Senate
18 June 1970

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1970

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) look the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2605

QUESTION

AVIATION: CHEAP FLIGHTS TO EUROPE

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Will he consult with the Minister for Immigration on a matter which is causing great concern to migrants in Australia? I refer to the lack of cheap flights to Europe which would give migrants a chance to visit relatives or to take occasional holidays in their homelands at a reasonable cost, ls it correct that in some other countries charter flights operate on a cost basis which would allow a major airline operating a similar scheme in Australia to charge about $500 return to Europe and still have a normal profit margin over and above operating costs? ls it correct that bodies such as the New Citizens Council and others have sought Government help in organising such flights but have received little co-operation? In any event, will the Minister take up this matter with the Minister for Immigration with a view to giving all possible aid to migrants?

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– To the best of my knowledge it is not true that a responsible organisation living within the rules established by the International Air Transport Association has had any lack of co-operation from the Commonwealth and the departments concerned in making arrangements for charter flights. It is true that there has been a big expansion in charter flying. So much so that i have been interested enough to ask my Department to prepare for the general information of the Australian community a simple pamphlet on what is offering in charter Hying and the rules and the protection afforded people who want to avail themselves of charter flights.

As to the balance of the question, yes I will make inquiries. I am attracted to the idea that we might encourage opportunities for people who left their homelands to come here to return to see their loved ones overseas. I will certainly do what I can to help in this cause so long as I can satisfy myself that the opportunities are completely bona fide and that the travellers will be fully protected by the organisations with which they intend to fly.

page 2605

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In addressing my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry I refer to the report that freight on wool shipments to the United Kingdom and Europe is likely to rise. In view of the injurious effect on the wool industry of any freight increase will the Government give every assistance to the wool industry to negotiate agreements for the carriage of wool which by-pass the conference shipping line?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I should imagine that this question would be better directed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport because any negotiations in relation to this matter would be within the responsibility of his portfolio. 1 will direct the question to him and no doubt a reply will be sent to the honourable senator during the recess.

page 2605

QUESTION

AVIATION: TASMANIAN INTRASTATE SERVICE

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– J direct my question to the Minister for Civil Aviation, ls it a fact that the Tasmanian intrastate aerial service has been suspended? ls it also a fact that one aircraft of the company concerned operates without de-icing equipment contrary to Department of Civil Aviation regulations? ls it a fact that one of these aircraft, contrary to DCA regulations, flew at an altitude of 50 feet over the foreshores of the Derwent River on the day the yachts in the Sydney to Hobart race arrived in Hobart? Did one aircraft recently infringe controlled air space requirements without permission of air traffic control, contrary to DCA regulations? ls it a fact that one aircraft recently flew alongside another aircraft at a distance of only 100 feet from it. also contrary to DCA regulations? Has the DCA known of these and other breaches of flying regulations and permitted them to continue? Will the Minister make an immediate investigation into the flying operations of the company concerned in order to allay grave doubts in the minds of many Tasmanians?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The honourable senator was good enough to give me a copy of this series of questions but, unfortunately for me, only at 2 minutes to 10 this morning. This made it impossible for me to have a considered reply for him within about 5 minutes, as he will well appreciate. It is important that all these allegations and accusations should be investigated and answered. That will be done. In fact I will send this information out now and have it transmitted through to the Department of Civil Aviation headquarters with a request that it check all the points that have been raised.

page 2606

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION: NIGHT FLIGHTS

Senator COTTON:
LP

– It is hard to remember all the points, but I will take them as they came or in the order in which they appeared or disappeared. On page 26 of the report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise the following recommendation appears:

The Committee further recommends more stringent application of the criteria authorising jet movements in curfew hours to ensure the preservation of the original intention of the regulation.

Of course the effect of that regulation is to give us an amnesty between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. 1 shall certainly see that that report is sent to the Premier of Victoria, Sir Henry Bolte. Yesterday Senator Sir Magnus Cormack asked me a question about some of the details that affect this matter. I could not give him a detailed answer yesterday but I do have some answers for him today, and I propose when we finish question time to provide some of those answers for him. He may accept from me an assurance that no-one in New South Wales is greatly concerned about the increasing prosperity of Victoria and the opportunities that it has. 1 think we all regard ourselves as Australians on the principal issues.

page 2606

QUESTION

PROHIBITED IMMIGRANT

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Acting Minister for Immigration examined the possible future in England for Mrs Barbara Taylor and more particularly her 2 innocent children as a result of the Government’s enforcing an order for her deportation? If the future welfare of the children will be belter served by residence in Australia, no matter what sin one of the parents has committed, will the Minister temper justice with mercy and withdraw the deportation order?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The situation of course is that the children’s father is in England and wishes his children to return to him.

page 2606

QUESTION

TULLAMAKINE AIRPORT

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Was the Tullamarine Airport site originally chosen on the basis that the buffer zone surrounding the Airport was adequate to preserve the neighbouring amenity in respect of freedom from noise associated with aircraft operations? If so, in what respect if any has this basis now been altered?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I understand that when the proposal for a second airport in Melbourne emanated some years ago it was thought necessary to make provision to site the airport at a distance from the populated area that was building up in Melbourne. I have not had an opportunity to read the evidence of the Public Works Committee of this Parliament but I understand that in the light of evidence taken at the time the Committee was most anxious that there should be an adequate separation between the airport boundary and the areas that were available for residential purposes. If that separation has been upset it is certainly not in any sense the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government. I do not wish to go beyond that at the present time, but an answer I shall give later to a question on notice will reveal I am most anxious that the whole subject be viewed objectively and that in the public interest all the facts should be taken into account

page 2607

QUESTION

PROHIBITED IMMIGRANT

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– 1 direct to the Acting Minister for immigration a question in relation to the impending deportation of the British migrant, M rs Barbara Taylor, for breaches of section 16 of the Migration Act. In the absence of any action against Mr K. Taylor, who masqueraded as her husband, does not the decision smack of the woman always pays approach? Furthermore, can the Min’ster elaborate on her Press statement last night lo explain, firstly, what action is contemplated against Mr Taylor who apparently masterminded the project? Secondly, how does the decision to deport Mrs Taylor square up with a previous decision to let Mrs Biggs remain in Australia? Thirdly, has Woolworths Ltd, who sponsored Mr Taylor, made representations vo the Department to pull its dogs off any investigation imo Mr Taylor’s entry?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I. was unable to hear all the points the honourable senator raised. I think the information I have will answer his question. The honourable senator asked, in effect, why Mrs Taylor is being required to leave Australia but not Mr Taylor with whom she came to Australia. Mrs Barbara Taylor in applying for a document of identity for travel to Australia signed in the name of Mrs Irene Taylor, that is. in the name of Kenneth Taylor’s wife. Legal opinion is that as a result she clearly became a prohibited immigrant upon entering Australia using this document. Mr Kenneth Taylor signed documents in his own name, lt has not been possible to conclude firmly that he is a prohibited immigrant or otherwise subject to deportation. The honourable senator then inquired about the return of Mrs Taylor. 1 could not quite hear what he said, but I gather it was about her passage back and whether she has to repay to the Government the cost of assisted passages to Australia. Mr Kenneth Taylor has said he will repay the cost of the assisted passage for Mrs Taylor. 1 believe the honourable senator wanted to know whether Mrs Taylor would have to pay the cost of the passages back to Britain for herself and children.

Senator Mulvihill:

– I also asked about Mrs Biggs.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– Yes, I heard that but 1 heard the honourable senator say something about the woman having to pay. I could not hear the rest of it. 1 inferred that the honourable senator was inquiring whether Mrs Taylor had to pay the cost of the passages back to Britain of herself and her children and what would be the position if she could not pay. Mrs Taylor has been informed that if necessary the Department of Immigration will provide passages on a basis of repayment by her later, t think the honourable senator would be interested to know that Mrs Taylor has been asked inform the Department within 7 days of the arrangements she has made for her departure, but no specific date has been set as a time limit for actual departure.

The honourable senator drew a distinction between Mrs Taylor and Mrs Biggs. He asked, in effect, whether Mrs Biggs was also a prohibited immigrant under the same section of the Migration Act. On 3 J st October 1969 the then Minister for Immigration announced that he would allow Mrs Biggs to remain under a temporary entry permit. He said he had taken into account the fact that Mrs Biggs had entered Australia using a passport either not issued to her or obtained by false representations and, therefore, was in law a prohibited immigrant. The manner in which the passport was obtained had yet to be fully established. Mrs Biggs, however, wished to remain in Australia in the interests of her children’s future. They obviously deserved sympathetic consideration. In the present case the 2 children were taken away from their father in Britain without his consent or knowledge. He has naturally most strongly protested and is demanding the return of his children to him in Britain. Mrs Taylor has not been granted a temporary entry permit and therefore remains a prohibited immigrant. The honourable senator asked whether the Department of Immigration had had discussions with Woolworths concerning this matter. I am not aware of any such discussions.

page 2607

QUESTION

CONTAINER SHIPS

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Will he ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport to comment on the report in today’s

Canberra Times’ that the Australian Japanese container shipping service is doing poor business and the situation is liable to get worse because of the excess of cargo space over the volume of cargo offering, particularly on the Australia to Japan leg of the service, and because further ships are to be added to this run? Also will he comment on the criticism of the poor container berth facilities in Australian ports which are said to cause the slow turn round of the container ships? If such adverse conditions continue, will not this have an adverse effect on freight rates?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– 1 will direct those questions to the Minister for Shipping and Transport and ask him whether an answer can be given to the honourable senator during the recess.

page 2608

QUESTION

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. In answer to a question asked by Senator Mulvihill on the meeting of wildlife authorities in Darwin beginning on 25th May, the Minister replied as follows:

The meeting of officials was held as indicated in the previous answer and a number of resolutions were passed. However, as I am sure the honourable senator would appreciate on reflection, those resolutions are confidential until they have been considered by the responsible Ministers of State. So far no date has been set for the ministerial meeting.

I do not question the answer. However, last night I received a report from a Victorian constitutent, who is a dedicated crusader for the preservation of our wildlife, alleging he had been informed that one resolution adopted by the Darwin meeting literally endorsed the current indiscriminate slaughter of kangaroos. Will the Minister investigate this matter and inform the Senate whether there is any substance in this allegation?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– The honourable senator’s question refers to a meeting of officials preparatory to a meeting of Ministers concerned with conservation of wildlife. As I heard the question, it suggests, on the information of a correspondent from Victoria, that those resolutions pertain to the subject of indiscriminate slaughter of kangaroos. I have no doubt that that inference is correct. I would be surprised indeed if that meeting of officials took place without having on its agenda the question of kangaroo slaughter in this country. I would think that anybody who reads the newspapers and has seen the degree to which this subject has become a matter of public concern would know that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has been giving quite urgent consideration to the question, making an assessment on scientific grounds and making information available as to the effect of killing of kangaroos upon the continuance of the population and the desirability of remedies being provided. Also assessments have been made of the operation of remedies that have been applied by New South Wales and Queensland for the control of this killing as a matter of trade. However the specific resolutions that were passed at the meeting are confidential, of course, until the Ministers have an opportunity of saying whether the whole or any part of them are acceptable as policy on the part of the various governments. But all governments in Australia at the present time are quite concerned for the preservation of the natural species of the kangaroo, and I have no doubt it will be a subject of the Ministers’ conference.

page 2608

QUESTION

SHIPPING FREIGHTS

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Bearing in mind the serious implications for our overseas trade arising from increased freight rates, could the Minister indicate to what extent the Government participates in discussions with shipping organisations in arriving at freight rates? Is competition between shipping organisations being fully exploited?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– 1 think the latest information I have on this is that which I read in this morning’s paper. The report said that there is to be a freight increase - I cannot yet establish whether it is true or not - which would affect goods coming from the United Kingdom to Australia to the extent nf 12±% but which would not affect goods going from Australia to the United Kingdom. Thus our exports would not suffer, if what I read was true, but freight on our imports would be higher.

Senator Georges:

– That is not quite right.

Senator COTTON:

– I am only saying that I have read this and 1 cannot vouch for its accuracy. There are a series of events which have a bearing on this. Sir Andrew Crichton, Chairman of Overseas Containers Pty Ltd, some little time ago warned of a likely freight increase. I then made some inquiries and was told that these rates are negotiated by the Australian Tonnage Committee, the shipping conference and the Australia to Europe shippers association. A preliminary negotiation was held in April 1970 at which the conference indicated it would seek a freight increase. The increase was opposed by shippers and negotiations are due to resume at the end of this month according to the information given to me. lt is a matter in the first instance for commercial negotiations. The Government’s interest is to see that negotiations are fair and reasonable. The Government as such is not a party to the discussion by having present there an officer from the Department of Shipping and Transport. An officer designated tinder the Trade Practices Act is present and is watching. As to whether competition is as active as it should be in the shipping field, I cannot answer the honourable senator in any detail but I will see what I can find out for him.

page 2609

THE SENATE

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Last week Senator Murphy asked me the following question:

Will von advise the Senate now or as soon as may be convenient whether it is consistent wilh the Standing Orders, particularly standing order 418, and the practices of the Senate for ;i Minister to describe ;is ‘publicity seeking’ the action of a member of the House of Representatives in raising a matter in thai House in conformity wilh the forms and procedures of thai House?

My answer to the honourable senator’s question is no. Any reflection on a member of the House of Representatives is to be deprecated.

page 2609

QUESTION

ARBITRATION: STATION HANDS AWARD

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– J ask the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service whether he has read in today’s national newspaper that the Full Bench of the Commonwealth Conciliation and

Arbitration Commission yesterday rejected a claim that station hands should work a 40-hour week instead of a 44-hour week, ls the Minister aware that station hands covered by the Federal pastoral industry award are required to work a 44- hour week spread over 5i days and that overtime is forfeited by the employee if not claimed within 4 weeks? Does the Minister support the judgment of the Commission in rejecting the claim because there was no evidence of serious unrest amongst station hands? Will the Minister give an assurance that the penal powers of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act will not be applied against the Australian Workers Union and the station hands if action is taken to create the necessary serious unrest in the industry apparently vital to convince the Commission that the standard hours set by the court 22 years ago should not be denied to workers in the pastoral industry?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– In answer to the honourable senator’s question, I indicate that I have seen newspaper reports of the judgment of the Commission on the pastoral award. 1 am asked whether I support the judgment which is said to be based upon one sentence. 1 would ask the honourable senator to forbear from putting that on the basis of a newspaper report until both he and 1 have had an opportunity of reading the judgment as a whole, lt is frequently found thai one sentence out of context distorts the fair and balanced meaning of the judgment. I would think that there is nothing to suggest in the slightest degree that the Commission’s judgment does not deserve the confidence that is universally accorded to its judgments. The suggestion was made that the phrase might give rise to circumstances that would invite further action. As strike action reacts against the whole community but chiefly against the wage earners, 1 think it is most advisable in the interests of the whole economic structure, in which 80% of the people are wage earners, and to the advantage of the wage earners in the industry to have disputes settled by arbitral means rather than by direct action.

page 2609

QUESTION

TULLAMAKINE AIRPORT: NIGHT FLIGHTS

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– Will the Minister for Civil Aviation give an assurance to the Senate that the decision to impose a curfew on night flights at Tullamarine airport has nothing whatsoever to do with the intention of the Commonwealth to attempt to maintain the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport as Australia’s principal airport?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– This is the sort of juvenile approach that is being adopted in some quarters. I just want to say: Yes, most certainly T will.

page 2610

QUESTION

PERUVIAN EARTHQUAKE RELIEF

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs. Has the Minister noted the statement by the Ambassador for Peru expressing gratitude for the gifts of money, the gifts of goods and the promises of goods to assist the victims of the earthquake in Peru? Has the Minister further noted that there has been considerable difficulty in transporting these goods to Peru? The Ambassador stated that if they could be transported quickly lives would be saved. As airways have offered some space for the transport of these goods - but obviously their space is limited - will the Government consider making available either a naval transport vessel or a vessel of the Australian National Line so that these goods may be transported to Peru and assist in saving the lives of earthquake victims?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

I appreciate the points made by the honourable senator. At another level I have been informed that a ship is due to leave for Peru towards the end of this month. I understand that some time between now and 25th June a ship will be leaving and that certain organisations have been making efforts to send goods in that ship. However, I will need to make further inquiries about that. The whole burden of Senator McManus’s question needs immediate investigation, and I will undertake to carry that out.

page 2610

QUESTION

TULLAMAKINE AIRPORT: NIGHT FLIGHTS

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation: Is it a fact that the proposed ban on night jet flights at Tullamarine will mean that it will not be possible to carry out freight movements by quick change jets? Is it a fact that Ansett Airlines of Australia has purchased 2 such jets for passenger flights by day and for cargo carriage by night and that the company made such purchases in anticipation of using Tullamarine for night cargo nights? Was approval for such purchases given by the Government?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I do not have with me all the information necessary to answer the honourable senator’s question properly. Some of the information given in the question - and information was given - is quite correct. However, it also contained some assumptions. I think I ought to see that Senator Greenwood receives a carefully prepared answer. In any case, none of the assumptions made, that someone is trying to stop legitimate progress, development and operations, is correct.

page 2610

QUESTION

DEFENCE EQUIPMENT

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Supply in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I ask: What action is the Government taking to place orders upon Australian industry for the supply of the 3 Services of ships, helicopters, landing craft and other requirements outlined by the Minister for Defence in March last? Have any contracts been let for this work, or is it contemplated by the Government that such orders may not be placed in Australia?

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– I had difficulty hearing the last part of the question.

Senator BISHOP:

– Is there any change of policy in respect of the placement of these orders largely in Australia?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– No, there is no change in the policy. The policy is just as firm and as strong as it has ever been in relation to seeking Australian procurement of defence equipment within the framework of the various requirements of the Services. I have indicated what is being done in respect of helicopter purchases. In order to answer the honourable senator’s question comprehensively I think I ought to have some information prepared covering its broad canvas. However, it is true to say that the principles enunciated originally by Mr Fairhall, as he was when Minister for Defence - now Sir Allan Fairhall - are still very strongly followed in both the Department of Defence and my own Department. To the extent that it is practicable to obtain Australian content and Australian flowback on offset ordering where contracts are accepted for overseas, this course is being vigorously pursued.

page 2611

QUESTION

ROADS

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister representing the Treasurer request the Treasurer to give effect, when compiling the 1970-71 Budget, to Government promises to restore adequate Commonwealth aid road grants to rural and semirural areas? I draw the Ministers attention to the Mitchell electorate, which is undergoing some of the most dramatic development in New South Wales but now finds that funds allocated to it. instead of increasing, are decreasing. This is a matter of urgency which greatly concerns the Blacktown Municipal Council and the people of the area. 1 therefore ask the Minister to bring this matter to the Treasurer’s attention with the least possible delay.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI am sure the honourable senator is aware - if he is not. 1 will refresh his memory - of the existence of the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act. In recent times we passed a measure to give to the States substantial and significant increases in road finance. I therefore feel that the type of question posed by the honourable senator concerns nol so much the Commonwealth Government as the New South Wales Government, in the first instance, and then no doubt the local government authority. However, so that a full examination of the honourable senator’s question can be conducted I will take it on notice. While I am on my feet 1 would like to be permitted to say that I hope we can shortly bring question time to a close because of the amount of business we must get through today with, I hope, a reasonable degree of competence.

page 2611

QUESTION

PROHIBITED IMMIGRANT

Senator MURPHY:

– My question, which is directed to the Acting Minister for Immigration, is related to the question asked by Senator Mulvihill concerning the Taylor case. I ask the Minister whether normally the Department of Immigration would not deport a person for misrepresentation such as occurred in that case. Has not the action taken been influenced largely by other considerations, such as the father’s request in relation to the children? If this is so, because of the complications would it not seem better for the Commonwealth to facilitate action by the father in the courts, either in England or here, to establish rights to custody and to obtain some order of the court, rather than for the Department to pass some moral judgment on the matter and to lake administrative action? Whatever the rights or wrongs in this complicated situation, surely if the interests of the children are to be taken into account the paramount consideration should be the welfare of those children. Would this not be a belter course than summarily to order the deportation of the children, one not knowing really whether in the long run this is in the interests of the children?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The honourable senator has raised a number of legal questions, but I think we come back to the point which I have really answered in reply to Senator Mulvihill’s question. The father of the children requests the return of his children. The 2 children were taken away from their father in Britain without his knowledge or consent and. naturally, he has protested strongly and is demanding their return. Mrs Taylor has been informed that she is a prohibited immigrant and she has been asked to make arrangements for her departure and to leave the country. I think this is :n order and that it is right and proper.

page 2611

QUESTION

PALM ISLAND ABORIGINAL SETTLEMENT

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– In addressing a question to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral I remind her that some weeks ago she promised to investigate the case of Mrs Thelma McAvoy who is now banned from the government Aboriginal settlement on Plam Island because she appeared on an ABC television programme. Was the investigation ever carried out and, if it was, why have the results of such investigation not been conveyed to me?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I have not any further information to give the honourable senator at present. When I. have further information he will receive it.

PERUVIAN EARTHQUAKE RELIEF Senator KENNELLY- I ask the Leader of the Government a question which follows Senator McManus’s question relative to help to be given to convey the gifts so graciously given by the Australian people to the unfortunate victims of the earthquake in Peru. How long will it take to convey to the victims the magnificent sum of $15,000, which is the Government’s contribution and which has caused many Australians to hang their heads in shame? 1 understand that the Ambassador for Peru in Canberra has stated that he has been overwhelmed by the gifts from the people of Australia, but he did not include in his statement a reference to the Government’s contribution. Surely we as Australians should be able to hold our heads up as we can as a rule when these unfortunate happenings occur. Surely the Government should give further consideration to the amount that it has already contributed.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– 1 responded in substance to this question last week and mentioned that the Minister for External Affairs had said that Australia’s contribution was being examined. Also I have an answer to a question on notice by Senator Georges and, in the circumstances, perhaps it would be reasonable to give it now as it has some bearing on the question asked by Senator Kennelly. Senator Georges asked: in view of the fact that the recent victims oi he Tasmanian bushfires received more than $2 million in relief from overseas donations, is not Australia’s gift of $15,000 to the victims of the Peruvian earthquake extremely small?

The Minister for External Affairs has furnished the following reply:

Following reports received from the Australian Embassy in Lima on 2nd June, the Government acted quickly to make available on 3rd June a relief grant to assist in the emergency following the earthquake. This gift has been welcomed by Peruvian representatives in Canberra and Lima. Emergency assistance grants in recent years have been in the range of S5.000-S 10,000 with larger amounts being exceptional. The Government welcomes the fact that various voluntary organisations in Australia have decided to make contributions as a demonstration of their profound sympathy for those affected by the earthquake.

page 2612

QUESTION

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate give an assurance that the questions remaining on the notice paper - about 150 of them - will be answered during the recess and the answers forwarded to senators?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– 1 am grateful for this question because it involves a matter that concerns us. Ministers have always striven to answer questions on notice. I, and the other Ministers, have the responsibility of trying to seek out answers to questions that are on the notice paper and questions which may be asked today and to send them to honourable senators during the recess period. It is expected that we will be coming back towards the middle of August. I will do whatever is possible to supply the answers and T know that other Ministers will do the same.

page 2612

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS

Senator KEEFFE:

– 1 address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services who is also Minister in Charge of Aboriginal Affairs, ls a disability allowance of any kind payable to Aboriginals in the Northern Territory who suffer or have suffered from Hanson’s disease?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I will take this up with the Minister and get a reply for the honourable senator.

page 2612

QUESTION

HEALTH

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Earlier this week I sought information from the Minister representing the Minister for Health about when there would be tabled a brochure dealing with proposals related to the new national health scheme. Has the Minister a reply?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– When Senator Mulvihill asked me this question about the printing of information on the health plan I said that I would get the answer as soon as possible. It is hoped that the printing of the booklet and pamphlet will be completed by the middle of July. Mailing of these explanatory books and pamphlets will then begin and should be completed within 3 weeks of the middle of July. Copies will be made available as well to health insurance funds and through departmental offices. The intention is to mail a copy of the explanatory booklet and pamphlet containing an abridged list of the most common fees to every household in Australia just as soon as they can be printed since the success of the new benefits plan will depend, to a significant extent, on the degree of public knowledge of the most common fees and of the working of the plan. Such information about the new health benefits plan is being transmitted to the public with the co-operation of the news media.

page 2613

QUESTION

QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED

Senator MURPHY:

– Has the Minister for Civil Aviation seen in this morning’s Financial Review’ yet another statement that in negotiating international agreements national considerations, whether of trade, tourism and so forth, are subordinated to the particular interests of Qantas Airways Limited whenever they conflict? The suggestion, in effect, is that the Minister and his Department are simply dummies for Qantas whenever matters of international agreements arise. Can the Minister tell the Senate what the real position is and whether he and his Department insist upon the national considerations of trade, tourism and communications coming first, irrespective of how they happen to affect Qantas?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The honourable senator and the Senate can be assured that neither the Minister nor the Department is a dummy or a tool of Qantas Airways Limited. They equally may be assured that in all negotiations for flying rights into and out of Australia all the considerations that have to be taken into account are taken into account - immigration, ability to earn overseas exchange, the maintenance of a growing tourist industry and the viability of the Australian air carrier. All those things are allowed for and taken carefully into account. The honourable senator may rest assured that the attitude which has been adopted in the past will continue in future.

page 2613

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator WEBSTER:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. By way of preface, may I say how pleased T was to hear the Minister, in answer to a previous question, say that it was juvenile to suggest that the Commonwealth has never declared that an attempt will be made to maintain Sydney (Mascot) airport as Australia’s principal airport. I certainly hope that in future the Minister’s reply will not appear to be juvenile.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! Senator Webster, please ask your question.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Will the Minister declare that it has never been the intention of the Commonwealth Government to maintain Sydney’s jet airport as Australia’s principal airport?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– This gives me an opportunity, which J intended to seek a little later in order to give a considered reply to the question asked by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, to say to Senator Webster that 1 hope he will understand that I intended no offence to him in my reply. It was directed at comments which have been made outside this place by other people who have assumed that I would behave unjustly or improperly in regard to the balance of public interest. That is not the case. I will not do so. In response to the balance of the honourable senator’s question as to whether the Sydney airport will be maintained as a kind of premier airport, no, the Department of Civil Aviation does not operate like that. It tries to ensure that opportunities are given for air traffic, both international and domestic, to be programmed in the most efficient operating manner possible for the Australian community.

page 2613

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator MURPHY:

– f direct my question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Is it not a fact that on many previous occasions his predecessors have stated in this chamber - and Senator Webster recalls it, as I do clearly - that Sydney would be maintained as Australia’s No. 1 international airport?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Here we have a situation which is quite unnecessary. I tried to point out very carefully that it is the commercial facts of life in relation to air traffic, both international and domestic, which determine the size of the operation. The Sydney international terminal has been the gateway for overseas flights into Australia for a long time. I can see no reason why that should not continue. There are people who, for their own reasons, wish to fly to Tullamarine. I see no reason why that is not both wise and sensible. Any assumption that there is a change of policy or that I should conjure up out of the past, by some sort of magic jug, the thoughts of my predecessors seems to me to be quite irrelevant.

page 2614

QUESTION

CHILD ENDOWMENT

Senator KEEFFE:

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services inform the Parliament whether child endowment payments are made only to the mother or, where the child is not in the custody of the mother, to an approved guardian or an approved institution?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I think the best thing for me to do is to get the information for the honourable senator. 1 could not hear the last part of the question.

page 2614

QUESTION

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Senator KENNELLY:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate a question which relates to his answer to Senator O’Byrne. On 5th June 1 placed on notice a question that is of vital importance to a committee of which I am a member, lt affects all members. To my mind the question could have been answered within an hour. The Minister was asked to supply information about the salaries of certain officers. The question concerned a committee which affects all of us. Since it affects all of us. 1 am concerned that justice should be done to all. Therefore I do not see why my question could not have been answered. The Minister for Supply said earlier that all questions would be answered. Will he pay particular attention to question No. 440 on the notice paper? I am expecting the committee to have a meeting very soon.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

While 1 am on my feel I am trying to pick up question No. 440 on the notice paper. 1 imagine that it is related to the committee of which Senator Kennelly and I are both members.

Senator Kennelly:

– Yes. It is a most important committee.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– That is right. I am sure that we both have the confidence of honourable senators that we will do the proper thing on the committee. Having said that, let me say that as soon as I leave the chamber after question time I will have an examination made of that question. I realise that a meeting of the committee is to be held, and 1 would want us to have some information before we go to that committee meeting.

page 2614

QUESTION

PROHIBITED IMMIGRANT

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Acting Minister for Immigration a question in regard to the Taylor case. In view of the Press reports that Mrs Taylor is said to have been living apart from her husband for 12 months and also that her husband will be initiating legal proceedings in regard to the children, would it not be more appropriate to arrange for an adjustment of the fares in respect of these people and then to allow the legal proceedings to be taken by the husband overseas? Does it not seem rather strange for the Commonwealth Government to be deporting people in connection with what might be a family estrangement?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I think the honourable senator overlooks the point that, first of all, Mrs Taylor has offended against the Migration Act. As I mentioned earlier, she is a prohibited immigrant because she signed in the name of Mrs Irene Taylor who, of course, she is not. So she has offended in that regard and she is a prohibited immigrant. The second point is that the children were taken away from their father in Britain without his knowledge and without his consent and. of course, he wants them back. I believe that everything the Department of Immigration has done has been quite in order.

page 2614

QUESTION

PROHIBITED IMMIGRANT

Senator MURPHY:

– My question is directed to the Acting Minister for Immigration. Surely, from what she has already said the action of the Department of Immigration is largely influenced by considerations as to what has happened between the husband and the wife and the position of the children, and not merely by the misrepresentation and entry. In those circumstances, why should the Department be exercising any moral judgment? If there are questions of custody to be considered, surely they ought to be left to the appropriate tribunal and the Commonwealth would do its duty if it facilitated the bringing of those proceedings in Australia and let them be decided instead of involving itself in another Mrs Freer case.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I reply as I replied to Senator Mulvihill earlier. Mrs Barbara Taylor, in applying for a document of identity for travel to Australia, signed in the name of Mrs

Irene Taylor; and that, of course, is the name of Kenneth Taylor’s wife and is not the correct name of Mrs Barbara Taylor. Therefore, legal opinion is that she clearly became a prohibited immigrant upon entering Australia using the document for which she had applied using an incorrect name. I believe that this puts us right back to the point that she is a prohibited immigrant and therefore the Department is quite correct in asking her to leave.

page 2615

QUESTION

SUPERANNUATION

Senator DONALD CAMERON:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Will the Minister give an assurance that Commonwealth Superannuation Fund payments which have not been adjusted since 1967 will be reviewed in the 1970-71 Budget?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

It is not in the nature of things for me to give assurances in the name of the Treasurer. I therefore would ask that the question be put on notice. 1 will certainly get an answer to the honourable senator as expeditiously as possible after we lift.

page 2615

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Senator BROWN:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. Is it a fact that the facilities of the Postmaster-General’s Department are being used to provide for the televising of an address to the nation by the Prime Minister? If this is so, will the Minister give consideration to making like facilities available to the Leader of the Opposition?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– f understand that the Leader of the Opposition is absent from Australia at the moment. So, I would not think that the question was pertinent.

page 2615

QUESTION

MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRY

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Has the Minister read a signed letter in the ‘Bulletin’ of 18th June from the New South Wales Liberal Minister for Lands, Mr Tom Lewis, complaining about the action of the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Anthony, in ignoring State Ministers for Lands in discussions on the dairy farm reconstruction scheme? In the letter Mr Lewis uses the words:

In fact, Mr Anthony, either because of ignorance or rudeness, has ignored the Ministers in each State . . .

In view of the seriousness of this allegation, I ask the Minister to take it up with his colleague to see that State Ministers for Lands are not ignored.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

– I have not seen the article to which the honourable senator refers. No doubt, a number of people have different views on matters such as this. I know that Mr Anthony, on any number of occasions over the past 3 years, has met the State Ministers for Lands at meetings of the Australian Agricultural Council. I will take this matter up with the Minister for Primary Industry. If he has any comments to make, I will let the honourable senator have them.

page 2615

QUESTION

MARGARINE

Senator WEBSTER:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it a fact that the Australian Agricultural Council will meet in Mount Hagen in the near future? Will the Minister convey to the Minister for Primary Industry the recommendation that he press State Ministers for Agriculture for legislation to be introduced into the States of Western Australia, South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland so that a prohibition will exist in those States on the manufacture and retail sale of cooking margarine only when manufacturers of that product attempt to introduce additives which make cooking margarine look like, taste like and smell like butter?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– Yes, the Australian Agricultural Council will be meeting in Mount Hagen in the very near future. I will convey the question asked by the honourable senator to the Minister for Primary Industry. But I point out to the honourable senator that the Minister cannot compel State Ministers to introduce legislation. The right to introduce legislation rests with the States themselves.

page 2615

QUESTION

PROHIBITED IMMIGRANT

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I desire to ask a question of the Acting Minister for Immigration. I ask my question in all sincerity to assist in forming a proper judgment on this question concerning Mrs Taylor. Will the Minister inform the Senate on what date Mrs Barbara Taylor and/or her children ceased living with Mr Kenneth Taylor? Were the children now being sought by the father being supported by the father immediately before their departure from England?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

-I cannot give dates to the honourable senator. But I think that we are getting right away from the point of this whole matter. I wish to bring the Senate back to that point. It is that Mrs Taylor is a prohibited immigrant under section 16(1) (b) of the Immigration Act because she produced a document obtained by false representation for the purpose of securing entry to Australia. This, surely, is the real basis of this whole thing.

page 2616

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES: ABORIGINALS

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services and MinisterinCharge of Aboriginal Affairs. In view of the fact that the Minister could not tell me to whom child endowment must be and can be paid, 1 now ask this question: Will the Minister inform the Parliament why schools, persons and hostels in Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia are able legally to collect child endowment payments by a dubious gentlemen’s arrangement with the Department of Social Services and why this arrangement operates only where the mother is an Aboriginal? Is the Minister also aware that in many cases child endowment is still paid to other persons even though the child is actually in the care of the mother? Will the Minister advise which part or section of the Social Services Act is applied to deprive a mother of child endowment payments under these circumstances?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I am not aware of all the points the honourable senator has raised, but I am quite certain that whatever arrangements are made for the payment of child endowment everything is done in the best interests of the child. I will get the information that the honourable senator has asked for and if I cannot get it before the Senate rises for the winter recess I will inform him by letter.

page 2616

PARLIAMENT HOUSE EXTENSIONS

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT - On Friday last Senator Devitt asked me a question concerning accommodation and proposed extensions to the present parliamentary building.I now inform Senator Devitt that consideration has been given to extensions to the present parliamentary building but no plans have been finalised and no firm cost figures are yet available. The proposed extensions will provide for improved accommodation for Ministers, senators and members and also for additional committee rooms and staff accommodation.

page 2616

QUESTION

TELECASTING OF PRIME MINISTER’S ADDRESS TO THE NATION

Senator BROWN:

-I rephrase an earlier questionI asked of the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Is it a fact that the facilities of the Postmaster-General’s Department are to be used to telecast an address to the nation by the Prime Minister? If so, will the Minister make the same facilities available to the Leader of the Opposition on his return from overseas and at such other times as the Prime Minister avails himself of such opportunities to speak to the nation?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I will refer the question to the PostmasterGeneral.

page 2616

QUESTION

PROHIBITED IMMIGRANT

Senator KENNELLY:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration a question. In view of the decision of the Department of Immigration relating to Mrs Taylor will the same decision apply to some other people who 1 recollect came to this country under assumed names? I do not want to hurt anyone but 1 think that everyone in this chamber should know the person to whom 1 refer.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

-I am not aware of the name of the person to whom Senator Kennelly is referring.

Senator Kennelly:

– Mrs Biggs.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I have already answered a question about Mrs Biggs and I will answer it again. What the honourable senator is asking is: Is there a distinction between Mrs Taylor and Mrs Biggs? I have answered this before and I am pleased to answer it again. On 31st October 1969 the then Minister for Immigration announced that he would allow Mrs Biggs to remain in Australia under a temporary entry permit. He said he had taken into account the fact that Mrs Biggs had entered Australia using a passport either not issued to her or obtained by false representations and therefore she was in law a prohibited immigrant. The manner in which the passport was obtained has yet to be fully established. Mrs Biggs, however, wished to remain in Australia in the interests of her children’s future and they obviously deserved sympathetic consideration. But in the present case involving Mrs Taylor the 2 children were taken away from their father in Great Britain without his consent or knowledge and he is naturally strongly protesting and is demanding the return of his children. As well as this, as I informed the Senate earlier, because of the falsifying of the application Mrs Taylor is a prohibited immigrant and I believe that the action taken by the Department has been quite correct.

page 2617

QUESTION

PROHIBITED IMMIGRANT

Senator KENNELLY:

– J ask a further question of the Acting Minister for Immigration. Which parent is usually assumed to have the stronger feeling for a child, the mother or the father? 1 must say I regret the circumstances of this case and I think it is very unfortunate that the family has been split up. However, I ask this question: As the Government has been so solicitous for the children of Mrs Biggs - and I am grateful that it has been because 1 think the children ought to be kept with their mother - why differentiate and say that the children in the Taylor case ought to be kept with their father and that therefore the mother has to go through a life that neither the Minister nor I can envisage?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I do not think there is any comparison between the 2 cases. Senator Kennelly asked me who has the stronger feeling for a child, the mother or the father. In my single blessedness, Mr Deputy President, I feel I could not answer that.

page 2617

QUESTION

PROHIBITED IMMIGRANT

Senator MURPHY:

– My question is directed to the Acting Minister for Immigration. Surely it is apparent that in both of the cases that we have been discussing prohibited immigrants are involved? Is it not clear from what the Minister has said that a decision is being made on moral grounds, or on the ground of what is the proper thing to be done for the children? Is that not the kind of decision which ought to be made by the courts which traditionally, here and in England, have always acted as the guardians of children? There are ample opportunities for the husband to bring proceedings if he is so minded.

Senator Little:

– If he has the money.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes, and the Commonwealth could facilitate, as it has done in many other cases by the provision of money or of legal aid, the bringing of proceedings either here or in England. Would this not be better than the Commonwealth arrogating to itself the decision as to what is the proper order which ought to be made in respect of the children? Is it not time the Department of Immigration refrained from using discretionary powers to make decisions of this nature that ought to be made by the courts nf the land which are the guardians of the children?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

-I must say that we have had a very long and involved speech, as 1 think I could call it, from the honourable senator. I again refer to the reply that I have given to previous questions. 1 believe what I have said and what the Department has done have been absolutely correct

page 2617

QUESTION

THE SENATE

page 2618

QUESTION

PROHIBITED IMMIGRANT

Senator WOOD:

– My question to the Acting Minister for Immigration is in relation to the Taylor case. In view of the fact that Mrs Taylor and her children are being deported because of a legal defect in regard to her coming to Australia and bearing in mind that the father desires the children, does the Minister know whether any investigations have been made as to Mrs Taylor herself? Also, in view of the fact that she is reported to have lived apart from her husband for 12 months, have any investigations been made as lo whether the father of the children has kepi the children during that period or been associated with them in any way? I would also like to ask the Minister: In view of the fact that we go to a great deal of expense and trouble to secure migrants for this country does it seem a very worthwhile thing to deport someone because of a legal defect if that person very strongly desires to live in this country?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– T think we get back to what I said earlier that Mrs Taylor came here by reason of having produced a document obtained by false representation for the purpose of securing entry into this country. I take this point with Senator Wood because surely it is a very important one. I confirm again that because Mrs Taylor is a prohibited immigrant she has been asked to leave this country. T think this answers the point that has been raised.

page 2618

QUESTION

PROHIBITED IMMIGRANT

Senator WOOD:

– I would again like to ask the Acting Minister for Immigration a question. I ask: Cannot the Government consider a case such as this as a human case and not just a legal technicality?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– This case is being considered as a human case. There is a father in England who has had his children removed without his permission and who wants his children back. Surely that is a point that has to be considered.

page 2618

QUESTION

PROHIBITED IMMIGRANT

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask the Acting Minister for Immigration a question. Would the Minister give the same consideration to Mrs Taylor as was given to Mrs Biggs, by making a thorough investigation as to the welfare of the children and taking appropriate action in the best interests of the children?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– 1 think I have answered that question already.

page 2618

QUESTION

PROHIBITED IMMIGRANT

Senator MURPHY:

– My question is directed to the Acting Minister for Immigration. Would the Minister tell us what proceedings, if any. have been instituted by Mx Taylor in England in regard to the custody of the children?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– He has made very strong representation. 1 feel I could not give a detailed answer to this but I will endeavour to get what information 1 can. However, I can say again that Mr Taylor has made very strong representation concerning this matter.

page 2618

QUESTION

MARRIAGES WITH SOUTH AFRICANS

Senator MULVIHILL:

– 1 throw a question at the Minister for Housing that 1 think may be useful in future consideration of the Taylor case. I refer to a matter that emanated from a discussion I had wilh her 2 days ago when the Taylor case first arose. 1 ask the Minister: In her further investigations of the Taylor case will she have a look at the question of marriages between Australians and South African white nationals having regard to a case in Victoria last year involving a girl from Yallourn as dealt with in a question on notice recorded at page 1265 of Hansard of 24th September 1969? Could the Minister supply me with an answer during the recess? The Minister knows the implications in the case, and what 1 have asked is germane to the problem in the Taylor case.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– If this is the question which the honourable senator and I discussed yesterday, I have already set inquiries in train. However, 1 understood that I was to get some further information from the honourable senator and 1 am awaiting this. As I have said, I have already started inquiries but I am a little limited because 1 understood I was to get some further information from the honourable senator.

page 2619

QUESTION

PROHIBITED IMMIGRANT

page 2619

QUESTION

PROHIBITED IMMIGRANT

Senator MURPHY:

– My question is directed to the Acting Minister for Immigration. Does she now tell the Senate that she does not know, and she has not got information, as to whether legal proceedings have been commenced by the father in England, and yet a decision has been taken to deport Mrs Taylor and her children from Australia?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I did not say that at all, and I object very much to having words put into my mouth. I bring the Senate back to the original point. We are plainly discussing a person who is a prohibited immigrant. This is the whole issue. This is the point which 1 bring back to the Senate agai’n. This woman gained entry into Australia by falsifying a document. Through doing that she procured entry to Australia. Surely honourable senators do not condone people who come into this country by falsifying papers.

Senator Murphy:

– That is not the question.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– Of course that is the point, and I bring it right back to the Senate, lt is all very well for Senator Murphy to sit here and discuss this matter in a legal way. He should be the first person who should be concerned with an illegal entry on a document obtained falsely.

page 2619

QUESTION

PROHIBITED IMMIGRANT

Senator BROWN:

– My question is directed to the Acting Minister for immigration, and I trust that it will be acknowledged as a lay question. If, on investigation into the Taylor case, it is found that Mrs Taylor has been separated from her husband for a period and that legal proceedings have been instituted to establish custody of the children, will the Minister stand the case over until such time as both matters have been clarified?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I have not any information that there has been any separation in relation to Mr and Mrs Taylor. I believe that Mr Taylor, as a father, is concerned for the welfare of his children and he wants his family back. A lot of things are being put into people’s mouths at the moment. Honourable senators opposite are trying to put words into my mouth. 1 have no knowledge of any separation at all.

page 2619

QUESTION

BANKRUPTCY

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister representing the Attorney-General confirm that the present situation is that although the new Bankruptcy Act has been in force for some time, the regulations to enable prosecution of offenders under the Bankruptcy Act have not as yet been introduced and that there is a situation in which people are free to commit offences at the moment without being liable to prosecution?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I have no information to that effect. I would be surprised if that is the position, but I shall make immediate inquiries and advise the honourable senator.

page 2620

QUESTION

PROHIBITED IMMIGRANT

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask a question of the Acting Minister for Immigration. Is it a fact that Mrs Biggs is an illegal immigrant? ls it the Government’s intention to deport Mrs Biggs or to keep her and her innocent children in Australia in the hope that they will remain gaol bait for their father?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

-I think that is not a fair question to ask, and I do nol think it deserves an answer.

page 2620

QUESTION

POSTAL STRIKE

Senator GREENWOOD:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to Press reports that the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union and the Union of Postal Clerks and Telegraphists have declared black certain post offices in this country, with the result that people served by these post offices are being denied their mail. I ask: Does the Government regard this as a matter of national emergency, in view of what has occurred and prospectively what may occur if the proposed nation-wide stoppage takes place in the next 2 days? What does the Government propose to do about it to ensure that the mails of this country arc kept moving?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I would not wish to respond to the question because in the first instance it comes within the responsibility of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department and the Department of Labour and National Service which always intervene in these disputes to try to find a solution. I am hoping that finally common sense will prevail and that conciliation and arbitration will find answers to this question. I I certainly would not want to make at question time a response which might in anyway tend to cut across thz possibility of common sense prevailing and the proper processes of conciliation and arbitration applying.

page 2620

QUESTION

SHIPPING

(Question No. 416)

Senator CANT:

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

  1. Has the Western Australian Government made an application to the Commonwealth Government for financial assistance to establish a LASH shipping service to service the Northwest pons: if so when was it made.

    1. What stage have the negotiations reached.
    2. When will the Western Australian Government receive a firm answer as to whether assistance will be granted.
Senator COTTON:

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

  1. Yes, April 1969.
  2. The matter is still under active consideration by the Commonwealth.
  3. At this stage I arn unable to answer this part of the question except to say that every effort is being made to bring this matter to finality.

Attention is drawn to the reply by the Minister for Shipping and Transport lo a question without notice on this matter on 14th May 1970 (Hansard, page 2123).

page 2620

QUESTION

VIETNAM MORATORIUM CAMPAIGN

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I have an answer to 2 questions that were asked without notice, one by Senator Greenwood on 1 6th April 1970 and one by Senator Cavanagh on 12th May 1970, concerning the manufacture of Molotov cocktails in South Australia. I will simply give the answer that the Attorney-General has suppled, lt is as follows:

Inquiries into this matter have not disclosed any evidence of the manufacture of Molotov cocktials for the purpose of the Vietnam Moratorium Campaign. I understand that Mr Posa did not claim lo have evidence that Molotov cocktails were being made, but said that he had heard rumours hat I they were being made.

page 2620

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Yesterday Senator Sir Magnus Cormack asked me some questions which at the time I did not feel I could answer fully, although I could have answered them partially. So I decided to get up to date information and let him have it today. Some clarification of statements concerning aircraft operations at Melbourne airport would appear to be necessary because quite a few conflicting remarks and comments have been made and Senator Sir Magnus Cormack’s questions were designed to elicit the facts. There is currently an 1 1 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew which affects all scheduled jet services to and from Melbourne. The new Melbourne airport will open for international operations on 1st

July, and no specific application has so far been made by airline operators for scheduled services into Melbourne airport during curfew hours, and largely for this reason no decision has been made which would alter existing restrictions.

I should add that 1 have made some further inquiries and Tullamarine airport, which is to open for international traffic on 1st July. is expected to have 56 international movements scheduled each week - 28 in and 28 out. The domestic operators are not scheduled to transfer to Tullamarine until the middle of next year. But there are certain factors which could lead to a review of this position. For example, in the past 12 months the Victoran Airfields Committee has been examining the possibility of achieving reasonable compatibility between land use around the airport and operations from the airport. This Committee. which was established by the previous Minister for Civil Aviation andt he Victorian Minister for Local Government comprises representatives of the Department of Civil Aviation the State Planning Authority and the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. Its recommendations have only just come to hand and 1 will examine these as soon as I can. Also, as honourable senators know. the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise has only just tabled a report which is also being examined. I have set up noise abatement committees at all of the major capital city airports andthese committees, which comprise Commonwealth. State and local authority people. also will work on the problems.

Another possibility under consideration in the Department at the moment isthe utilisation of runways and flight paths at the new airport in such a manner that it may be possible virtually to keep aircraft clear of built-up areas late at night and thereby avoid unacceptable noise disturbance to residents. 1 hope I have made it quite clear that 1 am conscious of the need to obtain the fullest possible benefit from the public moneys which have been spent on developing this very fine new airport, butI am equally anxious to ensure that the interests of the public are thoroughly examined. I thinkI have answered all the problems which Senator Sir Magnus McCormack raised with me.

page 2621

QUESTION

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Question No. 354

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

In view of the virtual certainty and apparent imminence of Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community, and the great economic consequences for Australia, particularly for the rural industries, will the Prime Minister arrange for the preparation at an early date of a White Paper onthe implications to Australia of Britain’s entry.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

In view of all the unknowns associated with this question,the Government does not intendto prepare a White Paper on the subject.

page 2621

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE

Question No. 460

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice

In view of the long delays in the hearing of claims lodged by persons employed by the Commonwealth for increased wages salaries and conditions of employment, will the Government consider establishing a second Public Service Board to hear such claims and catch up with the huge backlog of claims which are before the Public Service Board and not yet finalised.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

I am advised by the Public Service Board that there is no substantial backlog of claims before the Board. As at 8th June 1970 there were 17 outstanding pay claims lodged directly with the Board by staff associations. If pay claims by several staff associations covering the same group are taken into account, the number of outstanding pay claims at 9th June 1970 was11.

