because there had been added to the judges who constitute the court, in particular a heavy territorial jurisdiction in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, where the range of cases is as wide as the law itself. There are other specialised jurisdictions such as the restrictive trade practices court, in which two of these judges have special responsibility, and the copyright tribunal in which the Chief Judge has special responsibility. Senator Byrne made an observation that we would all do well to ponder. This was with regard to the relationship between this court and State courts, because insofar as this court unloads the High Court of Australia of generalised jurisdiction or specialised jurisdiction it is likely to take over part of the burden that at present is the responsibility of the State courts. It is not for me to indicate any viewpoint but I. remind the Senate that there are cogent observations from the greatest judge that we have bad in the English speaking world in our time, Sir Owen Dixon, urging strongly that this division between State and Federal courts should never occur. He said that there should be a uniformity of judiciary within the country and that a divergence between State and Federal judiciary is a circumstance of no use at all to the administration of justice.

Senator Bishop followed in this debate and indicated that the Australian Labor Parly would oppose this Bill because it is opposed to an increase in the numbers on the bench of the Commonwealth Industrial Court, to which he was good enough to refer as the ‘punishment court’. T appeal again to Senator Bishop, as I did yesterday, to consider the responsibility that bears upon each one of us with regard to industrial matters today. I remind him of the particular problems besetting the Prime Minister of Great Britain and his Government. He has realised after 3 or 4 years of government that constant and useless industrial dissension is bringing Great Britain to her knees in respect of her industrial life and international trade. So much is that so that the most recent news would lead one to believe that the United Kingdom Government is prepared to stake its existence on registering a degree of control by the law over industrial activity. That is the first point I make to Senator Bishop.

The second point I wish to make is that in establishing a system of arbitration, it is not possible to make that system work effectively unless ‘ there is an ultimate tribunal that can set a penalty for non-compliance with the industrial law. That brings me to refer to Senator McManus’s speech. He was good enough to tell us that in speaking he relied chiefly upon representations made to him. 1 wish to address myself very thoughtfully to Senator McManus’s remarks on this matter. I think they deserve close consideration. He reminded us that section 116 of the Act gives to the Commonwealth Industrial Court a discretionary authority which is almost invariably given to courts, to order that the appropriate party in proceedings before a court should pay the costs of those proceedings. Other legal systems do not take the view that that is an essential part of justice, but the British system of justice has always considered that justice would be defeated unless the unsuccessful party were liable to pay the costs of the successful party in the proceedings. So we proceed upon the basis that when an award is sought to settle an industrial dispute - which is no: a court proceeding but an arbitral proceeding - the costs of each parly are his own responsibility. But when an award has been made and action has been taken by any party bound by the award - whether an organisation of employers or of employees - the Commonwealth Industrial Court comes face to face with a situation of enforcement.

This Parliament several years ago conferred upon the Commonwealth Industrial Court in section 109 of the Act a power not to punish or imprison but a power to order compliance with an award or to issue an injunction against an organisation forbidding it to break an award. So that far from our making it possible for any party peremptorily to go before the Court and ask for an order or an injunction accompanied by costs, we hearkened to representations made by the meaningful and purposeful unions as long ago as 1965 and inserted in the Act provisions to ensure that before an injunction is granted the Court must be satisfied that the arbitral side of the Commission has been notified of the breach in respect of which an order or injunction is sought; and further, the notification must have been given by the complaining party without delay. Then, unless a dispute is likely to occur within 10 days no party can succeed in getting an injunction under section 109 unless he can show that 14 days have elapsed.

The procedure is provided whereby a party threatened with loss in an industrial dispute does not get absolute access immediately to the Commonwealth Industrial Court. He can go to the Commonwealth Industrial Court onl’y if he has notified the conciliation and arbitration side of the Commission that there is a job for that side to do, and if he can satisfy the Court that after knowing of the imminence of the dispute he did not wait and d illy dally. He can succeed before the Commonwealth Industrial Court only if he satisfies the Court that he notified the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission without delay of the imminence of a dispute so as to ensure that the conciliators and arbitrators would have the most adequate opportunity permitted by the circumstances for them to bring into force the processes of conciliation and arbitration.

If those conditions are not complied with, what is to be done next other than asking the Court for an enforcement order, either that the party shall obey the award or shall not disobey the award? If an order to that effect is obtained Parliament has gone so far as to provide in regulations which accompanied the provision I have mentioned that a party who goes before the Court shall not get an order for costs unless he establishes to the Court’s satisfaction thai he notified the conciliators and arbitrators without delay, or satisfies the Court that he had no possible opportunity to do anything because a dispute was likely to occur and he had to come before the Court. But Parliament went further than that and said that any costs that the successful parties were permitted to recover in conformity with those conditions should be qualified further. An unprecedented provision was made limiting the- amount of costs. Parliament set a provision that is without precedent in any court of justice, that costs should not include the fees of more than one counsel unless the Court certified it to be a case proper for the employment of two counsel.