In addition, there were at this date 84 pay claims to which the Board was a respondent listed with the Public Service Arbitrator and which had not been finalised. However, it appears that not all of these claims were actively being pursued by the relevant staff associations, and in no case had an applicant sought a conference or public hearing on a claim and been refused.

page 2621

QUESTION

PERUVIAN EARTHQUAKE

(Question No. 478)

Senator GEORGES:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

In view of the fact that the recent victims of the Tasmanian bushfires received more than $2 million in relief from overseas donations, is not Australia’s gift of$1 5,000 tothe victims of the Peruvian earthquake extremely small

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The Minister for External Affairs has furnished the following reply:

Following reports received from the Australian Embassy in Lima on 2nd June, the Government acted quickly to make available on 3rd June a relief grant to assist in the emergency following the earthquake. This gift has been welcomed by Peruvian representatives in Canberra and Lima. Emergency assistance grants in recent years have been in the range of $5 , 000-$ 10,000 with larger amounts being exceptional. The Government welcomes the fact that various voluntary organisations in Australia have decided to make contributions as a demonstration of their profound sympathy for those affected by the earthquake.

page 2622

NOTICES OF MOTION

Motion (by Senator Devitt) agreed to:

That Business of the Senate, Notices of Motion Nos 1 and 2, be postponed until the next date of sitting.

Motion (by Senator Wood) agreed to:

That Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 3. be postponed until the next day of sitting.

page 2622

SNOWY MOUNTAINS ENGINEERING CORPORATION BILL 1970

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 17 June (vide page 2599).

Clause 17. (1.) Subject to this section, the functions of the Corporation are -

the carrying out of investigations, and the furnishing of advice, in relation to water resources in Australia or elsewhere;

the carrying out of investigations, and the furnishing of advice, in relation to-

soils or rocks; or

materials used in the construction of engineering works, in Australia or elsewhere;

the carrying out of investigations, and the furnishing of advice, in relation to the sites, designs or construction of engineering works in Australia or elsewhere;

the designing of engineering works in Australia or elsewhere;

the supervision of contracts for the construction of engineering works in Australia or elsewhere, that is to say, the furnishing of advice, and the doing of other things, necessary for ensuring the proper performance by the contractors of their obligations under those contracts; and

the construction of, or the performance of any work in relation to the construction of, engineering works outside Australia. (2.) A function of the Corporation under the last preceding sub-section is exercisable -

in or in relation of a Territory - in relation to any matter; and

in any other case - in relation to any matter with respect to which the Parliament has power to make laws. (3.) The Corporation shall not, in the exercise of its functions under sub-section (1.) of this section, undertake -

the carrying out of an investigation;

the furnishing of any advice;

the designing of an engineering work;

the supervision of a contract; or

the construction of, or the performance of any work in relation to the construction of, an engineering work, except with the approval of the Minister and in accordance with any conditions to which the approval is expressed to be subject. (4.) The Minister shall not, for the purposes of the last preceding sub-section, give his approval in relation to the exercise by the Corporation of a function referred to in paragraph (c), (d) or (e) of sub-section (1.) of this section in respect of an engineering work in Australia unless the work is -

a work for the measurement of the flow of water;

a work for the collection, storage, diversion, conveyance or supply of water;

a work for the generation, transmission or supply of electricity,

a work which, or a substantial part of which, is underground; or

a work (including a road) incidental to a work referred to in any of the preceding paragraphs of this sub-section. (5.) The Minister shall not, for the purposes of sub-section (3.) of this section, give his approval in relation to the exercise by the Corporation in Australia of a function otherwise than for the purposes of, or in relation to an engineering work that is to be carried out by or for, or by or for an authority of, the Commonwealth, a State or the Administration of a Territory of the Commonwealth unless the function is to be exercised in pursuance of a contract between the Corporation and a consulting engineer or the work required for the purposes of the exercise of the function is to be performed wholly or mainly in laboratories of the Corporation. (6.) Notwithstanding sub-section (2.) of this section it is the intention of the Parliament that the Corporation may perform a function of any of the kinds specified in sub-section (1.) of this section in pursuance of an authority conferred on the Corporation by a law of a State, but the provisions of sub-sections (3.), (4..) and (5.) of this section apply in relation to any such performance of a function by the Corporation.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– Prior to the motion for the adjournment of the Senate last night I had moved amendment No. 3 of the amendments circulated on behalf of the Opposition. The amendment was to the effect that sub-clauses (3.), (4.) and (5.) of clause 17 be deleted. I had intended to take amendment Nos 3 and 4 together. Therefore, with the concurrence of honourable senators. 1 move:

In sub-clause (6.) leave out all words after State’. 1 think 1 should comment briefly on the amendments I have proposed. As 1 pointed out in my contribution to the second reading debate, the Australian Labor Party feels that shackles are being placed on the proposed Corporation. If honourable senators examine the amendments which have been circulated on behalf of the Opposition they will see that the Opposition is attempting to remove these shackles. Amendment No. 3 relates to deleting sub-clauses (3.), (4.) and (5.) of clause 17. Sub-clause (3.) limits the functions and powers of the Corporation’s functions aud powers should not be restricted. Sub-clause (4.) limits the amount of work which the Corporation will be able to do. The Corporal on will be restricted to such work as the measurement of the flow of water and the generation, transmission or supply of electricity, lt is appreciated that work of this nature was probably the main reason for the existence of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority. Nevertheless the Opposition does not believe that the proposed Corporation should be denied the right to operate in a wider field.

In his second reading speech the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) referred to the fact that the Government had in the other place conceded additional functions to the proposed authority in relation to sub-clause (5.). This obviously means that we of the Labor Party are not the only ones thinking about the restrictions which are being placed on the Corporation. The Government proposes to allow the Corporation to carry out laboratory work. The Labor Party welcomes this additional function but still does not think that the Corporation’s functions go far enough. Obviously if something of a minor nature has to be done, such as making some sort of analysis in a laboratory, it would not be very wise to call tenders from sub-contractors. As I said last night, there is minor work of this nature throughout the whole construction field. Although there will be some sub-contracting work, there should be minor jobs which the

Corporation would be able to do itself. Of course, the Corporation will be restricted in its activities because this provision lays down that the Corporation must seek the approval of a consulting engineer. The Opposition is of the opinion that this entails an unnecessary expense. It believes that the Corporation’s own engineers would be adequately informed, educated and experienced to do this sort of work. I do not want to go over the things which I said last night during the debate on the second reading of the Bill. I commend the amendments to honourable senators. 1’he TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack) - Is it the wish of the Committee that amendment Nos 3 and 4 be taken together? There be ng no objection, such a course will be adopted.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– The Government accepts the proposition that amendment Nos 3 and 4 should be taken together. Amendment No. 4 is really consequential to amendment No. 3 and they should be treated together. Sub-clause (3.) of clause 17 provides that ministerial approval must be given before the Corporation can undertake a job. lt is felt that the retention of this provision is necessary, otherwise there would be virtually no government screening of the Corporation’s activities other than possibly a retrospective one by the Auditor-General. Valuable as it is, it is appreciated that often the comment occurs after the event. Therefore, the prospects of recovery and change are substantially minimised. Sub-clause (4.) in effect restricts the Corporation’s field of activity to work associated with water and electricity and work which has underground aspects.

The case which was originally presented was that the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Authority had developed its own special expertise in this field. I am sure this fact would be acknowledged. It has been felt therefore that it was in Australia’s interests to retain the nucleus of this experience and skill, lt is equally true that as the Corporation does more and more work and perhaps extends its activities overseas further and further it may develop new expertise in associated fields. I do not wish to say anything else on this aspect.

Sub-clause (5.) of clause 17 provides that the Corporation must work in conjunction with an intermediary private consultant on non-government work. The arguments for and against this provision were traversed fairly adequately last night. I put the Government’s view that as the Corporation was designed to do a special job and to fill a special place it should not be given total freedom to roam over the whole area and perhaps intrude into areas and do work which others are already doing equally as well. I conclude by saying that the Government would not be able to accept the amendments.

Question put:

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

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 21

NOES: 23

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 18 to 20 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 2 1 .

The terms and conditions of employment of officers and employees are such as are determined by the Corporation with the approval of the Public Service Board.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

-I move:

Leave out ‘with the approval of the Public Service Board’.

The necessity to obtain the approval of the Public Service Board is another of the shackles that we so often talk about. Skilled engineers are in short supply in Australia. If the Corporation is able to offer them only terms and conditions of employment as approved by the Public Service Board there may be difficulty in obtaining sufficient staff of this kind. There may be a quick movement in wages, and the Public Service Board, which is bound by decisions of the Public Service Arbitrator, could find itself unable to attract the required staff. The Corporation would be at a disadvantage compared with private companies. Private companies would be able to reach agreement on terms and conditions of employment at short notice. The Corporation would not be able to do this. It would be restricted by the necessity to refer terms and conditions of employment to the Public Service Board for approval.

In a situation where more and more over-award payments are becoming the order of the day the Public Service Board is inhibited. To give the Board its due, it does attempt in some cases to make overaward payments but as soon as it does so there is a further upward movement in wages in outside employment, leaving the Board at a disadvantage. If the amendment is agreed to the Minister will still be able to seek advice from the Board, from employer organisations, from the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission if necessary, or from any other authority. Acceptance of the amendment would not mean the payment under the lap, without authority, of fantastic salaries.

Senator Greenwood:

– Why do you refer to the Minister? Would it not be the Corporation that would do all this?

Senator WILLESEE:

– The Minister has an overriding role in the affairs of the Corporation. The terms and conditions of employment are determined by the Corporation but with the approval of the Board. We do not envisage the Corporation having a free hand. These arguments are well known in other fields. We know that the Public Service Board is at a disadvantage in the matter of exempt officers. We know that this disadvantage is magnified in the engineering field. These arguments have been advanced in relation to other legislation. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Senator COTTON (New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation) ill.44 - We should remember that the Corporation is a statutory body, lt is in effect an arm of government, lt is owned by the Commonwealth Government on behalf of the Australian people. Clause 21 gives the Corporation power to engage staff on any base determined by the Corporation but subject to the general oversight and approval of the Public Service Board. This provision is already in the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Power Act. lt has worked well for a period of 20 years and we would hope to retain it. We think it wise to retain it. The provision has not been unduly restrictive on the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority. Instead it has kept the Authority’s salaries from getting too far out of line wilh salaries paid in comparable organisations in the Commonwealth and in the Slates. Without such a provision there is the problem that the Corporation as such could be open to accusations by State authorities and departments, and perhaps by other people, of pirating staff from them. With those observations I express the view that the Government is unable to accept the Opposition’s proposal.

Senator GREENWOOD (Victoria) lj 1.46] - I want to say something on this very briefly. The points which have been raised by Senator Willesee are undoubtedly substantial points. Thai does not mean that I support the proposed amendment because I fail to see why, in a particular area, we should make an exception when there are other areas to which the same principles apply and in which I think they would apply with greater force. We have said in the Senate - I have heard it generally expressed - that, for example, people in the Parliamentary Draftsman’s office are inhibited in a way in which I think they should not be inhibited. They are. paid salaries which are fixed by the Public Service Board, not on a basis of what they are really worth or what they might possibly be able to obtain, having regard to their qualifications, if they gained employment outside the government service. Their salaries are fixed on a basis that there must be some broad comparison between various qualified people within the Public Service.

This creates many problems. As 1 have said, it applies in the drafting service. I think it applies also in the Patent Office. The professional engineers have had this problem around their necks for many years, and 1 think it is because they are tied in an unnecessary way to the machinations of the Public Service Board. After all, the Public Service Board is an employer of over a quarter of a million people, and when that situation exists it is impossible to gel the kind of relationships between employer and employee which I think are desirable. Accordingly when we create a corporation such as we are creating here and .seek to bring the employees under the aegis of the Public Service Board, I think we are creating further problems.

I recognise that the people wilh whom we are dealing here are noi under the Public Service Board in the sense that Commonwealth employees directly are but, as the clause indicates, they arc to be employed by the Corporation with the approval of the Public Service Board. Experience indicates that in those circumstances the Public Service Board has virtually as great a control and direction over them as it has over people who are directly under it. I, for my part, think that the general matter Senator Willesee has raised has to be considered by the Government and action taken on it, but I feel that to start dealing with this piecemeal - certainly during this week on (his Bill in these circumstances - is not the way to start. This is something which has to be considered but 1 believe that it is better considered in a context in which people other than those involved in the Corporation are concerned.

Senator MCCLELLAND (New South Wales) fi 1.48]- I will be very brief because of the time factor. The Minister has said that a provision of this nature is already in the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Power Act. I point out to him that the functions of this Corporation are to be completely different in nature and in operation from those of the present Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority. The Corporation which is being set tip tinder this legislation will be expected to operate as a viable, self supporting, profit making concern just as any ordinary consultant operates. Indeed the Corporation is bound to charge ordinary consultant fees. In addition other restrictions have been imposed upon the Corporation. They have been brought out in the second reading debate and in Committee by Senator Willesee.

Here we could well have the ludicrous situation of a government instrumentality such as the Corporation trying to compete with private industry and trying to carry out the functions laid down in the terms of the legislation while having no control over the salaries and conditions of its officers and employees because everything that it does in the way of making an offer to a prospective employee, or in the hope of retaining an existing employee, is subject to the approval of the Public Service Board. I can see great difficulties ahead for the Corporation if it is to be bound in the manner set out in the legislation.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

-I want to make one comment arising mainly out of what Senator Greenwood has said. If one looks at the relevant provisions in the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Power Act and in the Bill before us one sees that that in the Bill before us is more restrictive than is that in the Act. Clause 21 of the Bill provides:

The terms and conditions of employment of officers and employees are such as are determined by the Corporation with the aproval of the Public Service Board.

The Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Act provides:

  1. – (1.) The Authority may appoint such officers as it thinks necessary for the purposes of this Act. (2.) The selection of persons for appointment as officers under this section shall be made in accordance with such requirements as the Public Service Board determines. . . .

It may be that the Draftsman sees no difference in them - I do not know - but it seems to me that the provision in the Bill is tougher than that in the Act. I do not want to start an argument on this because we could be here all night determining it. In practice it may have worked out in the same way, but it seems to me that the wording in relation to the Corporation is much tougher and much more restrictive than is the wording of the provision in the Act.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I take the points raised by Senator Greenwood, Senator McClelland and Senator Willesee. I think the observations that have been made generally by Senator Greenwood, supported to some extent by Senator McClelland, in relation to the problem of the Public Service Board and those who come under its total responsibility and aegis is a matter for total and separate discussion, as they properly observed. I agree with them. I do not want to involve myself in it at this stage because that would not be wise or sensible in this situation. The original argument still stands. This is a governmental authority operating within the broad pattern of government administration as it now is, and therefore it is sought to have it conform to that pattern. If at some later date it is decided to change the general pattern of overall government responsibilities and the Public Service Board’s administration of its functions within them, they should be changed on the basis of total review and total argument on a proper stage set for the purpose.

Senator McClelland raised the point that the functions of the new authority are very different from those of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority. That is partially true, but I think it is fair comment to say that one draws out of the past the experience one needs to guide one in the future. That is what has been done here. I will refer Senator Willesee’s comment to the responsible department after this matter has been concluded but I am assured by the authorities that, if anything, the provisions of the Bill are a little less restrictive - not more restrictive - than those in the existing Act.

Question put:

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

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 21

NOES: 23

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 (Limitation of Staff).

Senator WILLESEE (Western Australia) [12.0 - The Australian Labor Party opposes clause 23, which relates to limitation of staff. I would underline some words in subclause (I.). I have literally underlined them in the copy of the Bill in front of me. They are:

Minister may. by instrument in writing . .

I had hoped that these words, having been omitted from similar legislation in the past, would not have been included in this legislation. ‘Instrument in writing’ can mean anything. It can mean writing on the back of an envelope or it can mean the Minister’s own handwriting. I assume the Minister has authority to delegate. Probably a delegate could furnish the instrument in writing. The Senate has made a very forceful pronouncement in the past that the term ‘instrument in writing’ should not be used in legislation. Much stronger wording should have been used in this Bill, particularly in view of the number of staff that the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation may employ. Clause 23 (1.) states:

The Minister may, by instrument in writing, determine that the number of persons employed by the Corporation at any time shall nol exceed the number specified in the instrument.

This implies that the number of persons employed may vary. This matter should be subjected to great public scrutiny. According to this clause, only a letter need be written saying that the number of employees shall be this, that or the other. This provision is another limitation. We believe that the Corporation should be a responsible enough body to determine itself the number of engineers, typists or labourers it should employ. We believe that any corporation would be able to do that. After all, this body has built up a considerable amount of experience over the years. This provision represents the kind of restriction that we have been trying to remove from the Bill, unfortunately with no success. Therefore the Australian Labor Party will vote against clause 23.

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · New South Wales · LP

I12.2J - Briefly, clause 23 does empower the Minister to set the ceiling on the number of employees of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. The reason for this provision is the same as the reason for imposing other limitations, that is, to remove any anxiety that the Corporation may enlarge itself beyond sensible limits and beyond its skills. It is not designed to be a punitive measure or anything like that. lt is designed to have the Corporation take a sensible view of what it ought to do at any point of time and to have the Corporation responsible to the Minister. In response to Senator Willesee, 1 think the only comment one can make is that any responsible Minister would act responsibly in this case. If he did not act responsibly there are remedies that lie against him and the Government he represents for nol acting responsibly. I think this is apparent to everyone. On that basis, 1 am very much afraid that I cannot accept the proposal of the Opposition. Al the same time 1 acknowledge that what the Opposition is saying is something thai can be said and something that has been said before.

Clause agreed to.

Remainder of Bill - by leave - taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment: report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2627

WOOL INDUSTRY BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12 June (vide page 2431), on motion by Senator Drake.Brockman

That the Bill be now read a second lime.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– The Senate is dealing with the Wool Industry Bill. Wool is one of the most important industries which exists in Australia. The Bill has 3 main principles contained in it. The first principle is to decrease the amount of levy paid by wool growers and increase the amount paid by the Commonwealth towards wool promotion and research. The second is to alter the method of appointment of the Chairman and some members of the Australian Wool Board. The third is to allow the Board to borrow money for the purpose of providing or encouraging the provision of wool selling centres. The reduction of the amount of levy on wool producers from 2% to 1% is esimated in the second reading speech by the Minister for Air (Senator DrakeBrockman) who in this chamber represents the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) to be a saving of $1.20 a bale. Put in this context that sounds a substantial saving to the grower. While any saving in this industry which is suffering a cost price squeeze must be welcomed the saving, on examination, seems to me to be approximately one third of one cent a lb. What effect this is going to have overall on the cost price squeeze is debatable.

With wool selling at prices approximating 1948 and with 1970 costs of production, a far greater saving than this is needed to have any marked effect upon the wool producers. What is required to save this industry is massive savings in costs of production and fair and equitable prices for the products. Perhaps the overriding feature we should be looking at now is fair and equitable prices for the products. In the case of wool, those fair and equitable prices are not being obtained. It may be that the establishment of these wool selling centres, wool villages or wool complexes as they are variously named may have some effect on reducing costs. Personally, I do not think they will. I think we will run into the same problem we are running into with shipping. Consortiums came here and introduced what is known as ‘container shipping’. Never at any time were the consortiums prepared to say that container shipping would reduce freight rates. They did say that the introduction of container shipping would stabilise freight rates. If one looks at this morning’s Australian’ one will see that the shipping freight rates from England to Australia have already been increased by 12±% and the shippers are now asking for a 12±% increase in shipping freight rates from Australia to the United Kingdom. Yet this is within a very short time of the introduction of container shipping which was to stabilise freight rates. 1 believe the same thing will happen with respect to the establishment of these wool selling centres. I say this because the Bill provides that after the construction of these wool selling centres they may be leased to the brokers.

The brokers have been the evil people in this industry over many years. They are the middle people who produce nothing. In many cases they do not provide a service. But at all times they skim off some of the money which passes between the producer and the consumer. Generally the consumer has to pay the broker’s expenses because the producer has no way of passing on his costs, lt is the middle man who has been reaping the cream of the industry. He will continue to remain in this position of being able to exploit any saving which may be made.

Nothing in the Bill provides that any cost savings which are made as a result of the Board establishing these wool centres will be passed on to the grower. The Australian Labor Party believes that until ways are found to reduce the effect of the middleman and give the grower more effective control or voice in the sale of the products of his industry it will be in a state of depression. Later on 1 hope to give some quotations which I think will convince the Senate that some sort of collusion is going on at the present time.

I think that what is required to remedy some of the evil effects of the cost price squeeze within the industry is the establishment of a statutory corporation. The statutory corporation should be set up to acquire the Australian wool clip, to appraise it, and market and distribute it on behalf of the grower. A majority grower representation should be on the corporation. It is noted, of course, that while the Bill does not deal with the proposition of a corporation the Minister in his second reading speech does refer to one. He said*.

The establishment of the Wool Marketing Corporation will relieve the Board of a good deal of its marketing investigation work.

As I understand it this corporation will be a voluntary corporation. Its main objective will be to have a price averaging scheme. Growers have stated that this sort of corporation will not be satisfactory because it will increase costs rather than decrease them. Nevertheless the Government proposes to support this voluntary corporation and spend the taxpayers’ money in support of it. If the brokers are allowed to operate wool selling centres all the evil features of the system will continue. We also require the establishment of a reconstruction scheme to assist in the solution of problems of production and to streamline selling methods. I think these matters are of particular importance. We are aware of the collusive buying and the buying pies that operate. It cannot be denied that these buying pies do exist, despite the fact that the Minister for Primary Industry went to Japan and asked the Japanese whether they were practising a policy of collusive buying, and the Japanese denied it. I would not expect them to do anything else. We know the methods that are used by the Japanese when they come to Australia to purchase our raw products. They are tough business people. They want the products at the cheapest possible price. Any businessman does. To go to Japan and ask the Japanese whether they are indulging in collusive buying is like appealing from Caesar to Caesar.

The Cook report in New South Wales revealed the existence of buying pies in Australia. We know that the number of buyers attending the wool sales today is about half the number of 3 or 4 years ago. We are aware that there are agreements between various buyers not to oppose one another for certain lines or lots that are on the floor. We know that in many cases these lines after having been purchased are split between various buyers. In this way, of course, the prices of the goods that are to be sold are being depressed. We believe that these evil features must be eliminated. We believe that a statutory authority - I refer to a statutory authority, not a voluntary corporation to which the Minister refers - would go a long way towards curing many of these evils. We envisage a statutory authority similar to the Australian Wheat Board to which all wool would be delivered. From then on the statutory authority would be in charge of the presentation and the marketing of the clip.

16320/70-^S- [I02J

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– Would you do away with the brokers, Senator?

Senator CANT:

– If necessary we would do away with the brokers. We do not go so far as to say at this stage that we would do away with brokers, but if it became necessary in order to ensure economic prices or realistic world prices for the products of the woolgrowers then we would do away with the brokers. But at this point of time we base our proposition on the system that operates. However, we do say that there should be 1 selling authority. There should be 1 authority to acquire the whole of the Australian wool clip, put it in a condition for it to be marketed, and then market it. If the channels that are presently used for the disposal of the wool clip proved satisfactory within the scheme then we would continue with them. But if they did not prove satisfactory we would find alternative ways of disposing of the wool clip.

Senator Devitt:

– We might do a little collusive selling in opposition.

Senator CANT:

– 1 noticed that some little time ago, when the industry itself adopted a policy of a selling authority or a corporation, the Japanese made a statement that there should not be collusive selling, that there must be the greatest freedom in the marketing of the Austraiian wool clip. The countries that make up the European Economic Community said only a few days ago that there must be the greatest flexibility in the selling of the Australian wool clip. At this point of time I do not disagree with that. But I say to both those communities - the Japanese community and the European Economic Community - that if there is to be the greatest flexibility in the selling of the Australian products there must be the greatest flexibility in the buying of them. There is not to be collusive buying. There are not to be collusive pies buying wool. There should be open and fair competition on the wool selling floor. It is not for them to tell us that we shall have the greatest flexibility in selling our clip while they put restrictions on the methods of buying it.

I do not believe that the corporation to which the Minister refers will have the effect of assisting the wool producer in any way whatsoever. Its main feature is what is known as the price averaging plan. This of course will be in the hands of the brokers. What sort of justice does the Government think can be achieved by setting these things up within the hands of the brokers? There is not time in this debate to go into al) these things fully, because 1 do not want to delay the Senate. From some of the documentation that I have been able to read 1 have found that the finance for the price averaging plan is to be arranged through the Australian Bankers* Association. I think this is particularly important. This Association has stated that it will deal only with the National Council of Wool Selling Brokers. So that already this corporation is tied up with the wool selling brokers. There is no freedom for the producer to have a say in the way that his products should be marketed or presented on the appraisement floor. But this illustrates once again that the growers are to he ignored in favour of the brokers, f want to know: What hope is there for the growers in the circumstances I have referred to? There are many other evil features in this proposal that I do not have time to go into.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP; NCP from May 1975

-Brock,nar - Can you tell me this without interrupting your speech too much: Who will draw the plan that you have suggested?

Senator CANT:

– lt is the proposal of the Australian Labor Party that when it comes to office after the next election - I hope the next election is nol very far around the corner - it will engage the necessary expertise to draw up this plan and do this job. We have done it twice before. We did it in the first World War and we did it in the Second World War. We are not one bit inhibited by anyone saying that we cannot do it again. We believe that we can. We have proven on 2 occasions that we can do it, and I see nothing that would inhibit us from doing it once again.

Senator PROWSE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

– There are different constitutional provisions.

Senator CANT:

– I agree that there are different constitutional provisions, and there may be some different problems. But right from the day a child goes to school problems are set him by teachers only so that he can solve them. We find problems in setting up any plan. We will find ways and means of solving these problems. First of all there must be a will to do it, and in this instance there is not. We say we must find ways and means of doing it, but the grower must be given an opportunity to take part in the increase in efficiency in the handling and marketing of his products. He must be given a greater voice in the decision on how his products will be sold. He must also be given a greater voice in determining the manner in which his products are presented for sale, lt is interesting to note that some of the buyers agree that the Australian wool clip should be bringing greater prices. An article which appeared in the Adelaide ‘Chronicle’ on 5th June quoted what was said by a buyer from South Australia whom 1 am sure honourable senators will know. The article is headed: “Wool prices “could rise” ‘, and it states:

Growers could expect wool prices to rise by up lu 12c a pound if a minimum price plan was adopted in Australia al the start of the 1970-71 selling season, a leading wool buyer said this week.

The managing director of i. W. McGreger and Co., Mr R. P. McGreger, said that this increase would be accepted by wool users throughout the world . .

Textile industry leaders in most countries agree that wool prices could be up to 11% higher without affecting demand. The present price is unnecessarily low and unless a minimum price is brought in immediately, growers can almost certainly expect lower prices again next season. 1 do not want to go into this matter because time is running out. This is the voice of a grower and I am sure you, Mr Deputy President (Senator Laucke), will agree that he is a reputable citizen. I know he has pastoral interests, so whilst he is a wool buyer he is also a producer in another aspect. There may be a small conflict of interest. Nevertheless he is a reputable buyer and a reputable citizen of Australia, and this is the opinion he has expressed. He is not a man without experience in the industry.

The proposal for a different method of appointment of the chairman and some members of the Board seems to be an improvement. 1 hope that it will not develop into the appointment of persons who will carry out only the policy advocated by the Minister. If appointments fall into this line the Board may be less efficient than we hope it will. be. 1 would like the Minister to answer this, because in his second reading speech he said that the Board has under its control some 280 wool stores. In his second reading speech as recorded at page 2434 of Hansard of 21st May 1970 he says:

The Wool Board has under its control some 2S0 wool stores which are a legacy . . .

I will not quote further, but I would like the Minister to tell me where these stores are, what their condition is at this time and what their value is, because this is the equity that the Board will use, plus whatever other borrowings it can make, to establish these wool complexes. There is 1 complex in Geraldton which, as the Minister knows, is never used. There was never a bale of wool put into it. What its position is today I do not know, but some years ago it was given to Geraldton Building Co. Pty Ltd and it has cement and that sort of thing in it. Geraldton Building Co. Pty Ltd does all its prefabrication of buildings in it. The store is actually a factory at this time. Is it still under lease? Was it ever under lease? Has it been disposed of? What is its condition? What is the value of assets that the Wool Board has available to it to establish these wool selling complexes? I would like the Minister, if he could, to give me some idea of the estimates, if any estimates have been made, of what it will cost to establish these wool selling complexes and where these complexes will be situated.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– The speech we have just heard shows the danger of engaging in a series of generalities. It is not my intention to follow the lead of Senator Cant. 1 wish only to speak briefly. There is a grave danger of the wool industry and others becoming so engrossed with marketing and the need or otherwise for marketing changes - which they seem to regard as some panacea that will overcome all the problems of the wool industry; and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) only a day or two ago gave a warning on this subject - that they will ignore the many other things it is necessary to do if we are to put this great Australian industry on a much firmer basis than it is on al present. We cannot ignore the other adjustments that have become necessary. It is not my intention at this late stage to go into all these details; I only want to make one or two points.

Firstly, I understood Senator Cam to say that the establishment of a statutory corporation would relieve the cost price squeeze - and he left it at that. I am not arguing now with the advisability or desirability of establishing a statutory corporation, but for Senator Cant merely to make that statement is quite unreal, because the establishment of a statutory corporation will not relieve us of the problems of the cost price squeeze at all.

As a wool grower I am interested in one thing; that is, is something going to put cents per lb into my pocket? I am not interested in airy fairy ideas. When someone convinces me that a change is going to put cents per lb into my pocket I am all for it, because that is what people are interested in.

Senator O’Byrne:

– You will have to rely on the ban on the export of merino rams to help.

Senator SIM:

– That will not help. In any event, that is the most stupid remark I have heard on this. I agree prices are unrealistic, but to blame marketing as being the sole cause is also unrealistic. The other day I came across some facts, and this is the real reason why I rose to speak. I think they should be known. It is reprehensible that some leaders in the wool industry have not made these facts public, because they should remove any degree of complacency that the problem is partly one of marketing and partly the cost price squeeze. The facts disclosed are of falling consumption and the failure of wool to benefit from the increased demand for textile fibres. In the few minutes I have left to speak I intend to put some of these facts before the Senate. In the first quarter of 1970, as against the first quarter of 1969. consumption of merino wool in the United Kingdom feil by 16% while that of man made fibres fell by only 1%.

Senator Cant:

– What was the increase in the consumption of man made fibres?

Senator SIM:

– In the United Kingdom the consumption of man made fibres fell by 1%. I will come to the world increase in the use of man made fibres in a moment. In January 1970, as against January 1969, the stocks of wool yarn in Japan increased by 11% and of woven woollen fabrics by 5%. In the United States of America the consumption of apparel wool in 1969 reached the lowest level since the war; it went to 9% be:ow the figure for 196S.

These are alarming figures. I come to the point raised by Senator Cant. Between 1959 and 1969 wool consumption rose from 3,178 million lb clean weight to 3,510 million lb clean weight but the consumption of synthetics rose in the same period from 1,271 million lb to 9,589 million lb.

Senator Cant:

– Have you any figures for the total world use of fibres?

Senator SIM:

– No, 1 am afraid I have not. These are just the figures 1 wish to quote.

Senator Cant:

– This provides the third answer, does it?

Senator SIM:

– Yes. I agree that they are very interesting figures. I have not the figures about which Senator Cant asked. lt is interesting to note that wool consumption, while falling in the developed countries has been rising slightly in the under developed countries. This can be attributed to the lower wool prices. The figures I have mentioned remove any reason for complacency as to the position of wool on the world textile fibre market and, to my mind, make unreal the view that we can impose - much as I would like to see il done - a price on the world market above what that market is prepared to pay.

All the modern mills throughout the world can change from the manufacture of woollen cloth to synthetics with very little change or interruption to their production. Therefore Australia is not in a very strong position to bargain on world prices. That does not mean that I am against change in marketing. I am not against change in marketing. I believe that we have to develop a marketing system that is the best for us, but I have to be satisfied that the system we develop is not one developed in desperation but is one to which great thought has been given. Any attempt to force a price on the world market could have disastrous consequences for our wool industry. Many people seem to overlook that fact, lt is not use referring to what happened in the First World War, after the First World War or after the Second World War. Those conditions do not exist today. We are facing ever increasing competition from man-made fibres and this is proving a great threat to the Australian wool industry and to the wool industry in the world generally. After all. the world consumption of wool as a proportion of the total textile fibre consumption is falling almost year by year, lt has fallen from 10% a year or 2 ago to 8% now, and shows signs of falling still further.

I merely make those comments because we cannot ignore the facts. We do not want to become obsessed with the idea that marketing is the panacea to cure all our ills. We have to ensure that the necessary restructuring of the wool industry takes place, that wool handling is improved because a high cost is involved in the handling of wool, that core testing is improved to make sure that we are presenting a belter guarantee product, and that there is better presentation of the wool clip. These are all matters of considerable priority. I am critical of the cost involved in handling wool from the woolshed to its point of destination. That cost represents a very serious burden to the industry. 1 have some figures produced by the Committee of Economic Development of Australia in its recent report. Handling costs from the wool grower’s store to the point of entry in the importing country were $28.1.2 for each bale of wool exported to the United Kingdom, 523.83 to Japan and $30.20 to the United States of America. If we could save a few dollars pec bale, on the handling that would represent a considerable saving to the wool industry. I feel that in this area there is room for a considerable saving in costs.

I support the Bill. 1 have nol really spoken much about it. The Bill represents, on my figures, a saving of about S6m annually to the wool industry. The figures for the fall in consumption support the view that we have to improve our promotion and research if we are to hold our position on the world market.

Senator LITTLE (Victoria) [I2.41We have heard 2 speeches designed to convince us that there are some problems in the wool industry. Those speeches would have been very valuable, had we all not been aware already that there are problems in the wool industry. The Bill is a simple one. lt sets out to do 2 things. Its first purpose is to make allowance for the Australian Wool Board to borrow money for specified purposes to assist the industry and the manufacturing process. That is a good thing. The Board should be he authority to do this. If anbody has a better suggestion, that someone else should do it, that has not been mentioned in the course of the debate. We have no option but to accept that the Board is the proper authority to have that borrowing power to carry out the tasks set out in the Bill. Therefore my Party supports the Bill.

An encouraging feature of the Bill is that the Government, recognising the problems in the industry, is setting out to accept a larger responsibility for the scientific research and for providing the money needed by the industry for its own scientific research into ways of improving its product, its marketing and anything else that may help to lift the industry out of the doldrums. It is true that the problems which exist do not flow from any one particular source, and they never have done. The wool industry is faced with tremendous problems, but it would be a very unwise person who would think that there is some magical cure somewhere or that the problems flow from one specific source. Going back over the years one finds that other industries are also subject to the ups and downs of prosperity. In fact after the 1914-1918 war the armament manufacturers, such as Vickers-Armstrong, found themselves in a most embarrassing position because of the capital development that had come about in their industry for the purpose of supplying the allied forces with arms. They found themselves in the post-war years with an industrial giant that they could not keep satisfied with sufficient orders. The size of the investment in the industry was gradually wrecking it. This is only one of the problems that faces the wool industry. After some years of extraordinary prosperity it finds that the cost structure of the industry has been expanded and developed by its own prosperity. This has caused a series of problems.

I do not want to say any more along those lines because it would be foolish to endeavour to deal with the problems of the wool industry in a short Bill such as this which, when we are finished discussing it, will accomplish only 2 things which we all agree are desirable. For that reason I propose to say no more about it.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I shall not detain the Senate long. I should like to thank honourable senators for the contributions they have made to the Bill and for the support they have given it. I shall not go through the details of the Bill because Senator Little has just done that. I shall confine my remarks to answering some points raised by honourable senators in their speeches. Senator Cant asked what savings would be brought about to the wool industry by wool complexes and what amount would be passed on to the growers. This is a question to which the Australian Wool Board itself wants to know the answer. The Wool Board has taken action along certain lines. It has set up the Wool Advisory Committee to advise it on some of the immediate problems within the wool industry, one of which is the handling of wool. It has asked the Committee to determine how much saving could be effected through the introduction of certain handling methods by the industry as a whole and by producers in particular.

Senator Sim referred to the established handling costs of a bale of wool from the shearing shed to the door of the overseas manufacturer. He cited an amount of about $28 as the handling cast of a bale of wool shipped to England and about $30 for a bale of wool snipped to the United States of America. I have considered that the average cost is about $30 a bale, in round figures. The Wool Board has also obtained the services of an outside organisation to study the costs of setting up a complex and the savings that might be derived from that move. The Board has had an interim report from that organisation and has asked for further facts and figures which are now being obtained.

Senator Cant:

asked for details of the Board’s wool stores. He referred to the cost of the stores, their situation, state of repair and use. Those full details are not available to me at the moment. I shall take the opportunity during the parliamentary recess of writing to the honourable senator to give him that information. He referred to action taken by the Labor Government that was in office during World War II. During that period about 400 wool stores were estab lished in all capital cities, and at Newcastle and Geraldton. Some were established on leasehold land. After World War II the various Governments and the property owners on whose land some of the stores were erected took action because the owners wanted the use of the land. These stores had to be sold or disposed of in some way.

When the Liberal-Country Party Government that came into office in 1949 decided to hand over the wool stores to the wool industry, about 320 of them were disposed of in that manner. Some of the stores have fallen into disrepair and for that and other reasons have gone out of existence as wool stores or have been disposed of. In the result, the number cited by the honourable senator is st ill in operation.

Senator Sim referred to wool marketing and gave his views on that subject.I do not believe that wool marketing comes within the ambit of this Bill. Wool marketing is a subject in which we are all interested and perhaps we could discuss it at a later stage. Senator Little entered the debate to indicate his Party’s stand on this legislation. I think we should now proceed to the Committee stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

The Bill.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I move the following amendment standing in the name of Senator O’Byrne:

After clause 5, insert the following new clause: 5a. Section 18 of the Principal Act is amended -

  1. by omitting the words ‘and allowances as the Governor-General determines and inserting in their stead the wordsas the Parliament provides but until the first day of January, One thousand nine hundred and seventy-one, that remuneration shall be as determined by the Governor-General’; and
  2. by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section: (2.) Members and deputies of members shall be paid such allowances as are prescribed.’.

I do not wish to weary the Senate by engaging in a lengthy discourse on the proposed amendment. The principle involved has been argued at length in relation to several Bills that have been before the Senate in the past few weeks. Those arguments apply equally to this measure. It will be noted that the proposed amendment provides that Parliament shall fix the salaries. It should be remembered that the members whose payment is the subject ofthe proposed amendment will be handling large sums of money on behalf of the woo! growers. The wool growers are the people who finally will have to pay the moneys that are raised on the basis of the assets of the Board or on the basis of any borrowings that the Board may make.

The Bill provides for the expenditure during the next 3 years of $81m, or$27m a year, on promotion and research. It is obvious that the members of the Board will occupy responsible positions. 1 know that the Government will endeavour to select the most responsible men available for the’ job, but because of the heavy responsibilities they will bear the Opposition says that their remuneration should be determined by this Parliament. That is provided for in paragraph (a) of the proposed amendment.

Paragraph (b) of the proposed amendment relates to allowances. The members of the Board will have to travel, not only in Australia but also overseas, in orderto carry out their proper functions and to assist the industry as much as possible in its problems. We hope to solve some of those problems. We believe it is reasonable to expect the allowances to be fixed by regulation and not by the Parliament. It is our view that the remuneration should be fixed by Parliament and the allowances should be as prescribed. The term’as prescribed’ means by regulation. Because of the pressure of time I do not wish to speak any longer on this matter.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– The Australian Democratic Labor Party has already indicated its attitude to the type of amendment that is now proposed. Some weeks ago the procedure was adopted of writing into the legislation the fixation of salaries by statute. On 2 or 3 occasions we gave our support to that principle. Then a general statement was made on behalf of our Party that as many such instrumentalities employed people whose salaries would come under consideration, merely to select those people whose enabling statute happened to come before the Parliamentto change the method of fixation seemed to us to be imprudent and unwise. We therefore suggestedt hat the whole matter should be considered. We suggested that until it had been considered the present mode of fixation should be retained and that the whole matter should be considered in principle for general application at the appropriate time. In pursuance of that general statement we do not support the proposed amendment.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN (Western

Government does not support this motion at present for the reasons stated by Senator Byrne. Because the Senate has seen fit to change the method of fixation of remuneration for boards now in operation, in respect of which legislation has been before the Senate, the Government believes that there should be a review to see at which level a board’s remuneration should be fixed by Parliament and at which level it should be established by the GovernorGeneral. For the reasons I have stated we do not support the amendment.

Question put:

That the new clause 5a proposed to be inserted (Senator O’Byrne’s amendment) be inserted.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack

AYES: 22

NOES: 24

Majority . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

Sitting suspended from 1.2 to 2.15 p.m.

page 2635

LOAN (WAR SERVICE LAND SETTLEMENT) BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12 June (vide page 2432), on motion by Senator DrakeBrockman:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– This Bill provides for the raising of loan moneys amounting to $4,500,000 for war service land settlement in the States of Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania during the 1969-70 financial year. The Opposition is opposing the Bill to the extent that we propose an amendment to the motion for the second reading. On behalf of the Opposition I move:

At the outset I should explain that we are not asking for the setting up of a Senate select committee but for the matter to be referred to one of the new committees that have been set up in the last few days by a resolution carried in this chamber. The $4,500,000 provided in this Bill is to be allocated as follows: Western Australia $1,900,000, South Australia $1,946,000 and Tasmania $654,000. The Opposition takes this opportunity to criticise the administration of war service land settlement, and brief mention might be made of the manner in which it is intended that the Government should utilise this money in its advances to people occupying land under the scheme. In his second reading speech the Minister for Air (Senator DrakeBrockman) said:

Also some have experienced, and are still experiencing, a cost price squeeze. It will be appreciated that all these factors have militated against a proportion of settlers, particularly those on the later allotments, being able to accumulate sufficient financial reserves to enable them to carry on without further borrowing. For such settlers access to the credit arrangements of the scheme is an advantage, particularly in the concessional rate of interest applying to advances.

For a long time the Australian Labor Party has consistently criticised the administration of this scheme. Some 2 or 3 years ago in this chamber I was rather caustic in my remarks concerning allocations for youngsters, particularly conscripts, who are discharged after service in Vietnam and who are not entitled to loans of this nature. I remind the Government that the excuse it made on previous occasions was that these men were not entitled to aid of this nature because this country was not at war.

In the last few days my colleague, Senator Brown, and I have endeavoured to find out whether any documents exist to show that Australia is al war in Vietnam. I think this question will have to be resolved if men. returning from Vietnam are to be granted assistance to enable them to settle on farms. On Tuesday, in reply to a question I put on notice and in which I asked for a copy of the document which it was claimed set out in detail the request of South Vietnam for Australian military assistance to be tabled, I received the following answer from the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton):

I refer the honourable senator to the reply I gave on 21 May 1970 to question No. 290 (Hansard, page 1663).

This was a contemptible and short reply. After conducting some research I found that a similar answer was given to Senator Brown, the answer to him referring to the reply on 7th April 1970 to a question from Senator Murphy and a reply from the then Prime Minister, Mr Harold Holt, on 27th October 1.966 to a question asked by Mr Beazley in the other place. In order to save time and with the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate the 3 questions and answers in Hansard. vietnam

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister:

Will the Prime Minister have tabled in the Senate the document, or alternatively a copy of the document, which, it is claimed, sets out in detail the request of South Vietnam for Australian arms and troops to assist in military operations in tha country; if nol, is it a fact that no request for military aid was ever received from any representative of any government in South Vietnam, al any time?

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

– The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senators question:

I refer the honourable senator to the reply I gave on 21 May 1970 to question No. 290 (Hansard, page 1663).

page 2636

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 11th March, Senator Murphy asked me the following question without notice:

Can the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs supply, for the information of the Senate, information as to when Australia was asked to become involved in Vietnam, from whom the request came, in what form the request was made and, if the request was in any written or printed form, whether a copy of it could be tabled in the Senate? 1 said that I would attempt to obtain the information for which the honourable senator was asking. The Minister for External A Hu iri has provided the following answer:

The circumstances of the Government’s decisions to send to the Republic of Vietnam, at the invitation of the Government of that country, a group of Australian military instructors in 1962 and a combat force of an infantry battalion in 1965 were set out in statement, made respectively on 24th May 1962, by the then Minister for Defence, Mr Athol Townley, and un 29th April 1965 by the then Prime Minister, S’ir Robert Menzies. The hitler was made in the House of Representatives: the text of Die statement issued by Mr Townley is as follows: [‘The Minister for Defence, the Hon. Athol Townley, announced today thai at the invitation of the Government of (he Republic of Vietnam, Australia was sending: a group, of military instructors to that country.]

Mr Townley said that there is today in Vietnam an urgent problem of communist infiltration and insurgency which is fomented, directed and supported from North Vietnam. Australia has already given some assistance to the Government of South Vietnam to meeting this threat by providing communications equipment, barbed wire and other materials fur village defence, and has promised more aid of this nature.

The need has now emerged for military training assistance, particularly in the field of jungle warfare, in which Australian forces had particularly Valuable experience. Up to some 30 Australian Army personnel will oe sent to provide instruction in jungle warfare, village defence and other related activities such as engineering and signals. Colonel F. P. Serong, formerly Commandant of the Jungle Training Centre at Canungra, would shortly visit Saigon lu ascertain on the spot the most effective way in which the Australian instructors could be lined into the defensive measures against the communist activities. Mr ‘townley emphasised that Australia was not providing combat forces, noi- had she been asked by the Government of Vietnam io provide such forces.) The role of the Australian Army Instructors would be to assist in the training of the people of Vietnam and so help them to defeat the Vietcong communist-,, whose aim is to take over that country by organised terrorism.

Mr Townley stated thai H the Communists were to achieve their aims in Vietnam this would gravely affect the security of the whole South East Asian area and ultimately of Australia itself. The Australian Government’s response to the invitation to assist Vietnam, which is a Protocol State under the SEATO Treaty, was in accordance with Australia’s obligations under that Treaty.’

As to the tabling of the document or documents involved, there is a well established principle in these matters that communications between Governments are confidential to the Governments concerned. The Government does not believe it is appropriate to depart from that principle in this case.

VIETNAM

Mr BEAZLEY ; I desireto ask the Prime Minister a question which I asked the Acting Prime Minister yesterday. I asked whether the text of the request of the South Vietnamese Government to the Government of Australia could be published. If it cannot be published could the right honourable gentleman indicate what general principles underlie its non-publication?

Mr HAROLD HOLT; I did see the published report of the question that has been asked by the honourable gentleman.

I have no wish to withhold from the House information which would be of assistance to it. but there is a very well established principle in these matters. I have checked on the detail of this and I can say to the honourable gentleman the communications between governments on this, as on other matters of government business, are confidential to the two governments. I can assure him that our military assistance has always been provided in response to official requests and we have always given the fullest publicity to our actions in this field consistent with the confidential character of the communications and the nature of the subject. He will be aware, because he studies these things closely - as I think those members of the Parliament who have had ministerial experience will certainly be aware - that it is the practice rather than the exception for a good deal of prior diplomatic activity to go on between the two Governments concerned before a formal request is presented. Finally, the matter has come to us in the shape of a formal request from the Government concerned. There is nothing particularly mysterious about the language and nothing of any significance that I am attempting toconceal, but there is an established practice in these matters and I do not feel it proper to depart from it.

Mr Whitlam ; Was it inthe same terms as that which Mr Holyoake received and published?

Mr HAROLD HOLT; I cannot answer for the practices of other governments. This is the practice that has been followed by governments from both sides of this House in our relations with other governments, and I believe we secure information on a wider and more frank basis because it is recognised that this is the way in which Australia treats the confidential communications it receives from other governments. I do not knowthe circumstances in Mr Holyoake’s case. The practice may differ there. 1 do not suggest that a government in South Vietnam thinks up a particular figure; there is a general request to us to the effect that it would like further military assistance if we can give it. We look at the practicability of meeting this request and we indicate the sort of assistance that we can give. Then a formal request for that sort of assistance follows. That is the way in which this kind of thing is normally done in practice.

To those honourable senators who are arguing for assistance for youngsters who are returning from Vietnam to enable them to obtain war service land settlement assistance, these questions and answers supply the complete picture and will save themthe need to make research.

I emphasise that the terms of the amendment are clear-cut. They do not suggest that the Bill will be delayed. They do not suggest that we are going to prevent anyone from getting assistance, measly though it will be. from the $4,500,000. When the Budget is introduced we will find that the Government can provide$100m to send kids to Vietnam, yet it can find only $4,500,000 for war service land settlement from which none of them will benefit. The Government, in its wisdom, should do all in its power in framing the Budget to see that these youngsters get some justice. The question of war service land settlement is of sufficient magnitude to warrant a proper investigation. We have asked that it be referred to one of the newly appointed standing committees so that a proper investigation, in appropriate circumstances, can be carried out to see whether justice can be granted in this field.

Senator LILLICO:
Tasmania

-I rise to oppose the amendment andto support the Bill if for no other reason than that the passage of the amendment would delay the Bill and delay the benefits that would flow from its passage.

Mr DEPUTY PRESIDENT:

– Order! I must interrupt the honourable senator. Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Cant:

– I second the amendment.

Senator LILLICO:

– I agree that there has been a lot of dissatisfaction with war service land settlement for a long lime. Probably it is more pronounced in my State of Tasmania than elsewhere. I think that everyone is aware of the dissatisfaction that has existed on King Island. Most of it evolves around the option of purchase price. It has been a matter of some controversy asto which government and which authority determines the option of purchase price. I believe it is laid down in the Act that the State Minister for Agriculture is charged with the allocation of the option of purchase price, but because of the Commonwealth’s large pecuniary interests in the proposition the option of purchase prices are checked by a Treasury official. I do not know what happens but subsequently there has been a mighty disparity in the prices so allocated and those set out according to land valuations by the State Minister for Agriculture. I have been handed a rundown on 6 properties in the Mawbanna area in Tasmania. The option of purchase price in one case - this was the land only without structures, buildings, barns, fences and everything else - was assessed at $23,604. The Tasmanian Treasury valuation, which includes everything - structures and all-is only $14,500.

Senator Wright:

– What did the honourable senator say the option of purchase price was?

Senator LILLICO:

– The option of purchase price was $23,604. That is for the farm only, without structures. The capital value allocation made by the Tasmanian Government was $14,500. I have had some experience in these matters. In Tasmania today land valuations are very approximate to the purchase price that would be paid if the properties were put on the market with a view to being sold. The next option of purchase price - land only again - was $12,252. The valuation by the State valuation officials was $11,500, which does not seem a great disparity. When one takes into consideration the cost of building houses and other structures today, there is a very large disparity. The other option of purchase prices were $10,880 as against the State valuation of $10,500; $11,058 option of purchase price as against $8,000 State valuation - that one is better, but still there is a very large disparity - $9,988 option of purchase price as against $9,500 State valuation; and $12,498 option of purchase price as against $9,000 State valuation. In those option of purchases prices the structures have been paid for or are in the process of being paid for by the settlers. I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of those figures.

In those circumstances, it seems to me that the settlers have a very real grievance. I return again to the valuations. I accept them. The aim of the Tasmanian Governmen was to arrive at and to impose capital valuations on properties in Tasmania that approximate as nearly as possible the market value of the property. The Government conducts a revaluation every 5 years with that end in view. I think that end has been achieved. I will be as brief as possible. The Tasmanian Government has set up a select committee to inquire into this proposition. It has fairly wide powers. They are to inquire into:

  1. The administration of war service land settlement in relation to the amount of rent and other commitments demanded from settlers and the option of purchase price of properties.
  2. The responsibility for, and the basis upon which option prices should be determined.
  3. Whether the basis of fixing option prices preserves sufficient equity to settlers having regard to the effluxion of time since holdings were occupied.
  4. Any other matters incidental to the above terms of reference.

The Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) has agreed to make available to the State committee a senior officer of the Department of Primary Industry. Therefore it can be said that the committee is operating in co-operation with the Commonwealth. The Minister has placed on record that he will at least note whatever decisions are arrived at by the committee. There are only 3 agent States and I take it that only those 3 States are in difficulty in regard to this matter. The committee is comprised of practical men with experience in these matters. It will set down guidelines. As the Minister for Primary Industry indicated, the probability is that those guidelines will be noted and taken into consideration by the Commonwealth authorities. In those circumstances, it seems to me to be entirely superfluous to introduce another committee in addition to the one which is operating already and which, so far as I am aware, is fairly well on the way to reaching finality. I repeat that to set up another committee to investigate this matter, especially in view of the assurances of the Commonwealth Minister, would be entirely superfluous.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– I wish to address a few words in support of this Bill which provides for the raising of loan money to the extent of $4.5m for war service land settlement requirements in South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. I wish to speak in particular about South Australia’s position in respect to war service land settlement. Of the $4.5m. $1,946,000 is allocated to South Australia. Of this, $490,000 is to bc used for developmental works, drainage of blocks and provision of further irrigation facilities in the Loxton and Cooltong irrigation areas. I express appreciation of the consideration given to the requirements of those 2 areas. The balance of the allocation to South Australia is to maintain the liquidity of settlers. In the main, the settlers began with very little capital of their own. lt is the category of settler who had small equity when originally taking up the land that is most beset with difficulties. Those who had little capital provision of their own in the first instance have, I note, through the years been unable to get out of a situation of rather compounding obligations.

The money provided under the Bill is to assist those who, through no fault of their own but through difficulties of establishment in some instances, of wrong plantings in certain soils, of the low prices received for produce grown on these blocks, of the servicing of loans by interest and so on, have been facing difficulties. We cannot but have a very keen appreciation of the difficulties facing these settlers. I am pleased to say that in my representations to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony) on these matters he has been very co-operative and willing to assist. In March I was accompanied by the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) on a deputation to the Minister by the Upper Murray ExServicemen’s Land Settlement Association In that deputation we pointed out the need for revaluation of the assets of a number of settlers whose financial situation was such that they were almost unable to continue in the industry. Revaluation of these blocks was agreed to, and at the present time a study is being made of the situation of various settlers with a view to so revaluing their blocks as to enable them to get back to a reasonably sound position and to see light ahead in regard to meeting their commitments fully in due time.

We also raised another matter. As I speak of these 2 matters - revaluation and the other matter to which I will refer in a moment - I wish to say that Ministers in charge of the various departments very often are kicked in the pants but rarely are patted on the back for what they do. I wish to pay tribute to the Minister for Primary Industry for his spontaneity of acceptance of situations and, as I have said, his preparedness to help. The blocks of a number of settlers in the upper Murray irrigation areas of South Australia have been shown to be insufficient in size to enable the holders to make a reasonable living or to meet their commitments. The idea has been advanced that, if a settler desires to dispose of his holding, his neighbour, if he so desires and if he is also a war service land settlement settler, should be able to take over the assets of the person retiring from the industry.

An agreement has now been reached with the South Australian Government to the effect that a war service land settlement settler shall be allowed to purchase the lease of a property of a fellow settler on the basis of the unmatured balance owing under first mortgage being transferred from the vendor to the purchaser. This is subject to certain conditions which are that this policy will not have retrospective application; that a purchaser must be deemed to be creditworthy; that a purchaser must have demonstrated such ability that he could be expected to handle the additional land efficiently; and that a settler is to be allowed to make only 1 purchase under these conditions. In respect of the conditions that the purchaser must bc deemed creditworthy and that he must have shown his ability to run the holding efficiently, the decision of the South Australian Minister of Lands is to be final.

Herein we see a further application of the principle of helping a man in a given line of production who finds that because of the smallness of his holding he has an uneconomic unit. The principle that applies in the dairy industry, for instance, is now being applied to some extent to the usageof land for fruit growing and general irrigation farming by settlers such as those to whom I have referred. I commend the Minister very much on this action. It means that the purchaser takes over the block on a basis of long term repayment. 1 now wish to make reference to a matter which I believe is vital to the welfare of the fruit growing industries in South Australia which I have no doubt applies to other fruit growing areas in Australia. I refer to the ability of the canneries to handle the produce of the growers - I am referring here to deciduous fruits - as a part of the industry of fruit production. I regard the canning of fruit as part of the fruit growing process. In South Australia, where we have 2 major cannery organisations which are co-operatives and which are doing an excellent job in disposing of the produce of our deciduous fruit orchards, the canneries have persistent lack of liquidity problems in relation to capital needs for canning capacity and to make payments to the growers for their produce in reasonable time.

I believe that in this field there is a very real need for money to be made available to the State Government for lending to the canneries to which 1 have referred. In South Australia we have a Loans to Producers Act which enables the State Government to make advances, via the State Bank of South Australia, to the canneries and similar interests concerned with rural produce. I understand that the Loans to Producers Act has been used to the full extent to which money can be made available by the Government via the Bank, and that there is still a need for greater financial assistance to enable the canneries to operate effectively and efficiently and to make payment for the fruit they process in reasonable time. I suggest that here is a very good and necessary opening for the application of section 96 of the Constitution by making special grants to a State to enable it to do for its rural producers those things on the financial side that the State in its own right cannot do.

I have pleasure in supporting this Bill. I believe that the Government is doing an excellent work for the soldier settlers. But in my opinion a continuing and close watch has to be kept on he overall ability of the settler to meet his commitments within reason. In other words, I believe that there should be a definite reassessment of the financial position of the settlers generally, but particularly of those who are in dire financial difficulties through no fault of their own, withaview to making a firm and final determi nation as to what can be done, then, havingfound that out, finance and conditions should be applied in a way that will enable the settler either to emerge successfully or to be prepared to say: Despite all the assistance I receivedand all the consideration in the world, I am now prepared to admit thatI amnot of continuing’. I have pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– As a senator from Western Australia, 1 wish to take about 2 minutes to express my appreciation of the fact that the Government is recognising the need of the war service land settlement scheme in Western Australia. In the south west, particularly in the Frankland River area, the soldier settlers are having a very difficult time. I believe that this Bill, when it becomes law, will be of considerable assistance to the settlers in that area. However, I do think that more inquiry should take place in relation to the war service land settlement situation in Australia. Therefore, I think that we would be wise to set up a Senate committee as is proposed in the amendment moved by Senator Keeffe. So, while congratulating the Government on the move that it is making to help war service land settlement, I propose to support the amendment.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · Western Australia · CP

– Mr Deputy President, I thank honourable senators for the support that they have given to the Loan (War Service Land Settlement) Bill 1970. This Bill provides for the raising of loan moneys amounting to about $4.5m to be used for war service land settlement purposes in the agent States, namely, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania. The bulk of the money is required to meet the ‘carrying-on’ expenses of those soldier settlers who are already on the land. Some of it will go towards the purchase of stock and a very much smaller proportion will be used for the replacement of plant.

I do not think there is any need for me to stress the importance of this money to some of these soldier settlers. Senator Wilkinson referred to some soldier settlers in Western Australia. Senator Lillico and Senator Laucke dealt with the position of soldier settlers in their respective States. In the last couple of days, we have spoken about the difficulties of rural industries with particular reference to the wool and wheat industries. Soldier settlers working their blocks are subject to the same pressures as are people in rural industries generally. So, honourable senators can see the need for this money to meet ordinary working expenses so that these soldier settlers may carry on.

This money is loaned to war service settlers at an interest rate of 31%. The general borrowing rale to the general rural borrower is between 61% and 7i%. A comparison between the 2 rates shows that the interest rate at which money is loaned to war service settlers is very favourable indeed. If the general rural borrower wishes to borrow money from his stock firm, he must pay even 8% or 9% interest. If he cannot obtain money from that source, he may be compelled to resort to hire purchase and be required to pay even higher interest rates.

Up to date, the Commonwealth Government has provided the agent Stales over the years with about $260m for this purpose. The total money loaned by the Commonwealth to all States under this scheme has amounted to approximately $320m. What has this scheme achieved? In the agent States, we have been able to place about 3,000 exservicemen on Mocks under the resettlement scheme. Overall, we have been able to provide ex-servicemen with about 9,000 farms. 1 think that this is a pretty good effort when the total scheme is considered.

I do not think that the Commonwealth has ever claimed on any occasion that the war service land settlement scheme is free of difficulties. Difficulties are to be found in certain pockets in the agent Slates. Senator Laucke mentioned one of them. Senator Wilkinson mentioned another and Senator Lillico mentioned a third area. Problems do exist in Tasmania, of which Senator Lillico spoke. But overall, the demand for land by eligible settlers in the agent States has been satisfied. I believe that the record of the Government gives no ground for an inquiry. I do nol think there is any valid reason why an inquiry should bc held, in the terms of this Bill, into conditions in the agent States only, when Victoria, Queensland and New South Wales are outside the ambit of the Bill.

Senator Lillico mentioned that, in his State, the Slate Government is conducting its own inquiry into war service land settlement problems. The Commonwealth Government, through the Department of Primary Industry, will be sending officers along to this inquiry in Tasmania to give evidence. So we hope that we will be able to overcome the problems there.

May I make brief reference to some of the points raised by honourable senators during the course of their contributions. Senator Keeffe suggested that war veterans returning home from Vietnam should be re-established under this scheme on the land if they desire to go on the land. This I agree with. But at the present time there is no Government policy providing for the re-establishment of a Vietnam veteran under the terms of the War Service Land Settlement Act as we know it. A Vietnam veteran is re-established on the land by obtaining a sum of money - 1 think it is $6,000- through (he Defence (Reestablishment) Act. Money is made available in the Budget each year to accommodate these men.

Senator Lillico referred to the option price values in Tasmania. 1 wish to give the honourable senator some information which I have with me on this matter. The true value of any article is what it will realise on sale by auction. In this regard, 1 may mention that there have been a number of areas surplus to war service land settlement requirements in Tasmania. These areas have been sold by auction. Generally, prices received equalled or exceeded the reserve prices. These reserve prices are based on valuations made by Commonwealth valuers. These are the same valuers who make valuations for option price purposes. Actual sales have substantiated that the valuations made by these officers, if anything, are conservative. To suggest that these valuers would depart from their normal principles and practices when making valuations foc option price purposes is too ludicrous to justify consideration. Finally, 1 stress that the Commonwealth does not enforce only I valuation by Commonwealth valuers for option price purposes. I am advised that, when the method of determining option prices was being worked out, it was proposed that 2 valuations would be made. I by the Commonwealth and 1 by the agent State. In practice, the agent State has accepted the Commonwealth valuation. I hope that that information will go part of the way towards satisfying Senator Lillico.

Regarding the matters raised by Senator Laucke, I wish to say that I am not familiar with the points that he discussed. With his permission, I would like to check those points and write to him on that matter during the recess. The Government cannot support the amendment to this Bill moved by Senator Keeffe. We do not believe, firstly, that a Senate committee is necessary. We believe that the war service land settlement scheme in the agent States has a very good record. Although we know that problems do exist, we are investigating them and are trying to overcome them to the best of our ability. Therefore, we cannot support the amendment.

Senator Wright:

– L take a point of order. This amendment is the first one which we have before the Senate having the purpose of referring a matter to a standing committee of the Senate. Mr Deputy President, you will notice that the amendment is in this form:

  1. . a Senate Committee should inquire into and report upon the operation of War Service Land Settlement in Australia in order to formulate guidelines for any land settlement scheme, and that matter is hereby referred to the Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade.

The Loan (War Service Land Settlement) Bill 1970 deals only with the authorisation for loan and the grant of that loan money to 3 States - that is to say, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania - for the purpose of the existing Act. The matter which is the intention of the amendment to refer to the standing committee is war service land settlement in the whole of Australia, including the other States and Territories, and to formulate a new scheme. 1 submit that this amendment does not come within the provisions of standing order 195. Standing order 194 permits on the motion for the second reading of a Bill an amendment to be moved to the motion to leave out the word ‘now’ and to add the words this day 6 months’. Standing Order 195 states:

No other Amendment may be moved to such Question except in the form of a Resolution strictly relevant to the Bill.

It is my submission that a resolution not merely expressing an opinion but seeking to effectuate that purpose by referring the matter to a standing committee, when that matter applies not only to the area covered by the provisions of the Bill, the 3 States concerned, but to the whole of Australia, including the other 3 States and the Territories is not strictly relevant to the Bill. That is the more so when the motion is concerned with not merely the implementation of the Act for which the loan under this Bill is to be provided, but with formulating guidelines for any land settlement scheme. I repeat, that is not strictly relevant to the Bill.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I rise to support the remarks of Senator Wright. I am a senator representing the State of Victoria, which is a principal State and I would consider-

Senator Georges:

– A principal State?

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– It is a principal State in terms of the war service land settlement scheme which has no relevance, as far as the Commonwealth is concerned, to the State of Victoria, which has managed and financed its own scheme. Senator Wright said that the matter now before the Senate is strictly a question of relevance - the relevance of the motion to the Bill now before the Senate. 1 do not consider that any senator has a right in the circumstances in which we find ourselves at the present time to attach what 1 consider to be almost a tacking provision to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time merely in order to obtain what I conceive to be a political point. Some of the apprehensions that have been felt by honourable senators on this side of the Senate, in the context of proposed standing committees, about the traps that were not clearly discernible in the proposal - traps which they wished to be uncovered - have been borne out on this occasion, because it has been made perfectly clear that the Senate has embarked upon a system of standing committees without a first-class and lengthy examination as to how the committees would be used for political purposes. That they would be so used now becomes apparent in the motion moved by Senator Keeffe. I support the point of order raised by my colleague.

Senator Murphy:

– I would ask you, Mr Deputy President, not to uphold the point of order. The standing orders referred to by the Minister deal with the question of relevancy. Standing order I9S provides, in relation to the motion for the second reading of a Bill:

No other Amendment mar be moved to such Question except in the form of a Resolution strictly relevant to the Bill.

The principle of relevance runs through the standing orders concerned. The Minister, as I understand it, concedes that it is strictly relevant to the Bill to add a provision in the form of an opinion of the type that is included in this amendment. The amendment states: but the Senate is of the opinion that a Senate committee should inquire into and report upon the operation-

Senator Wright:

– That coes beyond the Bill.

Senator Murphy:

– Whether the Minister concedes it or not, it is clear that the Senate is entitled to add to a motion for a second reading an expression of its opinion on such a matter because-

Senator Wright:

– On matters strictly relevant to the Bill.

Senator Murphy:

– And this is strictly relevant to the Bil). The Bill deals with war service land settlement. I would think that it could not be questioned that if we wanted to we could properly include in the Bill provision for a select committee or something of that nature, because that would be strictly relevant to the Bill. The Opposition does not seek to put in the Bill a clause of that kind which, if carried, would actually be a statutory setting up of a committee. But the fact that such a provision could be included in the Bill illustrates how relevant it is - and it is strictly relevant. The formulation of guidelines and the consideration of the operation of such a scheme are relevant. The Senate has in the past often carried amendments to add opinions, and on this occasion the amendment states that the Senate is ‘of the opinion’ that the committee should inquire into and report upon war service land settlement. I think something like this was done only a few days ago in the case of legislation about handicapped children.

Senator Wright:

– I do not object to the expression of an opinion on a matter strictly relevant to the Bill.

Senator Murphy:

– If it is a question of strict relevance, this amendment is strictly relevant because it deals with war service land settlement, the operation of the scheme and the formulation of guidelines. That expression may not be altogether one of art, but the committee would deal in the same way as other committees have dealt with their subject matters, making legislative recommendations, as did the committees on medical and hospital costs, water pollution and air pollution. It is strictly a legislative function to inquire into and report upon what ought to be done legislatively.

Senator Wright:

– But they were established by substantive motions and not on a motion incidental to the motion for the second reading. That is how this should be done, if done at all.

Senator Murphy:

– This Senate can choose which course it wants to take. The Minister shifts his ground and says: Let us have a substantive motion.. But the question is whether this motion is relevant, and in my opinion it is strictly relevant, lt deals with war service land settlement. As I put it - and I did not find any contest on this - it is so relevant that if we wanted to put a clause in the Bill providing for a committee - a joint committee or something of that nature - to be set up, it would be acceptable because that would be something strictly relevant to the Bill.

I think it is extremely important that in matters of this kind the Senate should not tie its hands by narrow procedural restrictions that are not imposed upon it by the Standing Orders. One of the great difficulties which face this Senate is the increasing difficulty in reaching decisions. In the course of a year the number of occasions on which decisions might be made would be strictly limited, and the suggestion today that some notice of motion be given is really an obstructive move, the intention being nol really to contend that some warning is necessary, because it has not been said that someone has been caught by surprise and needs time to consider the matter, but to ensure that the notice paper will be cluttered up and it will be 6 months before the matter is dealt with.

This is appropriate. It is strictly relevant to the subject matter and the simple position is: Either the Senate wants to do it or it does not. If there is not a majority here in favour of doing it there is no suggestion that we need further time to consider it; either support it or oppose it. That is the simple proposition and we ought to give ourselves as much flexbility and as much latitude as possible to come to such decisions. I submit to you, Mr Deputy President, that that is the simple position, that it is relevant and it ought to be left to the Senate simply to say whether it wants it or not. There may or may not be a majority in favour of the proposal but the Senate should not tie its hands by adopting some restriction which is not imposed upon it by the Standing Orders.

Senator Keeffe:

– 1 submit that the argument put forward by Senator Murphy in opposition to the point of order that has been raised by Senator Wright is completely consistent with the facts. When Senator Wright raised his objection he made reference to standing orders 194 and 195, which are relevant to the point under discussion, but then he proceeded on a line of argument that completely lacked logic and got away from the relevancy of those 2 standing orders. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that the short title of this Bill is the Loan (War Service Land Settlement) Bill 1970. 1 do not disagree that there are 3 agent States and 3 principal States but the attempt to bring this before one of the new committees is, to me, a perfectly logical method of operating. We could have adopted another attitude and moved that a Senate select committee, with all the problems that might be associated with it, be set up to investigate the matter. But I think every member of the Senate, with probably two or three exceptions, would agree with us. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack a few moments ago indicated that he is one who would probably be violently opposed to the committee system.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I am not opposed to the committee system but I am opposed to the manipulation of the committee system by you.

Senator Keeffe:

– I can only assume from the words that the honourable senator used that he is objecting to it. I am worried about Senator Wright as to whether his logic does not descend to the fact that he is worried that if a committee investigates these things we might find a way to give land to kids coming back from Vietnam. So let us stick to the logic of the argument on the Standing Orders and on the manner in which these committees have been established as outlined by my leader, Senator Murphy. I think he made a perfectly logical case. If there is to be any flexibility in this Senate at all then we ought to be broadminded enough and big enough to be able to utilise that flexibility. 1 submit that the case that has been put up in opposition to the point of order raised by Senator Wright is the logical one and I hope that the Senate will vote accordingly.

Senator Byrne:

– 1 also wish to speak to the point of order. It is perhaps a matter of interest that this matter comes up for debate on a point of order so soon after the appointment of the first committees. It has always been the attitude of my Party in relation to these committees that they should have been initiated with prudence and with a policy of gradualism. We were opposed to the embarkation on all these committees without a testing period for 1 or 2. I do feel that perhaps the prudence of our suggestion is becoming manifest today. Insolar as this reference is concerned I wish to refer to 2 standing orders. The first is standing order 190. This is on the question of debate in relation to Bills on the first reading, lt reads:

In Bills which the Senate may not amend, the question ‘That this Bill be now read a first time’ may be debated, and in such debate matters both relevant and not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill may bc discussed.

It is interesting there to see that the words relevant and not relevant’ are used. In other words, it does not allow lo the Senate a margin of discretion on a direction from the Presiding Officer as to whether a matter is relevant or not relevant. But when we come to the standing order in question the words ‘relevant and not relevant’ are not used. It reads: ‘except in the form of a resolution strictly relevant to the Bill’. Obviously this is within the same group of standing orders governing the discussion of public Bills and the adverb ‘strictly’ is inserted there. 1 would say that these committees should have the opportunity to operate at least for some time then on that experience it may be found necessary to re-look at the appropriate standing orders and, if necessary, to amend them in terms of the reasonable requirements for. the operation of those committees. I think prudence demands that we observe the Standing Orders in their present form with all their limitations and not interpret them unduly widely as we would be doing in this case. On an interpretation of standing order 195 I cannot see that the amendment proposed by Senator Keeffe complies with my understanding of the words ‘strictly relevant’ in the context of the word relevant’ as is used in other sections of the Standing Orders.

Senator Greenwood:

– Do you consider that standing order 196a has any direct relevance here?

Senator Byrne:

– 1 have taken this up rather quickly and 1 have not had an opportunity to look at it. I suppose 196a may be operated as an explicit, separate and identifiable resolution.

Senator Greenwood:

– I thought it may exclude the procedure which is currently operating.

Senator Byrne:

– It may do that. In other words, the specification of a procedure as in 196a may exclude the reliance-

Senator Murphy:

– It applies to the case where we are holding up the Bill. We are allowing this.

Senator Byrne:

– That would not hold up the Bill, I understand.

Senator Murphy:

– Yes, it would, if we referred the Bill to a select committee. We are not proposing to refer the Bill to a select committee.

Senator Byrne:

– Perhaps the point is well made that it might interrupt the passage of the Bill. But on my original proposition I think that in this circumstance, giving the standing order the meaning which it obviously was intended to have, and in view of the fact that these committees have not yet operated and the procedures by which they will operate are not yet known, the Senate would be most unwise to so quickly embark upon this reference in a situation in which the relevance is by no means apparent and, to the contrary, is anything but apparent. The Bill is confined in character. The amendment proposes a complete excursion into the whole ramifications, operation and nature not of the existing war service land settlement scheme but of a projected and possible scheme. The Bill deals with the present scheme. The amendment would deal with an alternative scheme which might emerge from the discussions, deliberations and findings of a committee.

I could not see in those circumstances that it would be relevant and a fortiori. I most certainly could not see that it would comply with the term ‘strictly relevant’. For that reason I would oppose the amendment.

Senator Greenwood:

– I too wish to speak to the point of order. As I understand it the point of order which has been raised by Senator Wright is one which puts the Opposition strictly into a dilemma and which, in my submission, is a dilemma which you, Mr Deputy President, must rule upon. I speak only possibly to assist you in that regard. But if this matter is strictly relevant to the Bill so that it is competent as an amendment then I would have felt that standing order 196a shows the appropriate course which should be followed. It states:

Immediately after a Bill has been read a second time - a motion (of which notice need not be given) for referring the Bill to a Standing Committee or a Select Committee; and/or an Instruction of which notice has been given - may then be moved.

Senator Murphy:

– We do not intend to refer the Bill itself.

Senator Greenwood:

– I appreciate what Senator Murphy has said and I think iti his statement of the position in that way he has crystallised this dilemma in which the Opposition has placed itself because if the matter is strictly relevant then it is strictly relevant to the Bill and if we are going to refer a matter to a standing committee - and we have the form of a standing committee in existence - then obviously standing order 196a must set out the way in which it is to be done. But if, on the other hand, standing order 196a cannot be used for the reasons which Senator Murphy has given because the Bill is not being referred to this standing committee then immediately a question arises as to how relevant is the amendment which has been moved. Accordingly, when one looks at standing order 195 I think it becomes patently clear that this is not a matter which is strictly relevant to the Bill. For example, the Bill is a Bill for an Act to authorise the raising and expending of a sum not exceeding $4. 5m for a defence purpose, namely, financial assistance to the States of South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania in connection with war service land settlement. It is a strictly limited matter and, of course, all that the Bill is concerned to do is to give that authorisation, and it does so in 4 clauses. But what is proposed by the amendment is something far wider. The amendment seeks to have an inquiry into and a report upon the operation of war service land settlement in Australia, in order to formulate guidelines for any land settlement scheme. I understood Senator Byrne to take this very point that that proposal was far far wider than the Bill. Accordingly I would say that it cannot be strictly relevant to the Bill, lt is that view, Mr Deputy President, which I would urge upon you as an appropriate consideration in the ruling you must give. If 1 were wrong in that view, I would say that if must fall within standing order 1.96a and be the subject of a separate resolution.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - After hearing the debate 1 rule that the point of order is upheld.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time and reported from Committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Drake- Brockman) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Senator KEEFFE (Queensland) 13.17.]- 1 want to make a couple of brief remarks in view of your ruling, Mr Deputy President. 1 accept your judgment that the amendment previously moved was out of order. But 1 think that the implications-

Senator Wright:

– 1 rise on a point of order. We have to proceed according to the orderly routine that is laid down. I submit that the Bill has passed the third reading stage and it is not competent for the honourable senator to address the chamber.

Senator KEEFFE:

– lt has not passed the third reading stage.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The motion is that the Bill be read a third time.

Senator Wright:

– I beg your pardon.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Thank you very much Senator Wright. I took it that the Minister for Air moved that the Bill be read a third time. I felt that under the Standing Orders I was perfectly justified in rising to my feet. 1 submit further that the remarks I intend to make are completely relevant to the debate we have had in this chamber this afternoon. I do not propose to be lengthy in my submission. The Committee system has come under question and is now being looked at very closely. As a result of what has happened here today the Committee system may be under question by people outside of this chamber. The community may be led to believe that we are doing nothing to establish a new system that will make this place more workable. Although the amendment has been ruled out of order, what has happened today does bring new issues about how this sort of thing will be raised in the future. If substantive motions are required in order to bring Bills before Senate committees, this is something that will have to be closely investigated. In the hope that the Committee system will work on the lines that have been envisaged by most of us 1 have taken this opportunity at the third reading stage of this Bill to say these few words which I think ought to give us all food for thought between now and when we come back for the Budget session.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

1.3.20] - All 1 wish to say on the third reading of this Bill is that as the person who raised the point of order I yield in no way to Senator Keeffe in a desire to see the committee system working efficiently. A pre-condition of that efficiency is that it should be operated with the utmost care, it was to that end that 1 submitted my proposition this afternoon.

Senator Keeffe:

– You are always in favour but every proposition we have put up you have opposed.

Senator WRIGHT:

– That is just one of these miserable misrepresentations that are becoming so characteristic of the Leader of the Opposition.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2646

STATES RECEIPTS DUTIES (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12 June (vide page 2435), on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second dme.

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

– by leave - 1 would like to suggest a method of procedure for the debate on the States receipts duties Bills. I suggest that we have a cognate debate on all the Bills, which are inter-related and one vote at the second reading stage. I refer to orders of the day Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. If the Government is successful at the second reading stage then of course we will proceed to debate the Bills separately in Committee.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– by leave - Mr Deputy President, I think in the circumstances we would be agreeable to having the Bills dealt with together, but 1 do not favour the suggestion that there should be one vote at the second reading stage. As this may be the last day of the sitting the Opposition is willing to facilitate bringing on these matters and disposing of them expeditiously. But we would like to make sure that they are dealt with properly at the Committee stage.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Supply) - by leave - If we vote first on the Receipts Duties (Administration) Bill at the second reading stage and the motion is defeated then I, as the Leader of the Government, would not want to proceed to the other Bills because there would be no point in doing so. But I am still hoping that we will win the first vote.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Is it the will of the Senate that we proceed as the Leader of the Government has suggested?

Senator Murphy:

– Leaving aside the vote.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

Yes.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT - There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– This legislation is a product of the crisis in CommonwealthState financial relations. It is an attempt to mollify the States after refusing to alter the taxation reimbursement formula to give them a proper share in the growth of Commonwealth revenue. It is a poor attempt to deflect public criticism from its proper target - the Commonwealth. It is a political device to regain some of the

Commonwealth’s credit properly lost in its financial dealings with the States. The legislation is designed to validate a breach of the Constitution by the States. For what we conceive to be simple but adequate reasons, the Opposition will oppose these measures.

In doing this the Opposition is pursuing a tradition which is well established, but in view of some doubt recently cast on it in this chamber, perhaps I should restate the position. The Senate is entitled and expected to exercise resolutely but with discretion its power to refuse its concurrence to any financial measure, including a tax Bill. There are no limitations on the Senate in the use of its constitutional powers, except the limitations imposed by discretion and reason. The Australian Labor Party has acted consistently in accordance with the tradition that we will oppose in the Senate any tax or money Bill or other financial measure whenever necessary to carry out our principles and policies. The Opposition has done this over the years, and in order to illustrate the tradition which has been established, with the concurrence of honourable senators I shall incorporate in Hansard at the end of my speech a list of the measures of an economic or financial nature, including taxation and appropriation Bills, which have been opposed by this Opposition in whole or in part by a vote in the Senate since 1950.

The tax Bills are bad for a number of reasons. First, they seek to impose unfair taxes; taxes which are of an inequitable nature in that they will fall ultimately on the consumers, the family men, the people least able to bear them in the community. The Bills are retrospective measures, and retrospective legislation is generally undesirable. Retrospective tax measures are especially undesirable. The Bills are a device to overcome the constitutional stipulation that the States ought not to impose duties of excise, and the Commonwealth should not be lending itself to the imposition of such duties on behalf of the States. The measures are an administrative nightmare. If passed by the Senate, they are likely to become a permanent and undesirable feature of our tax structure. Now is the time to strike them down.

The tax imposed by these measures is regressive, ft is a tax on business receipts, but it would fall unfairly on those people least able to alford it. Like all indirect taxes, it would be regressive; it would not be related to the capacity of the individual to pay it. Businesses which paid the tax would pass it on, and they would do this whether they were making a profit or not. lt would be harder on firms having a great number of monetary transactions than on those which have not so many, and ultimately it would fall upon the ordinary consumer. The tax would be inflationary because in being passed on it certainly would affect the cost structure, lt would take money from the private sector already being heavily squeezed by governmental monetary policy and give it to the public sector where heavy government spending already is producing dangerous inflation. Once imposed, such a tax would be bound to increase. The Treasurer (Mr Bury) suggested in a television broadcast from station HSV7 in Melbourne on 15th February last that if the States collected the receipts tax they should lift the lax considerably. Taxes once imposed have a natural tendency to rise, not to fall. That is the history of our taxation structure, and there is very little doubt that if th s tax were introduced into the structure, that would be its fate. Whenever governments were squeezed for money the tendency would be to increase such a tax as this.

The Government says that the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) promised that this tax would be introduced: He made a promise of this nature to the States. As 1 understand it, the promise was made that the tax which is already invalidly imposed by the States would be validated; that is, one would cover them for the period for which they had been applying. But now it is proposed not only to do that, but to make the tax prospective, that is. to make it a permanent feature of the tax structure. In any event, what the Prime Minister did on that occasion ought to be examined carefully so that we will know the basis of such promises or invitations. Clearly the Government does not have the authority to commit the Parl’ament or this Commonwealth to any taxation measure. When the Prime Minister or any other Government Minister extends an invitation to the States or says that something will be done by the Commonwealth, wherever this would involve the concurrence of the Parliament it must be understood to be on the basis that it is subject to the approval of the Parliament. That is the doctrine that is applied elsewhere in the world.

I suppose that the most famous example of this doctrine concerns the treaty making power in the United States of America. Wherever the President of the United States gives an undertaking that a treaty will be entered into by the United States, that has always been understood to mean that it is subject to the necessary advice and consent being given. Here it is so clear that if a statement is made on behalf of the Government that something will be done, something requiring parliamentary approval, it must be taken to mean that it is subject to that approval being given. This Parliament should not be put into the position where promises can be made by the Government and it can then come in here and say: ‘Now the Parliament must do this because otherwise you will be repudiating what the Government has said it would do’. Over recent years I have seen a tendency towards the development of this procedure by the Government. Perhaps the most common example of this is the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. The tendency is for the Government to come into this place and say: ‘You must carry out this measure because it has been agreed upon by the Standing Committee of AttorneysGeneral’. A legislature cannot exercise its functions in this way. Its hands cannot be bound by an agreement which has been made outside by people who know that the effectuation of the agreement requires parliamentary approval. I think it would be consistent with the proper position of the Prime Minister and the legislative responsibilities of this Parliament if every such statement were deemed to be subject to the approval of the Parliament. In this way there would be no question of repudiation or of undercutting the authority or responsibilities of either the chief of the Executive or the legislative chambers of this Parliament.

When introducing this legislation in the other place on 4th June 1970 the Treasurer said that the legislation would be retrospective to 18th November 1969. We in this chamber, in common with people elsewhere who live under the British system, take the view that retrospective legislation is generally undesirable and that it ought to be introduced only for some very special purposes. Retrospective legislation ought to be avoided wherever possible. It is clear that when the retrospective legislation is in the nature of a tax it is especially abhorrent and ought to be avoided. The High Court of Australia has declared that the tax which was imposed by the States was unconstitutional. It did so because certain persons or corporations took the view that what was sought to be imposed upon them was unconstitutional, that it was illegal. They, in the long tradition of the Hampdens and the others who opposed unconstitutional taxes, said they were not required by law to pay and they would not pay.

A number of people in the community, taking that view, have not paid the tax, especially since the decision of the High Court. They have said that they are entitled to rely upon the decision of the High Court, which said that they were not required to pay the tax, that what they were doing was lawful, that transactions could be entered into by these people on a certain basis and there was no taxation attaching to those transactions. Why then should this Parliament seek in effect to make unlawful what

Was lawful and to attach taxation retrospectively to transactions to which no taxation was attached at the time they were entered into?

I think it should be clear to everyone that this practice should not be tolerated and that, insofar as the tax is retrospective we should not have a bar of it. If the Commonwealth wishes to pay moneys to the States to compensate them for what they have lost because of some undertaking or a holding out by the Commonwealth then let it do so. The Opposition is prepared to agree to this course being adopted. If the Commonwealth wishes to make grants to the States under section 96 of the Constitution in order to clear its conscience in regard to errors which it has made, let it do so. The States should not have to suffer. If they need moneys to continue their activities, let the Commonwealth make grants to them. But why should the Commonwealth do so by way of introducing a tax which is likely to become permanent, which is unfair, inflationary and an administrative nightmare? The Australian public should not be subjected to this kind of retrospectivity. It ought to be able to rely upon the Constitution and the decision of the High Court.

I see no reason why this Parliament should lend itself to what is in substance validating a breach of the Constitution by the States. No doubt the States did so in good faith, but nevertheless it was a breach. Why should this Parliament validate the action of the States and impose this kind of unfair burden on people who acted quite rightly at the time according to the law? Let us think of the effect of this legislation upon people who lawfully entered into transactions but who now may be faced with the crippling burden of making retrospective payments. Why should this happen to anyone? Why should uncertainty be introduced into commercial transactions which should be certain? One of the great objects of the law has been, especially in commercial transactions, to insist upon certainty. The doctrine has even been put forward that it is sometimes better, if a wrong legal decision has been made, to let it stand so that there will be certainty rather than uncertainty in trade and commercial transactions. If the law were to be changed from day to day the obligations attaching to transactions would be vague and uncertain. Why should the legislature now introduce this element of uncertainty into transactions and impose a tax on transactions which are past and gone?

This taxation would be an administrative nightmare which would be excessively expensive to collect. Precise figures are impossible to obtain, but it has been estimated that it will cost more than $2m a year to collect the receipts duty if this legislation is passed. That exceeds the cost of collecting other forms of Commonwealth revenue, which is estimated to be about 1%. On the other side of the administrative coin, it would be very expensive for people paying this receipts duty. It would involve extra bookkeeping, accounting and other business procedures and would create a pyramid of paper work for public servants and private persons. When one looks through the legislation and sees what will have lo be done by way of returns, and the provision for all sorts of appeals and nonsense, it seems incredible that the Government should set out to impose this extra burden on trade and. commerce in this country.

One would think that we should not be seeking to raise the comparatively minor amount of extra revenue which is required by the States by indulging in this kind of administrative madness. Australia has a population of 12.5 million. We are sitting on a treasure chest. We have in this country oil and minerals which are worth a vast sum of money. 1 suppose that it could be said that the legendary King Solomon’s mines would be a pebble compared to what we have in this country. If legislation were applied properly by the Government, a great deal of our resources would be available to the Commonwealth of Australia, but the Government has handed away our oil resources.

Senator Greenwood is attempting to interrupt. He is a member of the Senate Select Committee on Off-Shore Petroleum Resources. At the time the off-shore oil legislation was debated our oil resources were estimated to be - and this figure was not denied - in the area of tens of thousands of millions of dollars and perhaps hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars. These resources were the property of the people of Australia and were available to the Commonwealth Government to develop if it had wanted to do so. lt could have taken even a reasonable proportion of the proceeds. If the Government had done so we would not have to worry about the kind of nonsensical tax that we are now considering. Instead the Government has created an absolute administrative mess. This legislation will result in a cumulative tax of so much imposed on each transaction. Returns will have to be filled in. The tax will also be subject to appeals. It is almost unbelievable that we should think of doing this to ourselves. It is unbelievable that we should contemplate introducing a measure of this kind into the tax structure of this country. If Australia’s affairs were handled properly there should be no need for this tax. There is no need for it. 1 do not know what has possessed the Government to introduce this tax. I suppose the same mind conceived this tax as conceived the tax which was to be levied on aircraft passengers who, upon arriving at an airport, were to be required to pay an extra 20c or 50c over and above their fare. Surely the Senate can look at attempts to create this kind of administrative bumbledom only with disapproval. Not only should this tax measure be rejected but also the appropriate authorities should commence upon an examination of the rest of the taxes in our structure to see whether we can get rid of some that are of a similar character to the proposed receipts tax and which create unnecessary administrative difficulties. We should consider the burden and the costs which fall not only on the Government but also on the private citizen. He is involved in a great deal of time, trouble and expense in the compiling of returns and the making of payments when he is caught up with this nonsense. It is time to see whether we can- avoid many of the taxes that are now imposed, not to mention the unnecessary licenses and other payments. All of these are aimed at tax collecting in an inefficient, expensive and unnecessary manner.

If the legislation is passed will the tax solve the problems of the States? 1 think not. The endeavour behind this legislation is to surmount the High Court decision of February that the taxes imposed by several State governments were excise duties and therefore invalid. The Treasurer claimed that the Commonwealth was introducing the legislation at the request of the States and for their benefit, but at least 2 of the Premiers, both Liberal Party Premiers, arc not enamoured of the idea of a Commonwealth imposed receipts tax to be distributed to the States. On 28th October last Mr Askin, Premier of New South Wales, said:

My Government and I have never been wedded to the idea of a receipts tax. We were driven into it so thai we might meet our commitments.

Mr Brand, Premier of Western Australia, said a little later that Commonwealth control of receipts duty would not be helpful. He said such a system would only perpetuate the problems of the States in having repeatedly to approach the Commonwealth for more money.

Senator Rae:

– Have you read today’s news?

Senator MURPHY:

– Let me leave aside Mr Brand and state my own views. It is clear that under this legislation the flexibility of the States would disappear. If it was intended to have a tax which would grow so that the revenues of the States would increase as community needs increased, this is not the appropriate vehicle for it. The States would have to come to Canberra for increases in the tax. If the States wanted to reduce the tax the Commonwealth would have to agree. We know that that is an academic proposition because nobody ever wants to reduce a tax of which he is a beneficiary. But for increases the States would have to come to Canberra, and that would mean a political battle, lt is clear that the imposition of a receipts tax on behalf of the States will become merely another Commonwealth tax, not controlled by the States, but once again under the control of the Commonwealth. If the tax is imposed it will increase the general level of taxation. Already it is said that Australia is about the most heavily taxed country. The Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) has suggested a realigning of the tax structure. He has suggested that something should be done about the level of income tax to make its incidence fairer, particularly in the case of low and middle income earners. What is the sense of introducing at this time a receipts tax which will impose burdens upon consumers and hit the very people who are intended to be helped by the alteration in the income tax laws? Some doubt has been cast on the likelihood of the income tax laws being altered. The promise to alter them so as to give justice has been made. I think we are all entitled to expect that promise to be carried out and the Government to introduce, some measure to alleviate the burden of income tax. True it would need the approval of this Parliament but I do not think that a fair measure redressing the injustices of the past would find any difficulty in obtaining the approval of this Parliament.

What the Government is seeking to do here is take with one hand, if this measure is passed, and give something back with the other later in the year by way of reduced income tax. This seems to me to be a grossly unfair procedure. If the Commonwealth seeks to raise its revenue in this manner it would be far better to dispense with the kind of tax envisaged under this legislation and have a simple tax, be it income tax or some other tax. But let us not multiply the kinds of taxes. Let us not multiply the burdens and the administrative difficulties. Let us not introduce a tax which bears heavily on those consumers least able to afford it. Apart from the proposed tax on aircraft passengers, which was limited in its scope, it is difficult to imagine a worse kind of tax than this receipts tax. That it should become a permanent part of the tax structure of this Commonwealth does not bear contemplation. The original proposal to validate in effect what the States have done is understandable. We disagree with it but it is understandable that it should be done. But the endeavour to foist this tax on the people of the Commonwealth as a permanent measure is extremely difficult to understand. The proposal is incredible, lt would almost seem as if the legislation was introduced in the hope that it would be thrown out by the Parliament; it would almost seem that the Commonwealth wanted the legislation to be thrown out. From every aspect - from the aspect of fairness or administration - this is legislation which would be a blot on the statute book of the Commonwealth if we allowed it to pass. I ask the Senate to reject the legislation. With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate in Hansard the following list:

page 2651

MEASURES OF AN ECONOMIC OR FINANCIAL NATURE INCLUDING TAXATION AND APPROPRIATION BILLS WHICH HAVE BEEN OPPOSED BY THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY VOTE IN THE SENATE SINCE 1950

1951-53

Beer Excise 1951 - Second Reading

Customs 1953 - In Committee, and Motion to Refer Bill to Select Committee.

Estate Duty Assessment 1953 - In Committee.

Excise Tariff 1952 - Second Reading

Income Tax and Social Services Contribution 1951 - Amendment to Second Reading, Second Reading, and Third Reading

Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment (No. 2) 1952 - In Committee.

Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment (No. 3) 1952 - Amendment to Second Reading, and In Committee

Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment (Air Navigation Charges) 1952 - Second Reading

Land Tax Abolition 1952 - Second Reading

Land Tax Assessment 1952 - In Committee, and Motion not to insist on Amendment disagreed to by House of Representatives.

Loan (Housing) 1952 - Amendment to Second Reading

Loan (Housing) 1953 - Amendment to Second Reading

National Welfare Fund 1952- Second Reading, and Adoption of Report

Pay-roll Tax Assessment 1953 - In Committee.

Post and Telegraph Rales 1951 - In Committee,

Motion to refer Billto Select Committee, and Third Reading.

Repatriation 1951 - Amendment to Second Reading.

Sales Tax (Nos. 1-9) 1951- Second Reading and Third Reading.

Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) 1951 - Second Reading, In Committee, and Third Reading.

Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) 1952 - Amendment to Second Reading.

Social Services Consolidation 1951 - Amendmentto Second Reading.

Social Services Consolidation 1953 - Amendment to Second Reading.

Superannuation 1951 - Amendment to Second Reading.

1953- 54

National Health 1953 - Amendment to Second Reading, and In Committee.

1954

Loan (International Bank for Reconstruction) 1954 - Second Reading

Loan (Swiss Francs) 1954 - Second Reading. Stevedoring Industry Charge 1954 - Amendment to Second Reading.

1954- 55

Aged Persons Homes 1954 - In Committee.

Appropriation 1954-55 - Request for Amendmentto First Reading.

Commonwealth Aid Roads 1954 - In Committee.

Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement 1955 - Amendment to Second Reading.

Northern Territory (Lessees’ Loans Guarantee) 1954 - In Committee.

Pay-Roll Tax Assessment 1954 - In Committee.

Repatriation 1954 - Amendment to Second Reading.

Repatriation 1955 - Amendment to Second Reading, and In Committee.

Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances 1954 - Amendment to Second Reading.

Social Services 1954 - Amendment to Second Reading.

Social Services (No. 2) 1955 - Amendment to Second Reading, and In Committee.

1956-57

Appropriation 1956-57 - Request for Amendment to First Reading, In Committee, and Third Reading.

Broadcasting and Television Stations Licence Fees 1956 - In Committee.

Commonwealth Aid Roads 1956 - Second Reading and In Committee.

Customs Tariff 1956 - Second Reading.

Customs Tariff (No. 4) 1956- Second Reading.

Excise Tariff 1956- Second Reading.

Housing Agreement 1956 - Amendment to Second Reading.

Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment (No. 3) 1956- In Committee.

Loans Securities 1956 - Second Reading.

Post and Telegraph Rates 1956 - Second Reading.

Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) 1956 - Second Reading.

1957-58

Appropriation 1957-58 - Request for Amendment to First Reading.

Customs 1957 - In Committee, and Amendment made by House of Representatives.

Customs Tariff (No. 3) 1957 - in Committee.

Estate Duty Assessment 1957 - In Committee.

Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment 1957 - In Committee.

Loan (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) 1957 - Second Reading.

Pay-roll Tax Assessment 1957 - Second Reading.

Repatriation 1957 - In Committee.

Social Services 1957 - Amendment to Second Reading, and In Committee.

1959- 60

Income Tax and Social Services Contribution 1959 - Amendmentto Second Reading.

Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment (No. 2) 1959 - In Committee.

Loans Securities 1959 - In Committee.

Loan (Short-term Borrowings) 1959 - Second Reading.

National Health 1959 - In Committee.

Petroleum Search Subsidy 1959 - Second Reading.

Post and Telegraph Rates 1959 - Second Reading.

Repatriation 1959 - Amendment to Second Reading, and In Committee.

Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances 1 959 - Amendment to Second Reading.

Social Services 1959 - Amendment to Second Reading, and In Committee.

1960- 61

Customs1960 - Second Reading.

International Monetary Agreements 1960 - Second Reading.

Repatriation1960 - In Committee, and Motion for Recommittal.

Sales Tax (Nos 1-9)1960- Motion that Second Reading be an order oftheday for the next day of silting negatived: Second Reading negatived; Motion that Second Reading be an order of the day for a later hour of the day, and Second Reading.

Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) 1960- In Committee.

Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) (No. 2) 1960 - Second Reading negatived; Motion that Second Reading be an order of the day for the next day of sitting negatived; Motion that Second Reading be an order of the day for a later hour of the day, and Second Reading.

Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances 1960 - Amendment to Second Reading.

Social Services 1960 - Amendment to Second Reading, and In Committee.

1961

Housing Agreement 1961 - Amendment to Second Reading.

Petroleum Search Subsidy 1961 - Amendment to Second Reading, and Second Reading.

Repatriation 1961 - In Committee.

Sales Tax (Nos 1-9) 1961- In Committee.

Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) 1961 - In Committee.

Social Services 1961 - Amendment to Second Reading and Instructionto Committee of the Whole.

War Service Homes 1961 - Instructionto Committee.

1962-63

Air Accidents (Commonwealth Liability) 1963 - Amendmentto Second Reading, Motionto refer Bill to Select Committee, and In Committee.

Appropriation 1962-63 - In Committee.

Customs Tariff (No. 4) 1962 - In Committee.

Customs Tariff (No. 5) 1962 - In Committee.

Disabled Persons Accommodation 1963 - Amendment to Second Reading.

Income Tax and Social Services Contribution 1962 - Amendment to Second Reading.

Income Tax and Social Services Contribution (Rebate) 1962 - Amendmentto Second Reading.

Income Tax and Social Serv ices Contribution Assessment 1962 - In Committee.

Loan (Housing) (No. 2) 1963 - Amendmentto Second Reading.

Loan (InternationalBank for Reconstruction and Development) 1962 - Second Reading.

National Health 1962 - Amendmentto Second Reading.

Repatriation 1963 - In Committee.

Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) 1962 - In Committee.

Social Services 1962 - Amendment to Second Reading.

Social Services 1963 - Amendmentto Second Reading, and In Committee.

States Grants (Additional Assistance) (No. 2) 1962 - Motion, for Recommittal.

Wool Tax Assessment 1963 - Amendmentto Second Reading.

1964-66

Appropriation (No. 3) 1964-65 - In Committee.

Customs Tariff (No. 2) 1966 - In Committee, and Motion not to press Requests.

Diesel Fuel Tax (No.1) 1965- Second Reading.

Excise Tariff 1965- Second Reading.

Homes Savings Grant 1965 - In Committee.

Housing Agreement 1966 - Amendment to Second Reading, and In Committee.

Income Tax 1965 - Second Reading negatived on two occasions.

Income Tax 1965 [No. 2]- Second Reading.

Income Tax (No. 2) 1965- Second Reading.

Loan (Airlines Equipment) 1966 - Amendment to Second Reading.

Loan (Housing) 1966 - Amendment to Second Reading.

National Health 1964 - Amendment to Second Reading, and In Committee.

Pay-roll Tax Assessment 1965 - In Committee.

Petroleum Search Subsidy 1964 - Amendment to Second Reading.

Post and Telegraph Rates 1964 - Amendment to Second Reading.

Queensland Beef Cattle Roads Agreement 1966 - Amendment to Second Reading and In Committee.

Repatriation 1964 - In Committee.

Repatriation 1965 - In Committee and Amendment made by House of Representatives.

Repatriation 1966 - In Committee.

Repatriation 1966 (No. 2) - In Committee.

Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances 1964 - In Committee.

Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances 1965 - In Committee.

Social Services (No. 2) 1964 - Amendment to Second Reading, and In Committee.

Social Services 1965 - Amendment to Second Reading, and In Committee.

Social Services 1966 (No. 2) - Amendment to Second Reading.

States Grants (Science Laboratories) 1965 - Amendmentto Second Reading.

States Grants (Science Laboratories and Technical Training) 1964 - Amendment to Second Reading.

Television Stations Licence Fees 1964 - Amendment to Second Reading, andIn Committee.

Universities (Financial Assistance) 1965 - Amendment to Second Reading.

Western Australia Grant (Beef Cattle Roads) 1966 - In Committee.

1967

Aged Persons Homes 1967 - In Committee, and Motion that the Committee do not insist on the Amendment Disagreed to by the Mouse of Representatives negatived.

Banking 1967 - Second Reading.

Brigalow Lands Agreement 1967 - In Committee.

Commonwealth Employees Compensation 1967 - In Committee.

Commonwealth Employees Furlough 1967 - In Committee.

Customs Tariff 1967 - Amendment to Second Reading.

Homes Savings Grant 1967 - In Committee. Parliamentary Retiring Allowances (Increases) 1967 - Second Reading.

Post and Telegraph Rates 1967 - Second Reading negatived.

Post and Telegraph Rates 1967 (No. 2) - Amendmentto Second Reading to leave out ‘now’ with a view to adding ‘this day six months’ resolved in the affirmative.

Seamen’s Compensation 1967 - In Committee.

Social Services 1967 - Amendment to Second Reading, and in Committee.

1968

Aerodromes (Passenger Charges) 1968 - Second Reading negatived.

Loan (Airlines Equipment) 1968 - Amendment to Second Reading.

Loan (Defence) 1968 - Amendment to Second Reading.

Loan (Australian National Airlines Commission) 1968 - Amendment to Second Reading.

Parliamentary Allowances 1968 - In Committee.

Repatriation 1968 - Amendment to Second Reading.

Sales Tax (Nos 1-19) 1968- Second Reading, Third Reading.

States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) 1968 - Amendment to Second Reading.

Stales Grants (Deserted Wives)1968 - Amendment to Second Reading.

States Grants (Secondary Schools Libraries) - Amendmentto Second Reading, In Committee.

War Service Homes - In Committee.

1969

Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) - Amendment to Second Reading

Air Navigation (Charges) - In Committee.

Commonwealth Aid Roads - Amendment to Second Reading (Agreed to)

Income Tax (International Agreement) - Amendment to Second Reading

Meat Industry - In Committee.

Meat Chicken Levy Collection - In Committee.

Nitrogenous Fertlizers Subsidy - Amendment to Second Reading

Petroleum Search Subsidy - In Committee.

Raw Cotton Bounty - Amendment to Second Reading

Repatriation - Amendment to Second Reading (Agreed to)

Social Services - Amendment to Second Reading

States Grants (Dwellings for Aged Pensioners) - In Committee.

Wine Grapes Charges - Second Reading

1970

Estate Duty Assessment - Amendment to Second Reading

Homes Savings Grant - Amendment to Second Reading - In Committee

Loan (Australian Wheat Board) - Amendments to Second Reading (Both agreed to).

National Health - Amendment to Second Reading - In Committee (Same agreed to).

Senator LILLICO:
Tasmania

– Might I say at the outset that I am one who believes in the States. Probably there are people in this chamber who do not believe in the States. I think it would be a sorry day for Australia if all the governmental affairs of this Commonwealth were adjudicated upon from Canberra. For this reason I believe that the States should have adequate financial resources - resources sufficient to allow them to carry on the functions which they administer under the Constitution. We understand that the States requested the Commonwealth to levy this receipts tax because, following the Western Australian case that went to the High Court, it was found that the States did not have the constitutional authority to levy the tax. Senator Murphy said that there was no precedent for this action, but perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) had in mind the conditions that surrounded the introduction of petrol tax in the Commonwealth. My understanding of that proposition was that it was found that the States did not have sufficient constitutional authority to levy a petrol tax, so the Commonwealth took it over and levied it for them. It is true that all governments over the years have not returned all of the revenue to the States. Nevertheless it is a fact that there is a precedent for the action which the Commonwealth has taken in regard to this matter.

Going back a little further, I call to mind the first imposition of uniform taxation, something that is somewhat different. I remember so well that soon after the commencement of the Second World War the representatives of the States and the Commonwealth met together, decided that the Commonwealth should take over all income taxation and agreed that that should continue for the duration of the war and for 1 year after. I call to mind that it was always held up as an indication of bad faith that no sooner had the conference adjourned than Dr Evatt said: ‘We have the power now. We will keep it’. When the Commonwealth took over the taxing powers from the States - that is, the whole of the income taxation power - and uniform taxation was introduced, I do not suppose there was any consideration whatever of whether there was uniformity in income taxation amongst the States. It can be taken for granted without any doubt whatever that at that time some States levied heavier income taxation than did others. Unlike the arguments that I have heard advanced in regard to this measure to the effect that the tax receipts of some States will be increased because of it, it was not considered then by some of the States that if the uniform income taxation proposal became law and applied throughout the Commonwealth some States would have to pay more and others would have to pay less.

I concede the unsatisfactory position which exists between the Commonwealth and the States in relation to revenue. Senator Murphy said that it had reached a climax. I think it has. The position has become more acute as the years have gone by, but it is no new thing. The dissatisfaction which exists amongst the States as a result of the treatment meted out to them by the Commonwealth probably is as old as federation. In or about 1931 or 1932 the then Treasurer of Tasmania, the late Mr E. Dwyer-Gray, prepared a case setting out the disabilities under which Tasmania laboured under federation. In the forefront of the case he prepared was part of a speech delivered by the then AttorneyGeneral of Victoria, Mr R. G. Menzies -

I repent that this was in 1931 or 1932 - in which Mr Menzies was most caustically critical of the treatment meted om to the States by the Commonwealth. 1 call to mind that he ended his statement by indicating that if the treatment meted out to the States by the Commonwealth continued along the same plane the States eventually would be deprived of their rights as sovereign States.

Senator Gair:

– Well, the Stales achieved that when they agreed to uniform -taxation.

Senator LILLICO:

– Probably they did, but 1 am one who believes that if uniform taxation were to cease we would reach the stage at which we probably would be penalising some of the smaller States. I believe that the system of uniform taxation lends itself to a certain amount of improvidence. In my view the ideal proposition is for a sovereign State to be responsible to its own taxpayers for the revenue, that it collects and spends. The point I want to make is that this dissatisfaction between the States and the Commonwealth has o-‘en going on for years.

When the late Mr J. A. Lyons was Premier of Tasmania that Stale was always in trouble as a result, of its disabilities under federation, and its representatives always were approaching the Commonwealth to try to find a way by which its position could be alleviated. When Mr .1. A. Lyons became Prime Minister of Australia he instituted the Commonwealth Grants Commission which periodically went to the claimant Stales - there were 3 of them at the time - looked at their budgetary position, made an assessment of what should be necessary for them to carry on a standard of service commensurate with that of what were called the ‘standard States’, and arrived at a specific amount which was to be given to the claimant Stales by way of a special grant. I believe that all political parties throughout the Commonwealth would agree that the Commonwealth Grants Commission has done a wonderful job for the smaller States.

Instead of the Stales and the Commonwealth meeting periodically and having a wrangle over what is to be disbursed to the States, thus inducing a set of circumstances in which the States mostly ask for more than is necessary, having in mind the chance or even the certainty that it will be reduced and that they might come out fairly even, surely there is a strong case for a body similar to the Commonwealth Grants Commission to make a firm assessment of what should be necessary to enable all of the States to maintain a reasonable standard of service. We should not have the haphazard wrangle which seems to take place every time the States and the Commonwealth meet. It should nor be beyond the wit of man to arrive at a system by which the States of this Commonwealth would be reasonably certain of sufficient reimbursement to enable them to carry on their services.

I call to mind that before Mr Reece, when Premier of Tasmania, went to a Premiers Conference he appeared on television and said: “The Commonwealth has to yield to the States some sphere of taxation to enable them to carry on.’ I noted that he was careful nor to mention what that sphere would be. It is a difficult matter. But failing the allocation of a sphere or spheres of taxation to the States it seems reasonable to me that, coupled with the present taxation reimbursement formula, some firmer, better and more reliable guidelines should be laid down for the purpose of arriving at a decision as to how much the Stales are to be reimbursed out of this uniform taxation pool. This seems to me to bc vital to the future continuance of the federation as it exists today.

If these Bills are rejected - and the indications seem to bc that they will be - the States will lose $70m in revenue. 1 take note that in today’s Press Sir Henry Bolte is reported to have stated that the Labor Party in the Senate was determined to do the States in the eye. as he termed it.

Senator Georges:

– He is the expert?

Senator LILLICO:

– That is what he said. He said that the Labor Party would deprive the States of all this revenue. If the States do not receive this $70m because these measures are rejected, there is only one other source from which it can come, and that is from the general income tax revenue of the Commonwealth. This $70m, plus the many millions of dollars that will be needed to such things as the national health scheme that has recently been approved by this Parliament and to which I have no objection, will place an added burden on Commonwealth revenue. There are ever-present and ever-growing demands for reimbursements from Commonwealth revenue. Senator Murphy said a while ago that we were the most heavily taxed country in the world. If we keep on forever adding to the taxation burden, and more especially to the income tax burden, we will reach a state of stagnation in the economy. This is one of the things wrong in the United Kingdom. Income tax in that country reached such proportions that it became almost impossible for the people to meet it and the burden tended to stagnate the country industrially. Some people say that any additional financial burden should be loaded on to income tax but they always seem to forget that at a certain level of income tax the country can reach a state of stagnation. There is a limit, and when that limit is reached the consequences to the economy are dire indeed.

Two or three years ago an assessment of indirect and direct taxation was made, and it was found that indirect taxation levied by the then government was very considerably less than the indirect taxation that had been levied by the Chifley Government. Since then some forms of indirect taxation have been abolished. Whilst it may be said that indirect taxes are levied on people with no regard for the income accruing to them - and so they are - there has to be a balance between the 2 forms of taxation. If the right to levy receipts duties is taken away from the States and they lose this $70m a year in revenue, and if that amount is added on to income taxation, we will without question be imposing a heavier taxation burden on this Commonwealth, which will have adverse affects on our progress and development. That is an aspect which this Parliament will have to consider more and more as the years go by.

This receipts tax is in operation in every State in varying degrees. If we say that the receipts tax that has hitherto been levied by a State is not as high as will be the case with the implementation of these measures, it seems lo me that we are adopting a very narrow and parochial attitude. It is perfectly obvious that if the tax in a State is increased by the passage of this measure - and I read that in 1 State the increase will be fourfold - certainly more revenue will accrue to that State, and therefore surely it would be competent for that State to reduce its other forms of taxation.

Senator Gair:

– It is reasonable to hope for it but it is over-optimistic to expect it.

Senator LILLICO:

– I know what politicians are. I have had a fairly long experience of them. Nevertheless, the way is open for them to reduce taxation in other fields if that is their will. If the revenue of 1 State from receipts duties is to be quadrupled because of the passage of this measure surely it can reduce, if it wants to, other forms of taxation. In all this measure will have positively no adverse affect on the States. I support this measure. If the Prime Minister was certain that Parliament would agree to it-

Senator Little:

– Not even the Premiers have agreed to it. How could he expect the Commonwealth Parliament to agree to it?

Senator LILLICO:

– The precedent has been created. Before uniform taxation was implemented, the Commonwealth came to an agreement with the States without the consent of Parliament. As I understand it, when the States found that they could not levy petrol tax the Commonwealth, without the consent of Parliament, agreed to do it. But I do not know for certain about this; that is too long ago for me.

Senator Gair:

– There was a challenge in the courts to uniform taxation. The then Premier of Queensland, Mr Forgan Smith, challenged it.

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA · LP

– Uniform taxation was challenged afterwards. Does not everybody at one time or another dislike all taxation? One can say awful things about taxation. Yet in the circumstances I believe that this measure should become Commonwealth law.

Senator GAIR:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party · Queensland

– I rise to speak against this measure and indicate that my colleagues of the Australian Democratic Labor Party and I will vote against the Bill. Before dealing with the Bill I want to make brief reference to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy). He stated what he believes to be Australian Labor Party policy with regard to money Bills. I am grateful to have an expression of opinion from him in this connection. But whilst I am grateful I am confused and puzzled, because his opinion differs so much from the expressed opinions of the leaders of his Party in another place. Furthermore, he failed to answer a question which I asked about why the ALP Opposition in the Senate, after convening a special sitting of the Senate to deal with postal charges, walked out of the Senate when the vital vote was about to be taken. The only explanation I could find outside this chamber was that the executive of the Austraiian Labor Party had directed the Opposition to act in such a way because it was contrary to the policy of the Party for the Senate to oppose money Bills.

Senator Little:

– That would be the Federal Executive, not the Victorian Executive?

Senator GAIR:

– 1 am talking about the parliamentary executive.

Senator Georges:

– Who gave you that information?

Senator GAIR:

– Well, some members of your own Party. If I am forced to do so 1 will name them, reluctant as I may be to do so.

Senator Georges:

– You said the Federal Executive, did you not?

Senator GAIR:

– Do not taunt me too much or 1 might name them and there will be a further split in your Party.

Senator Brown:

– That is wishful thinking again.

Senator GAIR:

– Do not talk about wishful thinking. You get your inspirations in the sunshine on the beaches. 1 have here a document from the Prime Minister of the day, the late Harold Holt, lt is headed:

P.M. No. 52/1967

The document states:

Increased charges by Governments are never popular, and it is not surprising that the Labor Party should attempt to turn the announced increases in postal and telephone rates lo its political advantage. Bui the decision lo use its numbers in Hie Senate lo defeat the Government on a substantia! financial mailer reveals the depth of political opportunism lo which the Labor Parly, under ils new leadership, will allow itself to sink. lt is one of the most firmly established principles of’ British Parliamentary democracy that a House of review should not reject the financial decisions of the popular House. The terms of the Commonwealth Constitution reflect this principle.

It has long been a cherished principle of Labor policy thai the Senate should not frustrate the financial policies of a Government possessing a majority support in the House of Representatives.

Senator Greenwood:

– ls this Mr Whitlam?

Senator GAIR:

– I will come to that. The document continues:

This was consistently adhered lo by the former Leader of the ALP, Mr Calwell; it has been repeatedly emphasised by Labor’s Shadow Treasurer, Mr Crean, and given clear expression by Mr Whitlam himself. He is on public record as having stated Labor’s belief that Senate powers on financial matters should be only those of consultation. He made this statement at a time when he was acting Leader of the Labor Party. Labor’s attitude on this matter is carried to the point of maintaining as a plank of policy in its platform, the abolition of the Senate.

There will be many staunch Labor supporters disgusted by this cynical abandonment of a longheld principle and this blatant exercise of political opportunism in the teeth of so many firm and clear public declarations of the past. If this is the new look in Labor leadership, then it is revealed as having no basis of consistency or principle nor any respect for historical democratic tradition and practice.

Mr Acting Deputy President, when I have that statement by a Prime Minister and when I know from the records of the Parliament the attitude of Mr Calwell and Mr Crean you will realise why 1 am puzzled and perplexed. Only the other clay Mr Crean was reported to have declared himself against the Senate interfering in money Bills. Today Senator Murphy tells us that the policy has changed, lt is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the ALP lo determine what its policy is. But I elect to make reference lo it and show how inconsistent and how divided supporters of the ALP are on such a vital matter, i return to the Bill. Normally 1 could be relied upon to support the States in any claim they may make for financial aid from the Commonwealth. 1 have had the experience of attending Premiers Conferences and Australian Loan Council meetings. As a Premier 1 have begged for additional financial aid to enable my State to provide the things which the public wanted and to meet the demands for schools, hospitals and other public utilities, as well as to provide for adequate transport and all the other things a State government is expected to do. Frequently I was disappointed with the attitude of Prime Ministers and Commonwealth Treasurers. Sometimes we were made to feel that even the loan money we were given was a gift rather than a loan on which interest was to be paid. The Prime Ministers ar.d Treasurers stressed how much loan money they were making available. Of course, they did not state that the loan money had to be repaid by the people of the State to whom it was lent.

I know all that background. I was very pleased to hear Senator Lillico declare himself on the side of the States. The representatives in this Senate of Tasmania and other mendicant States should support the States. Those States who have been supported by the Commonwealth Grants Commission must be on the side of the States. 1 remember very clearly when the States which were not receiving any aid from the Grants Commission were required to do unpopular things like increasing freight rates and fares, Thomas Playford as he was then - Sir Thomas now - failed to do the unpopular thing to obtain revenue and depended on the Grants Commission to come to his aid. Those things were done, but the States which accepted their responsibility were disadvantaged by comparison with others who were prepared to play the part of the mendicant. Senator Lillico said that this has gone on since the turn of the century or since federation. I can only speak about the period since the 1940s. I believe that all the wrangling and fighting that go on between the Commonwealth and the States emanate from uniform taxation. When the States had the responsibility of raising their own money - and that is what they had to do - there could never be a charge by anybody else that they were unwisely expending money collected and given to them by another authority. I do not accept the repeated statement that the States squander money which is made available to them by the Commonwealth.

I believe that in the last 15 years the Commonwealth’s attitude towards the States has been greatly improved and more generous than it was in my time as a Premier and as a Treasurer. This is particularly so in the fields of education and health, in the provision of libraries, science blocks and other big contributions made by the Commonwealth - and rightly so, too. But in the field of immigration the Commonwealth could do more. It contributes towards bringing people to Australia. It might spend some money on their temporary domicile in some hostel but for every person the Commonwealth brings here the responsibility is on the State to provide him with housing and employment and, if he is married, to provide his children with schooling. The State also has to provide him and his family with hospitalisation and all the other things that are required in the community life of the country.

However, I merely want to say that in normal circumstances I am a supporter of the States in their claim for additional financial support. No-one can tell me that the Commonwealth is broke or that it is poor. I am waiting anxiously to see what the declared surplus will be this year. Let me read an extract from a statement made in Brisbane by the President of the Chamber of Commerce, Mr Suggars:

About 1954, Sir Arthur Fadden instituted the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve to provide for maturing war loans. Since then, $2,750m had been transferred to that reserve, quite apart from sinking funds. This shows that in the last 15 years there has been an average of $180m a year surplus.

So the Commonwealth cannot claim to be broke or poor.

Senator Greenwood:

– Does it not use part of that money to lend to the States through the Loan Council?

Senator GAIR:

– It may do, but the States can only get loans from the Loan Council either here or somewhere else.

Senator Georges:

– It charges 6i%.

Senator GAIR:

– Yes, the Commonwealth does not give it to the States. I have already gone to the trouble of emphasising that it does not give us that money. It only lends it to us and we have to pay it back, plus interest. I am on the side of the States but I do not approve of this method of assisting the States. We in the Democratic Labor Party have been saying for some time now that the time is near - indeed, the time is overdue - when there should be some reconsideration of the financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and States. I know that the Commonwealth has altered the formula governing the reimbursement of taxation revenue to the States several times since I left the Queensland Parliament. Those alterations were received by the States, but within 12 months they saw the deficiencies in them, and they wanted a further change. It is up to the States to get down to some sound thinking. This legislation we are considering is due to the impetuous decisions of some State

Premiers-

Senator Little:

– And reluctant decisions too.

Senator GAIR:

– And some reluctant decisions to impose taxation in a field without making sure of the validity of what they were doing. Ultimately this caught up with them and the High Court says they are out of bounds.

Senator Brown:

– They were encouraged by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer.

Senator GAIR:

– 1 have no evidence of that. I know, and I depend on my memory for it, that the Prime Minister of the day warned the Premier of Victoria about what he had decided to do and appealed to him not to go on wilh it.

Senator Little:

– That was in relation to wages.

Senator GAIR:

– That is correct. The Prime Minister asked him not to go on with it, but he went on wilh it. 1 believe that that phase of the tax brought the adverse decision of the High Court against that State Government. Years ago all States had stamp duties on receipts. I remember that way back in the dark ages, when my father was a public servant and was paid monthly, stamp duty had to be taken out of his salary. Stamp duty generally was accepted by all States. But in 1967 all States but Queensland sharply raised their taxes. In Queensland the rate has remained much lower than the rates in the other States. With the introduction of this uniform tax collection the Queensland businessman, the Queensland manufacturer, the Queensland wholesaler, the Queensland retailer and the Queensland public will be required to pay at least 400% more than they are required to pay today. There is an exemption in the payment of stamp duty on receipts in Queensland: No tax at all is paid up to $20, and from $20 to $100 2c is payable. The proposal is to pay lc for every $10. That means 10c will be paid on $100. That shows the difference between what the Queensland taxpayer is paying today and what he will be required to pay. I am sure it is not hard for honourable senator to know why 1 am opposed to this legislation.

I think it is unfair, it is vicious and it is inflationary. The producer of raw materials supplies the manufacturer and stamp duty is levied when payment is made. The manufacturer manufactures the raw material and when he is paid for it by the wholesaler the transaction is stamped again. The wholesaler sells to the retailer and again there is a stamp. Finally the retailer sells to the public. All that is passed on and the worker and the pensioner have their purchases of groceries and other essentials of life increased in price, lt is bad enough for governments, both Commonwealth and State, to stand flatfooted and do nothing about the ever-increasing cost of living in this country, but I expect them to prevent, when occasions like this arise, the imposition of taxation which is inflationary and unfair. The worker and the pensioner who buy goods will pay as much in stamp duty as the rich man will pay. They will pay by way of increased prices.

Receipts duty in Queensland is collected in 2 forms - by monthly declarations and by adhesive stamp sales. In 1968-69 the total amount collected was just short of S2.5m, according to the report of the Auditor-General in Queensland. The Queensland Treasurer has said that he expects to get an extra $5m aud I think he has it down to the bare minimum. My authorities say he will get a great deal more than that. At one stage he said he thought he would be in a position to return some of thai revenue to the taxpayers of Queensland in other ways. I think that was the point that Senator Greenwood made - that this could be done. But since then Mr Chalk, the Liberal Treasurer of Queensland, has said he now finds that because of increased wages etc he will not be able to give any relief at all. That does not surprise me because Treasurers as a rule, when they get their hands on something, do not lei go very readily. This would be a great windfall for him. Instead of getting $2. 5m, even on his own figures, he will have a total of $7. 5m to $8m. Mr Chalk now says he doubts that he can compensate the taxpayers for the higher receipts tax that is to be collected.

I acknowledge that the Commonwealth Government has no alternative but to levy a uniform tax; thai is provided for in the Constitution. I have no row with the Commonwealth in that connection. Indeed, the

Commonwealth is merely filling the vacuum caused by the High Court decision and is collecting on behalf of the States, lt has no alternative but to strike a uniform tax. Queensland is the State that will be principally hurt. Because Queensland chose to apply a lower rate of tax the necessity for uniformity works solely to Queensland’s disadvantage. Mr Chalk will say now that if the receipts duty had not been declared invalid he would have increased the tax in any case in his next Budget. That has already been suggested as coming from the State Treasurer. But Mr Chalk cannot get away from the fact that when he struck the tax that is being collected at the present time he believed that that was all he would require the people of Queensland to pay under that heading. This legislation will have a significant effect on companies with high turnovers but small profit margins and that means chiefly those dealing in groceries and other foodstuffs. Inevitably these companies will pass the tax on to the consumer.

It is an economic fact that the poorer groups in the community - the pensioners and the low income large families - find it hard enough now to cope with food costs. This is a further reason why we oppose the legislation. The policy of the Democratic Labor Party is to help these people, not to further disadvantage them, which will be the effect of the Bills should they be passed. It is significant to note that if these Bills are defeated it will not be because of my action; it will be simply because the Senate is acting in its role as a States’ House. We are here to represent the people of the State and that is what I am earnestly trying to do this afternoon. The States are jammed on this isue and if the Commonwealth desires to continue helping the States it will have to consider other ways and means of doing it. These Bi Ms affect one State in particular and all Queensland senators would be remiss in their duty if they did not oppose them. I have already indicated that the Commonwealth is not poor; it is not broke. It could help the States out without much difficulty. Let me quote some figures from a responsible gentleman in the business world in Brisbane in relation to these Bills. He said:

Stamp duty in Queensland on receipts for cash received is at the moment 2c in $100 with an exemption on amounts up to $20. Some time ago other Australian States increased stamp duty on receipts to lc in $10 with no exemption, despite numerous protests from the business community. As you are aware, this was subsequently found invalid by the High Court in the case of payments made for the sale of goods.

It is now proposed to make this a Federal Act whereby the Federal Government will act and collect on behalf of all States. This will mean that the Queensland Stamp Duty on receipts will be increased by 400% to lc in $10 dollars or 10c in $100.

He agrees with what I have to say about this. He continued:

It is a grossly unfair and unjust form of taxation as it is taxing essential merchandise. Distributors of these goods such as food and groceries, etc., are forced to operate on extremely fine margins. The only chance they have of continuing to operate is due to high volume of business which runs into tens of millions of dollars of turnover per annum.

The letter indicates that those dealing in luxury lines, with a big margin and much less turnover, will not be so seriously affected as those who are dealing in essential merchandise. It goes on:

To give you some idea of the extra cost incurred, let us take a business with a turnover of $50m per annum (and this is not uncommon in the food industry). Receipt duty tax payable would be $50,000 ($100m would be $100,000), whereas a business operating in luxury merchandise with a smaller turnover and higher margins is not greatly affected. If this is a form of indirect taxation, it is not consistent. In the case of Sales Tax, as you are aware, essential goods arc exempt whereas luxury goods are taxable. It must also be remembered that there is an additional cost involved as far as the collection and processing of this tax is concerned.

The legislation has not the support of the Chambers of Manufactures, the Chambers of Commerce and all the other organisations that represent the business sections of the community. They are entitled to their point of view. We of the Democratic Labor Party are opposed to the legislation, not because we are opposed to the States receiving additional finance - I want to make that clear. We are opposed to this method of assisting the States financially because such taxation is grossly unfair. It is really vicious as far as Queensland is concerned, and it is inflationary. I hope that the legislation will be defeated and that the States and the Commonwealth, separately or conjointly, will be required to give further consideration to the ways and means of obtaining the revenue lost as a result of the High Court decision. I oppose the measure before the Senate.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The statement made by Senator Gair following the statement made by Senator

Murphy is a clear indication that the legislation will be defeated. What is interesting and what should have the spotlight cast upon it are the supposed reasons which have been given by the parties opposite for their opposition to the measure. I agree with Senator Gair that the Australian Labor Party, contrary to a precept which it has enunciated over many decades, is using its numbers in the Senate to block financial legislation. 1 do nol challenge the Opposition’s right to do so. In appropriate cases any Opposition can do that. What seems to me all the more striking in the case of the Australian Labor Party is that it is doing this contrary to what it has stated, as Senator Gair said, on many occasions through many of ils leading spokesmen. I agree with Senator Gair when he says that it is a blatant exhibition of opportunism. But Senator Gair should cast the same accusation in his own direction, because when he says that he believes in the States and would support them, what reason does he give for opposing the measure?

Senator Gair:

– I gave you a good reason.

Senator GREENWOOD:

- Senator Gair gave a reason which might seem very good for the opening of the Democratic Labor Party’s political campaign in Queensland. He utilised the effect on Queensland as a justification for opposing the measure. There is nothing greater than the effect on Queensland as the root cause of the opposition of the Democratic Labor Party to the measure. If the charge of opportunism can be thrown at the Labor Party then that same charge of opportunism may be thrown at the Democratic Labor Party.

The basic fact underlying the legislation is that it is necessary. It has been necessitated by 4 facts. The first is that there was an unexpected judgment of the High Court which rendered invalid a State tax which, but for the invalidity, would have produced for the States some $50m for the year 1969-70. I emphasise that that judgment was an unexpected one. The States do not deserve the castigation thrown at them by Senator Gair that in some way they did not do their homework before they imposed the taxation. The judgment was unexpected because it was contrary to the line of decisions previously adopted by the High Court, particularly in regard to stamp tax on hire purchase transactions. In any event, on the 2 occasions when the High Court has delivered judgments it has been divided in the proportion of 4 judges to 3.

Senator Little:

– What areas did the Hig/i Court rule out?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– As Senator Little well knows, the High Court ruled out those taxes which could be regarded as taxes on receipt of goods or on receipts deemed to be receipts of goods, because they were excise. Thai view had not commended itself to the High Court in regard to other transactions in times past. The second fact which necessitated the legislation was that the States’ financial positions were such that projected expenditure on essential services could not have been incurred unless the $50m was in some way made up. The third fact was that under the High Court’s judgment it was quite clear that the Commonwealth had the constitutional power to impose this taxation whereas the States had not. The fourth fact necessitating the legislation was - it is a wonder that Senator Gair with his great defence of the States did not advert to it - that the States invited the Commonwealth to pass this legislation.

Senator Little:

– Have you read Sir Henry Bolte’s report to his own Parliament? lt does not sound like an invitation to me.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– If Senator Little is challenging the record then let him challenge it, because nothing is as clear, specific and unchallenged as the statement made following a Premiers Conference, that this legislation was being passed at the request of the States. That statement has been made not once but on countless occasions thereafter. I suppose that with the new doctrine being enunciated by Democratic Labor Party senators to justify their present stand, what is on the record can be ignored if it does not suit them. That appears to be the attitude that Senator Little now seeks to adopt. When the legislation was declared invalid what was the Commonwealth to do? I suggest it had 3 alternatives. The first was to allow the States to lose the $50m.

Senator Georges:

– Hear, hear!

Senator GREENWOOD:

– 1 am fortified by the ‘Hear, hear’ from Senator Georges. That seems to be the attitude which the

Australian Labor Party and the Democratic Labor Party are now adopting. Although they are preaching the iniquities of the receipts duty there has been no suggestion from either the Austraiian Labor Party or the Democratic Labor Party as to how that money is to be made up. The Commonwealth has the responsibility, and it acknowledged that responsibility by indicating quite clearly that it was not prepared to allow the States to lose thai money. The Government properly ruled out that alternative as a possibility. The second alternative was to make an additional assistance grant to the States in the sum of $50m. I suppose that Senator Gair would say: ‘Let it come out of the surplus.’ Of course the Government is always supposed to have a surplus. As I understand the position, in the current year the Government has noi been expending all the revenues it has been receiving because it recognises that there is an inflationary situation in which it should, as far as it is able, cut down on Government expenditure. That is a view which has commended itself to many financial writers. II is a view which, in other circumstances on other issues, the Australian Labor Party and the Democratic Labor Party would urge on the Government.

On this aspect I refer, because. I think it is worthwhile to do so, to what was said by the Treasurer (Mr Bury) in his second reading speech. He said:

Al a special Premiers Conference held on 18th November 1969 to consider the position, the Premiers said that the States had expected to receive a total of about S70m in 1969-70 from their receipts duties. About $40m of this revenue was estimated to come from duly on the proceeds of sale of goods - the area that was considered most likely lo beheld invalid. The Premiers estimated that if the States receipts duties were discontinued altogether the loss of revenue to the Slates in 1969-70 would be up to $50m. lt was recognised that if there were a substantial revenue loss and no replacement were introduced the inflationary effects on the economy would be severe.

There were other aspects of the same speech which supported that view.

Senator Little:

– Do you think that is sound economics?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– -1 am prepared to accept the Treasurer’s qualifications and the advice of his experts. If we are to have Senator Little, the new financial genius, expressing a contrary view I trust that he will set before us what he has not done hitherto - his qualifications which are superior to those of the Treasurer in matters relating to the finances of this country. We Will wait lo hear what he has to say. The Commonwealth was faced with the position that it could not out of ils revenue simply provide another S50m for the States unless it ran counter to the general course it was following with regard to inflationary development in the community.

Another problem is that the Government has many demands upon its money. The allocation of its funds always involves the question of priorities. Undoubtedly, with the defeat of this legislation, some adjustment will have to be made in government priorities in order to meet the States’ revenue needs. When the decision was made to validate the invalid receipts duties legislation through Commonwealth action, among alternatives open to the Commonwealth Government was that of simply providing another $50m out of general revenue. That alternative was nol to be preferred lo the course that was adopted.

The final alternative, and the one which was adopted, was to validate the tax which was declared invalid. 1 suggest that there are several reasons why the Commonwealth preferred this course. I think it is worth while to emphasise the first of those reasons - that the States had requested the Commonwealth to undertake that course. In the area of Commonwealth and State cooperation 1 would have thought it to be desirable for the Commonwealth to pursue the course requested by the States.

Senator Little:

– The States did not ask.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Again we hear from Senator Little. Once more I must have touched him on the raw because he is chattering away today as we have not heard from him all the week. If he challenges the accuracy of what I am saying, let him point to the record to show where I am inaccurate. The second point I make in explaining why the Commonwealth adopted the course it did is that the existing receipts duties which were then being imposed and paid by persons who were liable to pay them under the State legislation would continue to be payable to the States as before. That would be possible because the validating action had been promised by the Commonwealth Government. Thirdly, there would be no break in the pattern of payment. The Commonwealth Government would simply pass a law or laws altering the authority under which the duties were payable, making the States the agents of the Commonwealth for the receipt of these moneys. There would be no alteration in the continuity or in the basic programme that the Government had adopted as part of its method of countering inflationary pressures.

I think it should also be recognised - and I think this is an aspect to which neither the Australian Labor Party nor the Democratic Labor Party has adverted - that since November 1969 receipts duties have in fact been paid to the States by the persons liable to pay them under the old State legislation. Those moneys have been paid not because they were lawfully payable by those people but because the Prime Minister had said that validating legislation would be passed retrospectively to 1 8th November 1969. The people who were liable to pay that money had two alternatives - firstly, of not paying and of running the risk that they would be required to pay later: and secondly, of paying regularly on the basis on which they had always paid, because it was clear that payment would be required from them in due course.

I turn now to the record because I have heard, particularly from Senator Little, a challenge as to what the Prime Minister and the States had agreed upon last year. Immediately after the Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd judgment in September of last year a statement was made by the Prime Minister in response to queries from the States. On 27th September 1969 the Prime Minister said:

If possible and if we are asked, we would be prepared to pass validating legislation to enable the States to continue to do what they have been doing in the way of taxation, if they wish to do it, though we do not know whether that validating legislation itself would in fact be constitutional and would stand up to a challenge.

Subsequently further discussions and a Premiers Conference were held. Following the conference which took place on 18th November 1969 the Prime Minister made a statement which has never been challenged. It indicates what was agreed between the Commonwealth and the States. He said:

Further, at the request ot all the State Premiers-

I hear no interjection from Senator Little - the Prime Minister and Treasurer agreed to put to Cabinet a proposal that in the event of the present taxes being found invalid in some or all respects, the Commonwealth should pass legislation, on a uniform basis, imposing a like tax and enabling the States to receive it. This would prevent the loss of revenue to the States which would otherwise occur during the present financial year. If this were done, it would be sought to make the Commonwealth legislation retrospective to the date of this statement

A further Premiers Conference was held following the High Court’s decision in the cases involving Industrial Acceptance Corporation Ltd and Chamberlin Industries Pty Ltd handed down on 20th February. A Premiers Conference took place late in February. At that conference certain statements were made which indicated that a vastly new approach was being adopted to the whole question of Commonwealth and State financial relations, but with regard to receipts duties the earlier decision was repeated with the indication that the States had asked, and the Commonwealth had agreed, to continue this legislation beyond 30tb June of this year and to make it permanent.

On 3rd March the Governor-General’s Speech contained a statement of the Government’s intention, as follows:

Further, at the unanimous request of the State Governments, my Government will introduce legislation which will have the effect of enabling the States to receive the revenue from receipts duty which they would otherwise lose as a result of the High Court judgment of 19th February.

Countless Press statements on this matter have been made, not only by Sir Henry Bolte, Sir David Brand and Mr Hall, the former Premier of South Australia, but also by Mr Chalk, the Deputy Premier and Treasurer of Queensland. If fortification is required of what I have said, it will be seen that all those statements indicate that the Commonwealth would have to pass this legislation to enable the States to receive moneys which they would otherwise lose. Following those statements, which clearly indicated what the Commonwealth was proposing to do, people have continued to pay these moneys for the last 7 months. But the Australian Labor Party and the Democratic Labor Party have maintained absolute silence as to what they were ultimately proposing to do. I say that the Labor parties - the Australian Labor Party and the Democratic Labor Party - have been guilty of constructive deception in not saying until now that they would oppose this legislation. For 7 months they have allowed people to pay money which they were not legally obliged to pay and which they were paying only because there was an assurance by the Prime Minister that validating legislation would be passed, without saying one word that this measure would be opposed when it came before this Parliament.

In case some doubt might be cast upon that summary of the situation I have searched the record. It is quite clear that no such indication has been given. For example, what did Senator Murphy, the paragon of the virtues, say during the Address-in-Reply debate following the Governor-General’s Speech? He said:

I tlo nol know what the altitude of the Parliament will bc. The Labor Party has not been consulted on the matter: the Party has nol thought about it.

Not a word was heard from the Australian Labor Party indicating its intentions in respect of this legislation until apparently within the last fortnight a meeting of the parliamentary executive of the ALP was held. Mr Whitlam, the Leader of the Australian Labor Party, said in the AddressinReply debate on 5th March:

So there is no doubt that the Federal Government bears more responsibility for the imposition of the receipts lax in the first place; this gives it now a responsibility to provide the States with the amount which the lax would have raised. But there is no responsibility to perpetuate that particular tax, in that particular form. The consequence of the Commonwealth’s present undertaking is that a tax, unfair in ils incidence, complex in its application, inefficient and cosily in its administration, will continue indefinitely.

There is nothing in that statement to suggest that the Australian Labor Parly was proposing to oppose this measure. Of course Senator Gair was not here in the early par: of this year so he did not have any opportunity in this place to make a statement, but we certainly had the acting Leader of the Democratic Labor Party, Senator McManus. having something to say. But he said nol a word to indicate that the Democratic Labor Party was proposing to oppose this measure. All he said was:

The Treasurer (Mr Bury) suggested in a broadcast recently that if the States collected the receipt; lax they ought to lift the tax considerably. All 1 can say about thai suggestion is that the Government should be wary about lifting thi’ type of lax in view of its inflationary character.

There is nothing there to suggest that the Democratic Labor Party was going to take the view which it has now adopted. Whilst 1 know that the Secretary of the Democratic Labor Party usually loyally follows his leader, it may be that he said something a little different from what his Leader said. But neither he nor any other member of his Party indicated that they were proposing lo alter the basis under which people have been paying moneys which they are nol lawfully obliged to pay but which they have been paying on the basis that this legislation would be passed. That is the position as it now exists.

What is the position of these people who have paid something like S30m to $40m over the past 7 months? They cannot get their money back unless they have paid it expressly under protest.

Senator Little:

– Why not?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– If Senator Little, apart from being a financier, now regards himself as an eminent lawyer, let him challenge the decisions of the Privy Council and the High Court, lt is well accepted that a person cannot receive back moneys which he has paid to a State authority under invalid legislation, unless he has paid it involuntarily, which means that he has paid it under compulsion. The usual way of indicating that is by disclosing that he has paid it expressly under protest. Perhaps some people have been cautious enough to pay it under protest, but for my part I believe *hat most have paid it believing that this legislation would be validated. They did so because State Premier after State Premier advised people to pay the money because it was to be legislated for. They were aided in that view because there was not one word from the Opposition Parties, which had the numbers, to indicate that they were going to oppose this legislation. So what we have today is, I believe, a change of front by the parties which have the numbers in this place to defeat this legislation and a willingness to do so for what is regarded as temporary opportunistic advantage.

Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood:

– Grandstanding.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am indebted to Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood: it is a matter of grandstanding. Anybody who is able to get up and say: ‘We prevented a tax from being passed’, has some temporary advantage. But I believe that the requirements of responsibility in Government and the judgment of the people of this country as to what ought to be done by people who have the carnage of legislation will not in the long run sustain this opportunistic attitude which the Opposition parties are now taking. For the Australian Labor Party and the Democratic Labor Part to have allowed a situation to develop where they gave no statement that that would oppose the legislation, in my opinion, consolidated the view that what Government promised Government would perform.

Now to oppose and defeat this legislation is to elevate political expediency and irresponsibility to an unprecedented status. If they knew that they were to do this then for months they have been guilty of what I earlier called a constructive deception which has cost Australian citizens some $40m to $5 Om. In such a case they have stood by knowing that legislation would not be passed and allowing people to pay money which they knew they did not have to pay but which they were paying only because they believed that this legislation would be validated. As I. have said, unless they have paid expressly under protest they cannot get their money back.

As to the wider issue, where will the States get the money to make up for what they have lost and what they will lose - some $50m to S70m? Is it responsible to say simply that this is a vicious tax, this is an unjust tax, this is a retrospective tax, and ignore the fact that it raises money which is to be spent on essential services? The Labor Party has said nothing as to where it would find the money to replace the money that has been lost. The Democratic Labor Pary says airily that something has to be done; it can come out of a surplus. At present the Government is striving hard to cut down all Government expenditure. Moneys paid by the Commonwealth to the States is Government expenditure because that is what the current economic situation requires. I sense that what we are witnessing here today is the elevation of this political irresponsibility and political opportunism to a stage which is quite unprincipled. I hope that in due course when these facts are made known, as they will be made known, the Australian people will reveal with a clarity which they are able to do on occasions that what they expect of this Parliament is responsibility and not political opportunism of the kind we have seen from the Opposition parties. I think they will learn in due course.

Senator GEORGES (Queensland) j.5.1 1] - Let the Government take back to itself the charge of irresponsibility. If Government supporters had bothered to listen over a period to debates in this place they would have learnt time and again that the attitude of the Australian Labor Party to indirect taxation was firm and unequivocal. Indirect taxation is iniquitous, as has been pointed out time and again. On one occasion in particular, by question after question, I challenged the right of the Government to charge 15% sales tax on kiddies’ school books. At that time we pointed out that the tax fell heavily on all, without discrimination, and that it fell on those who were not able to meet the charge. This has been our attitude continually. Senator Greenwood asked where the States would find the money. As 1 am a Queensland senator J shall devote my attention to Queensland alone; 1 shall leave Victoria to its own devices under the irresponsible Sir Henry Bolte.

In dealing with Queensland I make the firm assertion that we do not need this legislation. Queensland does not need assistance in this particular direction. Queensland has agreed to a small level of stamp duty. It was stated by a previous speaker to be 2c in SI 00 and nothing if the amount was under $20. At the time this legislation was proposed the State Treasurer, Mr Chalk, appreciating the extra burden which would be placed on the people of Queensland, indicated that he would seek some way to enable the tax to be returned to Queenslanders by reducing other forms of State taxation. But since then he has reneged.

Senator Gair:

– Get it from the TAB.

Senator GEORGES:

– That is right, but he can get it from other places as well as the TAB. Even last week by obtaining an amendment to the health legislation we were able to provide Queensland with an additional $2m to assist the hospitals. If the Commonwealth Government was honest and just in its approach 10 the States, not only would it g ve Queensland this $2m per year for this year, next year and subsequent years but also it would go back over the 10 years it has deprived Queensland of the subsidy and provide Queensland with a grant of $20m. This would obviate the necessity to impose an increase in taxation by this legislation. 1 find it appalling that a State, against necessity, should be required to lift its stamp receipts taxation from 2c in $100 to 10c in $100. This is being forced upon it. lt is no use honourable senators saying that the Queensland Treasurer agrees w th it. As was indicated earlier, any Treasurer would welcome this extra amount of money and would seek justification for keeping it.

There is another way in which Queensland can obtain the $5m-odd that has been estimated. I think Mr Chalk estimated that the increase of duty from 2c in $100 to 10c in $100 would bring in an extra $5m. Others have put the figure much higher, but there are other ways in which the Queensland Government can obtain this money. When be introduced this legislation I think that the Treasurer (Mr Bury) acted on the assumption that Mr Chalk, the Queensland Treasurer, faced with this situation, would honour his promise by alleviating taxation in other directions, but apparently Mr Chalk is now saying that he intends to keep the $5m without making any compensatory repayments. Members of the Opposition oppose the imposition of this duty on the ground that it falls most heavily on those least able to afford it because it takes no account of their ability to pay. Ultimately the burden must fall upon the consumer and it falls upon him in a vital area of purchase - the purchase of food. A cost escalation is involved and it could mean an increase of 3c or 4c on a whole range of goods in Queensland. The opposition, by way of telegram and letter, which senators on this side of the chamber have received from Queensland manufacturers, producers and friends of the Government should have been sufficient to convince the Government that there was something wrong with the legislation. If the State is to be denied access to this source of revenue-

Senator Gair:

– It will add $1 a week to the cost of living.

Senator GEORGES:

– That is right, and it is $1 on a pensioner the same as it is $1 on a judge who is receiving $14,000 to $15,000 a year. This is the inequity of this form of legislation and it should not be permitted at any level. There is another way in which the Queensland Government, even without this receipts duty, can secure revenue and can discard the receipts duty. I should like clarification on this point, but apparently this legislation means that the Queensland Government has to impose the duty or must collect the money from Queenslanders. The legislation does not allow any State, even if it so desires, not to have this form of taxation.

Senator Gair:

– lt has to be uniform.

Senator GEORGES:

– That is so, therefore they must take it and like it. There is an obvious way in which the Queensland Government can garner in $5m or S6m, and it is a relatively painless source of revenue. I refer to an increase in mining royalties which would be quite painless for the vast majority of Queenslanders. 1 am making the point that Queensland does not really need this money and the Senate is justified in refusing the passage of this legislation as it relates to Queensland. Queensland will not be deprived of revenue because there are alternative sources of income which it should take advantage of rather than this legislation. Most of Queensland’s mining is dominated by foreign investors, as has been mentioned in this House from time to time. We need look no further than the export of coal to realise that Mr Chalk could find $5m without any trouble at all. In 1970-71 approximately 6 million tons of Queensland coal will be exported. Contracts already signed provide for almost 7 million tons to be exported to Japan in the Japanese fiscal year 1970-71 which begins on 1st April 1970. It is estimated that 10 million tons will be exported in 1971-72 and 13.5 million tons in 1972-73. In the second half of this decade Queensland could well be exporting more than 30 million tons of coal a year. Current f.o.b. prices for the great bulk of this coal range between $12 and $13. Prices can be expected to rise. Royalties at present are 5c a ton. I contend that royalties could be increased significantly without driving the mining companies from Queensland.

As an example let us examine the operations of the Utah-Mitsubishi company at Goonyella in the Peak Downs area. When the project was announced it was stated that there would be an export of 80 million tons of coal over 12 years for a return of S 1,000m. The export is to commence in 1971-72. Mr Chalk, who with his family, we now find, owns 2,000 preferential shares in Utah-Mitsubishi, negotiated, in the interests of Queensland, a royalty of 5c a ton giving his Government’s consolidated revenue a return of $4m from an estimated total return of $ 1,000m.

Senator Gair:

– What did he get from Comalco Industries Pty Ltd?

Senator GEORGES:

– I am not discussing that at the moment.

Senator Byrne:

– Is the honourable senator leading up to that?

Senator GEORGES:

– No, I am not leading up to a discussion of the Comalco company at this stage. 1 am speaking about the Utah company. I have mentioned Comalco previously. I ask honourable senators to listen carefully to what I will now say. Instead of receiving $5m from stamp duty under this legislation, the Queensland Treasurer, Mr Chalk, could have secured for his Government $75m. If Mr Chalk had negotiated the same royalty rate as is paid by Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd for iron ore in Western Australia - that is 7i% of the f.o.b. price - Queensland would have received $75m instead of $4m over the 12-year period of the contract. That is more than $6m a year, which is more than enough to cover the amount that Mr Chalk wants to raise from ordinary Queenslanders by way of receipts duty. It is a painless way in which Queensland could receive increased revenue.

At present I have little sympathy for the State governments because I believe that they have - especially the Queensland Government - abdicated their responsibility. Let us consider the number of days that the Queensland Parliament has met. This is why I contend that the Queensland Government should not be supported by legislation of this kind to the detriment of the people of Queensland. The Queensland Parliament has met on 1 1 days since last November. The New South Wales Legislative Assembly has met on 16 days this year.

The South Australian Parliament has met on 3 days. The Western Australian Parliament has a slightly better record and the Tasmanian Parliament is not doing so badly.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Order! I suggest, Senator Georges, that you come back to the provisions of the Bill.

Senator GEORGES:

– 1 am dealing with the provisions of the Bill because I am indicating that there is an alternative source of income for the Queensland Government which makes it unnecessary for this legislation to be passed. We have been asked: Where else is the State to find the money? 1 am stating how the State can find it. Criticism of the Opposition for opposing this legislation is therefore quite poor. I have indicated that there has been a flight away from parliamentary responsibility, in Queensland in particular. If the States had accepted full responsibility the need for extra money would not have arisen. There has been a flight away from responsibility and the Queensland Government ought to accept this. Comalco was mentioned by way of interjection. This is an example where the Queensland Government has become subservient in its operations to the multi-national corporations. It has not placed sufficient emphasis on the raising of finance within its own boundaries to satisfy its requirements. How much has it become subservient? How much has it neglected its responsibilities? Not only have Ministers failed to accept responsibilities, as I have mentioned from time to time, but also the Queensland public servants who are responsible for seeking out means of raising income to obviate the necessity for a receipts tax have failed to accept the ethical standard that is required of public servants. I refer to the issue of Comalco shares in Queensland. I am trying to stir this Government into some activity.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Order! Senator Georges, you will come back to the provisions of the Bill.

Senator GEORGES:

– 1 am dealing with the provisions of the Bill. If the Queensland public servants looked carefully at the level of royalties paid in Queensland and lifted them to the rightful level, it would not be necessary to impose this tax. They have compromised themselves. Sir David Muir, Director of Industrial Development, received 1,200 preferential shares in Comalco.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! Senator Georges, you will come back to the provisions of the Bill. You are getting right away from them.

Senator GEORGES:

– No, 1 am not.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! The honourable senator will not question my ruling on this; he will get buck to the provisions of the Bill.

Senator GEORGES:

– J am a Queensland senator. I owe a responsibility to my home State and to the people of that State. I owe a greater responsibility to those people because the Queensland Government has abdicated to the extent that it has met not more than 1 1 days this year and it is necessary for me to expose what is happening in Queensland. How can I speak about this legislation, which I deem to be unnecessary, unless 1 point out why there has been a failure in this direction? 1 have mentioned one public servant, lt is only right that I mention the other 4 who are responsible for the position in which Queensland finds itself. One other is Charles Newton Barton, Co-ordinator General, who received 1,200 preferential shares. Mrs Col Curtis, who is the wife of the Agent-General, received 1.500 preferential shares. Incidentally, Mr Col Curtis was previously the Under Secretary of the Premier’s Department. Mrs Curtis received substantially more shares than the Minister received. Mr Keith Spann, who is the Assistant Under-Secretary of the Premier’s Department, received 1,200 shares. In other words, these people have compromised themselves lo these multination international concerns and have not the interests of the Queensland people at hean. Errol Ernest Schaeffer. Press Secretary to Mr Bjelke-Petersen, received 500 shares. Mr Roy H. Fields, Assistant UnderSecretary of the Treasury Department, received 1,233 preferential shares which, as I have stated before in this chamber, were in the nature of a gift.

Senator Prowse:

– What has that to do with the Bill?

Senator GEORGES:

– lt has quite a deal to do with the Bill because if the Queensland Government and Queensland public servants responsible for the running of the

Stale took a close look at the finances of the State they would see to it that the State got sufficient royalties from these companies to provide sufficient income to remove any necessity to raise even lc by this kind of receipts tax. That is the point I make. They have repudiated their responsibilities and have compromised themselves. They have placed themselves at the mercy of 2 great international concerns.

Senator Gair:

– Do not the companies pay stamp duty?

Senator GEORGES:

– Immediately after the stamp duty legislation was introduced some time ago, Mount lsa Mines Ltd announced that it was making wmc internal reorganisation of its financial affairs to avoid paying stamp duty. The smalt concerns such as friendly societies and credit unions are required to pay this kind of duly, not only when members put money in but also when they take it out. That illustrates the complete iniquity of this type of legislation. I ask thai the Government accept it as iniquitous and accept that we intend to oppose it and to prevent its passage.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– I view of the statements that have been made already, I think we should understand what we arc talking about when we discuss this Bill. We propose to vote against it. I have read the speech made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson). 1 hold him in high esteem. 1 do not suggest that he would deliberately deceive honourable senators at any time, but I must question some of the statements contained in his second reading speech. If they are accurate at all. they are misleading because they do not convey the true situation as it exists in relation to this legislation. His remarks do not convey the attitudes of the Slate Premiers, as he implied that his remarks do. The Minister said:

Al a special Premiers” Conference held on 18th November 1969 lo consider the position, the Premiers said that the States had ex peeled to receive a total of about S70m in 1969-70 from their receipts duties. About $40m of thi’; revenue was estimated to come from duty on the proceeds of sale of goods - the area that wa* considered most likely to be held invalid. The Premiers estimated that, if the Stales’ receipts duties were discontinued altogether, the loss of revenue to the States in 1969-70 would be up to $50m. lt was recognised that, if there were a substantial revenue loss and no replacement lax were introduced, the inflationary effects on the economy would be severe. The outcome of the Conference was a request by the Premiers, to which the Commonwealth agreed, that in the event of the receipts duty of the States being found invalid in some or all respects, the Commonwealth should introduce legislation, with operation retrospectively to 18th November 1969, to impose a like tax for the benefit of the Slates. 1 have a document that was tabled in the Victorian Legislative Assembly by Sir Henry Bolte on 26th February 1970, 3 months after the Premiers, it is suggested, desired the Commonwealth to introduce legislation to take from the Stales the responsibility of collecting the tax that was ruled invalid, such tax then to be imposed by the Commonwealth. I will quote from that document later, lt shows that the Premiers unanimously asked the Commonwealth for the right to impose a State income lax. 1 suggest that while there may have been no deliberate intent to mislead, the statement that for this period the State Premiers had been requesting the Commonwealth to assume the responsibility to which I referred is not a true one. lt was the Commonwealth’s suggestion to the States, lt was described hy one Premier as being a kind of blackmail: in other words the States would not get what they are asking and that they would be blackmailed into accepting what the Commonwealth wanted. That is an entirely different position from what Senator Greenwood purported to be the position. He suggested that, because the Opposition and the Democratic Labor Parly were not prepared to accept this legislation at this stage, we were trying to make political capital. I shall deal wilh that suggestion later. 1 now deal wilh the history of the tax to show why we of the Democratic Labor Party, irrespective of anybody who may have joined us more recently in our opposition, oppose the legislation. I agree with Senator Greenwood that the Labor Opposition in the Queensland Parliament agreed to this form of taxation. Indeed in some States Labor governments introduced this kind of taxation. We were a little surprised, after voicing our objection strongly on every possible occasion during the last 2 years, to find ourselves suddenly joined in our opposition by the Australian Labor Party. A situation has developed in which many people may have presumed, as Senator Greenwood suggested, that this tax would be imposed, but they certainly could never have presumed from the statements that have been made by the Democratic Labor Party that we favoured this type of taxation in any shape or form.

I have read in the newspapers that 1 am alleged to have won an election campaign 2 years ago because 1 campaigned on this question. I remind Senator Greenwood that, in moving a motion on Commonwealth-State financial relationships in this chamber on 7th May this year, 1 devoted more than I page of the printed Hansard to exposing the iniquities of this tax. But. in the meantime, for some reason he presumed that we were in favour of it. I cannot be responsible for his presumptions or those of the Prime Ministers (Mr Gorton). If they have deceived the Australian people by making presumptions, surely the responsibility is their and not ours.

This tax emanated from a tax which was not a very serious one and which, as Senator Georges suggested, Mount lsa Mines Lid and many other people found various ways of getting around over a long period of time. The Slates had never worried very much that their lax was being avoided until the shocking situation in Commonwealth-Slate financial relationships reduced them to a position of such abject poverty that they had more or less to hunt around the garbage cans of taxation io find some new means of raising a little more revenue.

Senator Gair:

– Poker machines.

Senator LITTLE:

– Some States adopted poker machines. They have to accept the responsibility for the privations of the families in which much of the income goes in an improper manner to swell the profits of clubs and lo provide some money for the Stale. Bui that is another issue. Let us stay wilh this receipts lax.

When the Slates were hunting around the garbage cans of taxation, many suggestions were made. In Victoria the State Premier decided, most unwisely from his point of view, on the eve of a by-election for a province of the Upper House iti which he had a majority of I, that he would make a proposal for Stale income tax. He was immediately threatened by the Commonwealth that any money he raised by such a lax would be deducted from the allocations made by the Commonwealth. When he appealed for some assistance in collecting the amount of Id - this was in the days of pounds, shillings and pence - in the form of an income tax, with the proper allowances for the responsibility that goes with income tax, the Commonwealth was shocked and would have nothing to do with helping him to collect that tax.

So he had a look at the stamp tax. He tried to tighten is so that fewer people would be escaping. Some amazing situations arose as a result of that. But that is a side issue. The first measures to tighten it were unsuccessful and did not produce anything that was worth the worry that was involved in trying to force people to issue receipts. So, the nature of the tax was then changed. Previously it was a receipts tax payable on the issuance of a receipt. That fundamental was abolished. This is where the States ultimately tripped up before the High Court. Instead of being 3c on a minimum of $10, the tax became lc on $10 or part thereof and the responsibility was thrown on to people exchanging money for goods or anything else either to register and pay in bulk on a quarterly, half-yearly or yearly turnover, or to affix a lc stamp to each receipt they issue. Even if the receipt was not required by the customer, the wholesaler or retailer of the goods had to issue a receipt and keep it.

So. in the case of the owner of the corner lolly shop selling a 2c chocolate frog to a child who came into his shop, if he was not registered and did not have a number he was obliged to issue a receipt and to affix a lc stamp in respect of the 2c sale. Of course, that was designed to force everybody to pay on a turnover basis because of the cost of doing otherwise. So, the tax ceased to be a receipts tax. I was amazed that our legal eagle, Senator Greenwood, was not aware of the circumstances of the High Court judgment which invalidated some sections of the tax. The High Court ruled that it was not a receipts duty; that it was an excise duty on goods produced in Australia for sale within Australia. It is still quite valid in respect of. second hand goods. I believe that it is still quite valid in the wages field and in respect of imported goods. I will have more to say about imported goods in a moment. The area in respect of which it was invalidated was goods produced in Australia for sale within Australia.

That being the High Court decision and this tax having grown illegally in this manner, the Prime Minister saw fit to say that legislation would be introduced. On 7th May I referred to the fact that about 3 or 4 months before he had said that legislation would be introduced. I referred to the fact that he had not introduced it and reiterated my opposition to this type of tax. How could he expect that such a tax would pass this House of the Parliament? As the High Court said, the Commonwealth has the power to impose an excise, but the States are deliberately prevented from doing so. Why is that so? The reason is that it was recognised right at the very beginning that if the Commonwealth had this power there should not be a duality of taxes on the same thing; that both the States and the Commonwealth should not be imposing excise duty. So the Prime Minister said: Well, we will impose it, but we will give it to the States through the back door. We will beat the Court and the law. We will say that it is not a Commonwealth tax; that it is really a State tax and that we are imposing it for the Stales’. As far as political popularity. to which Senator Greenwood referred, is concerned, the Prime Minister said: ‘We are nol really imposing this excise duty, although only we can do so. We already have plenty of excise duty on things. We are only doing this for the States’.

What does this mean in terms of the Bill? I wonder whether the Leader of the Government in the Senate or the Treasurer (Mr Bury) - the man who suggested in one speech that this turnover tax could be implemented and increased by 10 times - understands what happens in the case of cigarettes, on which there is a very heavy excise duty. As I read the Schedule to this Bill, some things are exempt. I hope that the Leader of the Government will put me right if I am wrong. One of the exemptions in the Schedule is:

Receipt of money by or on behalf of a public authority from the Commonwealth or a State, being money paid to the authority in pursuance of an appropriation made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth or State of moneys to be paid to that authority.

If 1 am a retailer of cigarettes and I collect in the price of the cigarettes the excise that ultimately goes to the Commonwealth, are those cigarettes exempt from turnover tax, or are they not? I do not know. As I read that exemption, as a layman without any legal knowledge, I suggest that because I am collecting money for the Commonwealth at least the excise part of the price of the packet of cigarettes is not subject to turnover tax. I have put this argument before in respect of sales tax, which is at the rate of 25% on some goods. As a retailer is expected to pay this tax on whatever he has collected, including the 25% sales tax that he has collected for the Commonwealth, and excise is charged on the amount relating to sales tax, would not that be a logical reason why, in the very beginning when the power to levy excise was given to the Commonwealth by the States, it was made mandatory that the States should not also collect excise? Yet, the Prime Minister and the Government of this country wish us, as representatives of the people who are paying the tax, to come along here and to agree to it because the Government has allowed the situation to develop to the stage where, as Senator Greenwood says, it is dishonest in that some people have paid the tax thinking that they ultimately will be liable to pay it in spite of the decision of the High Court.

Senator Webster:

– Has the honourable senator dealt with the position of exemptions in the Australian Capital Territory which is again another racket, as far as 1 can see?

Senator LITTLE:

– This is the new federal legislation. These exemptions, as far as 1 was able to ascertain from copies of the previous State legislation which goes back a long way, did not exist in that State legislation. But they exist in this federal legislation. One of the arguments that 1 have been using against turnover tax is that it applied to sales tax and was therefore a tax upon a tax, may be swept away. But 1 do not think that that is the intention of the legislation - not for one moment - because the Commonwealth realises that it is impossible for any person in business to segregate the amount of excise duty on cigarettes, the amount of sales tax on a certain item or the amount of customs duty on imported articles from the tax that he must pay as turnover tax. The Commonwealth knows that it would be cheaper than paying the labour costs involved ultimately to have a total lax on the total turnover, it was prepared to allow that situation to develop. I believe that that is the intention of the Commonwealth. If that is not its intention and if it proposes that exemptions should be given to all these things, J would ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate when he rises on behalf of the Treasurer who Senator Greenwood said is an economic genius because he happened to become the Treasurer of this country to tell me that thai is not the situation.

Let us examine the statement to which Senator Greenwood gave so much credence. This is the statement thai it was recognised that if there was substantial revenue loss and no replacement tax the inflationary effects on the country would be severe. Because the Treasurer said that. Senator Greenwood said: ‘This is gospel; it is economic fact’. I have heard some peculiar theories of economics in this House. Interest rates rise by 1 % and we are told that that is to prevent inflation. Inflation is the big bad stick which the Government produces to beat everybody into submission, as though none of us understood the workings of the economy of a country. They are not so vastly different from what a housewife must contend with every day in the week. If the Government were to tell the housewife that she was living cheaper as the result of a 1% increase in interest rates, she would laugh at it. She would be right, not the economists who are telling the Government that this action ultimately will prevent inflation. The Government has been increasing interest rates over the last 12 years from 4% to 8%. Inflation becomes worse every time increases are permitted in the interest rate. What marvellous faith and confidence we should have in men who have such illusions. If the level of interest rates rises much higher than it is the economy of this nation will be destroyed. Anyone with any sense or with any knowledge of economic history knows that there is a limit to which interest rates can be allowed to rise. Time and again nations have been reduced to bankruptcy because they have not distinguished between where interest rates end and usury begins. A rate of interest of 8% is pretty close to usury when it is realised that, in many instances, the securities for the loans obtained are securities that are without question and that no risk of loss exists whatsoever. The 8% interest becomes the whole income profit on the use of the nation’s money. 1 see, Mr Deputy President, that you are becoming sensitive. 1 appreciate that my remarks hardly have relation to this Bill. But they relate to a sideline which has something to do with it. 1 did say at the beginning of my speech that I would prove that the statement that this was what the States wanted was not an accurate statement. I have in my hand a document which was tabled in the Legislative Assembly of the Victorian Parliament by Sir Henty Bolte on 26th February 1970. I propose to read some extracts from this document to prove my contention that Senator Greenwood was completely wrong in his assumption that the States, as represented by their Premiers, favoured this receipts duty tax and that it was at their request that the Commonwealth decided to introduce this legislation.

Sir Henry said:

The statement pui by the Premiers set out firstly to prove the point that all States were in acute financial difficulties. This, of course, had been said before, but it needed saying again and it needed documentation, because for years the cogent and real arguments of the States had been brushed aside by the Commonwealth saying that there was no problem. You can never satisfy the States; and you can’t believe them, the Commonwealth kept saying. Fortunately, this can no longer be said. There is a problem.

He went on to say.

The facts are quite straightforward and don’t need elaboration. The document is there to be read - it speaks for itself. Without exaggeration or embellishment it shows on one hand the States faced with the heavy financial obligation to caro’ out their constitutional responsibilities, carrying the whole burden of the national debt, and going further and further into debt while the Commonwealth not only gets out of the debt, but builds up vast interest earning investments, paying all the cost of Government monetary policy of rising interest rates . . .

That is the statement by the Premier of Victoria. But the most relevant part of his statement read:

What should be done? The statement gave the unanimous view of the Premiers of all States on this. It is a simple answer. It is an answer dictated by the force of events and the facts of life. The States must once again have access to income tax.

Is there any question of turnover tax? Sir Henry Bolte says:

The States must once again have access to income tax. It is the only form of taxation which will solve the problem, and it is the only form of tax with adequate growth which is constitutionally available to the States. This has been underlined forcibly by the recent High Court judgment on receipt duties.

That is the atmosphere in which the Premiers approached the Commonwealth. That, is what they asked for. It is not what they got. It is not what the Premier of Victoria is prepared to say they were blackmailed into accepting in the final analysis. The argument should not be put before this Parliament that the legislation produced here comes at the will and the desire of the States. At least the facts should be shown. If the Commonwealth felt this was the only way to deal with the situation, the Commonwealth should say that that is so, but this action was nol what the Premiers requested the Commonwealth to do. Sir Henry Bolte went on to say:

The return of income tax to the States is absolutely essential to the solving of the financial problems of the States. The Premiers do not seek to return to the pre-war system of conflict and confusion wilh different tax laws in every State and in the Commonwealth.

He went on to show how income tax powers could be returned to the States. He concluded by saying:

The Cabinet had considered the submissions of the Premiers. It had rejected them.

He gives the reasons why the Prime Minister rejected the suggestions of the Premiers of the States. Can we accept the argument of Senator Greenwood that all we have before us is an absolute agreement that has been all lovey-dovey since 19th November 1969, when on 26th February of this year the Premiers were fighting the Prime Minister to have returned to them the capacity to collect at least some income tax in some shape or form so that they could gain the advantage of the growth rate of taxation in our community? Sir Henry Bolte gave as his own opinion in this document:

If the 6 Premiers have any regard for the sovereignty of their States I think that they have to remind themselves that they are being sold out. We are being sold out for all time. We have put up a submission which has been rejected out of hand. A lot of the comments which have been made about it are not factual.

We wanted access to income tax. It is perfectly obvious to me that when 6 Premiers want access to income tax and the Federal Government rejects it, the States’ claim must be the right one. We want it and you do nol want to give it to us. That would prove conclusively to me that it must be the one at risk. It is the only growth tax in this country.

I suggest that in the face of this evidence it is ridiculous to come here and suggest to us that there was an agreement as far back as November 1969 between the Commonwealth and the States that the Commonwealth would collect through the back door what the High Court had ruled the States could not collect through the front door. Sir Henry concluded by saying:

Our position as Government remains clear. We remain unshaken in our belief that if the States and the State Governments and the State Parliaments are lo survive, the Stales must have access to a growth lax.

He persistently referred to income tax as a growth tax. When the High Court has described at least 50% of this hotch-potch turnover tax as an excise tax, what right has the Commonwealth to call these measures receipts duty Bills? ls the Government trying to deceive the people? What are some of the fantastic and foolish results of this form of taxation? I do not propose te reiterate the things that 1 have referred to in this chamber before, such as the cumulative effect of each process of production and distribution being subject to this turnover tax. But let me turn to the criticism by the Melbourne ‘Age” when the tax was first introduced in Victoria on 14th September 1968. This will give some idea of the silly legal aspects of the legislation. Senator Greenwood says that anybody like myself who wants to protect the taxpayers is merely trying to gain cheap political advantage but 1 am sure that he, as a legal gentleman, would be out after tax offenders to haul them before the courts and extract from them the penalties due for the evasion of tax. The ‘Age’ hud this to say:

Let us examine the persons affected by this. Payment of housekeeping allowances and the children’s pocket money is not exempted under the provisions of the schedule. ‘I here is an exemption in the case of a receipt for a periodical payment made by way of salary or wages at a rate not exceeding $20 per week. The little lady no doubt feels (hal she earns wages, but in lau’ the payment of a housekeeping allowance cannot be regarded as the payment of salary or wages. Therefore there is no room to doubt that when the husband pays over housekeeping to his wife, she receives money and is bound lo write out a document acknowledging the receipt, to stamp it with appropriate duty, and. if her husband docs not want the receipt, she must keep it for three years.

The husband will have to wash the dishes because by the time the wife has done her bookkeeping she will not have sufficient time to do her housework -

If she does not do that then she has neglected or evaded payment, and under section 17(3.) she is liable not only to the penalty fixed (a maximum of (100 fine under section 53), but also she might be compelled to pay to Queen Elizabeth damages being double to the amount of duly evaded.

The “Agc’ went on to quote specific amounts but 1 suggest thai honourable senators will have realised the point I am making. But what about junior! He receives 20c a week pocket money to spend at the school tuckshop and he too must give a receipt to Dad, or if Dad does noi want it, junior must retain the receipt for the next 3 years because he has nol got a number. The poor Utile fellow would nol have registered himself to obtain a number for the purposes of avoiding paying receipts tax on his turnover. He would be caught. Perhaps these seem foolish examples. To prevent stamp tax evasion provision was made to cover people who wanted to transfer their business operations abroad and interstate. Legally this picked up returned servicemen from Vietnam who cabled money home to their wives. The wives would have to pay turnover tax on that money.

Debate interrupted.

Silting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

page 2673

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Precedence

Mo ion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:

That Government business lake precedence over general business for the remainder of the evening.

page 2673

STATES RECEIPTS DUTIES (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1970

Debate resumed.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– Before proceeding with the theme that I was dealing with prior to the suspension of the sitting let me revert to a statement I made regarding item 10 of the Schedule relating to exemptions. By mistake I read the word ‘from’ as the word ‘for’. My attention was drawn to that during the suspension of the sitting. I might say that this removes any shadow of doubt that the excise duty that is collected on cigarettes, and the sales tax and other taxes concerned in the retailing of goods in particular are not exempt in any way at all from this turnover tax imposed by the Commonwealth. Item 10 relates to the receipt of money by or on behalf of a public authority from the Commonwealth or a State which means that money that is paid by the Commonwealth or a State to any public authority is exempt. But, of course, money that is collected by businessmen, merchants and traders on behalf of the Commonwealth is not exempt, which makes the position even more anomalous than I had first supposed that it might be. I had thought that the Commonwealth was trying to write some measure of justice into the Schedule whereas it becomes perfectly obvious that it is quite prepared to collect the excise on cigarettes and beer, the sales tax that is paid upon school requisites and the turnover tax as well on behalf of the States.

Referring to the absurd anomalies that develop out of this tax I have one more classic case to put before the Senate. Let us consider the case of the humble newsboy who sells newspapers on the corner of the street. Many of these lads work on a commission basis and buy from the newsagents the papers that they sell. On the average one could say that they buy a 5c paper for 4c. As he is a newsboy and not perhaps au fait with the ramifications of the Stamp Tax Act that operates in his State he would not be aware that if he operates in Victoria he should immediately issue to each person who purchases a newspaper from him on the corner a receipt for the 5c.

Senator Greenwood:

– There is a minimum amount, surely?

Senator LITTLE:

– There is Dot a minimum amount at all’. A lc tax is payable on any amount up to SIO. Senator Greenwood himself takes umbrage at the fact that there should be such a qualification in a tax measure such as this. There is no minimum. There used to be a minimum of SIO but that has been abolished. Now the rate of tax is lc per SIO or part thereof and the 5c sale of a newspaper is a part of $10. As a newsboy gets lc profit and is liable to pay lc tax on the sale he does not finish up very well off, does he? Being a legal man Senator Greenwood would, of course, protest that the full measure of the law should be exerted against the newsboys in Victoria, who have been working on a commission basis, for not paying their taxes to the State as is their due. We cannot have it both ways. That is the law. I have given that example to show the complete ridiculousness of the anomalies that can creep into a law that has been made, not sensibly, sanely and deliberately but with a sense of desperation because the Commonwealth has refused to treat with the States on the question of this receipts duty tax.

To sum up the case that I have made against this tax let me remind honourable senators that we are now being asked, under the subterfuge of the urgent need for the money by the States - something of which we have all1 been aware for the last 5 years - to pass into Federal legislation an anomalous form of taxation that is evil in its potential because, if carried to the limits suggested by the Federal Treasurer and increased tenfold, it would wreck the economy of this nation. It is inadequate in its achievement because the Premiers of all the States are still complaining that it does not contain the growth factor which they desire. The only way to provide for the growth factor is to increase the amount of the tax which shall be charged. If it can now be legally collected by the Commonwealth that can easily be done by increasing the amount once we endorse the evil principles that are involved in this legislation. Not one of the 6 Premiers who met the Prime Minister in February of this year asked him to implement legislation to make this tax a legal tax to be gathered by the Commonwealth on behalf of the States. The Premiers signed their names to a document asking him to give them the right to implement a State income tax.

Senator Greenwood:

– Are you saying the Prime Minister did not tell the truth in his Press conference afterwards?

Senator LITTLE:

– If the Prime Minister did so, then the Premier of Victoria did not in a document which he issued. If the honourable senator had been here when I put my case he would have seen that the Premier of Victoria claimed quite clearly that the 6 Premiers signed their names to a document which said that they asked the Prime Minister for State income tax.

Senator Greenwood:

– But the Premier has never challenged what the Prime Minister has said.

Senator LITTLE:

– I wish that Senator Greenwood had been here while I was speaking for the half hour before the suspension of the silting. If he had been he would perhaps be more conversant with the case. I find that my time is running out. Whilst I would love to engage in an exchange of words across the chamber 1 feel that I would be imposing too much upon the good will and the good nature of the rest of the Senate. I feel thai I have made a case against this form of taxation and have shown that this Federal Parliament should never try to steal in through the back door a lax that has been denied by the High Court to the States, and then unjustly impose it upon the people of the Commonwealth.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I want to begin my speech by saying that this is just another end of the session exercise. Controversial Bills are kept until the dying hours of the sittings in the hope that the Opposition will play mum and go along with the Government so that Government supporters can get back to their respective States and indulge in their hobby of horse racing or whatever it may be. Thai has been the consistent policy of this Government for many years. When there is something that is not politically popular the Government keeps it until the last few hours of the sittings of the Senate in the hope that the minimum number of the people of this country will find out what it is doing behind the counter.

Senator Buttfield:

– If you-

Senator KEEFFE:

– I think women are delightful but when they start cackling across the chamber it takes away from them their dignity and their femininity. I hope that the honourable senator will keep that in mind.

Senator Buttfield:

– Would you like me to tell you what 1 said?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I ask the honourable senator to speak in a lower tone so that I can hear what she is saying.

Senator Buttfield:

– I said that if you give me a chance I will tell you what 1 said.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Thank you very much.

Senator Buttfield:

– We are hiding it so much from the people that we give you the prime time at 8.10 p.m. to say what you think about what the Government is doing.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Thank you very much. I am absolutely delighted. I will lake the honourable senator lo supper after I finish my speech. Earlier this evening we had a statement made in this House by Senator Greenwood - the leader of the Government in embryo, if I might be charitable - who referred to the members of the Opposition as political opportunists. When lie followed Senator Greenwood in the debate my colleague Senator Georges referred to his criticism as being unfair. I am not quite so charitable. As far as I am concerned what Senator Greenwood said tonight in his speech and by way of interjection was nothing but sheer humbug. Throughout this session we have seen Senator Greenwood spring to the defence of the well entrenched monopolies of this country. When we mention the name of Sir Henry Bolte this is looked upon almost as blasphemy and Senator Greenwood is on his feet almost immediately defending Sir Henry. We must remember of course that Sir Henry Bolte was the first of the Premiers of this country to implement additional taxing powers. When he was told bv the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) that what he was doing was illegal he virtually said: ‘You can go and jump in the Yarra because 1 am going to continue implementing my taxes’. Not only is Senator Greenwood acting with a spirit of humbug; so too is the whole Government.

Tonight there was a national television programme on which the Leader of the Australian Labor Party in the Senate (Senator Murphy) stated the case very clearly for the Opposition. According to the commentator, Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson was given the same opportunity but he refused to take it. Why? ls the Government ashamed of what it is trying to do? Are supporters of the Government afraid of stating their case publicly? When this measure was first initiated the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition said: ‘We challenge you to an election’. It is on legislation of this nature, if honourable senators opposite really believe in it, that an election ought to be fought. If the Government is defeated in this place tonight it ought to go to an election. But I will bet that the Government does not have the moral guts to do it.

Senator Webster:

– What Bill are you talking on, senator?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I suggest that the Australian Country Party should remain out of this because I do not think it has its heart in it. In the Press conference given by the Prime Minister today on television one could see him quaking wilh fear as he said: ‘There will be no election’. He went on to say that the Bill would have to be taken away for 3 months and brought back again. But this is not the challenge that we issued to the Government. The challenge that we issued to the Government was that if it felt sincerely enough on this measure it should go to an election now. I suppose it is illegal to bet in the Senate but if anyone wants to lay any money I will cover it, because the Government will not go to an election. The look on the Prime Ministers face as he watched the Greenwoods, the Fairbairns, the Jesses, the Kevin Cairnes, the Howsons and the Bates peering over his shoulder was pitiful. They are the people who say to him: ‘Let us have no election, boss; let us have no election because I am going to lose my seat’.

Hie ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke)- Order! The honourable senator will confine his remarks to the facts of the Bill.

Senator KEEFFE:

– 1 have taken my cue from Senator Greenwood who wandered from here to Timbuktu and back. I feel if he is able to do this I should be able to answer him. 1 respect your request, Mr Acting Deputy President, and I shall endeavour to confine myself to the Bill.

The plain fact is that the States have the Commonwealth over a barrel. Over the last 6 or 7 months the Prime Minister and other members of the Government have been stumping around the country with promises. They have been promising everybody everything. In other words, they have been all things to all men. If it was pensioners who wanted a dollar, the Government said: ‘We will give that to you’. If it was the Public Service which wanted an increase in salary, the Government said: We will give that to you’. If it was the

States thai said they wanted extra money to carry on properly the Government said it would give that to them as well. The Prime Minister said, when he was over the barrel properly, that he would do it in the way we are now considering. The Prime Minister knew at the time that this was an illegal promsie. Senator Greenwood is laughing. I will come to the crunch jus before 1 finish my discourse, and that will probably subdue Senator Greenwood’s merriment to some extent. Nevertheless, this was the son of thing that we have had to put up with; this is the sort of thing that the States have come to expect from the Government. I do not think they ever thought that the Government would give them anything. The Government has consistently starved them over a long period of years

The Commonwealth has many other avenues of overcoming the problem without introducing Bills of this nature. The Labor Party has said on many occasions in its policy speeches and elsewhere that what this country needs for a start is a new tax reimbursement formula. This country needs a new Commonwealth and State financial agreement under which the States get a fair crack of the whip. For many years the Government has had the power to impose income tax, and the Labor Party is in agreement with this. But the Government has gone a long way to make sure that the States do not get a fair return.

One point that the Labor Party has raised consistently over many years is that the proceeds of the tax on petrol ought to be returned to the States. But the Government has not done this. It has put those moneys into Consolidated Revenue so that they can be used for something else. The difference between what a Labor government would return to the States and the amount the Government returns to the States is several million dollars. The Prime Minister in his policy speech at the last House of Representatives election said that he intended to carry out a complete taxation review so that middle and lower income groups would not feel the effects of taxation so much. But because of the great fear that supporters of the Government have put into the Prime Minister’s heart, he is not game to carry out this proposal. I forecast that this review will not be carried out this year or next year, if the Government remains in office that long. If the Government implements the series of Bills now before us it will boost the cost of living in Queensland. Someone said earlier today that it would increase by SI a week. I believe it will be more than SI a week; it will probably be $2 a week at the minimum. The people on fixed incomes will be the first people who will suffer.

Senator Gair:

– What was said was that it would be at least S 1 a week.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Thank you very much. I forecast that it will not be less than $2 a week. If these Bills are agreed to, the income of people on fixed incomes will be lowered by that much per week. But the Government has made no endeavour in its legislation to curb profits or prices. To the Government this would be a sacrilegious exercise and it will do nothing about it.

Let us look back over the recent period of this Government’s term of office. We do not have to go back for the 20 years that the Government has been in office; we merely have to go back 4, 5 or 6 years. What has happened to all the savings that the Government has made in social services? What has the Government done with the money that it has saved in payments to the pensioners whom it has starved? The Government has made no increase in child endowment for many years. What about the youngsters of this country from whom the Government has taken tens of thousands and perhaps millions of dollars? What has happened to the money the Government has saved on the general rate repatriation pension? In regard to other social service payments, the Government has made only minimal increases when it has been fighting with its back to the wall politically. What about the millions of dollars the Government has wasted on defence? What about ships that were bought for the Navy but which cannot go outside Sydney Harbour because they would capsize? What about the money that the Government has wasted on the Air Force? The Public Accounts Committee, which looks after the public accounts of this country, as recently as a few days ago pointed out several more scandals. What about the tens of millions of dollars that the Government has lost on the Fill aircraft? If the Government is forced into a buy-back agreement in relation to this aircraft it will probably lose on behalf of the Australian taxpayer anything from &100m to $150m

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke) - Senator Keeffe, will you please confine your remarks relevantly to the Bills before you?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I am sorry to disagree with you, Mr Acting Deputy President, but I feel I am sticking entirely to the Bills under debate in this chamber. I believe that there would be no need to implement any of the measures that the Government is trying to deal with in this chamber tonight if money had been saved in other directions and if other avenues had been explored. J trust you will not think that I arn disagreeing with your ruling on this matter.

In plain and simple words the Government can find millions for war but it cannot find millions for peace. The Government cannot find the millions that we need to develop this country. It cannot find the millions that we need to look after the people of this country but it can find money for other purposes. 1 suggest, Mr Acting Deputy President, that this Bill is illegal and it should not be before this chamber. I shall quote from the Constitution in a moment lo endeavour to prove my point. However, the Minister for Supply (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson), in his second reading speech, said:

The legislation will, in accordance with the arrangements 1 have outlined, have retrospective application to 18th November 1969. However, provision is made for an exemption from liability to duty under Commonwealth law if State duty - whether or not validly imposed - has been paid, or within a specified time is paid, under State law in respect of receipts during a transitional period from 18th November 1969 until a date to be proclaimed under the Commonwealth legislation. Receipts specifically exempted under the provisions of existing States Acts - or to which these Acts do not, validly or invalidly, extend - will also not be liable to duty under the Commonwealth legislation during the transitional period.

The effect of this in the case of Queensland warrants special mention. The rate of duty under the Commonwealth legislation will be lc in $10, or 0.1%. This is the rate applying under the State legislation at present in operation in all States other than Queensland. In Queensland, the rate at present in operation is 2c in $100, or 0.02%. A practical effect of the provision I have referred to is that, for receipts in Queensland during the transitional period, there will be no liability for duly under the Commonwealth law if duly is paid to Queensland at the lower rate or if the receipt is under $20 and for thai reason not subject to Queensland duty. Prom the end of the transitional period the combined effect of the Commonwealth legislation and legislation already passed by the Queensland Parliament will be thai the rate on receipts dutiable under either law will be the same as in other Stales - that is. lc in $10.

Section 51 (ii) of the Australian Constitution provides that the Parliament shall have power to make laws with respect to:

Taxation; bin so as nol to discriminate between Slates or parts of Stales. 1 submit that these Bills ought not to be before this chamber, if my layman’s interpretation and the view of a colleague who brought this matter to my attention are correct. The Bills are illegal, anyway, because in them the Government is practising discrimination between the Stales, even if the discrimination is only for the transitional period. 1 hope that a sufficient number of members of the Government parties will decide to vole with the Opposition in order to defeat this iniquitous legislation.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– lt is very difficult to make a decision on these Bills for more than 1 reason. First of all, the Bills have been introduced for the purpose of giving the States a source of revenue which some of them have exploited or used far some little lime in the past. Because of the proved illegality of the tax thai the Stales were collecting, they have sought this legislation and, as a consequence of a promise by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), it is before the Senate tonight. We as senators representing our respective Slates do not necessarily want to do anything to injure State Parliaments and State authorities. But this tax has been imposed because of the difficulty experienced by the Stales in finding sufficient revenue. This tax was introduced for the purpose of raising some additional revenue for the States.

As we know, some years ago uniform taxation was introduced, and the avenues by which State governments collect money have been limited. As a consequence, over a period of years a completely new system has been introduced under which the States can receive funds. We know that each year the State Premiers meet with the Prime Minister and the Federal Treasurer. They decide what the States should receive from the Commonwealth which, of course, is the source of tax collection today. We know, loo, that there are always disputes about the amount of money which is received by the States. The Commonwealth thinks thai it gives them enough, but the States never think that they have received enough. So we find that difficulty arises in the discussion which takes place. Naturally the Stales are thinking up ways and means by which they can overcome what appears to them to be a very definite shortage of funds for their purposes, and to enable them to carry out their functions. We find that some of the States are imposing receipts tax and, as a consequence they are very keen on it. My awn State of Queensland hiss not imposed the receipts tax on the people in the same way as some of the other Slates have imposed it. Therefore, as a Queenslander 1 believe that, although this tax will benefit some Stales by allowing those Slates to retain certain revenues raised in the Stales, to the people of my Slate of Queensland it will be an extra taxation burden with which they are not plagued at the present time. Therefore, I am not in accord with the imposition of the tax and cannot support it in those circumstances.

There are various other aspects of receipts tax which I do not like. I think it is a bad tax. lt is a type of tax which 1 think most of us believe should not be imposed, lt is a lax upon the purchase price of goods. From information which I have received, I believe that the tax will result in increased cast of living in certain respects. Organisations have written to me about different products, such as groceries. Materials are received from the source of supply and they are manufactured into various articles. The tax could be imposed at each stage in the production of various articles and this could, 1 believe, add considerably to the cost of some goods. I believe that an increase in the price of goods is a very serious matter. Although this country is very prosperous at the present time, stresses are appearing in certain sectors of the economy and they are causing a process of inflation which nobody wants to see occur. Any increase in the price of goods in this country, especially if it results in increased wages, can have a repeating effect. This is the sort of thing that we do not want to stimulate in any shape or form. Therefore, this indicates that receipts tax is a vew bad type of tax. 1 think that other taxes can be imposed which are not nearly so injurious to the country’s economy as is this receipts tax. Consequently, I do not think it is the type of tax that anyone would want imposed.

Personally, I think that the receipts tax also places an extra work load on the various businesses which have to provide returns and collect the tax. The more taxes which we ask business organisations to collect the more difficult and costly we make it for these businesses to operate. As a consequence I think it is a retrograde form of taxation, lt seems to me that the overall question of Commonwealth-State finances has to be reconsidered. I know that the Commonwealth will say: ‘We are giving the States as much as we can’. But consideration should be given not only to the amounts of finance which the States have been receiving but also to the extra amounts that they can receive and to the ways in which various governments can make economies.

I know it is rather easy for the Commonwealth Government to say: ‘This is all you are getting, so you will have to cut your cloth according to your means’. But I think the time has come for the Commonwealth Government to give very earnest consideration to the question of cutting its own cloth according to its means. When money is divided between the Commonwealth and the Stales, I think it is necessary not only for the States to be prudent in their expenditure, but also for the Commonwealth to be prudent in its expenditure, lt is no use arguing that Commonwealth expenditure is always necessary. A desired speed in development is required by the Federal organisations and instrumentalities, and the same desired speed in development is required by the States. There are a number of areas in which no doubt the Commonwealth could make some economies. It could slow down the rate of spending. Each year, there is a considerable increase in certain areas of budget expenditure.

Let us consider this city in which we sit as a parliament. I know that there is a tendency to build it as quickly as possible. We speak of grandiose schemes which cost a lot of money. But as one who has participated in local government for many years I know how local authorities have to cut their cloth very severely in accordance with their limited revenue. When I go around this city and see the speed with which it is being developed 1 think that perhaps it could be slowed down. I know that people will say: ‘But you have to do it. It is the national capital.’ i am one who has quite an appreciation of planning work because I pioneered town planning in this country. My city of Mackay was the first to put municipal planning into effect. So I know what I am talking about in this regard.

In building a city, the more you rush it the more defects you will find that it has. I feel that there is not really a very urgent need to shift people from Melbourne or Sydney to Canberra. Let us do this work at a slower speed. There are pressures on the economy. Let me take a look at some of the expenditure we have had in Canberra. The lake was a very functional part of the town plan of Canberra - probably the only truly functional part. But was there an urgent need for it? Of course not. Was there an urgent need for the fountain which we see playing in the lake and which had to be the biggest and the highest because it was in Canberra

Senator Webster:

– What about the $2m which is being spent on the ring road around Capital Hill?

Senator WOOD:

– That is right. What happens to this magnificent fountain when a wind blows? Instead of looking like a fountain it looks like a foggy cloud. Such things cost a lot of money. I am keen on fountains but let us have some beauty.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Order! The honourable senator should come back to the Bill.

Senator Gair:

– The honourable senator is in deep water now.

Senator WOOD:

– Oh, no. Fountains shoot up. I am telling how the Commonwealth can reduce its expenditure by not rushing in to do things for which there is not a great deal of urgency. The great cities of the world were not built in a day. Those that were rushed up are creaky at the joints and there is always something wrong with them. Big cities are much better if they grow and mature slowly. In the long run, they are much belter for having done that. There is an urgency about spending money in Canberra.

A similar situation applies in regard to our expenditure in other places. We are ladling out money in New Guinea, but what thanks does the Australian taxpayer get? All we get are groans, moans, complaints and so on. 1 think we gave Indonesia $100m recently. I have mentioned this fact before. What thanks did we get? There are lots of ways in which we can save money. We need not try to picture ourselves as a great world power. Vast sums are expended each year on our embassies overseas and things of that nature. I often wonder how it has come about that we regard ourselves as a world power. Actually. Australia is very small in the councils of the world, lt often makes me wonder why we need so many embassies strung around the world. I think Australia would be much better off if it concentrated on trading posts instead of embassies and that sort of thing.

Senator Greenwood:

– Does the honourable senator suggest that these savings would amount to the S50m or S60m which the States need?

Senator WOOD:

– I am not suggesting that they would amount to $70m, but when one cuts down on expenditure a few million dollars here and a few million dollars there and quite a number of million dollars somewhere else it is marvellous what one can do. Local government has to frame its budget according to its means because its revenue is strictly limited. So it should be with the Commonwealth. The Slates are in a straightjacket insofar as finance is concerned. I think it is up to the Commonwealth Government to set an example. The Commonwealth Government is continually telling people that because of stresses on the economy expenditure must be reduced, but what does it do to set an example? lt does not set an example. If the Commonwealth Government wants others to do things it should set an example and show that these things can be done. lt is moss regrettable that some honourable senators will not be supporting the legislation which is before the Senate. I know that if this legislation is not implemented it will cause trouble to some of the States and will probably cause strong feelings. However, 1 believe that there must be another way to attack the problem. As the taxing authority it is the Commonwealth’s responsibility to ensure that the States receive enough finance to carry on their work in a proper manner.

I am not one of those who say that funds can be just wafted out of the air. I heard Senator Keeffe say that during a war funds can be obtained. 1 want to point out to him that this is peace time. In war time a nation is geared for a greater contribution During war time there are loan funds and so on and people have a different outlook. People are spurred on because of the dire necessity to do something in order to build the country’s effort to its highest peak to prosecute the war. In peace time one has to take into consideration human nature. People go about their normal pursuits in a peaceful manner and there is no urgent desire to do these things. I do not think that any real argument can be advanced by contrasting what is spent in war lime with what is spent in peace time.

As the Commonwealth is the main source of taxation collection in Australia it has to decide what rale of taxation should bc imposed so that not only the Commonwealth but also the States will have sufficient finance to carry on in a proper way. The Commonwealth Government is asking others to make sure that they spend their money in an economical and effective manner. I think thai it should set an example to the others.

I appreciate that certain States are looking forward to this legislation going through the Parliament but I regret to say that 1 cannot support it. I know that the Stales which would benefit considerably from this legislation will probably be very hostile if the legislation does not receive the support of the Parliament. My own State of Queensland would benefit only in a minor way if this receipts tax were to be implemented. 1 believe that this legislation would impose an extra burden upon Queensland which 1, as a senator representing Queensland in the Senate, am not prepared to subscribe to. As a consequence, I shall vote against the legislation.

Motion (by Senator Gair) agreed to:

Thai the question be now put. (The bells being rung) -

Senator Murphy:

– 1 suggest that the course which is lo be taken be clearly indicated. As I understand it, we had a single debate on the motion for the second reading of 6 cognate measures. That debate has finished rather peremptorily. We now have reached the position that we will have to vote on the 6 measures. Do 1 understand that the first, the States Receipts Duties (Administration) Bill, is to be dealt with now?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - That is correct.

Senator Murphy:

– Then the others will be dealt with, either at the one time or separately; is that the position?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull)- Yes.

Senator Murphy:

– The motion for the second reading of the Bills having been put and debated, the vole must then be taken on each.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– The situation is that when the Stales Receipts Duties (Administration) Bill is defeated the others are, to a degree, meaningless in the sense that they all are based on the substance of that Bill. Nevertheless in the spirit of sweet reasonableness I am happy to have a vote on the States Receipts Duties (Administration) Bill and to bracket the others together and vote on them if that is what the Opposition wants.

Senator Murphy:

– There is no other course.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– ThenI suggest that we vote on the States Receipts Duties (Administration) Bill and if that is defeated, as obviously it will be according to the debate, I suggest that we proceed forthwith to a vote on the remaining Bills taken together.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull)- Order! The ruling of the Chair is that the Senate will vote on each Bill individually.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President- Senator T. L. Bull)

AYES: 19

NOES: 26

Majority .. .. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2681

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) - by leave - agreed to:

That Orders of the Day Nos 5, 6, 7 and 8, which relate to the adjourned debate for the second reading of the States Receipts Duty Bill (No. 1), the States Receipts Duty Bill (No. 2), the States Receipts Duty Bill (No. 3) and the States Grants (Receipts Duty) Bill respectively, be resolved by1 vote.

page 2681

STATES RECEIPTS DUTY BILL (No. 1) 1970

page 2681

STATES RECEIPTS DUTY BILL (No. 2) 1970

page 2681

STATES RECEIPTS DUTY BILL (No. 3) 1970

Consideration resumed from 12 June (vide pages 2435 and 2436), on motions by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Question put. The Senate divided. (The Chairman - Senator T. L. Bull)

AYES: 19

NOES: 26

Majority .. .. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2682

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16th June (vide page 2464), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– This is a straightforward piece of legislation which the Opposition does not intend to oppose. The arrangements proposed by the Bill, as outlined by the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) in his second reading speech, are the result of the necessity to maintain the system of permanency of employment which has been accepted in the waterfront industry. This legislation makes possible the extension of the system for a further 2 years. The Opposition agrees with the sentiments expressed by the Minister when he pointed to the advantages of the system.

I put forward a proposition from the Opposition that in deciding the new functions of the directorate of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority the Government might have considered something other than appointing a full time director. This Bill proposes to change the present arrangement of 3 full time members, the reason being that the situation has so developed with the establishment of permanency that many of the functions of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority have now changed. As a result the Government has forecast that it will be necessary to have only I full time director. One of the views of the union which is largely concerned wilh the innovation is that the Government should at some stage consider whether instead of having only a full time director it could appoint a directorship consisting of representatives from the Waterside Workers Federation and the waterfront employers. That does not mean that we arc pressing any point in this respect.

The other arrangement we agree with is the statutory basis for the National Stevedoring Industry Conference. Honourable senators will remember that in 1967 the Parliament had before it a report from the National Conference. The Conference was chaired by Mr Woodward, Q. C. The members of that Conference put out a comprehensive report in which they set out the terms of the scheme which would give to the waterfront industry nol only permanency but a new sort of organisation to match the changing systems of employment of waterfront labour. The system of permanency was not only a necessity to cut out the defects of the old casual hire system but it was a necessity in the interests of the economy, in that there needed to be some new system which would face up to the changes which have now largely taken place.

I want to echo again the sentiments of the Minister and the sentiments of those who in the 1967 debate on the Conference report applauded the people who took part in the Conference. They were the representatives of the Government, Mr Woodward, and representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Waterside Workers Federation and the Department of Labour and National Service. I want to make this point because it is often forgotten. Some people say that the National Stevedoring Industry Conference simply brought down a recommendation to suit the unions, but it did more than that. It suggested a scheme which met the changes in the industry. At that time there was pending the introduction of containerisation, new types of loading and new types of ships. The scheme was also designed to cope with the problems of the industry. Paragraph 14 of the report of the Conference in 1967 stated:

Furthermore, with the increasing use of containers, and the general tendency to handle cargoes in larger units by means, for example, of pallets or pre-slinging, much complex and expensive mechanical equipment is appearing on ships and wharves. This creates an obvious need for regular employees to control and work with such equipment.

Paragraph 15 stated:

Thus the needs both for better industrial relations and for efficient introduction of new handling techniques gave incentive to the search for a practicable scheme of permanent employment.

I think that the objectives of the Conference have been largely met. They have been worthwhile. The report was a wonderful report in view of the changes then taking place. The Minister echoed the same sort of sentiments, but only in passing, and in reporting upon the future of the industry he made mention of the loss of time on the waterfront through industrial disputes. What we have to realise is that while the waterside workers certainly gol a scheme of permanency which was better than the old system of casual hire, and while they knew what they were doing day after day, the fact is that in any economy any section of the work force has to have some consideration when in outside industry wage scales and wage standards are being improved.

So a large part of the current problem in the industry has been due to this basic movement in the economy. Mr Woodward, Q.C., said something about this in a report to the July meeting of the Industrial Relations Society. Although he said he was concerned about the loss of time and stoppages in the industry he pointed to the fact that a large proportion of them were due to incidental matters. He mentioned such things as poor relationships between the employees and the employers, the very hot conditions that existed in the early part of the year in Melbourne and union problems at the time. 1 do not want to delay the Senate. In our view the worth of the system of permanency has been proven. Something may be said about the great changes in technology and in shipping. At this time of the evening, in view of the amount of work we have to do, I do not think very much will be gained i.” I expand on this beyond saying that great changes are still taking place. We know that the container system has pretty well established itself in Australia. As a result the work force can see large and specialised ships coming in. The people who work the ships have to be highly skilled in their operations. While these highly specialised ships are operating a number of changes are necessary in port construction and services. Thrusting into this matter is the question of what might happen to conventional ships. One of the concerns of the industry at the present time - and I share the same concern as the Government - is the extent of future charges. Authorities in the shipping world have forecast that in the next 5 years some 170 conventional ships will drop out. That does not determine that throughout Australia the system of containerisation will largely operate because there will continue to be a need which has largely been met by some of the shipping interests to supply the sort of vessel which can go into smaller ports.

The Minister has indicated that 80% of waterside labour is on a permanent basis and, in the future, more ports will be placed on a permanent basis. I am concerned about the smaller ports. It would be strange if I did not mention the future of Port Adelaide. But Port Adelaide is not the only port concerned. With the container system a number of important ports which in the past have had a fairly big establishment of waterside labour, and a fairly good record of activity and of loading and unloading, will become almost redundant in the future. Unfortunately in some cases the ancillary services to those ports will not be provided. At the present time some of them are serviced by road and rail. It is a sad reflection that places like Port Adelaide will not be directly connected with the overseas services. It may be said that some of the traffic is going to the railways. But employer and employee interests in South Australia are concerned that in the long run Adelaide might be left out of the great international trade routes. As has already been argued for South Australia, we are not only concerned about that. We are concerned also about the associated problem of rail connection to the standard gauge system.

These are the broad principles. We have no reason to disagree with what the Minister has said about changes. We can see the need for some caution in adopting on a fun lime basis the son oi scheme which will meet the future because of these great changes. In my opinion - as I said during the debate when the first changes arose from the National Stevedoring Conference Report- I think the scheme is a good scheme, lt has produced a great deal of stability which was not previously known in the industry. In the interim, I think, it has proved its value. 1 commend the legislation to the Senate.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister fo.- Works · Tasmania · LP

[9.4 1 - in reply - It is most gratifying lo hear Senator Bishop, speaking for the Opposition, commend lo the Senate Government legislation on a subject which previously was notorious for its turbulence. Essentially the Bill extends the temporary provisions of the stevedoring legislation for a period of up to 2 years to give further experience so that the experimental effort lc introduce permanent labour which is now established for 80% of the waterfront labour might be fulfilled in its entirety, lt reduces the Australian Stevedoring Industry Association from a 3-man commission to one single directorate, lt constitutes on a permanent statutory basis the Stevedoring Advisory Council and cures some anomalies which have arisen from the containerisation matters to which Senator Bishop has referred. I commit the Bill to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2684

CONCILIATION AN!) ARBITRATION BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17th June (vide page 2514). on motion by Senator Wright:

Thai the Bill be. now read a second lime.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– The Australian Labor Party is very concerned that such an important piece of legislation as the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill should be dealt with in the dying hours of a session of the Parliament, lt is of very great importance to the economy and the unions, and it is of great concern to the employers. I think it is of most concern to people who work in industry and who are covered by the Commonwealth

Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Because of the protest made about the legislation when it was debated in the other place the Australian Labor Party hoped that the Government might withdraw the legislation and convert the proposal lo a tripartite discussion with employers and the Austraiian Council of Trade Unions to evaluate the recommendations which the Government had proposed. We do not consider the proposals will provide the type of improvements which the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) who in this chamber represents the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Snedden) has mentioned.

To some extent the recommendations and proposals are similar to t he 1965 legislation which was introduced by the then Minister for Labour and National Service, Mr McMahon, as the result of a number of conferences with the ACTU. In 1964 it was proposed by the ACTU - as the Senate will remember it was proposed for many years - that the sanction provisions be abolished. The reasons are nol much different now. The Government has said that sanctions, in one form or another, are essentially part of the Australian arbitration system. The Australian Labor Party has never accepted thai. It thinks that when the Austraiian system was first designed it was a good system. The changes in industry in modern times ought to have caused the Government to rely upon a system which was based more on conciliation and less on arbitration. The Senate will remember it was forecast thai the 1965 legislation would provide a cooling off period before employers took action under the contempt or injunction clause. The Australian Labor Parly feels that the legislation will not be satisfactory in providing the cure which the unions want. Consequently 1 put it to the Senate that this legislation is not wanted by the ACTU or the employers. In fact, the Government is saying: ‘Lcl us have a go at establishing some modifications which might work.’ The 1965 amendments to the Aci did not work. I do not think this legislation will work either. It would have been more sensible to have done what I suggested. I thought that the Government might have proposed to do what 1 had in mind.

Another very important point is that if the Government proposal to amend section 109 is carried, a presidential member of the Commission will have the opportunity of considering whether he should certify that some action should be taken against unions. While it may be presumed that a presidential member of the Commission might take the necessary steps to bring about arbitration or conciliation, we generally think that this will not be the result. In our opinion this will occur generally in a situation where the presidential member acts more in a judicial capacity than in a capacity similar lo a commissioner. The commissioner, for example, knows the industries, labour relations, management and employee relations better and is more specialised than a presidential member. I say that without in any way criticising the ability of the presidential members. We do not think this legislation will provide the sort of condition which will bring about change, lt could be thai in most circumstances where a party reports lo the Commission there is occasion for the Commission to come into the picture.

We think this would occur largely in areas where there may be disputes about mailers which the management considers are its responsiblity. For example, there are a large number of disputes in industry which are related to conditions affecting noi the award but the immediate relationship between the workers and the management. lt might be a question of travelling time. lt night be a question of safely al the plant, lt might be a question of status or conditions which have obtained in the plant for many years. In such circumstances the tendency has been for all arbitrators in the past, even commissioners, to say: ‘These are matters outside our jurisdiction. They do noi concern the award.’ Consequently, in our opinion, the employer would generally he right in the view of the authority. Consequently, it might be thai certificates would bc issued more readily than would ordinarily be the case if it were a matter of conciliation or determination across the conference table.

All of us have had a good deal of experience in industrial relations. I have had many years of experience in this field. I know thai most of the important disputes have been solved in thai way. Very few of the disputes that we know have irritated the nation have been solved in the first instance or in a complete sense in the arbitration courts of the land. Mostly mailers have been solved by direct negotiation between the parties. To some extent the groundwork of a settlement has been laid before the matter has reached the courts. So while it might be presumed that it is a midway course to provide some change or some restriction of the sanctions application, we feel they are the son of matters in which the system is fault) on its own account. While the intention of the Government is to establish such a system and to change sections of the Act to do so, and while it lakes certain penal powers out of the Act, it restores the ability of the Commission to apply the bans clauses. When the legislation is passed it will noi he possible for a commissioner to apply the bans clauses in the award, but it will be possible for a presidential member to do so. So we have a situation where in fact the bans clauses remain. They can be applied, as I have mentioned to honourable senators, in circumstances where the presidential member may not be the best person to consider settlement of disputes. That is what is proposed by the legislation. That is the first point 1 make: the bans clauses will still obtain in the system.

Sanctions will also still obtain. The Government says that it believes in sanctions. In addition, of course, the penalties will remain. For many years the trade union movement has been complaining about very severe penalties. I will briefly relate lo honourable senators some of the fines which have been imposed in the past. We do not think this system ought to operate in Australia. There ought to bc a review in the form I suggested. The only way to solve labour problems in a developing economy is for the parties concerned to gel together and work out a pact or a system of reform which will apply to the relevant conditions. If we look at the changes which are proposed in one important section of the Act we will see that in some cases the penalties are increased. The Government proposes the important modification that the presidential member may take into account more than one breach as being one breach, whereas formerly every breach of nonobservance of the award attracted a fine. Many unions have been fined heavily in lhe.se circumstances. That is one modification of the principle. While we have that modification, in many cases there have been increases in the penalties. For example section 41 of the Act reads: (1.) The Commission may, in relation to an industrial dispute -

  1. fix maximum penalties for a breach or nonobservance of any term of an award, not exceeding $200 in the case of an organisation or an employer who is not a member of an organisation bound by the award or $20 in the case of a member of an organisation.

Proposed new section 119 (Id.) states:

The maximum penalty that may bc imposed under sub-section (lj of this section in respect of a breach of a term of an order or award is -

where the penalty is imposed by the Court -

in a case to which the next succeeding sub-paragraph does not apply - One thousand dollars; or

if the breach is a separate breach by virtue of a provision included in an order or award in accordance with paragraph (c) of sub-section (1.) of section forty-one of this Act - Five hundred dollars; or

in any other case - Two hundred and fifty dollars.

So we have a situation where those penalties obviously have been improved. But it may be possible that in some cases, because of the taking together of breaches, the final penalty might not be so high. There is the the circumstances where in fact the provisions which have been introduced increase the penalties rather than ease them. I quoted part of proposed new section 119. This is the section which will give the Commission power to do what 1 am talking about. 1 refer to section 119(1.) which states:

Where any organisation or person bound by an order or award has committed a breach or nonobservance of a term of the order or award, a penalty may be imposed by the Court. . . .

There are a number of qualifications under which the Commission may or may not take breaches together. But the fact is that penalties are still higher than they were before. Apart from making the changes proposed, the Government has enacted a provision whereby existing fines will have to be met. Honourable senators will remember that a large part of the modern examination of the sanctions provisions arises from the fines which were imposed upon the Tramways Union and in the so-called O’Shea case as a result of which some S68.O0O in fines has not yet been paid by a number of unions for offences under the Act. To be quite frank, 1 do not think the unions will ever pay the fines. But the Government is including in the legislation a provision for these fines to stand. At some time it may take action to collect them and then we will have a major conflict between the Government and the union movement. I wish to read a statement which to some extent illustrates the point of view of the Opposition. It appeared in the leading article of the ‘Australian’ on 2nd June 1970 under the heading: ‘New rules but old attitudes’. The statement reads:

There could hardly have been a less appropriate time for the Government’s decision to set about collecting the $37,000 outstanding in fines for breaches of the penal clauses in the Arbitration Act. The level of industrial unrest is high and rising and the ACTU is totally committed, by decision of its congress last September, to fight such an action.

Then the article goes on to develop an argument which the Opposition has often put in this Parliament; that is, that a large number of the disputes in the industrial movement arise because of bad relations created by economic changes which the Government establishes. The Government is the power which sets the economic climate and if the Government, for example, decides to have stop and go economic policies or if it decides to bring about an escalation or a de-escalation of costs the people who get the worst end of the stick are the workers. They are the people who in some way have to achieve the standards determined by the courts. They have to improve their wage rates to cope with changes in the economy. This article in the ‘Australian’ certainly makes the point the Opposition has often made. It continues:

If the economy were restored to an even keel and kept that way, instead of lurching between extremes, many of the changing stresses in industrial relations would be removed. The employers and unions have shown, through the new agreements between them, a willingness to avoid trouble. This is more important than Government face-saving. It will not survive the sort of collision now threatening between the Government and the ACTU.

Senator Gair:

– Who said that?

Senator BISHOP:

– It is the leading article in the ‘Australian’ of 2nd June 1970.

Senator McManus:

– But you would not accept the ‘Australian’ as an authority on trade unions, would you?

Senator BISHOP:

– No, but J have heard Senator McManus say similar things to that which I have just said. Following the rejection by the Commission of the ACTU claim for an increase in the basicwage and an increase in the margins, and when the court decided to establish a total wage, I heard the honourable senator in this Parliament say that such a decision would mean an end to a great deal of industrial peace in Australia because it disrupted the traditional basis of decisions by the Commission. He said that from that time on - 1 agreed with him at the time - we would have a situation where relations between the employers and unions would worsen.

Senator Gair:

– Are you agreeing with him now;

Senator BISHOP:

– If Senator Gair has a point to make he should make it.

Senator Gair:

– You said you agreed with him then, uo you agree with him now?

Senator BISHOP:

– If Senator Gair is nol listening to the debate I suggest he might be quiet, lt disturbs me greatly to hear him interjecting.

Senator Gair:

– You are temperamental. You are like a prima donna.

Senator BISHOP:

– Well, I hear Senator Gair coughing and coughing and talking. lt is not very easy to develop an argument in such circumstances. I suggest that he listen to the argument because this is an important matter. In 1967 we put to the Senate an argument that from then onwards Australia could expect processes in the settlement of disputes related very closely to a system of collective bargaining. That is largely what has happened in Australia in recent years. As a result there have been more disputes and more time lost. There have been fewer satisfactory decisions by the Commission and greater confrontation between the national trade union centre and the Government than ever before. I should have expected that in these circumstances the Government might have said: Well, if we cannot ease the sanctions provisions in the way in which the trade union movement wants, at least we will wait and confer with it until we can’. We cannot see that the provisions that have been introduced will make the relationships any better. As J have pointed out, while bans clauses cannot be applied by commissioners they will be applied by presidential members of the Commission and that seems to nic- to be a great defect. 1 want to mention along the same lines that even in the last few days in the Senate we have seen Senator Scott, who was until recently a Minister in the Government, present from 31 electors of the Divisions of Banks, Blaxland. Cook and Mitchell in the State of New South Wales the following petition: . . that in the national interest, it is essential thai there be an effective and respected Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration system: that the decision given by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the professional engineers case on 3rd December 1969, which has followed lo the letter in both magnitude and dale of operation the salary increases for engineers employed in the Commonwealth Public Service which were announced before £he arbitration hearing had concluded, has given rise lo imer dismay and has indicated a lack of independent assessment; that recent statements made al the Australian Workers Union Conference and by the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions have indicated disillusionment with the federal arbitration system and have particularly referred lo the professional engineers case: that an unacceptable arbitration system must inevitably lead lo industrial unrest throughout Australia.

The petitioners pray thai the Australian Government lake positive action us soon as possible lo reestablish confidence in the Commonwealth arbitration system.

That is not unusual because in the Senate we have seen presented a number of petitions complaining about the decisions of the arbitration authorities. It seems very apparent to us that the economic policies of the Government to a large extent determine the kind of labour relations we will have in the economy. If the economy is unbalanced, if the thrust is upon workers in relation to COWS then there will be much more activity from the unions to establish a system which will give them belter conditions.

This legislation has been developed following very closely upon the conference which took place over many months between the ACTU, the national employers organisation and the Government in relation to new procedures for dealing with industrial disputes. On 6th May 1970 the Minister for Labour and National Service presented to the Parliament a report which referred to the new system of settling disputes. The Government considered it an advance because all the parties had agreed with it and as a result it might mean that a number of disputes would be avoided. In view of this basic agreement between the national employers, the trade union movement and the Government which established these principles for guidance in avoiding and settling industrial disputes, it was to be expected that the Government would go on to discuss with them the kind of alterations to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act that might be necessary to avoid the continuing complaints of unions about the punitive clauses in the Act. The trade union movement for many years has complained about section 109 and section 111 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act On a number of occasions Ministers in this Senate have said that they consider that employers have had recourse too readily to the sanctions provisions of the Act. If honourable senators read the second reading speech delivered by the Minister for Works when introducing this Bill, they will notice that he said:

The Bill gives expression to the Government’s long-held policy that sanctions are an essential feature of the system of conciliation and arbitration in this country.

The Minister stated further what was said many years ago:

  1. . that the sanctions provisions of the Act should be used as a last resort.

The Minister said also - and this is the point that I have made: . . the Bill will retain industrial sanctions but not without prior use being made of negotiation, conciliation and, where necessary, arbitration

The proposals in the Bill will give a presidential member the chance to negotiate and to settle a dispute or to set in train some industrial machinery for this purpose. The procedure will probably be abortive. When disputes are reported to the Commission the presidential member will be required either to give a certificate against the union, which more often than not he will do, or to refuse it. As I have said, he is not a specialised officer in the settling of disputes between management and workers, and arbitral procedures will have to be canvassed.

For many years the Opposition has argued that privileges should not be withdrawn. I remember a dispute in South Australia where an important employer withdrew a free bus service which had been provided for about 600 or 700 workers. Negotiations took place between the organisation and the union movement for a long time. The union movement was not able to obtain any improvements or compensation for the withdrawal of the free transport. The court took the view, as it often does, that such matters are outside the award and the management has the sole right to determine them. The same argument is applied to plant organisation, staff promotions and seniority. It also applies to the question of safety, which is covered by State legislation. In many circumstances such a device as proposed by the Minister would, in my opinion, be imperfect. The key to the proposal is whether the presidential member will occasion new negotiation, conciliation and settlement which is a better approach than that contained in the present section 109, which relates to enforcement, and the present section 111, which relates to action for contempt of court. Such actions in the past have been very savage.

Proposed new section 32a seeks to give the Commission power in relation to the settlement of matters giving rise to conduct hindering the observance of an award. From my experience and my knowledge of the trouble within the union movement today I think that any sections of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which make certain processes mandatory are generally unsatisfactory. Finally in all disputes it is necessary to get the opposing parties around a table and to have a qualified man, not necessarily to arbitrate but to bring parties together. In the arbitration system today there are a number of commissioners who have a great deal of experience and success in settling disputes. Most of those disputes have been settled not by applying the letter of the law but by having the parties brought together and widening the area of agreement about some matters which they considered to be matters of principle.

We come back to the question as to whether or not the industrial system in Australia is going to be the system we have seen operating over the years, in which very savage penalties have been imposed on trade unions for taking action which was largely related to wages, margins and conditions. If one looks at most of the disruptions in the industrial scene one will find that most of them are related to such matters and rarely are they related to extraneous matters which do not concern the economy. Basically most disputes arise from problems in the economy. The arbitration system has not been able to match the problems which arise out of the developing economy, the growth of productivity and the general improvement of welfare in the state. So we have a system under which the courts have accepted that they prescribe only minimum wages and that employers and unions can argue about higher rates. It is in the latter area in recent years thai most of the disputes have taken place, lt is in the area of the total wage, as mentioned some years ago by Senator McManus and myself, that most of the trouble is coming today. More expert people are required to deal with industrial problems.

Senator Greenwood:

– How do you deal with the Marxist-Leninists who are determined to overthrow the system? What sort of attitude deals with them?

Senator BISHOP:

– The honourable senator picks out one aspect of the problems in the community and the work force. It would seem lo me that the most satisfactory way to deal with the people who are out to upset the economy or to create disputes in the work force is lo provide an arbitration system which will allow unions and workers to get the maximum from the economy. That system has not yet been devised. The unions are pushing for improved conditions in a situation where the economy is able to grant them. The courts fix the wages of workers, but manufacturers, commercial interests and employers can fix their own prices. We have this strange situation in a so-called free economy where prices are not fixed by any authority yet wages are fixed by the courts. In such circumstances sections of the working class movement w,im to take stronger action than that generally taken by the union movement.

I return to the history of fines in Australia. If anything is more important than the amendments proposed by the Opposition it is the need lo amend section 116, which relates to costs. Mr Woodward, Q.C., in contributions to the ‘Journal of Industrial Relations’ midway through last yu1’ estimated (he amounts of fines in 1968-69 to be over Si 00.000. A great deal of information has been issued by the Minister on behalf of the Government in answers to questions. Later on, Mr Deputy

President, I shall seek leave to have the answers to questions asked by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) over a number of months in relation to actions under sections 109, 114 and 111, included in Hansard for record purposes.

Senator Greenwood:

– Are the tables different from those that were incorporated in Hansard of the House of Representatives?

Senator BISHOP:

– No. they are the same tables. They contain the complete story which ought to be shown in the Senate Hansard.

Senator Greenwood:

– Are they additional to those that have been incorporated?

Senator BISHOP:

– No. they are the same.

Senator Greenwood:

– Why should they be incorporated if they are the same’.’

Senator BISHOP:

– Because the Senate record ought to contain the same tables as have been included in the record of the House of Representatives. But before we settle that point I would like to point out that in the period from 1 1th December 1956 lo 31st October 1968 applications for orders to comply with awards totalled 6.35. Of that number, only 68 were refused in whole or in part. A table which appeared in Hansard of 25th February 1969 shows the number of actions against employers taken under section 119 of the Act from 1943 to 1964. In most cases where penalties were imposed on employers the amount involved was SIO. This makes an interesting comparison with the penalties and costs initialed on the metal trades unions in February 1968 in actions which stemmed from attempts by those unions to gain some advantage from the conditions prevailing following the unfortunate decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to reject the application by the unions for a basic wage increase.

The unions on which penalties were imposed included the major unions like the Amalgamated Engineering Union, Australasian Society of Engineers, Boilermakers and Blacksmiths Society of Australia. Sheet Metal Working, Agricultural Implement and Stove Making Industrial Union of Australia, Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia and many mining unions. The penalties had lo be paid by the metal workers and members of many unions who were only incidentally affected by the actions taken. The fines imposed on the group of unions totalled $26,680, plus costs of $15,892. These are amounts of fines which are massive. Mr Woodward, Q.C., in the July edition of ‘Industrial Relations’ said that during 1968-69 fines totalling about $100,000 were imposed on unions. I ask for leave to incorporate in Hansard answers given by the Minister for Labour and National Service to Mr Cameron, the honourable member for Hindmarsh. These answers already appear in the record of the House of Representatives. Included in the answers are details of penalties imposed under sections 109, 114 and 119.

Senator Greenwood:

– Are these the same details as appear in Hansard of the House of Representatives?

Senator BISHOP:

– Yes, the same table. I have told you that 3 times.

Senator Greenwood:

– I want to make it clear.

Senator BISHOP:

– Do you object to the incorporation of this material?

Senator Greenwood:

– Yes, 1 do.

Senator BISHOP:

– Senator Greenwood is to make a contribution to this debate. In the dying hours of the session I have sought to develop my argument by the incorporation of this material. It ought to be included afresh in the Senate records and properly evaluated. Senator Greenwood is saying to me, in effect - although I do not think I need to do it - that I ought to read in full the Minister’s answers, giving details of every occasion on which a penalty was imposed. If I were as bad mannered as Senator Greenwood I would do exactly that, but I have some regard for the Senate.

Senator Greenwood:

– I am objecting because the information has already been included in the record of the House of Representatives.

Senator BISHOP:

– If I were as ill mannered as you are I would waste the time of the Senate by reading out details of every application that has been made to the Commonwealth Industrial Court and of the penalties that have been imposed. But that would delay the Senate. The point has been made. Massive penalties have been imposed on the trade union movement under the present powers of the arbitration system. That ought not to be so. Senator Devitt has suggested to me that I should again ask for leave. I ask for leave to incorporate in Hansard the answers given by the Minister for Labour and National Service to questions asked by Mr Cameron, the honourable member for Hindmarsh. This information has been included in Hansard of the House of Representatives.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke) - Is leave granted?

Senator Greenwood:

– No.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Objection having been raised, leave is not granted.

Senator BISHOP:

– All1 1 can say is that if we are ever to solve our industrial problems in Australia it is to be hoped that Senator Greenwood does not become involved in industrial relations.

Senator Devitt:

– The Minister does not agree with him.

Senator BISHOP:

– That does not matter. I will not take up the time of the Senate by pursuing that matter. I think the point is now well recognised. The Minister for Labour and National Service said in his second reading speech - as Mr McMahon and Mr Bury, his predecessors in that position, have said - that sanctions are too often used by employers. I will come back to the matter we are discussing. We understand that this measure contains new proposals, lt has been suggested that the ability of a presidential member of the Arbitration Commission to deal with disputes is the key to a better system of conciliation within the country. We would have accepted that suggestion had it been left on that basis, but the Government has included in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act a number of new provisions which make it mandatory that penalties shall be imposed on unions in circumstances where a bans clause might be included in an award by a presidential member, and where an award already contains a bans clause.

The penalties prescribed by this Bill are greater than the penalties now provided for in the Act. The only advantage that might accrue is that in a calculation in respect of breaches through non-observance of an award, rather than the imposition of a penalty which has been frequently fixed by the Commonwealth Industrial Court for each day that a union contravenes an award, in some circumstances single days might not be reckoned as single days but might be grouped together. 1 have put the basic objections of the Opposition to this legislation. We do not like it. We think it should be discussed by the people who are concerned. I do not se*- thai any advances will be made because it provides for increased penalties. We had hoped that this Bill would be withdrawn, at least. Consequently, the Opposition intends to move amendments to this legislation at the Committee stage. Wc oppose the Bill.

Senator MCMANUS:
Victoria

– This Bill comes before us at a time when arbitration is at the crossroads. I for one am very pessimistic about the future of the arbitration system. That is not because I am opposed to arbitration. I believe that the system has been good for Australia and has conferred many benefits upon the trade unions. An examination of the situation shows that the arbitration system has been a big factor in encouraging membership of trade unions to such a degree that membership of trade unions in Australia as averaged against the population was the highest in the world. The arbitration system has conferred a benefit also in that it has protected the small unions, which, in a system of collective bargaining, will always lack industrial power and are therefore at a serious disadvantage. All those factors made the Australian trade unions strongly in favour of the arbitration system. When in 1929 the Bruce-Page Government determined that it would do away wilh the system the Government at the time was very soundly defeated and the Australian Labor Party, which campaigned on the basis thai it would preserve the arbitration system, was returned to power.

Then in the 1930s we saw the rise in the trade union movement for the first lime of the power of the Australian Communist Party. That was associated with an attack on the arbitration system and a demand by those who were associated with the Communist drive for arbitration to be replaced by a system of collective bargaining. In some countries they have collective bargaining - in Great Britain to a degree and in the United States. All I wish to say about collective bargaining is that it might work well if there are men of good will on both sides, but in a system where we cannot be assured of men ot good will on both sides collective bargaining could provide a system under which we would have a continual situation of industrial disorder. Although the people who were associated with the Communist Party in the 1930s and 1940s strongly attacked the arbitration system at Australian Council of Trade Unions congresses, a number of which I attended, any motions that they moved with the endeavour of severing the Australian Council of Trade Unions from the arbitration system were always soundly defeated. Therefore adherence to arbitration is still the policy of the Australian trade union movement. However, I repeat what I said al the beginning of my speech. I am most pessimistic as to the future of the arbitration system.

In conversations over the weekend with 2 men who have had a lifetime of experience in the trade union movement and who have been associated with the arbitration system, both of them assured me that they shared my pessimism. A number of objections have been made to the arbitration system. There have been objections to its delays, there have been objections lo ils legalisms, objections to its cost and objections to the manner in which it has been manipulated at times by the employers. In recent years we have seen a steady drift in the direction of direct action and a steady drift away from that old loyalty to the arbitration system which was a characteristic of Australian trade unions. The attitude of the employers has been unusual. We have been in a period of full employment and of considerable prosperity. The attitude of some employers has been that they are prepared to give in on occasions when they have been faced with demands for better conditions and better wages, but the altitude of other employers has been that they are not prepared to give in and thai they propose to fight.

In recent years that has resulted, in the case of the employers, in a very unwise use of certain provisions of the arbitration system which, when they were originally put in, were not meant to be used in the way in which the employers have been using them. I made reference to thai in a speech in early 1969 when I recited in the Senate complaints which had been made to me by men in the trade union movement who were by no means Communists, who by no means could be described as extremists’ and who could be described, I suppose, as ‘moderates’, if I may use that term. They said that they took strong exception to the manner in which the employers were using the penalty provisions of the system. In my speech on that occasion I said that because of the manner in which the employers were resorting to certain sections of the Arbitration Act and using them in a way in which they were not intended to be used, in my view there was an urgent need for a reform of the arbitration system in those respects. I said straight out that I did not believe in the abolition of the penal clauses because I think that if we are going to have arbitration there have to be some penal clauses. But I did say that unless action were taken very rapidly to deal with those particular clauses which were being misused by the employers, the future of the arbitration system was going to be very difficult indeed.

I referred particularly to complaints against section 109 and I referred also to complaints about section 111. I pointed out that there was a tendency by employers to rush to use these sections without making any attempt towards conciliation. I mentioned the serious anomaly in regard to the question of costs and day to day penalties that were being inflicted on unions. I mentioned also a number of other sections of the Arbitration Act which in my opinion were being misused. Obviously, since then, there have been discussions - apparently long drawn out discussions - between the trade unions and the national body of the employers organisation. One sees from an examination of this Bill that there appear to have been some efforts by the Government to deal with some of the objections that were made. It has been suggested that the proposals in the Bill do not meet the wishes of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I have the feeling that the provisions might have met the wishes of the Australian Council of Trade Unions a couple of years ago.

Senator Bishop:

– I do not think so because I have asked them.

Senator McMANUS:

– I do not think so either. I have spoken to representatives of unions affiliated with the Australian Council of Trade Unions who have said that the provisions do not meet the wishes of that organisation. However, 1 feel that the organisation might have been a bit more amenable to the provisions a couple of years ago before the control of the ACTU was changed. The present circumstances are such that the ACTU has asked the Australian Labor Party to vote against the provisions. That is correct, is it not?

Senator Bishop:

– Yes.

Senator McMANUS:

– There is considerable reservation in the minds of employers as to these proposals. I think the Government made a very serious mistake after the O’Shea case. At that time it was obvious that there was very strong objection among the ranks of trade unionists to the misuse of certain sections of the Arbitration Act. The Government made a very serious mistake when it took so long to get along the road towards reforming the Act. I did not believe in an abolition of penal clauses, but 1 did believe and I still believe that they should be reformed. When the Government realised from what happened on that occasion that this was a serious matter, in my view it should have got to work and acted more quickly. But instead there has been delay and further delay.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Do you think the reforms will have a beneficial effect?

Senator McMANUS:

– I think they could. As I said before, I am very pessimistic as to the whole future of the arbitration system, but J do think that reform could be undertaken even at this stage with a view to saving this system which does offer a method of maintaining law and order in a field of industrial relations which is very important. At any rate, the Government took a long time before doing anything. I do not think anyone is under any illusions in believing that one of the reasons for the presentation of this Bill now is that the employers have indicated that if the Government does not propose to do anything then they intend to resort to the penal clauses of the Arbitration Act once again. Honourable senators will be aware that the use of the penal provisions has been practically frozen since the O’Shea case. I think we have this Bill before us because the employers said that if the Government did not propose to do anything about reforming the Act they would resort once more to a use of the old provisions. Therefore 1 blame the Government for taking so long to deal with this question.

Because of the Government’s delay we have got into a situation in which I am very doubtful as to the future of the arbitration system in this country. 1 am supported in this view by people who are friends of mine and who are authorities in the trade union movement and the arbitration system. I am glad to be able to say that the Government has brought representatives of both sides together for consultations. There have been long discussions between the national employers committee and the Australian Council of Trade Unions at which they worked out suggestions which, I emphasise, neither side endorsed but which they were prepared to submit to their own bodies. These suggestions have been embodied in 16 principles regarding the future of industrial relations. I believe that this is all to the good because too little has been done in recent years to examine our arbitration system, to examine ways in which it might be improved and to look at new ideas which could be brought into it. They have not been so slow in New Zealand. I have been very interested, for example, in a new idea which has been adopted in respect of New Zealand unions. Instead of having, as we have, a minimum wage which really is not the wage in most industries because many industries pay more than the minimum wage, they are now adopting a system under which they examine what in their view is the actual wage being paid rather than the minimum wage. Then they are incorporating the actual wage - the real level of wage rather than the one that is set down as a minimum - in the award, and both sides agree to maintain that actual wage over a certain period. This is the sort of thing we should be looking at - improvements and new ideas in the arbitration system.

To a degree we have been inclined to sit back and let the system run along and not undertake the necessary reforms and improvements. That is why we are in our present situation. I was interested in a Press statement in the last fortnight which set out a whole series of proposals for a reorganisation of the arbitration system along the New Zealand lines. This has been put forward by an employer organisation. It appeared to me to contain many ideas well worthy of consideration. As I said before, I regret that we have been so conservative about our arbitration system and that we have not said to ourselves: ‘This is a system which should be improved and which could be improved. Let us get to work and improve it in the interests of both sides’.

Not all the faults have been on the side of the employers. I believe that the main faults have been on their side through the misuse of the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. There are serious faults on the part of trade unions in respect of the number of cases where industrial disputes occur on demarcation issues. Let us be quite frank; there are considerable numbers of disputes on demarcation issues. The trade union movement has an obligation to look at that particular field to see what it can do to clear up the situation where there are strikes and industrial disputes of long duration which cause a considerable amount of loss. Fundamentally the fault lies with a number of trade unions which, on demarcation issues, seem to be unable to get together. My Party does not regard this Bill as perfect by any means. We regard it as an attempt to do something a little bit better.

Senator Murphy:

– Do you not think that something should be done about costs, which are the cause of much complaint?

Senator McMANUS:

– I think that costs have been one of the most serious causes of complaint. Even a union like the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia, which could not be regarded as an extremist union, has been one of those that has suffered as much as any other from costs.

Senator Murphy:

– It does not seem to be fair, the way it operates.

Senator McMANUS:

– It has not been fair. Something has been done about it in this Bill but I should like to see a lot more done.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– And there are delays in hearings.

Senator McMANUS:

– Yes. In my view some of the delays have been completely inexcusable. The Association of Professional Engineers, Australia, is an organisation which pledges its loyalty to the arbitration system, but after almost 2£ years of negotiation it has got what could only be described as a run around. The association was referred to different tribunals. Before some result could be obtained, somebody died and it had to go through the whole expensive process again, lt cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– An offer was made and then amended.

Senator McMANUS:

– Yes. We should be quire honest about this. If they had done what the pilots did they would have got their increased salaries and better conditions by now. Will anybody on this side deny that? The present system, with its delays, is a straight out inducement to trade unions not to go to arbitration but to resort to direct action. I am pessimistic about the future of the arbitration system because I believe that trade unions are being led to believe that if they resort to direct action people will try to appease them but that if they go to arbitration their claims will be delayed. Under those circumstances, what will happen other than that the unions will resort to collective bargaining?

I have another example to give. One trade union might have an official who is not an extremist or a Communist. Another might have a man with fairly strong or militant views - or a Communist - as secretary. He pulls his members out on strike and as a result they get an improvement in their wages and conditions. What will happen to the first official? There may be a tough young militant or a tough young Communist in the union who is after the official s job. The young man tells all the members of his union that the official of the other union took his men out on strike and got. results. He asks them what they are getting by going to arbitration. I think that in the present circumstances there is a very urgent need for a cleanup of the system in the arbitration court. What was more conducive to delays than the scandal that existed in the court for a period of nearly 2 years when the Chief Judge refused to use the services of 2 of the judges?

Senator Mulvihill:

– He put a black ban on them

Senator McMANUS:

– He did. Two of the judges were declared black by the Chief Judge. For nearly 2 years they did nothing, because they had had a difference of opinion with him.

Senator Greenwood:

– Mr Justice Nimmo did a very good job.

Senator McMANUS:

– The honourable senator may think so. But he knows perfectly well that it was a scandal as far as the legal profession was concerned. Two judges were being denied the opportunity to deal with cases simply because of a difference of opinion between them and the Chief Judge. The Government did not take any action to deal with the situation. Finally it transferred the judges to another place. During that period all kinds of complaints were made by unions because they could not get before the court because of the delays produced by thai situation.

I conclude by saying that my Party has considered the Bill. We do not think it is very satisfactory, but we propose to vote for it because we think that in some respects it offers some improvement. The Government should be prepared to study the whole system of arbitration with a view to reforming it. should examine it with the employers and the trade unions and should produce something infinitely better than this Bill. Unless the Government does that, the arbitration system is doomed.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I support this measure, but I do so not grudgingly as did Senator McManus but because I think it represents a genuine attempt on the part of the Government to meet some of the attacks which have been made upon the arbitration system. As is invariably the case. Senator McManus spoke a lot of good sense, lt appeared to me to be common sense. There was a great deal of merit in what he said. 1 wonder, however, whether Senator McManus was attempting to g Id the lily a little. I think he recognised - as I think most people, if they sense it, recognise - -that there are people in this country who. irrespective of what reforms are made in the arbitration system and of what efforts are made to meet the kind of objections that Senator McManus raised, are determined to overthrow the arbitration system. That is the context in which any amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act must be considered.

For approximately 65 years we have had an arbitration system which was largely the result of consideration, effort and work by the original Labor Party and the unions and unionists who founded that Party. This arbitration system has suffered many vicissitudes. Indeed, in 1929 the essence of the arbitration system was so much a matter on which the Labor Party fought an election that it preserved that system and overthrew a Nationalist Party government. Since 1929 we have continued with an arbitration system. It has been amended in a variety of ways. Sanctions or penal provisions, if people prefer to call them that, have been imposed under the Act. The present form of them, as 1 understand them, was imposed initially in the years of a Labor government. Possibly they were not imposed with the same stringency as now applies, but they were imposed by the Chifley Labor Government.

What we have at the present time is basically this issue: Do we want an arbitration system or do we not? On that issue I am prepared to recognise that there is a great deal of merit in a system entirely outside the arbitration system. If we want to get into the area of collective bargaining and collective agreement, which has its own ethics, its own procedures, its own benefits and its own demerits, I am not prepared to say out of hand that that is a system that would not work well and achieve benefits not only for the workers and for the employers who from time to time have to make the concessions that are demanded but also for the community that has to live with the situations that arise from lime to time when agreement cannot be reached. That is one point of view. I recognise that there is some validity in it.

But what I believe is a problem that is not being faced is that we cannot have a collective bargaining system and an arbitration system living together. I appreciate that there is a middle area and that there is a degree of operation for a middle area. By a middle area’ I mean the area in which we have a basic award that is imposed through an arbitration system and on top of that we have the ability for a group of employers and a group of unions to bargain collectively for particular benefits in the area in which they are mutually concerned. But what we must arrive at in terms of a collective bargaining system imposed upon an arbitration system is an agreement; and that agreement may be broken simply because in the nature of affairs situations will arise in which, the parties not having been able to indicate beforehand or to predicate all the problems that might arise, a problem arises for which the bargain does not provide any remedy. Then the question that has to be faced up to is: What is the remedy? What is the sanction? We are immediately back into the area of the arbitration system.

So, simply because we cannot have the 2 systems living together, we are faced with the necessity to determine this question: Are we to have an arbitration system or are we to have a collective bargaining system? The Government has said as clearly as words can say that it believes in the arbitration system. I believe that the Australian Labor Party believes in the arbitration system but that it believes in an arbitration system from which the penal sanctions are removed. The Australian Council of Trade Unions believes in some sort of arbitration system; but no-one is quite sure what Mr Hawke, its current President, really believes in this area. The ACTU certainly believes that whatever penal provisions exist at the moment should be repealed.

That is the background, as 1 see it, against which the Government has brought forward this amending legislation. This legislation is essentially the Government’s reaction to a situation. It has been emphasised that what is proposed in this measure is certainly not what has been agreed upon between the National Employers Policy Committee and the Government: nor is it what has been agreed upon between the ACTU and the Government. It is what the Government believes is, as a matter of legislation, an ameliorative measure designed to meet the objections that have come from various quarters to the existing arbitration procedures.

The Bill was initiated by the Government after long consideration, many discussions and prolonged negotiations with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the National Employers Policy Committee, that is, the employers’ body. It will amend the procedures of the conciliation and arbitration process. The Bill endeavours to meet some of the complaints directed at the existing system by the ACTU and others. It was, I think, in May 1969 that the ACTU first made a formal approach to the Government-

Senator Bishop:

– The honourable senator is not saying that the Government has taken notice of the ACTU, is he?

Senator GREENWOOD:

-! am saying that it has-

Senator Bishop:

– The honourable senator has heard what the ACTU has said regarding the Government’s approach to it.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I do not know whether the honourable senator is trying to make some political point. . . .

Senator Bishop:

– I am not.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– . . . but the ACTU made ils approach to the Government asking that the penal clauses be removed totally and saying that it would be satisfied with nothing less. The Government has heard the response of the ACTU. Naturally, it wanted to know and it wanted to have elaborated to it the reasons for the attitude of the ACTU.

The Government received a number of reasons why the ACTU was taking the altitude that it did. Amongst those reasons was the fact that the existing penal clause provisions worked unfairly against the unions, lt was said that the bans clauses, which are part of the operation of the existing penal clauses, could operate indefinitely with a wide application: that these bans clauses and the orders which were made when a bans clause was not observed could be made in relation to one set of circumstances when originally the bans clause was imposed with regard to another set of circumstances: and that the penal clauses provisions did nol allow the merits of matters lo be considered when actions under those provisions were being heard, lt was further urged that the use of these sanctions could have an exacerbating effect on a dispute and finally that contempt proceedings in conn were not an appropriate form of sanction. I think that those are the reasons why the ACTU wants to get rid of the penal clauses. I suppose that if one asks members of the Opposition why they want to get rid of the penal clauses those very arguments will be adduced.

Because it believes that sanctions and penal clauses must be part and parcel of any system of law enforcement, the Government is not prepared to remove the penal clauses. But it has been prepared to look at the reasons underlying the approach of the ACTU and, as far as it is able to do so, to meet those objections and to remedy the Act in a way that will make the existing procedures more acceptable in the light of those objections. 1 say that that is taking notice of what the ACTU offers but it is not accepting the objectives for which the ACTU is asking.

As I said, these initial objections were put before the Government in a formal way in May 1969. Many discussions and negotiations have taken place between the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Snedden) and representatives of the ACTU and, following them, between the Minister and representatives of the employers body. As the Minister has said, what the Government is proposing is the Government’s view of what represents a change in the existing procedures designed to meet many of these objections.

As I understand it. the Bill seeks to promote further avenues for discussion and negotiation before any recourse to sanctions may be made. The existing provisions are contained in sections 109 to 111. Under section 109. provisions may be made in awards made by conciliation commissioners. Orders may be made by commissioners requiring that those awards be observed by members. So. if a certain industry has a history of industrial disruption and apparent refusal by unions - or, if it matters, by an employer - to observe the provisions of an award which has been made, it has been open to a party to apply to a conciliation commissioner lo have inserted in that award a clause which would enjoin any party from acting in such a way that amounted to a breach of that award.

That, as I understand it, pulling ii shortly, is the bans clause. If a situation arose after a bans clause was imposed whereby the provision was being broken, application could be made to the court for an injunction and invariably when that injunction was applied for there would be a court order requiring compliance with the award on penalty of which there would be a fine payable and costs would also be payable. lt was that situation which was occurring with such rapidity that created the area of discontent out of which the presen agitation arose. I say that these situations arose because there were situations in which people charged with the administration of the system considered, first of all, that it was appropriate to insert a bans clause, and following upon that there were situations where the bans clause was not being observed and the ordinary processes consequent on non-observance of an award had to follow.

Again, the objection of the ACTU - and I suppose this is the objection of the Australian Labor Party - was that employers took advantage of these provisions because they were immediately available and they could be exercised. I think that there is a lot of truth in that. But equally there were a lot of unions which were not concerned enough to put their own house in order. They were not concerned as to whether a bans clause was imposed or whether they observed that bans clause. Some of them did it because they thought that since they were not getting anywhere they would get somewhere if they opposed it. Others did it for the very political reasons which 1 earlier advanced. Some did it just because in the ordinary course of affairs you do not always observe the law. Whatever the reason, the situation arose and it was capitalised by people who wanted to make political capital of it. I agree that that is not the whole answer. We cannot deal with questions of industrial affairs in absolute terms of what is black and what is white. The Government has recognised that there is a problem in this area and it has sought to resolve the position.

The Bill, as 1 see it, will ensure that if a bans clause is placed in an award a party cannot proceed to have penalties imposed until there has been negotiation or a discussion presided over by a presidential member of the Commission. Previously it was a conciliation commissioner. Clause 4 of the Bill which inserts new section 32a. in the Act provides that there must be a certificate given by a presidential member of the Commission before any party can proceed to a court to have penalties imposed. In determining whether he is to give the certificate the presidential member must be satisfied that the conduct arose out of matters in respect of which there had been proceedings under the section. He should give the certificate unless he is satisfied that the giving of the certificate would be undesirable, having regard to the terms under which settlement of the matters concerned had been effected or where those matters would be likely to prevent a settlement-

Senator Cavanagh:

– Would not that have the effect of creating a dispute? You must show strength and if you do that then there will be another strike.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– No. 1 think that what the presidential member must look at are the consequences of his giving a certificate. He must give a certificate unless he is satisfied that by withholding it a settlement of the matters may result. I agree that it represents a sanction in the sense that the giving of a certificate is the first step in the terms of sanctions. After all his discussions he may be satisfied that by withholding it for a little longer there is a prospect of getting somewhere. So it does place a premium on negotiation; it does put the giving of this certificate in the hands of a presidential member of the Commission.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But if it would create further trouble he is debarred from giving it.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– No, 1 do not think that is the position. He must give a certificate unless he senses that by withholding it he might be able to facilitate a discussion. I am not prepared to say that that system will work but I do feel it is an improvement on the existing system. It endeavours to meet the objections which unions have raised and I think the Government has gone out of its way to meet objections raised by the ACTU and others who support the ACTU case. Having done that I think what it has provided has to be given a fair trial. If the certificate is given then, of course, application may be made not for an injunction as was the pre-existing position but to a court for penalties and the provision under which this application is made is the same provision as that under which for generations unions have taken employers to court for failure to observe provisions of an award. It is this same provision which may be availed of by the employers - if they want to avail themselves of the provisions of the Act - to have penalties imposed upon unions for a breach of their awards.

As I have said, I think that this is a situation which has to be given a trial. It ought to be an improvement, given a willingness on the part of those who live and work under the arbitration system to make the system operative. I sense that involved in all of this, as there must be, is an initial impression as to whether our arbitration system is one which is worth persevering with. I for my part feel that it is an area in which we have made so much progress that it would be a tragedy to throw it overboard. Any disputes whether they be commercial industrial or international disputes, have to be settled if at all possible by processes of negotiation and consultation. I know and I have heard this from honourable senators who sit opposite me, that so many of the problems internationally ought to be resolved if possible by people getting around a table and talking and negotiating. I see no reason why industrial disputes ought not to be settled in the same way.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But that is conciliation is it not?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I agree that it is conciliation. But if there are disputes where, because two parties take a very strong view, that point of settlement cannot be reached, what are we to do? Are we to leave the matter unresolved or are we to impose in some form an arbitral determina- tion which amounts to a settlement? Are we to leave it onthe basis that victory is to go to the strongest?If we are to decide that it is always a moot question as to who is the strongest. I would have thought today that if a union organises itself well and allies itself it will probably be the stronger, but that is not always the case because one can find a situation where the employers’ body will bethe stronger.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You are not saying that arbitration is victory to the weakest are you?

Senator GREENWOOD:

-I do not agree with that. All I say is that one does not know who is going to he the strongest, but does that realty represent the only consideration which the Government must take into account? When the contending parties are working out over perhaps a very long period who is the strongest there is one large group of people which is suffering and that is the community itself. All of these disputes are based upon a situation where he who provides services is contending with the persons who helphim to provide these services and the community which is the beneficiary of these services never receives them. At the moment we have a dispute going on between a couple of postal unions and the Public Service Board, and here in Canberra there is a dispute between nurses and a hospital board. They cannot work out between themselves, in a way which is satisfactory, the differences which have divided them, but in the meantime it is the community which depends upon their services which is suffering. That is part and parcel of the whole system.

It is for that reason, if for no other, that the Government must step in and as I would see it endeavour to sustainthe existing arbitration system.

I do not want to detain the Senate very much longer but I hark back to what I said when I started and that is that notwithstanding the intentions of the Government and those who desireto have the Conciliation and Arbitration Act reformed-

Debate interrupted.

page 2698

ADJOURNMENT

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke) - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment ofthe Senate. I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President - Senator T. L. Bull)

AYES: 22

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2699

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 2698).

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I had almost finished what I was about to say. The remarks with which I desired to conclude my overall comments in support of this Bill were that notwithstanding what attitude the Government may take with a view to remedying areas of the conciliation and arbitration processes which are under attack, it ought to be recognised that there are some people in this community who are determined to overthrow the arbitration system. I am not suggesting for one moment that those people are members of the Australian Labor Party, nor am 1 suggesting that they represent the bulk of the union body in the community. But there is a very significant, and 1 believe growing, body of unionist opinion in this country which would desire this objective.

I appreciate that in speaking in this way one is often accused of raising a bogy and suggesting that one does not know what one is talking about. I suggest that the easiest way to demonstrate this is to look at some of the industrial disturbances which have taken place in this country in recent times and to look at the writings and listen to the statements of those people who have been associated with these disturbances. If he does not find a clear pattern emerging from those things, then I think anybody who reads these writings or hears these statements ought to consider whether he can understand the plain meaning of words. I had occasion to speak on this matter last year, and I refer to only 1 passage which f quoted on that occasion. It was from the writings of the formal, traditional Communist Party of Australia, in its publication ‘The Tribune’.

Mr Aarons who, I think, is Secretary of the Communist Party, indicated in the ‘Tribune’ in the early part of 1969 that the pattern in 1969 would 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; and the embroiling of moderate unions in joint action. It was suggested that an industrial showdown was to take place that year with the ultimate objective of gaining control of the executive of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. That is the Russian styled Communist Party of Australia to which I refer, and there are many unionist members in this country who are actively associated with that Communist Party. I need only mention Mr Carmichael of the Amalgamated Engineering Union to identify one such person. At the same time, if one were to recall the activities in which the AEU has been concerned this year one would appreciate what must bc linked wilh the objectives of the Communist Party of Australia.

Senator Milliner:

– Mr Carmichael was elected to his position.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I have no doubt that he was elected to his position by a section of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. I do not say he was elected by the members of the Union because, as I understand the position, a fraction of the members of certain unions vote in the election of office bearers. If we could persuade the bulk or the majority of the members of unions, or all of them to vote for their office bearers we would have a better idea of the thinking of these bodies, but this is a difficult task. It is, however, one area to which I think the Government could give its attention. The Government should endeavour to achieve something like compulsory voting in union elections. It would, of course, be a long process. I am sure that a lot of industrial problems would have to be overcome in the course of it. 1 have referred to an article which appeared in the Tribune’ in 1969. Let us have a look at what has been said by the other Communist Party in the ‘Vanguard’, which is its publication. I refer to the ‘Vanguard’ of 28th May of this year. The editorial refers to adoption by the executive of the Australian Council of Trade Unions of the new disputes procedures which were formulated by the Government. The editorial castigated these new methods for settling industrial disputes, describing them as political treachery, lt said that all workers will repudiate the Government’s proposition, which the editorial described as being part of the monopoly capitalist class attack on the workers, and said that they will repudiate the trade union leaders and trade unions who subscribe to them. Earlier in 1970, on 26th February, the editorial of the same publication stated:

There should never be apology for strikes and struggle. They are the worker’s only weapon. They should be prosecuted vigorously and with greater political consciousness against capitalism and US imperialism . . . Strikes are the worker’s rich experience. 1 thought I heard Senator Keeffe interject with ‘Hear, hear’ as I was reading that editorial.

Senator Keeffe:

– I did not interject. You picked the wrong man again.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I apologise. I thought it would be a lead-in for me to say what 1 was about to say in regard to him. It was Senator Keeffe who, as 1 understand the newspaper reports of last Saturday, went to the conference of the Victorian Branch of the Austraiian Labor Party last Friday night and urged greater strike activity and greater demonstrations in order to achieve political objectives. If we are to have strike activity in order to achieve that sort of objective we will be faced with the problem of determining how the arbitration system will be able to equip itself to cope with this sort of situation. I sense that there is a very real problem in meeting the attacks which are made upon the arbitration system because those who attack the arbitration system are not concerned with preserving it.

For the reasons which 1 have already indicated, I support the Bill. I believe that it represents a very real attempt on the part of the Government to meet the objections which have been raised and the criticism which has been made about aspects of the procedures by those who want the abolition altogether of the penal clauses. The Government is not prepared to remove the penal clauses, but it is prepared to look at the root underlying causes which are influencing people to agitate for their removal. Having said that, 1 feel that we have to make it known to the people of this country - I think people in responsible positions have to make the point clear - that there are many people involved in or in control of the trade union movement who are determined to destroy the arbitration system, simply as a political objective. No ameliorative measures are going to change the minds of these people.

Senator Gair:

– On the other hand, there are many unions which obey the law and never cause any trouble.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I agree with Senator Gair. This leads me to the final point I wish to make. Unions which observe the system have to be supported, and those which would try lo overthrow the system, have to be met in only one way, that is, with the recognition that they are opposing the law and what the Parliament has decreed, and that law, if it is worth having, has to be enforced. If, as a result of all that might occur, it is decided that the law Ls of no avail and should not be regarded as efficacious in this field, the law should be repealed. In this country we have not tried to enforce the law against those persons who have set themselves up to overthrow the law. If that means travail, if that means in the words of other people a polarisation, a divisiveness in the community, and if the civilisation which democracy has created is worth while having, then its preservation should require the enforcement of the law. lt is against that background that I think all of these measures should be viewed. Because this is a genuine attempt to improve a law I warmly support it.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I rise to support the remarks of Senator Bishop on behalf of the Opposition. One of the salient points that Senator Bishop made was the responsibility of governments. Thai in turn means the economic fabric of the country and its relationship to the trade union movement. I think we can go a little deeper. Whether we like it or nol, despite the social changes that have taken place we still find the conditions of people working in basic industries have not improved very much. On the other hand, people employed in some industries which do not count for much appear to be able to gel easily large air conditioned offices and all sorts of fringe benefits.

To prove this point I will deal with 3 trade union case histories. 1 assure Senator Greenwood that none of the top echelons of the unions is subjected to any MarxistLeninist influence. 1 will not dwell too much on this but I ask honourable senators to think of evenings in the big cities. When one walks down the streets one sees people working on contract rates cleaning offices. The same employers who are prepared to settle for contract rates for night cleaners jib at the smallest claims made by the trade union movement. The first of the cases to which 1 shall refer relates to the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Tramways and Motor Omnibus Employees Association and concerns only a small group of oilers at the Newcastle bus depot who, by their stoppages of work, caused a cessation of services. They appeared before Conciliation Commissioner McCloghry on Thursday, 19th March. The union journal reports that after discussion and pursuant to section 28 of the Act: no action was taken by the Arbitration Commission and the hearing was adjourned.

After discussions with the State Minister for Transport and the Commissioner for Road Transport the following resolution was carried by a meeting of the men on the job:

We resume as from midnight tonight, and avail ourselves of the offer by the Unions to negotiate on the question. Failing satisfaction, we resolve to engage in continuing struggle and warn this is only one phase of the campaign.

This was a group of men doing just a humdrum job but a vital job. This is what amasses me: When working men want to better themselves - in this case the dispute related to the supply of overalls which would have cost peanuts - there is great objection from other people who in the main are receiving much higher remuneration, and there is a complete impasse. This was not a dispute that the trade union won and I am amazed that in the year 1970 people who are performing a vital function could not be granted such a small thing.

I notice that the resolution commences with the words ‘We resume as from midnight.’. lt is part and parcel of a parliamentarian’s work to attend various functions. Do honourable senators ever look through the windows of their cars and see someone on a push bike or a motor bike going along to clock on at midnight? Do honourable senators ever realise that those men are performing a vital function? The occupations of those 2 groups of people point up the disparity in our social life today. Small groups of people are not able to get justice yet we talk about how advanced we are in the 1970s. This injustice is a festering sore. This is a case that the trade union movement did not win. The Victorian branch of this union had all the fangs of the law bared to it in the O’Shea case. I indict the Commonwealth Government for its lack of action in this matter, because if sufficient disbursements of Commonwealth funds had been made available to the Stales the Premier of New South Wales and his Transport Minister who is responsible for matters of this sort would have said: ‘What does the cost of 4 or more sets of overalls for these offers matter?’ These are some of the problems facing these men. If one looks at the records of the Industrial Welfare Division of the Department of Labour and National Service one finds that there is a higher incidence of dermatitis today amongst workers using fuel oil than there has ever been before. When these fellows went back to work I suppose they thought: “We have become a slum industry in the so-called affluent society’.

The other 2 cases to which I wish to refer - and they are widely divergent in their nature: - indicate again our inability to solve modern industrial problems. One matter concerns the Shop Assistants Union in New South Wales, which is responsible for an area in which it is difficult to organise. There has been a lot of talk about militancy and the ability of the metal and building trades unions to get action. But there is another side of the coin - the smaller sectors of industry. A dispute occurred at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. This case illustrates the inconsistencies that we get. I have had consultation with Senator Cotton up to a point about this case. Women start work al the airport before 7.30 in the morning and work shifts that end after 5 p.m. 1 do not know what the position is at other airports but at Kingsford-Smith Airport the women who are employed at the international terminal in the duty free store are working outside the 7.30 a.m.-5 p.m. spread of hours and getting a loading under an agreement with the employer. I understand thai this arrangement also applies at the Ansett terminal. I questioned the Minister for Civil Aviation about the situation at the Trans-Australia Airlines terminal and he said to me: ‘You will have to deal with Australian Airport Services Pty Ltd5.

I wrote to Australian Airport Services because of the small number of union members concerned. Senator Bishop, Senator Milliner and Senator Cavanagh, who are well versed in industrial law, know that the cost factors in some of these cases is important. ] said to Senator Cotton: ‘Even in the United States the Government rivets trade union conditions into some legislation’. He said: ‘Some of these contracts may be coming up for renewal and you would not expect me to become partisan about the renewal of contracts’. I accepted that. So I wrote to Australian Airport Services and pointed out to that company that it should at least show some interest in not exploiting its staff. I received a reply to my letter, which with the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate in Hansard. It reads:

Senator J. A. Mulvihill, M.P.,

Australian Senate,

CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600

Dear Senator Mulvihill.

I refer to your letter dated 25th May addressed to the Manager of this company regarding apparent anomalies in the employment of staff by Mr J. Bondy in the liquor, food and gift concessions at the TAA Terminal, Sydney Airport.

I hasten to advise you that this company, Australian Airport Services Pty Ltd, has no interest in Mr Bondy’s operation in the TAA Terminal. I hesitate to pass on to him your communication as it probably would be more fitting that it should come directly from you. The correct address for Mr Bondy is:

Mr W. H. Bondy,

C/- W. H. Bondy Pty Ltd,

TAA Terminal,

Sydney Airport,

Mascot, N.S.W. 2020.

My company, Australian Airport Services Pty Ltd, operates concessions at airports throughout Australia and, in 9½ years of extensive operations, no industrial problems have been encountered.

I note from your letter that you have spoken to Civil Aviation Minister Cotton on this Bondy matter and 1 would be grateful if you would ensure that because of the misunderstanding in your office, the matter does not reflect against my company.

Yours sincerely,

DUDLEY C. DUNN

Managing Director

Australian Airport Services Pty Ltd states that Mr Bondy, a sub-contractor at the TAA terminal is responsible. I. spoke to industrial officer O’Neill of the union and he said: ‘Mr Bondy just will not discuss the matter with us’. I do not want to belabour this point except to issue a warning in this Senate. I do not do it from a coward’s castle because I will be sending an extract from this speech to Mr Bondy in the morning. I want to be clear about it. Governments have responsibilities. I can assure Mr Bondy if he is listening tonight - tomorrow he may read what I have said - that as far as I am concerned, if unions have difficult areas to organise, I will take action. When the Parliament resumes in August and the estimates for the Department of Civil Aviation come up before Estimates Committee D I will be bowling up plenty of questions. I will want to know what is the position with Mr Bondy and how long under the guise of giving service to people at the Kingsford-Smith Airport he is going to exploit the small group of people who work for him. The day has gone when this sort of thing should be allowed to go on.

I point out that when a union which has a relatively moderate policy and not large resources gets the run around from subcontractors in these circumstances, it is an indictment of a Commonwealth Government that does not demand minimum industrial conditions. This Mr Bondy claims that because the airport is operated by the Commonwealth it is Commonwealth territory and he does not believe in State awards which in this case are superior to Commonwealth awards. Only a small group of people are involved in this case but it is typical of the inadequacies of our arbitration system. There is no question about this.

My next point concerns the New South Wales Branch of the Electrical Trades Union of Australia. A short while ago the Senate dealt with the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Bill. Senator McClelland and I were approached over the weekend by representatives of the Electrical Trades Union. They said: ‘When this legislation goes through we will have to take consequential action about certain awards.’ We said: ‘That is right.’ They said: How long will it take before that Bill receives the royal assent?’ I looked at a senior official, Mr Tony Shortall and said: In May last year we passed legislation dealing with the Citizenship Act. It was 11 months before it became operative.’ He said: ‘If it takes us 11 months to obtain a new award for our people we will have difficulties.’ Senator McManus and Senator Cant referred to the run around given to the professional engineers. Here is a perpetuation of this muddling which goes on. Senator Wright may say to me that the slack has been taken up in the AttorneyGeneral’s office. 1 hope it has, because one can get instant tea and instant coffee but one cannot get instant arbitration service -far from it. One can talk until one is blue in the face. Why are boys not going into heavy industry as moulders and into other trades? lt is because they can obtain fringe benefits from luxury industries and because of the taxation lurks which come from the top, from the very directors of the firms.

As an ex-railway man Senator Gair will agree with me that a shunter working in a marshalling yard at midnight is more important to the community than somebody selling used cars on a car lot. Ff a shunter stops he can hold up rail traffic but if somebody did not clock on when selling used cars it would not matter one iota. This is the cancer of our society. Honourable senators talk about a free enterprise society. I do not accept a society in a straight jacket. But this is a false sense of values, lt does not matter what code of industrial legislation is brought down in this community; while the Government is fighting the people who make a more important contribution to Australia’s work force those people find they are getting further and further behind. I do not mean a mental inferiority complex; I mean a society which gives fringe benefits to teenagers who go into luxury industries. I do not object to their obtaining fringe benefits, but surely our sense of values is wrong. This is the difficulty we are facing. I do not care who the trade union official may be or what his ideology is. His life is not a bed of roses and if is getting harder all the time. These are the things the Australian Labor Party has been complaining about - The inability of various sectors of industry to obtain justice. Ail discussions seem to take place on a code of discipline. Endeavours should be made to root out a lot of these causes.

Perhaps 1 could paint a broader picture. Suppose the Australian Builders Labourers’ Federation says: ‘We are after a SIO across the board increase.’ The employers will reply: ‘Look, $10 will cost the industry so much. Will you settle for $4, $5, or $6?’ I can see the area there for negotiation, but I cannot see all these other difficulties and delays which exist in relation to the half dozen oilers who want overalls at Newcastle or 6 women employed at an airport. These are the sectors which have been neglected. This neglect exists not only in Australia. Take the recent postal dispute in New York City. The whole problem with society can be seen by looking at the income of people who have worked 20 years and never whimpered. It is not a matter which can be solved by punitive clauses. A reassesnoemI of values is needed, lt is a matter of. who makes the greatest contribution n< the country. Senator Greenwood spoke about demarcation disputes. There may be rare cases where 2 unions claim a particular job and unemployment is not a serious factor. Senator Bishop is well aware of concern over containerisation. In Sydney there was a dispute between the Federated Clerks Union of Australia and the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia. I defy anybody who knows the personnel concerned to say that there was any of this infantile leftism which Senator Greenwood spoke about. The plain fact of the matter is that people were afraid of the future. Who was going to obtain the work which was there? Honourable senators might ask: Is it a feeling of fear?’ lt is not fear: it is realism. An example is the Golden. Fleece case when a number of clerks were regarded as redundant. They were told by one judicial authority that the union was trying to run over the industry. There was no question of severance pay. As a matter of fact, the Department of Labour and National Service has had a standing committee looking at this sort of thing. I have asked Senator Wright questions and he has replied: ‘lt is a pretty big question, lt will be quite a while before we can come up with solutions.’ That is just the point I am making. Will he come up with the solutions before the affected work force is sure of its future? Whether it is the craft unions or industrial unions, it is inevitable that these clashes between employer and employee wm occur.

One of the assignments of a trade union secretary is to see that these people have a place in the work force for the next 10 years. These are the problems of which we are aware and of which the Government should be aware. I will admit that personality clashes do occur on the production line between perhaps the foreman and employee.

But let us be honest about it. Whether a person is working in the bowels of a ship or in a foundry, there are many occasions on which passions become inflamed. Let us not forget that whether it is during the Australian summer or on a cold winter morning, the liver of an employee or an employer can be very much affected when he comes to work. That is something that we should take into consideration. But the point I am making is that unions that are not always involved in these disputes are getting high batting averages, as it were. I repeat that these are the problems that we are looking at.

Senator Greenwood spoke of what 1 will call the grey area. I concede the fact that trade unions want all they can get out of an award. This might be preceded by discussions with the employer, but there often comes the time when the members of the union say: ‘It is not good enough. We are going to down tools’. Whether statistics are taken in relation to the duration of industrial disturbances or whether the aggregate working hours lost are taken, it will be found in the main that strikes are not as long in duration as in Britain and the United States of America. I do not want it to be argued that collective bargaining should be rejected on that basis. The point I am making is that there seems to be a more sophisticated attitude. Perhaps I should take it further. Senator Branson put a question on the notice paper a couple of years ago in which he gave a colossal figure as the measure of the effect that the Mount Isa strike had on the economy pf Queensland. I do not deny that on both sides the strike created economic hardship, but it did not mean that Queensland was devastated and would never recover again. With modern industrial methods and with price fluctuations, everybody picked up again. So that I dispute the contention completely that any stoppage means that economic equilibrium will never be recovered. As a matter of fact, the question that Senator Branson asked was never answered. It was almost like the question that Senator Cavanagh asked about the football umpire in South Australia. That will never be answered either.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes, it was answered today.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I am sorry. I will take that back. The plain fact that I am trying to hammer is that society is changing and trade union positions are becoming more difficult. My father was a gas worker and 1 am an ex-railwayman. Senator Greenwood talked about people becoming shop stewards and trade union secretaries. The point I am making is that in the industrial field a person can earn his living a lot more easily today in luxury industries which in themselves are not important. Whether we like it or not there are some industries in the semi-luxury field that have money pumped into them for various reasons. The Government more or less agrees with this. We are finding this disparity in incomes and industrial conditions, and it will get worse. We of the Opposition say that there are a lot of latent problems in industry today and the Government is not doing enough for the people involved.

Perhaps Senator Wright might have a look at this question of the oilers and find out what Commissioner McCoghry is doing about this case. I repeat that if an oiler has to sign on at midnight it is not very much to ask for a set of overalls. The people who call themselves young executives or trainee executives seem to get petrol allowances and car allowances. We should be blunt about it and ask ourselves: Who makes the wheels of industry turn? Whether they be Postmaster-General’s Department lorry drivers, oilers in a bus depot or shunters in a marshalling yard they are entitled to parity and should not be depressed further. I commend to some honourable senators opposite a film which is showing in Sydney and probably will go to Brisbane. It deals with the Molly Maguires and the turbulent stage of the North American mining industry. It was a forerunner to the North American Coal Miners’ Union. It portrays a famous scene down in the bowels of the earth with the local police chief, who is a tool of a big mining company, going down the mine. A miner asks him: ‘How would you like to work down here?’ The police chief says: I got out and I don’t want to go back’. It is something like ‘Alice in Wonderland’ - you close your eyes and say it is not there. While we are talking tonight there are oilers signing on at midnight at the Hamilton bus depot. Honourable senators might say they have not got to work there. But do they know what it would be like? Let us take the analogy of the Empire air training scheme during the war. If everyone wanted to be a pilot there would not have been an air force. Somebody had to be on the ground staff. The same applies today. Too many people do not face up the realities. That is the problem today.

I come back to Mr Bondy. 1 repeat that Senator Wright holds the title of MinisterinCharge of Tourist Activities. I am not inciting people but 1 could say to the unions that are regarded as moderate, such as the Shop Assistants Union: “You parade banners at the airport and say the Minister for Civil Aviation will do nothing’. Then the Government would say: ‘Those boorish people are besmirching the image of Australia’. I hope Senator Wright will look at the case of the oilers and that of the electrical trades union, and I hope the Snowy Mountains legislation will not take 1 1 months to get the royal assent. As far as civil aviation is concerned, Mr Bondy will be getting a letter front mc and I hope the Minister will lean on him. I give an assurance that I will be bowling up a lot of questions. I will want to know what it costs Mr Bondy for his concessionaires. 1 do not want us to have this gross exploitation of female workers in 1970. If when we come back in August this is not working very well, we will find the 3 unions to which 1 have referred and which are moderate in their outlook will nol continue to take this sort of thing, because it is not good enough.

Senator CAVANAGH (South Australia) fi 1.7] - My quick action again saved the application of the guillotine. Some honourable senators wish to get home tomorrow. Their work is so unimportant that we have had this series of motions “That the question be now put’.

Senator Gair:

– They wasted hours this morning.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– lt is not a question of who may be deprived in this chamber. This is possibly one of the most important questions we could consider.

Senator Gair:

– Look at the attendance of your own Party. That is how important it is.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– lt reflects the importance of the question to the Parliament. The Government does not care a great deal for the trade union movement, which represents the mass of working people whom Senator Mulvihill has just eulogised. The fact that we have only 4 Government members in the Senate when this important Bill is being debated shows the importance that they place on the question.

Senator Gair:

– There are not many more on your own side.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Yes, there are. We have 50% more than the Democratic Labor Party has.

Senator Gair:

– You have more pairs than we have.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! The honourable senator must not interject.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– There has not been a speaker from this side who has not had continual interruption from Senator Gair. He has rudely interrupted the whole night. Even while I am making my complaint and seeking your protection. Mr Deputy President, we are still gelling continual interjections. If Senator Gair is prepare! to ignore the Chair and the call for decorum and order, then 1 think the Chair will have to do something about it. 1 realise the concern that has been expressed tonight about the arbitration system. 1 believe that there is a section of the trade union movement that would like to see the abolition of the arbitration system in Australia. The numbers in that group are growing. They do not necessarily belong to a particular political group within the trade union movement. That group has continually demonstrated to it that more can be gained from outside the arbitration system than from within it. The arbitration system awards can be obtained without any conflict, but over award payments are necessary if the workers are to get justice om of their contribution io industry and they find it necessary to take industrial action to achieve this justice. I recognise that there are Communists in the trade union movement.

Senator Gair:

– You would know for sure.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– There is that continual interruption again, Mr Deputy President. I recognise that there are Communists in the trade union movement. We have to face up to the position. The Communist Party has always produced members who have taken leadership in the trade union movement and who are, to some extent, acceptable to the trade union movement as a whole. Communists, believing in the class struggle, need to have the courage to fight for proper conditions for their members. No matter what the leadership of the union is and no matter how much an individual desires to withdraw labour from a factory, no-one can achieve a stoppage of work unless the majority of the employees in that factory agree to it. No matter what persuasive powers are used, no-one can persuade a group of people to act against their interests and support another point of view.

Senator Gair:

– ‘All in favour to the right and bastards to the left’; that is the way they take the ballot.

Senator CAVANAGH:

- Mr Deputy President, is the Parliament to be dragged down in this way? We must recognise that for all of these disputes there must be a cause. The workers feel justified in taking action. They will fight for improved wages and conditions and will strike against an injustice if they see it in their industry. The workers are continually striking against injustices which they have seen–

Senator Greenwood:

– There are plenty of them.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Because there are plenty of them. As Senator Mulvihill1 stated, the workers are providing a valuable service. In fact they are making a contribution to the development of our nation. They have only one commodity to offer, their labour power, and they are just as entitled to sell that commodity for the maximum amount that they can receive as the dairy farmer is to sell his pound of butter or the grocer his goods. The arbitration system has not given the working people the wages that industry is prepared to give to them. Arbitration was brought in for the protection of the working man. The Commonwealth Arbitration Commission operates for the protection of the working man; if there were no inhuman bosses there would be no need for arbitration. It was brought in for the protection of the worker at a time when the employer had a big reserve of finance and could wait until the men had reached the point of starvation and were prepared to return to work. Now we have the reverse position where the capital investment in machinery is so great that the employer cannot afford a stoppage of industry. So arbitration has transferred its affections and protects the employing class in Australia. The law requires the employed people to seek arbitration and imposes penalties on them to ensure that they take no other action. When the workers seek to exert their rights and to obtain justice the penal clauses in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act are invoked by the employing class. That is why arbitration is in disrepute in this country at present. It is alleged that the arbitration system awards the wage which industry can afford to pay, but over award payments have been gained outside arbitration to a degree that demonstrates that arbitration has not fulfilled that requirement. Much more has been gained through over award payments than the arbitration system has been prepared to give.

Mr Bury, when Minister for Labour and National Service, in answers to questions Nos 1580 and 1581 on 24th September 1.969 set out figures showing that penalties imposed during the period from 1956 to 1968 under section 109 of the Act amounted to $291,000. Of the cases in which information was available, some involved more than one fine and more than one union. Costs against the unions amounting to $53,000 were awarded in 93 cases. Answers given to questions asked in the other place show that in the period 1957 to 1968 the metal trades group of unions was fined a total of $167,310 on 601 charges; the transport group $82,100 on 126 charges; the building group $2,200 on 6 charges; and so on down to lesser amounts. The trade union movement could not exist under the conditions that prevailed and could not obtain its proper entitlements. The trade unions could not exert their power as a movement without taking action. Protests were made to the point at which Clarrie O’Shea was prepared to go to gaol rather than to give information to the Commonwealth Industrial Court. He was placed in gaol and spontaneously the majority of trade unions throughout Australia went on strike. That ended the effectiveness of the penal provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Senator Wright:

– That is not quite a statement of fact, is it?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Yes. ft is a statement of fact. Clarrie O’Shea was released when someone paid his fine. No attempt has been made to collect other fines imposed on the unions. While the Act slates that fines are still payable, everyone knows that payment will not be insisted upon, lt is realised that the solidarity of the trade union movement and its power are such that the unions are finished with the penal provisions of the Act. No matter what we do in this Parliament, those penal provisions will not be enforced in future. Discussions were held with the trade union movement in an attempt to solve the problem, but the provisions of the legislation before the Senate do not reflect in any way any discussion or agreement with the trade union movement.

On 6th November 1969 Mr Bury, when Minister for Labour and National Service, made public a letter that he had sent to Mr Monk, President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and to the Secretary of the National Employers Policy Committee. In the letter we see outlined various matters that had been agreed to after discussion. Paragraph 5 of the letter states: ti is a matter of common knowledge that many industrial disputes arise from or are aggravated by failures in communication and lack of effective consultation between management and employees. Therefore employers al both the plant’ and industry level should seek to improve their methods of communication with employees on all matters of mutual interest and concern, irrespective of whether these matters are likely to give rise to dispute. Particular attention should be given lo both the informal and formal means for consultation between management and employees.

In paragraph 6 the Minister continues:

By way of illustration, attention is drawn to the principles recommended by the National Labour Advisory Council with regard to the introduction of technological change, which is but one of the areas in which industrial disputes can arise.

Paragraph 7 states:

It is considered that whatever procedures are adopted for avoiding and settling disputes they are not likely to be fully effective unless they are based on acceptance of the need for effective communication and consultation between employers and unions.

The legislation before us makes provision for consultation when a dispute occurs, but the measure does not provide for conciliation at the factory level. Opportunities for conciliation at this level have been lost as industry has grown to the stage where big plants are owned by companies and controlled by managing directors who are completely divorced from the workers, lt is apparent to members of the work force that they are not receiving a fair share of profits made by the company or receiving as much as the company is able to pay. This has been demonstrated time and again when, after a struggle, employees have received an increased share of the wealth produced by the factory at which they are employed.

At the Committee stage I shall seek some clarification of the purpose of the Bill, although Senator Greenwood has given us some idea of it. The activities that would come within the penal provisions have been extended. They now cover ‘conduct that would hinder, prevent or discourage the observance of, or the performance of work in accordance with, the award*. This gives an indication of the way in which these provisions have been enlarged. They now cover people engaged in certain activities, whether directly or indirectly. Clause 3 (b) seeks to add the following sub-section:

A reference in this Act to engaging in conduct includes a reference to being, whether directly or indirectly, a party Lo or concerned in the doing of any act or thing.

This extends the penal provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to include persons other than direct participants, lt now covers those who are, directly or indirectly, party to certain activities, lt may be that a person down the street suggests to a worker: ‘You are nol getting a fair deal and you should breach the Act’.

Senator Wright:

– That is not a correct interpretation of the Act.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I know the obligations of those bound by the award, but this provision could include anyone at all.

Senator Wright:

– That is not a correct interpretation.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– We will wait and see. A prosecution for a breach of the award cannot take place unless a presidential member of the Commission signs a certificate lo say that the conduct was something that he had dealt with. He must first deal with it. Then we get a surprising provision. The presidential member is compelled to give a certificate:

  1. . unless he is satisfied that the giving of the certificate would be undesirable having regard to the terms on which a settlement of the matters concerned has been effected or would be likely to prevent a settlement of those matters.

If the giving of the certificate to permit a prosecution would be likely to prevent a settlement of the matter the presidential member cannot give it. Nor can he give it if it would be undesirable in the terms of the settlement of the dispute. So we have the position that in respect of any union which is out on strike a commissioner with whom a conference is being held is not in a position to settle the dispute, nor is the union in a position to agree to settle that dispute, until it is made known that a certificate will not be issued. This will prolong disputes and it will absolve from prosecution the big, strong unions. But it will not prevent the prosecution of weak unions or of individual members of weak unions, because such prosecutions would not be against the terms of settlement and would not prevent the settlement of the dispute. It is necessary for the unions to show their solidarity and to insist that one of the terms of settlement is that a certificate will not be given, otherwise this provision will have the effect of prolonging disputes and of sacrificing a small section of the unions and of protecting the privileged, large unions.

One cannot ignore Senator Greenwood’s statement, but while decisions are being delayed the public is suffering. We must be concerned with the interests of the public because the situation is such today that industry plays an important part in our community life and if one section of trade unionists is out of work for any length of time the public suffers. We must seek some solution of the problem concerning the settlement of disputes. Disputes have more or less always occurred, so let us for a moment forget the penal provisions. Our arbitration system should be directed to determining what industry is prepared to pay, what the average employer is prepared to grant to employees. If this is not the case something is wrong with the arbitration machinery. There should not be attempts to penalise one section of the community. Let us explore the situation. As Senator Bishop says, there should be further discussion with the parties concerned with this question before we amend the Act. No Act should be amended unless its amendment has support from both sides. Although it seems impossible at times to achieve agreement even after lengthy negotiation, I do not think it is an impossibility. The Labor Party cannot support the Bill. Possibly during the Committee stage we shall be able to amend it so that it will have greater effect than the present penal powers.

Senator GAIR:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party · Queensland

– In view of the very poor attendance in the chamber and the little interest that is being displayed in this important amendment to a piece of industrial legislation, I move:

Senator Murphy:

– I ask for leave to speak.

Senator Wright:

– Leave is not granted.

Question put:

That the question be now put.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President - Senator T. L. Bull)

AYES: 24

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President- Senator T. L. Bull)

AYES: 24

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 and 2 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 3 (Interpretation).

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– Mr Temporary Chairman,I wish to refer to the definition which appears in clause 3 of the Bill which amends section 4 of the principal Act. We are very much opposed to this definition. Not only does it lay a basis for actions under the proposed new bans clause which is section 33a but also, as you will see, the prescription is very wide. Clause 3 (b) seeks to insert the following new sub-section: (3.) A reference in this Act to engaging in conduct includes a reference to being, whether directly or indirectly, a party to or concerned in the doing of any Act or thing.

It semes to me that this is a rather retrograde prescription. If it was prescribed as being concerned directly with conduct, we might be prepared to accept it. But we oppose this definition. We intend to divide the Senate on this clause.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I assume that the Minister will make some reply and inform honourable senators of his interpretation of the phrase indirectly in an industrial dispute’ and what behaviour is visualised in the word ‘indirectly’.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

-I did not understand whether Senator Bishop’s opposition was directed towards clause 3 (a), clause 3 (b) or both, but Senator Cavanagh has directed my attention only to clause 3 (b). That provision relates to a person who is directly or indirectly a party to or concerned in the doing of any act or thing. It is quite a common expression. For the purposes of interpretation of that expression, if a person directly or indirectly does an act he is a party to the act. I would not have thought that this would raise any new matter for discussion.

Question put:

That clause 3 stand as printed.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 24

NOES: 22

Majority . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreedto.

Clauses 4 and 5 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 6 (Power to include in award a provision directing persons not to hinder observance of award)

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– We intend to oppose clause 6 because it provides for a new section 33a which in fact allows the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission the power to apply a bans clause. Consistent with what has been said in speeches made by honourable senators on this side of the chamber, we are very much opposed to this clause and we intend to divide on the question.

Question put:

That clause 6 stand as printed.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Cormack)

AYES: 24

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 12 - by leave - taken together.

SenatorBISHOP (South Australia) [11.58] - Clauses 7 to 12 represent innovations by includng the word ‘employee”’ in addition to the word ‘officer’. The clauses also relate to the Right Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal. We are concerned about clause 13 which will be dealt with shortly and to which we will move an amendment.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 13. (1.) Section 109 of the Principal Act is amended -

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I move:

We do not accept the Government’s amendment to section 109 of the principal Act. The Government proposes to amend section 109 by omitting paragraph (a) of subsection (1.) and by omitting the last line from paragraph (b) of sub-section (1.). The action we are taking on this occasion is consistent with what we have done over the years. In this place and in the other place we have moved amendments which were designed to delete sections 109 and 111 from the Act. These are the sections which cause most concern to the trade union movement. These are the sections under which the penalties to which 1 referred earlier are imposed. The Committee might recall that earlier I referred to the fact that Mr Woodward Q.C. had calculated that during 1968-69 fines totalling $100,000 were imposed under sections 109 and 111 of the Act. I sought leave of the Senate to have incorporated in Hansard a list of the penalties which had been imposed under these sections, which had been prepared by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), but leave was refused by Senator Greenwood. However, our position is quite clear. We are opposed to section 109 and we intend to divide the Committee on the question. We think that the section is against the best interests not only of the trade union movement but also of the Act.

Friday, 19 June 1970

Senator BROWN:
Victoria

– I support the amendment proposed by Senator Bishop. I welcome the opportunity to speak, having been denied the opportunity to speak on this Bill and on one other Bill earlier this evening. It is true,as Senator Bishop has said, that the trade union movement and the Labor movement collectively are opposed to what are described as the penal provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. We are opposed to them for a number of reasons. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to have the opportunity in this place to attempt to effect changes in legislation with which I have been associated by way of campaigns outside this place. As a member of the trade union movement I have endeavoured to impress upon the Government that it should repeal industrial laws which are designed to dispossess persons employed in industry of the right to the same freedom as that enjoyed by those engaged in commerce and industry. By that I refer to the right to place a price on the commodity which they have to sell without any restrictions or limitations being placed upon them.

Quite seriously, section 109 of the Act points up. in my view, what has happened in the ensuing months since the Government recognised the need to do something about the penal provisions after a tremendous campaign was mounted against the imposition of the penal provisions on the trade union movement in Australia. In my view, all that has happened is that a moratorium has been introduced for the time being. With great respect to those honourable senators who have spoken both for and against this Bill this evening, in my view all that has happened is that there has been a re-arrangement of the mechanism of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The last paragraph of the second reading speech of the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) portrays the precise intention of the Government. The Minister said:

As I have already mentioned, the Bill will retain industrial sanctions but not without prior use being made of negotiation, conciliation and, where necessary, arbitration, to resolve industrial issues between management and labour. The Bill represents a genuine effort to bring the sanctions process more into line with current needs. The intervention of the Industrial Court is deferred until arbitral and conciliation processes have been employed.

What has been described by the Minister in his second reading speech is something which in fact takes place at present. I was secretary of a trade union for a number of years. I know that on occasions the union attempted to obtain some measure of negotiation and conciliation. In my humble opinion nothing new has been introduced. It may be that the mechanics of the system will operate in a slightly different manner. The fact remains, however, that the Government’s insistence on imposing sanctions and penal provisions on trade unions will not resolve the crisis which developed last year.

I think it would be as well for me to point out to the Government at this late stage that not only has the Australian Council of Trade Unions rejected the imposition of the penal provisions but also the white collar organisations, namely the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations and the High Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations, have recently joined forces with the ACTU. The High Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations, ACSPA and the ACTU collectively represent an overwhelming majority of the persons employed in all forms of industry throughout Australia. Their opposition has been augmented by the opposition that the political wing of the Labor movement, namely the Labor Party, has taken throughout the years. In my view there will be formidable opposition to any insistence in the future on the application of these provisions of the Act. This reminds me, and I make no apology for saying it, that we may have reached the same stage as was reached in Victoria in 1948 when the government of the day in that State introduced what has become known as the Essential Services Act. Neither that government nor any government since 1948 has been prepared to even consider the implementation of the terms of that Act. There has been one reason for this. The Government of the day and the governments since then have known that any attempt to impose any of the provisions of that Act on the working people in Victoria would be met by a revolt of the working class. At the same time 1 am convinced that as a consequence of what happened last year we have witnessed what might he described as the last of the penal clauses. lt may be argued that the penal clauses are still written into this legislation, but I sincerely trust that the determination which was displayed by the trade union movement last year will be re-enacted if and when a court attempts to apply these provisions. Having regard to the traditional opposition which the trade union movement has registered to all forms of restrictions on its rights 1 think it Ls necessary for me to make understood why the Government supports such provisions, lt appears to me that it is absolutely essential for the Government to retain these provisions in order to preserve the so called free enterprise system and enable it to operate successfully. The Government accepts the idea of a free market in terms of commerce and industry, but when it comes to the most precious commodity of all - the sale of labour power - the Government entangles the Labor movement in a massive Act of Parliament. At one and the same time the Government has by way of this Act of Parliament imposed restrictions and limitations in a manner which might be described at a given time in the course of industry and the like as industrial conscription.

No red blooded person can concede that in any circumstances we enjoy genuine democracy in this country until such time as those provisions are repealed. 1 say that without hesitation and make no apology for it. If the Government wants to apply price fixation in terms of the cost of labour, it should likewise apply it to the cost of the goods and services that the people have to buy in order to live. In other words, if the Government expects the trade union movement to accept its proposals, likewise the trade union movement expects the Government to apply some system of rationalisation to costs and prices which at least will create an integrated economy. Until that happens I am sure that members of the trade union movement will not accept in any circumstances such restrictions, limitations and prohibitions on their rights as free men.

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– 1 support the amendment moved by Senator Bishop. My remarks will be very brief. It appears to me that the Government is set for a confrontation with the trade union movement. The Government will not listen to anything that will be said in relation to this Bill because it is determined to push it through. Nothing is more certain than that there will be a confrontation with the trade union movement.

Senator Gair:

– Amen.

Senator MILLINER:

– if you had said Amen’ a bil more frequently you might not be in the condition that you are in tonight. I ask the Minister to look at the clauses of the Bill. There does not appear to be any right of appeal in them. A man can be charged and his case heard but he has no right of appeal.

Senator Little:

– Are you talking about Jack Galbally? He has no right of appeal.

Senator MILLINER:

– Just listen to Little SL Echo. He believes that he has all the time in the world at his disposal. He breaches an agreement to speak for about 30 minutes by speaking for about 40 minutes, then he supports a motion to gag the debate and now he questions something I have said.

Senator Little:

– I was trying to help you.

Senator MILLINER:

– 1 can do very well without your help. 1 ask the Minister to answer the question that I have raised in all seriousness, notwithstanding the inane interjections of Senator Gair and Senator Little.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– In specific answer to Senator Milliner let me say that there is in the Bill a provision from the order inserting a bans clause in the award. lt will be found in sub-section (3.) of proposed new section 33a. It may be due to the Committee that 1 explain that the effect of Senator Bishop’s amendment is this: Section 109 does 4 things. It empowers the court (a) to order compliance with an award, (b) to enjoin a breach of an award, (c) to enjoin a breach of the Act, and (d) to determine the question of the eligibility of a person to become or remain a member of the organisation. The Bill proposes to delete the court’s power to order compliance with an award and to enjoin a breach of an award, and to retain the court’s power to enjoin an organisation or a person from committing a contravention of the Act, and to determine the question of the eligibility of a person to become or remain a member of the organisation. Senator Bishop’s amendment would have the effect of repealing the last 2 provisions. It is quite obvious that it is necessary to retain both those provisions, but the Bill repeals the provisions that were inserted in 1953.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– Do I understand that if the second part of the amendment were carried it would mean that any orders of the Com.monwealth Industrial Court imposing fines in force under section 109 of the principal Act would cease to have effect? That part of the amendment stales:

Upon the commencement of this Act, an order of the Commonwealth Industrial Court under section 109 of the Principal Act ceases to have effect.

If my reading and understanding of the amendment is correct, it amazes me that the Government has gone a certain way in attempting to get some semblance of industrial peace. Quite candidly, in this age I do not expect that we will have as much peace as one would like. The cause of industrial unrest does not reside on any one side by any stretch of the imagination. It is brought about in the main by the economic circumstances under which we live. 1 refer to galloping inflation and rising prices. We have reached the stage today where if a married man who has a wife and 2 children receives an increase in his wages, whether it be by arbitration, direct action or over award payments, he is no better off a fortnight after receiving the increase because rising prices, over which we have no control, have swallowed up whatever increase he gets. That is one of the things that most affect the average person.

We have to look at this matter in a sane way. The average person has nothing to sell but his labour, and by his labour he has to live. But unfortunately in recent years he has found that it takes a very long time to get justice from the arbitration court. After awards have been varied for only a short time, whatever he has gained has been swallowed up by rising prices. The Bill also proposes to reduce the amount of fines for breaching an award. The Government has come a certain way towards meeting the unions in this matter.

Senator Donald Cameron:

– The Government has increased them.

Senator KENNELLY:

– No, it has not. If I am correct it does not propose to impose the $1,000 fine that has been imposed by the Court in the past. 1 am amazed that the Government in its effort to obtain industrial peace should still want to collect the fines that were imposed under the old section 109. It would be foolish for me to say that it will not get them, but it will have a bit of a job getting them. Still, the law is the law. If the Government wants this Bill to be given a go common sense dictates that we should wipe the slate and see what happens. 1 have very little knowledge of industrial matters because, unlike Senator Brown, I have never been connected with the trade union movement although I have been very close to it in another sphere. I believe the Government is heading for disaster. Why is it doing that? If the unions have been fined so many thousands of dollars under section 109 and have not paid the fines lo date we are only fooling ourselves to think they will pay them in the future. The moment the Government goes to collect the fines and the union does not pay, the Government has to put someone in gaol, whether it be Clarrie O’Shea or Carmichael, a Com or a non-Com.

Senator Gair:

– They would go into a hospital bed.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Even if they did ) do not think Senator Gair would want them on the rock heap. Let us be practical. In the interests of this country we should aim to keep the wheels of industry moving so that the mass of the people, the men we want to be connected with in life, get a fair go. 1 atn amazed that the Government, by demanding that certain fines imposed in the past have to be paid, expects to achieve that by this Bill which I think is a waste of the paper it is printed on. I do not want to entice people to break the law. 1 do not want to go to gaol. 1 am frightened when I pass it. 1 do not want to see anyone put himself in that position. But the fact is that people will do that. This is not 1900. This is not the day when the piece of rope was tied under the knees of the trousers. Today we are concerned not only with those who earn their living by the sweat of their brow.

What is the Government going to do about the pilots and the engineers? What is it going to do with the other black coated workers who find that with all their pleadings and by going to arbitration they are not receiving what they believe is justice? What is the Government going to do with them? It cannot put them all in gaoL lt would be foolish to commence doing so. The Government has at least gone some part of the way by means of this Bill. lt has met the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the employers. Why does it not make a clean sweep? I hope that the Government wilL accept our submissions. It would be in the interests of industry and the people if it did. 1 hate to prophesy what will happen if it does not accept the submissions. The blame will be the Government’s, not ours.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– Senator Kennelly raised a question which the Minister seemed to miss when he was replying. Section 109 seeks to do the things that the Minister stated, but the Bill itself and the clause to which we are objecting and to which Senator Bishop moved an amendment seeks the deletion of the very thing Senator Kennelly was speaking of - that is, preservation of the right to collect outstanding fines. Section 109 (I.) provides:

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.

We opposite clause 13, sub-clause (2.), of the Bill and seek to supplant it with an amendment. The sub-clause reads:

Upon the commencement of this Act, an order of the Commonwealth Industrial Court in force under paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.) of section 109 of the Principal Act or an order of that Court in force under paragraph (b) of that subsection enjoining an organisation or person from committing or continuing a breach or nonobservance of an award ceases to have effect but nothing in this Act affects any penalty imposed by that Court before the commencement of this Act in respect of a contempt of that Court that consisted of a failure to comply with such an order.

As we know there are many unions, particularly the metal trades unions, that today owe penalties, that have been imposed. Senator Bishop’s amendment seeks to delete this determination of the Government to have in the legislation at least a liability to collect these fines. Even if the amendment proposed by the Government is an improvement and if it works properly, it will still leave bitterness behind.

There are now 2 avenues of prestige. The Trades and Labour Council, which was successful in stopping the collection of the money from the Tramways Union and possible attempts to collect from other unions, which was admitted by the Minister when we held negotiations, cannot now say that it is defeated on the question or that Clarrie O’Shea was greater than the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The

ACTU on principle must fight any further attempt to collect these fines. With its knowledge that the power of collection still exists - there cannot be a nationwide stoppage even for 24 hours without some organisation being involved - there will be a continuous campaign of non-payment of fines from now on. Rather than this question being settled between the Government and the unions, there will bc a continuous campaign because of this festering sore. The Government is faced with the position of having an Act which the people who are prejudiced will simply defy.

In answer to a question yesterday, the Minister representing the Attorney-General told me that the Government will prosecute in cases where there is evidence of a breach of an award, if it is in the public interest to do so. If we are to have a new basis of conciliation and arbitration, surely the Minister has new penalties which he is hopeful will settle the problem. What is the value of insisting on the payment of these fines? What is the value of preventing those persons who want to resist paying them from continuing with their campaign? The original section of the Act is to be deleted and the Government wants those past fines paid. It wants a continuation of the campaign. It wants the smell of success that the ACTU has had. If any attempt is made to collect them there will be a bigger stoppage. While this new section 109 remains, it is a threat to the trade union movement, and this hostility must continue. If there was ever a desire on the part of anyone in the Government to create harmony in industry this Bill destroys such a desire. Senator Bishop’s amendment seeks to delete section 109 and to specify that no effort shall be made to collect this money.

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
South Australia

– I do not intend to canvass any of the areas with which honourable senators on this side have dealt, lt is obvious to me that all this Bill does is delete sub-section (l.)(a) from section 109 and transfer it to section 119 with which we will be dealing later. If this clause were carried it would leave very little in section 109. As a matter of fact, it would leave nothing in it that is not covered elsewhere in the Act, other than possibly section 5 which deals with cases where an employee has been victimised because he joins a union or where an employee refuses to work with an employer because he is a member of some employer organisation. So that offence is adequately covered by the penalties that it provides; that is, a penalty of $100 under section 5 (Ia.) and $50 under section 5 (2.). If the Bill is carried the only other part of section 1 09 that will be left relates to section 144 which deals with the rights of a person employed in an industry to remain or become a member of the union.

Surely we will not leave in the Act section 109 merely to allow a penalty of up to $1,000 a day or $500 a day, if the dispute goes for more than 1 day, to be imposed on a union that said a certain employee was not entitled to become a member. So with those sections being deleted from the Act, it is obvious to me that the Government is adopting a very obstinate attitude by trying to maintain that at least it had its own way and would not delete from the Act what had been suggested by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the other unions. If I am not right I would like the Minister in reply to advise the Senate of any other way that section 109 can be applied, other than to the sections to which I have referred.

It is a very interesting observation that I have made. No doubt the serious unrest in industry has been caused by the way the employers have sought the sanctuary of the court in any trivial dispute. In 1968 the court applied the penalties under section 111 on at least 165 occasions against the unions for alleged failure to observe an order of the court made under section 109(1.) (a). On each occasion the court imposed very severe penalties and ordered the unions to pay the costs of both sides. Of nearly 500 cases which have been dealt with under this section of the Act since 1957 there has been only one where the court did not order costs against the union. That was a trivial case where the fine imposed was only $10 and in which no costs were awarded. Although in 1968 the unions were fined on at least 165 times, the employer organisations were before the court on only 5 occasions for breaches of the Act.

Senator Prowse:

– They do not breach the Act.

Senator CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– According to this they do breach the Act, but the court is very lenient in dealing with employers. As Senator Bishop pointed out, the fines imposed are usually SIO with S2 costs, sometimes with no costs at all, and sometimes the case is dismissed. Out of 5 such cases heard in 1968, in 3 penalties were imposed and on the other 2 occasions the case was withdrawn.

We do not accept that this Bill is a result of negotiations between the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the employer organisations and the Government, because the provisions of the Bill are not acceptable to the trade union movement and never will be. Senator Greenwood mentioned earlier tonight that the action adopted by the unions in taking direct action is not the proper approach for getting industrial wage justice. Let me give 2 examples out of the hundreds that there are where trade union organisations would not have received justice without taking industrial action. In South Australia in the State Industrial Court the Australian Workers Union on 3 occasions made an application to the court for an extra week’s leave for the continuous shift workers in the cement manufacturing industry. The provision of an extra week’s leave applies in practically every award in the Commonwealth. On each occasion the President of the Industrial Court rejected the application by the Australian Workers Union. The employees in that industry asked me how they were going to get an extra week’s leave, the same as everybody else in Australia. I said: ‘The only way you will get it is to go on strike. You will not get it any other way’. They went on strike. The matter came before the Commission and the same judge who had rejected applications by the Australian Workers Union for the extra week’s leave on 2 previous occasions, and who had been the employer’s advocate before another judge when the application was rejected, granted the extra week’s leave. That happened only after the employees had taken strike action.

A case was reported in the ‘Australian’ today - we will read more about it when we get the transcript - where the Australian Workers Union made an application to the court, which was not the first application, to vary an award so that station hands would come into line with all workers in industry and have a 40-hour week. It may be thought that station hands are very well paid and that the court took their high rate of pay into account in not reducing their working week to 40 hours. The weekly rate for an experienced station hand is $42.65. If bis board is found by the employer, $9.66 is deducted which leaves the station hand, who is required to work 44 hours spread over 5i days, with the princely amount of $32.99. lt is obvious to the station hands that they will never have their working week reduced unless they do take strike action to convince the Commission that their hours of work are too long. The amendments put forward by Senator Bishop to delete section 109 and the other provision will mean that any fines previously imposed on the unions will have no effect. I understand that fines amounting to $38,000 are owing by the unions. Those fines were imposed because of the ruthless attitude of employers in applying to the Commonwealth Industrial Court on every possible occasion for the imposition of penalties. 1 ask the Minister to advise the Committee of the other sections of the Act to which section 109 will apply if the clause now before the Senate is agreed to.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– In answer to Senator Donald Cameron, the provisions that will remain in section 1.09 will empower the Commonwealth Industrial Court to enjoin an organisation or person from committing or continuing a contravention of the Act; that is to say, in all the sections that require anything to be done under the Act.

Senator Donald Cameron:

– Will you name one?

Senator WRIGHT:

– Section 182 and the following sections are the obvious ones. Those sections require obedience to the precepts of the Act. Contravention of them, if the appropriate occasion arose, would invite an injunction. However, in answering Senator Cameron. I am not to be understood to be suggesting that in a simple case of a breach, of an offence, the Court would consider an injunction in addition to a penalty.

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– I again appeal to the Minister to consider the elimination from this legislation of any provision requiring that fines imposed in the past must be paid. I remind the Minister that we are considering the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Tonight we have heard a great deal of talk to the effect that arbitration is at the crossroads, that something is wrong with arbitration. Of course something is wrong. Workers will not accept the fact that their leaders are to be fined under the provisions of an amended Act that has had so much publicity. Their leaders are to be asked to pay fines that have been imposed previously.

If the Minister believes the workers will accept that state of affairs he is sadly mistaken. A fairly snide reference was made tonight to Mr Hawke, the new President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. However, when the ACTU decided to advise the unions not to pay any fines imposed under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act the President of that body was Mr Albert Monk. I am sure that the people who offer the criticism of Mr Hawke that he is too militant would not say the same of Mr Albert Monk, lt has been suggested tonight that the influence of Mr Hawke has caused the unions to adopt their present policy towards the payment of fines. I repeat that when the decision was made not to pay the fines Mr Albert Monk was President of the ACTU. If the Minister has any influence whatever on the Government, I ask him to do his utmost to see that the provision for payment of past fines is removed. Otherwise a confrontation with the trade union movement generally will occur. The ACTU has made its decision and is bound by that decision. At the last meeting of the Interstate Executive of the ACTU that body reaffirmed its resolve that the lines would nol be paid. In the name of conciliation and in the name of peace in industry I ask the Government not to pursue ils present policy which I believe will be disastrous for arbitration generally. The penal provisions should not be in the Act, and to continue to permit them to be applied will, to my way of thinking, be disastrous for industry and for arbitration. Some honourable senators have been saying tonight that there is something wrong with the arbitration system. Of coursethere are things wrong with the arbitration system, and I suggest that it is because of these things that union leaders have been fined for doing something that union members have told them to do.

Senator Greenwood:

– When are union leaders fined?

Senator MILLINER:

– Leaders of trade unions are fined. Of course they can be fined.

Senator Greenwood:

– Can you tell me of one union leader who has been fined?

Senator MILLINER:

– You are looking at . one now. I have been fined.

Senator Greenwood:

– Under the provisions of this Act?

Senator MILLINER:

– 1 am not proud of this, but neither am I sorry. The members of my union at a general meeting told me to do something and I did it. I am proud of the fact that I observed the direction given to me by members of the union.

Senator Greenwood:

– Can you tell mc under which provisions of the Act you were fined?

Senator MILLINER:

– I was fined as an officer of the union. If there is anything wrong with arbitration today it is because conciliation is being cluttered up with the legal fraternity. I regret that I am digressing, but Senator Greenwood introduced this matter. If 1 may give an example, I once saw the Industrial Court sit for 2 days before it realised that a prosecution had been taken under the wrong section of the Act. In that case 2 barristers, instructed by solicitors, argued the merits and demerits of the case for 2 days. The cost of those proceedings-

Senator O’Byrne:

– $2,000 a day?

Senator MILLINER:

– I could not say how much it cost, but if 1 am not mistaken the cost was in the vicinity of £800 at that time. How can anyone justify that?

Senator Wright:

– They are pretty hungry in the industrial jurisdiction, 1 understand.

Senator MILLINER:

– If the Minister said that the legal fraternity was hungry ( might agree. The situation is that the workers will just not tolerate the present state of affairs. If arbitration is to succeed I suggest that we must get away from the Nolans and Cohens and other barristers. I have heard employers referring to opinions by Nolan and Cohen, but they would not know what arbitration was about. If there is any dispute as to what I say in that regard, let me remind honourable senators that I am fortified in my opinion by none other than Sir Henry Bland. Honourable senators will find in the records that when Sir Henry was with the Department of Labour and National Service in 1967 he warned the Government that the white collar unions were becoming restive and that there would be serious difficulties because those unions knew that they were going to face the same consequences as the blue collar workers. But the Government took no notice of him. At that time he went on to say that there was too much of the legal fraternity in the arbitration system and that the sooner we got rid of the lawyers and made arbitration the work of laymen we would be so much better off, because we would have a far greater degree of conciliation. I urge the Minister to endeavour to influence the Government to accept this amendment. If he does not, I say without fear of contradiction that there will be a confrontation with the trade union movement and it will not only disrupt industry but it could have the very effect of helping those people to whom Senator Greenwood referred tonight as wanting to destroy arbitration. I know that some people want to destroy arbitration but the Government’s action in trying to force people to pay fines of this nature will assist those very people who want to destroy arbitration. I ask the Minister - I do not appeal to him - to give favourable consideration to what has been said. If the Government does not heed what has been said then, with due respect and I do not say it in the form of a bluff, the Government is headed for the greatest industrial turmoil Australia has seen for many years.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– This enactment, with its penal clauses as they are popularly described, has been productive of great discontent. There is no doubt about that. The provisions have been the subject of contention ever since they were introduced into the Act. It was feared that they would be used as a weapon against the trade unions, and that fear was realised. When the legislation was introduced the Government indicated that the use of these contempt powers would be rare. It was intended that they would be used sparingly and in exceptional cases, but what happened? The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission foolishly, over a period of years, allowed itself to be the vehicle of inserting in awards bans clauses in general terms, often unlimited in time but frequently so extensive as to cover every kind of activity concerned with the limitation of work. This meant that the system was subjected to great abuse, and it was abused.

Before the Arbitration Commission, 1 think last year, there was a proceeding during which the Commission went through the cases in which these clauses had been used. Those who are seeking the removal of the bans clauses were able to demonstrate how there had been what nobody could describe as anything but abuse of these clauses. It would make one weep to think that such things could happen under our arbitration system. There were legitimate industrial grievances and the merits were on the side of the unions, but because of the existence of the bans clause together with the contempt power there was the opportunity for some employer organisations to go straight into court and obtain injunctions and then have fines imposed on the unions. Some of the cases were quite disgraceful because of the abuse of these powers, and even the Government has come to realise that the law cannot stand as it is at present.

We know that, due to unfortunate decisions of the court, what was intended to be a comparatively moderate penalty was extended into daily penalties. We know the practices which were part of the abuse of these powers where proceedings were brought in respect of stoppages at every separate establishment even though there was a general stoppage which, in any man’s language, ought to have been treated as one breach. Nevertheless they were treated as multiple breaches and we had scandalous cases where the court was filled by summonses. I think Senator Donald Cameron referred to some of them. As a result of these multiple proceedings which were brought, very heavy orders for costs were made against the unions concerned. This was productive - and rightly so - of very great discontent. The Minister for Works (Senator Wright) said in his second reading speech that something should bc, done about costs. Referring to section 109, he said:

Moreover, regard was had to the ACTU submissions that the processes of section 109 and 111 brought about an added burden in the form of the costs awarded by the Court. The Government is nol prepared to eliminate completely the awarding of costs. However, it will amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Regulations to apply to proceedings under section 119. us amended, the provisions of the regulations that in certain proceedings under section 109 and 111 costs cannot be awarded in respect of more than 1 counsel or in respect of Her Majesty’s counsel unless the Court holds dial the nature ot the proceedings is such as to warrant the appearance of more than i counsel or of Her Majesty’s counsel.

I suppose thai a person not conversant with the law would think that some concession was being made.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:
VICTORIA

– Order! Senator Murphy, your remarks do not relate lo seel ion 109.

Senator MURPHY:

– 1 am quoting the Minister’s second reading speech in relation lo section 109, this be:ng one of the complaints about the operation of the Act. I want to use those words in support of the argument that the orders which have been made already should not stand. The Minister said thai a concession has been made. I ask the Minister, when he replies, to tell the Committee whether there will be any change in the law. ls there to be a change so that costs of more than I counsel or of Her Majesty’s counsel w’.ll not be awarded unless the Court holds that the nature of the proceedings is such as to warrant the appearance of more than 1 counsel or of Her Majesty’s counsel. The Minister knows very well that that is the law now. Invariably, that is the practice of the Court. Costs are not awarded unless the Court is of that opinion. The suggestion is just a confidence trick.

Over the years costs of proceedings have been very serious matters because the bills have amounted to tens of thousands of dollars. I think the unions are quite justified in their complaints. They say that in future costs should not be awarded against them and they ask - I think it is a reasonable proposal - that the orders which have been made already should not stand. This issue came to a head last year in the O’Shea case. There is no doubt that that was a case of very great injustice to the trade union concerned. The matter was discussed at some length in the Senate. I had a close understanding of that case.

Il was very noticeable that, once the tacts started to emerge in the Senate, the Govern-‘ ment retreated. I recall the horror and astonishment of Government senators when they learned the real facts of the case and how the trade union involved itself in proceedings in the High Court in an endeavour to support awards of the Commission. The union involved itself in very heavy costs. lt had to pay fines and costs in the Commonwealth Industrial Court.

The Commissioner described the situation as being so unjust that it could not be allowed to continue and he deleted the bans clause. Notwithstanding this, in a situation of real merit the trade union was subjected to heavy lines and costs. Why, in justice, should the fines and costs against that trade union continue to stand? The same applies to other trade unions. If in fact (here has been an abuse of these proceedings in the past - that is generally conceded and is a pretty charitable way of stating the position - that abuse has led to an awareness that this law should be changed and the trade unions have been driven to a position in which they say that they are finished with this provision and that they will not pay the fines and costs. What is the Government doing if it leaves that provision in the law other than forcing a confrontation? 1 1 is as if the Government is determined to produce industrial strife by leaving that provision in the Act. It can mean nothing else. If what was happening was wrong, if there was abuse - that seems to be generally conceded - and if these orders were made in the course of that abuse of these powers, which even in the Government’s view were intended to be used sparingly and in exceptional cases, in that the powers in fact were used as a most common means instead of conciliation and arbitration being used and resort was had constantly and abusively to these exceptional powers, why should the fines and costs that were imposed stand? 1 believe that there is a very strong case, not only from the point of view of the trade unions but also in the national interest, for seeing that the slate is cleaned and thai we do not leave a situation in which this provision can be used to provoke an industrial upsurge. The position of the trade unions has been made clear. 1 can only see that the

Government intends to leave a situation in which there can be a provocative course embarked upon, a confrontation and an industrial upheaval all over the country if an attempt is made to enforce payment of these fines. If the Government does not intend to enforce payment of the fines, why does it not take this provision out of the Act. If the Government does intend to enforce payment of the fines, it knows that it will produce an industrial upheaval. I suggest that the commonsense course and the course that is consonant with the national interest is to delete that provision and to insert the proposal mode by the Opposition, which will have the effect of ending the orders and costs that have been made.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– It is rather significant that we should be discussing this important clause of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill at this time, in view of the association of 2 dates. We are discussing the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill 1970, and in 1907 the workers of Australia were committeed to a system of arbitration which, in their view, was something that would emancipate them from the feudal system of history. This Government has evolved a system of so-called arbitration which has continuously tried to hold back the course of industrial history and the history of the emancipation of the ordinary working man.

Earlier tonight I heard Senator Greenwood talking about how the Communists would introduce all sorts of disruption into industry and how they would make attacks on the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. He was exaggerating the importance of the Communists in Australia. He was just giving expression in this Parliament to a fact of life, namely, that the workers of Australia have ‘had’ the arbitration system because it is weighted against them. The working man of today has the opportunities of compulsory education; he is able to get away from the continuous grind of poverty; he is able to see the light on the hill; he believes that after all is said and done he has certain basic rights and certain basic civil liberties; and he is looking for a place in the sun. The only asset that he has to sell - his labour - is constrained and circumscribed by the Court by the force of law and by the use of the old traditions under which the sledge hammer of penalties, fines and goal sentences is used against a man who is standing up only for his rights.

Senator Gair:

– Who was responsible for this awful instrument of arbitration? Who introduced it?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– The responsibility rests with us all. We have never watched carefully enough how this insidious instrument of the exploitation of man by man has been able to become part of the citadel of the system. That is what this Court is. It is a way of perpetuating the subservience of the working man. It is a way of imposing the hammer of law on the working man to the advantage of the profit seeker and the owner of the means of production, distribution and exchange.

Senator Wright:

– I rise to take a point of order.

Senator Gair:

– Senator O’Byrne is ranting.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– No, I am not ranting. I am telling the honourable senator a few facts of life.

Senator Wright:

– Mr Temporary Chairman, I ask that the honourable senator be directed to keep to matters relevant to the clause under consideration. These generalities are not even referable to the Bill. We are now discussing a specific clause.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Well, we are discussing the powers of the Court. Normally a court would be described as a place of justice. This Conciliation and Arbitration Bill deals with a court. The powers of that Court, over the period of history that we know, have been built up on a different set of standards. Arbitration in terms of conditions of employment is not applicable to a court in the true sense of the word. Yet. the way in which the rights of the worker are defined to the Court is different from the way in which a criminal offender is treated. But this latter idea has pervaded the Commonwealth Industrial Court where the working man has been looked on as the enemy of the profit seeker.

Senator Webster:

– What clause are you on, senator?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I am speaking to clause 15, lines 5 to 21, on page 5 of the Bill.

Senator Sim:

– You are driving your own mob out. They are all leaving.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– 1 am trying to remind the Committee of the situation lo which Senator Greenwood referred when he said that a move is under way to overthrow the arbitration system. Senator Greenwood was given full permission to develop this ridiculous attitude that the Communists were under the bed plotting to overthrow the arbitration system. History shows that the present Australian arbitration system is out of date. The rank and file people in the industrial movement today look on the arbitration system in the same way as the man with a Mercedes Benz looks on the horse and buggy, lt is old fashioned.

Senator Gair:

– Where do these men who have been appointed to the arbitration bench come from? Do they come from the ranks of the employers?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– They have been emancipated too. Look at the ones we have appointed and raised out of the rank and file. Look at them all. Look at what they have done to the workers of this country, f will not apologise for some of the people we appointed. Some of those who have been appointed by the present Government have not even measured up those standards. Nevertheless. 1 wish to say a few words on the effect of the Court. 1 am referring again to the powers of the Court.

A little while ago, someone said that we could yet see the greatest turmoil that this country has ever seen. Of course we will see the greatest turmoil that this country has ever seen because this very institution is a basic part of the unjust system which forces a man virtually to be a slave and to surrender the rights that he has to sell the only commodity that he can offer - his labour. If he fails to give up that right to work willingly he will have the club of the Court used against him. The penal provisions will be inflicted upon him and his right to sell his commodity will be taken away from him. Yet every other section of the community has the right to put its own price on its commodities. The working man is circumscribed by the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and he is required to sell at the price at which the boss wants him to sell. If the worker does not comply he may be sent to gaol. That is the situation which we face today.

The matter we are discussing tonight is very important. As long as we have people who will sit quietly by and watch the Government introduce more and more amendments, more and more circumscription and place more and more chains around the neck of the working man the better it will be for the owners of the means of production - the exploiters. They are the ones who have been able to get all the rights and privileges in relation to our iron ore, our bauxite and our oil. They have driven the wool grower into the ground. They have exploited the wheal growers. They have brought those in primary industry to their knees. The same people who exploit this country are using the Court and its powers to discipline the people who have the best commodity of all - the capacity to produce. With the inflation that exists today we find that the man who is contributing to industry is less and less able to buy the goods he -produces. The increases in interest rates, the inflation and all these other influences that are present today are decreasing the share of the cake the working man should get out of his production.

The powers of the Court make it legal for the owners of industry to force the working man to receive less and less of what he produces, ls it any wonder that everyone on this side of the chamber wants lo oppose this clause? We know what its significance is. We know what its incidence is We know very well that honourable senators on the Government side are only too pleased to be able to smooth off a debate on such an important clause as this is. We are all aware of the facts relating to this great man O’Shea who was condemned by Senator Greenwood. O’Shea is a martyr of our time, whatever his politics are. The fact that he was of Irish descent does not mean a thing except that he had guts. He had the intestinal fortitude to go to gaol on behalf of his fellow men and to say: I am the symbol of dissent against these unjust laws which take from men the right to decent terms and conditions of employment. When a man has a commodity to sell he should be able to bargain about the value of that commodity.’

What happened when O’Shea challenged the penal provisions? The Government ran to water; industry ran to water. Millions of people went out into the streets and said that this man O’Shea was right. Why should we be in bondage in 1969 and 1970? These people challenged the thin veneer of the system under which we live. The system is one of exploitation. It is a stock exchange system, an inflationary system and a vindictive system. The young people of this country are being prevented from obtaining an ideal to work towards because in our society today everything is so circumscribed that if a person does not conform he is held to be in contempt of court. Therefore, I say to you gentlemen of the Senate-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Order! The honourable senator will agree that he must address his remarks to the chair.

Senator O’BYRNE:

- Mr Temporary Chairman,I bow to your reminder of your control of this Committee but I have placed before you a point of view that all is not as quiet as it would seem on the surface. There is an undercurrent throughout the community and throughout the world and this undercurrent is against the views that have been expressed by Senator Greenwood tonight, that is, that there is a great plot to try to undermine the arbitration system. But the flow of history is such that this undercurrent will sweep away injustices and sweep away court authority if it is unjust and if it does not allow a man to be able to aspire towards the great principles of the expression of his desire to be able to improve his own position in the community, to widen his environment, to widen his beliefs and to be able to aspire towards a better life and a higher quality of life. These are the things that are in the soul of the ordinary working man and the powers of the court are the things that are restraining him. Senator Gair knows what I am saying is true. He is putting up a weak defence because he has run away from the things I have been talking about. I have supported our amendment with a belief that whatever the numbers here tonight in the long run - in the final analysis - this amendment that we have moved is basically in the interests of the working people of Australia. I hope that our amendment is carried.

Motion (by Senator Wright) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 24

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. The ayes have it.

Senator Little:

– The noes have it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The noes have it? The Committee is involved in the amendment moved by Senator Bishop. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Those of that opinion say - Order!

Senator Murphy:

– On a point of order, was not the question put and did you not declare that the ayes had it? Was it not a factthat no division was called for?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– A division was asked for on the Government side. The Committee will divide. Ring the hells.

Question put:

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

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 21

NOES: 23

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Question put:

That clause 13 stand as printed.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack.)

AYES: 23

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 14.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– Mr Temporary Chairman, it is 25 minutes to 2 in the morning.I think honourable senators have had enough for the night and should be going home.

Senator Marriott:

– What does this have to do with the clause?

Senator MURPHY:

– it has a lot to do with the clause. I am speaking to the clause if I refer to the conditions under which we are here. I remind the Committee that on several occasions over the past couple of weeks-

Senator Wright:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman. I submit that the honourable senator should be required to adhere to matters relevant to this clause of the Bill.

Senator Murphy:

– Speaking to the point of order, I am as entitled as is anyone else to speak of the conditions that are obtaining. I am entitled to speak up if there is noise in this place or in relation to incidental conditions. I am doing that. We should not be asked to work here at 25 to 2 in the morning.

Senator Rae:

– Who has made it necessary?

Senator Murphy:

– Who has made it necessary? Twice in the past 2 weeks I offered to agree on a programme for an allocation of time for the completion of our work. We have co-operated with the Government when it asked for certain times of sitting. The Government knows that this is an important industrial measure. We cooperated with the Government in relation to other important matters and now we are dealing with an industrial measure of extreme importance to the Australian Council of Trade Unions, to the employers and to other people, and it is not right thatthis important matter should be dealt with at this hour of the morning. We have co-operated. We have worked hard enough now. We have been here all day. We should come back tomorrow and deal with this matter under reasonable conditions.

It is not right that people should be asked to deal with matters while a state of confusion exists such as we witnessed in relation to the last clause that we dealt with when honourable senators did not know what was going on. As a matter of common sense and decency the Government should co-operate with us now if it expects cooperation from us in the future. Despite the fact that we have co-operated with the Government there has been no degree of co-operation on the Government’s part. This is a breach of the understanding that we should not sit at these hours. A place like this can function only if there is cooperation. We have co-operated with the Government for day after day and now when we are dealing with a most important industrial measure which affects us intimately the Government should not treat us in this way. We have a duty to handle this matter properly on behalf of other people. The Government is treating this measure and the Opposition in a way in which they should not be treated. It is time we went home. I move:

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Order! I do not uphold the point of order but I accept Senator Murphy’s motion.

Question put.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 22

NOES: 23

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause 14 (Hearing of certain applications not to be commenced unless certain conditions fulfilled).

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– The purpose of clause 14 is to delete section 109a of the principal Act. 1 take it this is another section which is covered by new clause 32a. While speaking on the clause 1 take the opportunity to enter an emphatic protest at the attitude of the Minister-

Senator Wright:

– I am finding it difficult to hear you.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I have had that difficulty all night. I have not had a chairman who has kept order to assist me until now, with the greatest respect, Mr Temporary Chairman. I do not think you were in the chair previously.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I hope that is not an adventitious reflection on the Chair.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– No. I have had extreme difficulty and nothing has been done. The situation is becoming intolerable. The whole attitude of the Government is intolerable. 1 protest to the Minister for Works who, as a back bencher, upheld the great rights of back benchers in opposition to Ministers. He ignored a request made when the last clause was being debated. Six honourable senators from this side of the chamber made appeals on the penal clauses and the outstanding fines. They asked the Minister to indicate the Government’s intention. The Minister replied to one question. He did not reply to a question asked by Senator Donald Cameron. I was in the process of following Senator Murphy but this Minister who used to uphold the dignity of ordinary members of the Parliament ignored us by asking that the motion be put. 1 take it that during the second reading debate he was prevented, by the motion that the question be put, from replying to all the criticism that had been levelled. This legislation has been condemned and the Government’s attitude to the legislation has been condemned. Honourable senators have sought information and they have simply been ignored by this Minister. He has made no attempt to reply to the criticism which has been offered or to justify the Government’s attitude which seems to be summed up in the words: ‘We have the numbers’. The Government shows a complete contempt for the Opposition and the requests it makes.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– The question is: That the clause stand as printed. I call Senator Keeffe.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– While I am on my feet I expect the courtesy of a call. Are you going to give me the call or not?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I have given the honourable senator the call.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Thank you.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Will the honourable senator please resume his seat for a moment. The Chairman has the duty to put the question. I put the question and then my attention was drawn to the fact that you had asked for the call by rising in your place. I then gave you the call. I now call you again.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I endorse the remarks made by Senator Cavanagh. No section of this Bill has been debated properly. I think that is a relevant statement to make. The stage has been reached where, as I said when speaking on another Bill tonight, the Government is attempting to d.ive this Bill through by exhausting everybody and driving them into the ground. If that is the Government’s general attitude, 1 think it is one of the most shocking things I have seen in the Senate in the 5 years I have been here.

Senator Rae:

– 1 take a point of order. I draw attention to standing order 203 and I ask: In what way is the discussion in which Senator Keeffe is engaged relevant to the clause which is before the Committee?

Senator Wheeldon:

– I wish to speak to the point of order. The point raised by Senator Keeffe, I submit, is relevant to the clause insofar as Senator Keeffe is speaking about the manner in which the clause has been presented to the Senate. The manner in which a clause or a Bill is presented to the Senate is relevant in any discussion of the clause. One does not need specifically to discuss the terms of the clause if one is discussing the manner in which the clause has been prepared or the events which have led to the debate on the clause. I would submit for those reasons that Senator Keeffe’s remarks are relevant to the clause which is before the Committee.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Order! The Chair does not uphold the point of order. However, I direct Senator Keeffe’s attention to the fact that he has not related his opening remarks to clause 14. I require him to relate his remarks to the clause and keep them relevant to the context of the clause that is now before the Committee.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman. I refer to the appropriate clause-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– And to the matter of the clause.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Clause 14 refers to section 109a. I did not specifically mention this when I rose because I did not think it was necessary to do so in order to remain within the bounds of the debate before the Committee. I apologise to you for that fact, Mr Temporary Chairman. However, having technically complied with the requirements, I want to continue my remarks in this regard.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– You complied with my ruling both technically and in fact.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Thank you, Sir. We are dealing with one of the most important Bills that has come before this Senate in the current sessional period. The manner in which we have attempted to deal with it has not done justice to this Parliament, to the people to whom the Bill will apply or to the community at large. Several honourable senators have endeavoured, by a process of exhaustion, to keep us here until daylight. I have not seen this happen for a number of years-

Senator Scott:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I rise on a point of order. Standing order 203 says that the discussion shall be confined to the clause or amend ment before the Committee. I draw your attention to the fact that the honourable senator as yet has not mentioned a word of the clause that is now under discussion.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I do not uphold the point of order. Senator Keeffe, as I mentioned, you must relate your remarks to clause 14 and to the matter that is involved in clause 14, which is section 109 A. I ask you to confine your observations to that matter.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I shall read section 109 A, if that will bring me back into the debate. I hope this will satisfy those who are raising the points of order. Section 109 A provides: (1.) The Court shall not commence the hearing of an application for an order under paragraph (b) of sub-section (1.) of the last preceding section to enjoin an organisation or person from committing a breach or non-observance of an award unless the Court is satisfied -

  1. that a Commissioner or a presidential member has been notified that the breach or non-observance is likely to occur;

  2. that-

    1. the notification was given without delay; or
    2. a Commissioner or a presidential member of the Commission has certified that there was reasonable cause for delay in giving the notification; and
  3. subject to the next succeeding sub-section, that a period of fourteen days, or such longer period as a Commissioner or a presidential member of the Commission has determined, has elapsed since the notification was given. (2.) Paragraph (c) of the last preceding subsection does not apply if the applicant satisfies the Court that the breach or non-observance is likely to occur within the next ten days. (3.) Where an application is made for an order under paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.) of the last preceding section in relation to a breach or nonobservance of an award and application is made at the same time under paragraph (b) of that subsection in relation to a breach or non-observance of that award of the same or of a similar kind, the preceding provisions of this section do not apply. (4.) In the application of sub-section (1.) of this section -
  4. in relation to an award made under Diviision 2, Division 3 or Division 4 of Part III. - any reference to a Commissioner or to a presidential member of the Commission shall be read as a reference to the presidential member of the Commission referred to in sub-section (1.) of section seventythree, sub-section (1.) of section seventyeight or sub-section (1.) of section eightyfour of this Act, respectively; and
  5. in relation to an award or order made by a prescribed tribunal referred to in paragraph (a) of sub-section (3.) of the last preceding section, or in relation to provisions in force by virtue of such an award or order - any reference to a Commissioner or to a presidential member of the Commission shall be read as a reference to that tribunal.

I was saying that the honourable senators who are drawing the lines of objection have turned this discussion into a farce and have forced me into the situation where to technically comply with the rules of the Senate I also have to indulge in the farce. This goes to show that so far as this House is concerned the Government has no intention of trying to bring down some kind-

Senator Rae:

– I rise to order. I draw attention to standing order 203 and to the entire lack of relevance of any of the remarks made by Senator Keeffe since he finished reading the clause with which we are concerned.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I think that the interests of the Committee would best be served, Senator Keeffe having made his point and it being understood by the Committee, if he continued the remarks he initially intended to deliver to the Committee. (Quorum formed)

Senator KEEFFE:

– I return to the remarks I was passing a few moments ago. The Government is turning democracy in this country into a joke. At the time the quorum was called it had 2 sleepy Ministers and a couple of disinterested backbenchers in the chamber. That is all the Government could rouse up. As for the garrulous centre party or corner party or whatever you might call it with its two aging and ulcerated leaders-

Senator Rae:

– I rise to order. Again I refer to standing order 203 and point out that Senator Keeffe’s remarks are in my view in no way related to the clause or amendment before the Committee.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Senator Murphy:

– I am going to suggest again-

Senator Wright:

– I rise to order. I submit Senator Murphy is not entitled to inter rupt another honourable senator just by waving his hand, without asking leave to speak.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– In relation to the point raised by Senator Wright, I noticed that Senator Keeffe had sat down when Senator Murphy rose to deal with the point of order. So I will not uphold the point of order raised by Senator Wright, and I call on Senator Murphy.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I am going to appeal once more to the Committee to let us go. It is not right that we should conduct our proceedings in this way. I have sent a message to Senator Kennelly, who is ill in bed, to come back here to this Committee. It is not right that we should be forced to this point. I therefore wish to move that we report progress.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! Will the honourable senator resume his seat? Senator Murphy, I assume that you were addressing yourself to the point of order raised by Senator Wright. When I have dealt with that I will call you if you catch my eye.

Senator Wright:

– I do not wish to speak on the point of order.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I should like to speak on the point of order. I understood Senator Keeffe to have put himself in order. He read out the whole of the clause and was beginning to address his remarks to it. He had just commenced to address his remarks-

Senator Rae:

– He did not make one relevant remark.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I could raise a point of order now. I think that interjections arc banned under the Standing Orders.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– 1 do not uphold Senator Wright’s point of order. Senator Keeffe has yielded to Senator Murphy. I now call Senator Murphy.

Senator MURPHY:

– I move:

That progress be reported.

I ask that the Government, as a matter of commonsense and reasonableness, on this occasion accede to the motion.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The question is that I leave the Chair and report progress.

Question put. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 23

NOES: 23

Majority . . . . -

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion (by Senator Wright) proposed: That the question be now put.

Question put.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 23

NOES: 23

Majority . . -

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I rise for no purpose other than to provide Senator Keeffe with the opportunity to continue bis remarks.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I am sorry that this little interlude has taken place but I felt that I was within my rights in getting to my feet at that point of time. I definitely complied with Standing Orders in referring to the matter before the Chair. I propose again to complain about the way in which the Government has dragged democracy into the dust tonight. We have asked the Government to deal with this matter in a proper, sane, grown-up manner and we take umbrage and serious objection at the way in which the Minister has tried to gag and stifle debate. That seems to have been his main objective all night.

An arrangement was entered into with the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) but he has broken away from that arrangement that was made with the Opposition. The Government is being aided and abetted in its attempt to stifle democracy, to tread the trade unions into the dust and to treat with contempt the laws of this country. Democracy should reign supreme but the Government is treating it with contempt. This attitude is shameful. We are asking for proper consideration of this Bill and of the serious problems that we have outlined, but the Government is denying the Committee that right. The 2 features which bring shame on the spirit and letter of democracy are the application of the gag and the Leader of the Government in the Senate breaking an arrangement he had with the Opposition.

Then we have had that garrulous little group led by 2 aging ulcer-ridden leaders continually interrupting the debate and continually voting with the Government in order to bash the trade unions and every member of trade unions into the ground. These so-called former Labor men have no desire to see justice granted to those people who have to earn their living with their muscles and their brains. If the Government is to do the right thing by Australia, by the trade unions and by the millions of members of trade unions, it will do as we request. If it does not it can look to a future where no pairs will be granted by the Opposition and where there will be no co-operation in relation to the Standing Orders.

Senator McManus:

– Are you threatening?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I am not threatening; I am informing honourable senators what to expect if they continue to play the game this way. We have co-operated throughout the whole of this session to get Government business through, but for the first 3 weeks honourable senators opposite sat down and loafed. The Senate had important legislation to consider, and honourable senators opposite knew it. lt is all right for the canaries of the Democratic Labor Party to giggle their heads off; that is what they enjoy doing. For the first half of this session there was no business coming before the Senate and now when there is legislation to consider the Government is trying to jam it through in the early hours of the morning. We know that the Government is trying to jam it through because when daylight arrives it will be short of numbers. The Leader of the Government in the Senate and others will have to answer for it.

During the last 3 or 4 weeks we have agreed to lengthy second reading speeches being incorporated in Hansard to save the time of this chamber and to allow us to rise at the appointed or planned time. Not even these concessions have satisfied the Government. I and other members of the Opposition will not agree to such concessions in the next session. These are the major points that I make. I hope that some semblance of sanity will return to the Government ranks and that it will deal with this legislation like grown up and reasonable human beings.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– I wish to speak briefly on this clause which is a very important one because it removes from the existing Act section 109a, which has been an important part of the Act.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It has put a lot of unionists in goal.

Senator WHEELDON:

– As Senator Cavanagh reminds me, section 109a has put a lot of trade unionists in gaol, has fined a lot of trade unionists and has imposed great financial burdens on the Australian trade union movement. At 2.20 a.m. this provision to remove the section from the existing Conciliation and Arbitration Act is before us. We have been told by the Government for a very long time that this section is necessary in order to have responsible relations between management and labour. Having spoken for so long about responsibility, tonight we see what the Government means by responsibility. The Government consistently has complained about the use of the strike weapon - a weapon which is freely available to trade unionists in the United States of America. The Government imitates the United States of America so far as the Vietnam war is concerned but certainly not so far as its labour policy or its standards of civil liberties are concerned. Senator Sim is trying to say something about North Vietnam. I am not talking about North Vietnam as it is not relevant to section 109a of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. If Senator Sim wishes to have a debate on North Vietnam on another occasion I will be very happy to accommodate him. I have had a debate with him on television and I do not think he won. I return to the section.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Order! Senator Wheeldon and those who are attempting to interject should remind themselves of the clause at present before the Committee.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I will confine myself to that clause. I think it was by interjection that North Vietnam was raised when I was referring to the industrial law of the United States, which bears upon section 109a of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. That section is completely contrary to the trade union law of the United States of America. This type of provision has been opposed even by the most conservative American trade unions, including the International Association of Machinists, a conservative craft union and a union which by its policy - seeing that the question of North Vietnam has been raised-

Senator Greenwood:

– I rise on a point of order in relation to standing order 203. Senator Wheeldon purports to be speaking to clause 14 which seeks to repeal section 109a. He is not in fact doing so. That section has nothing of the characteristics to which Senator Wheeldon has referred. I sense that he knows that. Section 109a is directed towards requiring a presidential member of the Commission to be notified before a dispute is likely to occur. For Senator Wheeldon to embark upon a foray into provisions of a punitive character in United States legislation is completely removed from this clause. I submit that he is totally out of order.

Senator Wheeldon:

– I would like to speak to the point of order. I do not think that Senator Greenwood could have understood me very well because the point I was making was that in the United States, there not being compulsory arbitration, there is no president or anybody comparable to the president to whom industrial disputes can be referred. The fact that in Australia there is a president and that there is a court of which there is a president is part of the machinery of compulsory arbitration. In the United States there is no compulsory arbitration machinery and for that reason there is no counterpart of the president.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Order! There is a point of order before the Chair. Senator Wheeldon, would you mind resuming your seat while I consider it? I consider that there is no substance in the point of order raised by Senator Greenwood under standing order 203 but that there is a point of irritation moving across the chamber. I believe, Senator Wheeldon, that you would remove that irritation if you confined your remarks to clause 14 and section 109a and were strictly relevant.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman, for your advice, which I always appreciate very greatly. My reference to section 109a, however, applies to the whole system of compulsory arbitration. This part of the whole principle of compulsory arbitration, which this Government has supported, is now being removed from the Act. It is being removed by clause 14 of the Bill that we are hearing debated tonight. So far in Committee we have not heard from the Government or the Minister one argument as to why section 109a of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act should be repealed.

Senator Greenwood:

– We have not heard from your side one argument as to why it should not be repealed. We are still not hearing an argument from you.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

Order! This is within the province of the Chair. I call Senator Wheeldon.

Senator WHEELDON:

– The proposition before the Chair is that section 109a of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act be repealed. If that is the proposition-

Senator Greenwood:

– It is not. The proposition before the Chair is that the clause stand as printed.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I appreciate the legal advice that is being given to me by the honourable senator from Victoria. But let me continue with the point I am making. Here we have something that is integral to the Government’s notion of compulsory arbitration being removed from the Act and no argument being submitted as to why that should be done. It is being done in a frivolous and flippant way.

The name of the Act with which we are dealing is the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. One of the purposes of naming the Act in that way when it was originally passed was that there should be not only arbitration but also conciliation between employers and employees. In fact, as Senator Milliner reminds me, the most important part of the Act should be the conciliation and not the arbitration. Arbitration should be a stage that is reached only if there is failure of conciliation. If there is to be conciliation, if there is to be industrial peace and if we are to accept the Government’s proposition that it wants to have industrial peace - I do not believe that it wants industrial peace at all; I bel’ieve that it wants to have penal powers to impose on the unions whether that will produce peace or not - then surely one of the essential requirements of industrial peace is conciliation.

I submit that tonight the trade unionists of Australia are being shown an example of what the Government means by conciliation. Here is a Bill and a clause within that Bill which is of the utmost importance to the whole trade union movement and to every employee in Australia, as are all the other clauses that have been presented to and debated by the Committee tonight; yet they are being stampeded through and attempts are being made to gag them through this chamber. After that has been done this Government will say to the workers and trade unionists of Australia: Here is an Act that has been passed in order to produce conciliation and arbitration, and you must abide by it; otherwise you will be dealt with’. I believe that the trade unionists of Australia are entitled to say: if this is the way in which you have passed this Act, we will treat your Act with exactly the same respect as you have shown for it’. This Government has shown absolutely no respect for the conciliation and arbitration laws, for the trade union movement or for its own Bill. I would think that the people of Australia - the trade unionists of Australia - would show exactly the same respect for the Bill as the Government and its satellites have shown for it tonight.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– The proposal which is inherent in this motion is that clause 13 stand as printed. This clause seeks the repeal of section 109a of the Act. I think it is important that the Committee should consider this point. In some way, the Government seems to gloss over it. But it is a very important section. I remember when it was inserted. The Minister for Works (Senator Wright), who sits here, ought to remember when it was inserted because he spoke on it. I spoke on this clause of that Bill as did the late Senator Cohen.

The Conciliation and Arbitration Bill introduced in 1965 inserted a new section 109a. Debate ensued in the Senate following the second reading which was moved by a former senator who is now the Prime Minister of Australia. He read out some of the figures relevant to the matter we are considering. We were told then that this measure was introduced to deal with the prevailing industrial situation in Australia. The Minister spoke of the number of hours lost. We heard senators on the Government side traduce the workers of Australia because of the industrial unrest and the terrible things that they were doing. One would have thought, to listen to them, that every worker spent months of every year out on strike or in dislocation of industry.

I ought to remind the Committee of the figures that were given by the then senator. He said:

Over the last 15 years the average time lost by every wage and salary earner in Australia has been just under 2i hours a year.

No-one opposite would become upset if a holiday was declared for a special purpose such as a visit by the Queen or if some other event of national importance occurred. We would bust up and take a day off which, in total hours lost in the work force, would amount to the equivalent of 3 years. Yet, the Government says that this savage legislation must be introduced in order to grind the workers into the dust. It is obvious that, in Australia, there is not a great deal of industrial-

Senator Greenwood:

– I rise to take a point of order. I rely on standing order 203. 1 speak to my point of order on this basis: Senator Murphy is not speaking or confining his discussion to the clause before the Committee. Section 109a when introduced was an ameliorative clause. As it stands at the moment, this is a section under which the court is enjoined from commencing the hearing of an application whereby an organisation can be compelled to adhere to an award unless, where a dispute is likely to occur, a commissioner or a presidential member has been notified that that breach or non-observance is to occur. Section 109a sets out procedures whereby application has to be made. As I see it, it is clearly a section which is designed to improve an existing situation.

What happens now is that clause 14 of this Bill seeks to have section 109a removed. I say, in mentioning this, that there is nothing restrictive about the clause. Nothing punitive can be found in the clause. It is simply a clause which is designed to make things better than they were. It has been replaced by a new section 32a which is inserted by clause 4 of this Bill. Looking at it, one can suppose only that it is better than the existing section 109a. I rise to make this point only because I want it to go into the record. It is clear to me - and I urge this submission upon you, Mr Temporary Chairman - that what is being said about this being a punitive clause, which is what Senator Wheeldon in his latter remarks after the last ruling said and what Senator Murphy now says, is totally irrelevant to this clause. If standing order 203 is to have any meaning at all - I say this with respect - this is one instance when, in my respectful submission, that standing order should be applied.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Laucke:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– The point of order is not upheld.

Senator MURPHY:

– I thank you for that ruling, Mr Temporary Chairman. Surely if senators are going to repeal a section of an enactment it is pertinent to examine the reasons given for the insertion of that section which in this case was inserted in 1965. I am referring to the second reading speech of the then Minister who was responsible for this legislation and who was at that time advancing reasons to the Senate why the section should be inserted. I assume that they would be relevant reasons and not irrelevant ones. I have spoken about the minor loss of hours in this country. May I remind you, Mr Temporary Chairman, of what happened at the time this section was inserted in the enactment? The Government said: ‘Look, we will do something about the way in which these provisions operate and we will give you section 109a The Government’s proposals in relation to section 109a were scorned. Do honourable members recall the promise made about costs and how the Government intended as part and parcel of that legislation to amend the regulations relating to costs? Do honourable members recall how month after month after month questions were asked of the Government such as: When are you going to carry out your undertaking and amend the regulations on costs?’ Those regulations were still in existence 18 months later after the promises made, and they are still in existence. At that time I was a back bencher, asking questions about when the Government’s undertakings would be carried out.

In this legislation we are now debating there is a similar undertaking on the part of this Government. However, there would be no purpose in the undertaking being carried out. Section 109a was just another confidence trick. Although the Minister who now presents this Bill did not actually use those words that is in effect how he described the operation of that section and the late Senator Cohen and I held the same view. This is what has been happening with all of these enactments. Legislation is introduced and then a change is made and we think that everything will be all right and how well off we will be; we think there will be peace and justice and there will not be any abuse of the provisions. However, it is not long before we find that what was supposed to be used sparingly and what was supposed to be an amelioration provision, as Senator Greenwood put it, is not to be such a provision. It was nonsense when it was brought in. We pointed out the defects in it. It was a joke. I would like Senator Greenwood who is an expert in these matters to inform the Senate what good that amelioration provision did. All one had to do was to make application under 2 different sections and that provision was of no effect.

There are many interruptions by way of interjection and I point out, as it has been pointed out before, that these interruptions are not conducive to easy speaking for honourable senators at such a late hour but I am doing my best under the circumstances. If all honourable senators had the national interest at heart I think that a matter such as this would receive their close attention.

The Government brought in legislation in 1965 - this very section 109a - and it said: This will solve the problem’. We said: ‘It will not solve the problem, it is no use’. Events have proved that we were right.

Senator Wright:

– And now we are repealing it.

Senator MURPHY:

– Now the Minister says: ‘We are repealing it’. The Government is bringing in other measures and it is again being told by those who are experts in the matter that again it is wrong and that the Bill will not solve this situation. It is about time that the Government yielded. Here is the demonstration of that fact. The Government introduced this section as the great solution in 1965. We told the Government it was no good, that it was futile, but it did not listen. It insisted upon dealing with the matter in that way, and again tonight it is making the same error. It is foisting upon the industrial system something which will not work.

Senator Webster:

– Are you voting for it or against it?

Senator MURPHY:

– I am speaking on this measure and I am pointing out to the

Government that the history of its actions have shown that it has no regard for the realities of industrial life. The Minister should be the last person, I would think, to disagree with what I am putting forward. This section was one of the most futile and stupid provisions ever introduced by the Government. The enactment as it was drafted was calculated to produce industrial unrest, and it did. The enactment as it will be left, if this Bill passes through the Senate, is again calculated to produce industrial unrest. Why does the Government not listen to what is being put forward by the trade union movement and endeavour to succeed in achieving a system which will avoid this unrest. The avoidance of disruption in industrial affairs is far too important to be left to this playing of politics and listening to the Metal Trades Employers’ Association, which is, 1 suppose, the organisation which has been guilty of the most abuse of the powers given under the Act by unnecessarily instituting court actions. It is suggested that this measure has been introduced at the instance of the metal trades employers. It is not satisfactory, and if there is to be industrial dislocation it will affect everyone, not only those on the bottom of the economic scale but everyone else in the community. I think the Government is foolish to be going ahead with this legislation in its present form. 1 think it is making a great mistake and that in the interests of this nation it would be better if this legislation were not passed in this form. This clause we are dealing with is proof that the Government has been introducing legislation which is not satisfactory and not calculated to achieve the objective of industrial peace