Senator Bishop:

– Does the Minister not agree that it was an improvement on the excess which occurred with the former Act?

Senator WRIGHT:

– I remind the honourable senator that these provisions were included in the legislation 4 years ago and that there is no longer any foundation for a purposeful and meaningful union to complain if there is a breach of an award and a proper concomitant of that breach is that it has to pay the cost of bringing any party before the Industrial Court to get an injunction or an order to obey the award.

In the interests of honourable senators 1 will go further into the history of this matter. Firstly, we have been told that the cost of these proceedings normally amounts to $300 or $400. How does that compare with the loss suffered by the undertaking involved in the strike? The loss to the undertaking against which the strike is directed is 100 times that figure or more. When a combination of employers is involved the loss multiplies. Ever since the Taff Vale case in the United Kingdom and the subsequent Liberal political campaign of 1906 which modified the position even further, a person damnified by industrial disruption cannot claim civil compensation, although it was demonstrated in the Hersey case that under

Australian law an employer can recover civil compensation in such circumstances. But it is the almost unvarying experience that the employer abstains from the enforcement of that civil liability. So, I say in all earnestness: What is $300 or $400 as a concomitant to an order that one shall obey an award compared with a $300,000 or $400,000 loss in production because of an industrial strike?

Senator Greenwood contributed to the debate matters that I think we should all thoughtfully ponder. The view I understood him to be maintaining was that we should be discriminating in our acceptance of criticism of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the arbitration system. It is possible that at present there is a fairly widely established campaign directed not to justice for the workers through industrial tribunals but to destruction of the system. All quarters of the Senate will acknowledge that the arbitration system has been an instrument which has greatly improved the terms and conditions of employment of the average Australian. Those who are attacking the arbitration system may be attacking it because it deprives them of a field of agitation, dissention and disruption. Therefore, I think that there is great merit in any argument which asks us to be selective in our criticism of the present arbitration system.

T have spoken longer than 1 usually do in reply. I have done so firstly out of deference to the thoughtful contributions that have been addressed to me and, secondly, because 1 did not appreciate that there is a great demand upon our time to go on with other matters - certainly matters that are not more important than the ones that the Senate has been debating this afternoon. 1 hope that the Senate will accept the Bill.

Question put: “That the Bil) be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 912

RAW COTTON BOUNTY BILL 1969

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 April (vide page 776), on motion by Senator SCOTT:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– This Bill is designed to extend the payment of a Commonwealth bounty on raw cotton production for a further 3-year period. The bounty for this year is $4m, for next year it will be S3m and for 1971 it will $2m. The bounty will be discontinued after 1971. The Opposition is of the opinion that the Government is taking a retrograde step with regard to this new but very important industry of cotton growing in Australia, and the Opposition intends to move an amendment in the following terms:

Leave out all words after ‘That’ - insert: the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide -

for the payment of a bounty of $4m on total production of raw cotton for the year commencing on 1st March 1969;

for an immediate review of the economic position of the raw cotton industry with the object of providing adequate financial assistance to those areas which are still in need of a bounty, and which have not yet had time to become established viable economic units, such as the Ord Rivet and the Queensland irrigation areas; and

that special financial payments to assist the developing areas to become established viable economic units be implemented within section 96 of the Constitution’.

We believe that the Government is adopting a very short-sighted policy on the production of raw cotton. In the debate in the other place members of the Country Party, with the exception of the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Ian Allan), who has a very close interest in the matter because the very successful Namoi area is situated within his electorate, did not speak in defence of the Bill Not one honourable member from Western Australia and, apart from the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson), not one honourable member from Queensland spoke in defence of the cotton growing interests in those States. The position has arisen where, by good fortune, by enterprise and by many other circumstances, in a very short period of time - virtually in the last 5 years - it has been established that sufficient cotton can be produced in one area to supply our domestic needs of a particular staple and of particular varieties of cotton. The need to import other varieties still exists.

I say this is a short-sighted policy because I bel’ieve the Government has overlooked the fact that the cotton-growing industry traditionally is a component in the process of the production of clothing. Geographically we are in the South East Asia area. We are part of, contiguous to and adjoining the biggest aggregation of population in the world, where a thousand million people have their eyes on the future when they will be able to afford clothes of the type that are made from cotton. We have a potential market in Japan, which is the biggest producer of cotton goods in the world. All these factors provide an incentive to the Australian cotton grower and to the Australian Government to produce with a view to supplying these markets. After all, trade is the lifeblood of any nation. We are fortunate to have a commodity which will always be in demand on the world market and particularly on the Asian market. A sudden discontinuation of the incentive that has enabled the industry to export cotton of a high standard as well1 as supply the domestic market could have a very serious effect on the future of the industry. Even a phasing out over 3 years could have a serious effect.

Many factors have gone into the success of the industry. In this chamber 1 have often stated that most of our problems of production come from our lack of sufficient rainfall of a steady and regular nature. Australia is one of the driest continents in the world. The raw cotton industry was one industry that perhaps lagged because potential cotton growing land did not respond to the ordinary irregular rainfall1. As a result of the intelligent application of research, of soil analysis and of other factors made possible by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, areas such as the Namoi were found to be immensely suitable for the production of raw cotton. The New South Wales Government saw fit to build a dam on the Namoi River. This dam admirably lent itself to irrigation projects. The history of the production of cotton in the Namoi area is a dramatic story.

I turn now to the other areas that grow cotton. I have often heard the subject of the future of the Ord River scheme in Western Australia discussed in the Senate. To see far enough into the future to envisage the population of Western Australia multiplied 10 or 20-fold is only a matter of stretching the imagination to a very small degree. We all know of the very rapid development of mineral resources, of the discovery of oil, and of the setting up of secondary industries such as the nitrogenous fertiliser industry and industries connected with the by-products of oil. Countless mineral deposits are readily available in many scattered areas of Western Australia. They will certainly contribute to a very rapid increase in the population of Western Australia. In turn, Western Australia will have its own internal needs among its primary producers, but will, also gain advantage from the fact that it is 2,000 miles west of the eastern seaboard of Australia, that fertile part of Australia which has been the traditional source of exports of our primary products. But in addition Western Australia has an advant age of 2,000 miles in supplying Africa and other areas to the north through Indonesia, as well as Mediterranean countries.

Anyone who discounts the importance of products such as those produced on the Ord River is taking a very parochial and narrow view. I believe that any project that has as its basis the conservation of water should be given the fullest encouragement by the Senate. South Australians have been pleading with the Commonwealth Government for the construction of the Chowilla dam in South Australia. The arguments that have been raised against the building of the dam have been of a technical nature, but the fact is that although a considerable amount of money has been spent on construction work at Chowilla, priority has been given to the construction of a dam further up the river. Nevertheless, we cannot gainsay the argument that South Australia has in favour of the construction of the Chowilla dam. Perhaps with a more generous and farsighted government policy we will one clay see not only the Chowilla dam but also a series of dams right along the River Murray and the Mumimbidgee River supplying irrigation areas which will have a value in building up our production of primary products.

But in particular I direct my remarks to the Ord River project which will be one of the main sufferers from the policy outlined in the proposed legislation. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony), speaking in another place said in reference to the Ord River:

A survey was carried out by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics which disclosed a certain net farm income for the farmers of the Namoi area where from 70% to 80% of Australia’s total production of cotton is grown. The physical and financial data were obtained from a total of 1S4 cotton producers and the sample I have been given represents some 75% of growers who planted more than 20 acres of cotton in 1966-67.

Here we have a responsible Minister trying to make a point based on 154 cotton producers who produce 70% to 80% of Australia’s total production of cotton. To me that seems a very risky basis on which to consider this very important industry. The Minister continued:

The largest individual raw cotton producer in New South Wales was omitted from the survey results as being atypical. This was the Auscot: organisation which is a very big producer in the

Namoi. If we look at the figures we see that the net farm income for the 3-year period was $69,767. The bounty content was $41,340.

The Minister argued that the taxpayer was paying a bounty of $41,000 to these producers. lt is all very well for the Minister to make these comparisons. The soil in the Namoi area is fresh and new and is getting full benefit from the application of trace elements and the various chemicals that have been found to be successful in the growing of cotton. Producers in that area have also had the advantage of a water conservation scheme which was in the area before they ever went there, in addition to which the bonanza which the Namoi area has turned out to be was not expected. The bounty that was paid on the production was a great incentive to them. The producers from that area had an unlimited domestic market . which they pursued very successfully.

In referring to the net income derived by 154 cotton producers the Minister failed to state that the Government taxes that income so that the producers would lose to the Government 40% or more of their earnings. Apparently what the Government is doing is to subsidise a new and growing industry to the stage where it is able to supply a domestic market but then is taking back the subsidy in the form of taxation, the effect of that being, that the growers have developed this great industry virtually for nothing. But what has been done, and for which no provision is being made under this legislation, is to take into consideration the plight of growers on the Ord River and in Queensland who are not as fortunate as those’ in the Namoi area. I notice that the Minister did not tell us what was happening to them or what their earnings were, even with the benefit of the bounty. My information is that those growers have a long way to go before they will be in a situation which can .be favourably compared with that of the Namoi producers.

I think it is very unfair to suggest that we have 70% to 80% of Australia’s needs being produced in one small area by 154 cotton producers and that therefore we can afford to allow other cotton producers to languish. It is not certain that the cotton growing areas of Queensland and Western Australia will have the same productive capacity as the Namoi region. However, we hope that time will prove that, with more experience, they will be able to lift their production per acre to somewhere near the Namoi figures. But what could quite easily happen, and what I believe will happen as a result of the proposed decrease in the incentive and the elimination of bounty payable after 1971, is that these areas will relapse to a situation in which it is not profitable for growers to expend large amounts of capital to develop irrigation drains and the like unless they are given some assistance of the type that was given to the Namoi cotton growers. The Minister went on to say that the bounties were paid to help develop an industry if it was in the national need. Members of the Country Party are not interesting themselves in this matter as one would expect them to do. After all, they are supposed to represent-

Senator Mckellar:

– You had better look at the list of speakers and then you might change your opinion.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Members of the Country Party are supposed to represent the interests of the primary producer but they are doing to the cotton producer what they are doing lo the wool growers of Australia in condoning the lifting of the ban on the export of merinos, thus giving to the South African wool growers and other cheap labour wool growing countries access to the world’s markets. Members of the Country Parly will put Australian growers of fine and medium grade wool out of business. They are excluding the Australian cotton grower from his markets, because his competitor in the United States is heavily subsidised. America is subsidising all the commodities with which we have to compete on the world’s markets. She is pushing us out of our traditional beef markets. What do we hear from Country Party members about that? Practically nothing at all They just tag along behind the United States and adopt the attitude All the way with the USA’. That is their policy despite the fact that they are supposed to be in this Parliament to protect the interests of the primary producers. They are letting them down badly. 1 feel that this is an appropriate time for me to ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 915

ADJOURNMENT

The Senate: Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council

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

-I move:

Without wanting to cut off any honourable senator who may want to make a stirring speech may 1 be allowed to give some indication of our programme for next week, because some honourable senators may not have been informed of it yet? Next Tuesday will be a normal sitting day. Next Wednesday the Senate will commence sitting at 10.30 a.m., rise for lunch at 12.45 p.m., resume at 2.15 p.m. and rise at 5 p.m. The Senate will not sit on Wednesday night or on Thursday, 24th April. The projected finishing time of 5 p.m. on Wednesday next will be subject to the same practical approach that we have to rising on a Thursday.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

-I do not want to delay the Senate so with the concurrence of honourable senators, and so that it may be available to them for discussion in the future, I incorporate in Hansard a statement made by the eight members who resigned from the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council giving their reasons for resigning:

We, the undersigned members of the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council

HAVING received the Government’s rejection of the Council’s recommendation that the Canberra Abattoir should be retained as a fully serviced public utility,

CONSIDERING the Government’s decision to close down the slaughtering facilities to be so gravely detrimental to, and a blatant disregard for the welfare of the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory,

RECOGNISING our responsibility to the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory

BY our signatures appended hereto tender to the Minister for the Interior our resignations as members of the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council in protest against the Government’s decision to reject Council’s recommendation and in so doing;

RECALL the refusal of the Minister for the Interior to provide information on the financial position of theTerritory which Council considers is basic to any proposals to introduce new taxation measures;

OBJECT to the arbitrary introduction of stamp duty and to a sewerage rate without a demonstrated need that the revenue is necessary and also to the basison which these taxes will be levied;

NOTE that the two financial measures, together with the financial implications of the closure of the abattoir, will place additonal financial burdens on the already heavily taxed citizens of the Australian Capital Territory without just cause;

FURTHER state that because of the rejection of our considered advice on the retention of theabattoir and because of the repeated failure of the Minister for the Interior and the Government to have any regard for advice tendered by Council on other matters pertaining to the government of the Territory, we have no other course but to resign and

CONCLUDE that as such a crisis has never before been precipitated in the 39 years history of the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council, the gravity of the present situation in the administration of the Territory of 120,000 citizens should be apparent to all; that by our resignations we earnestly hope to bring about an honest reappraisal of the Government of the Australian Capital Territory, a change of attitude on the part of the Administration, and an opportunity for the future elected representatives of the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory to have an authoritative say in the conduct of their own affairs as is enjoyed in all other democratic communities; that to continue in office in the present circumstances would not only be intolerable but a disservice to the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory who, by the Council’s mere existence, would be deluded into thinking that the Government was allowing them through the elected members of the Council to participate effectively in the Territory’s legislative and administrative processes,

INFORM the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory that they are being governed by decree and administrative processes over which they have no control either electorally or otherwise and which has completely denied them their democratic rights.

SIGNED AT CANBERRA THIS THIRTY-FIRST DAY OF MARCH, ONE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND SIXTYNINE

H. PEAD

W. W. PYE

R. O’KEEFFE

J. WALSH

J. McAULEY

J. FITZGERALD

W. LEEDMAN

J. HARPER

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 4.29 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 17 April 1969, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1969/19690417_senate_26_s40/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant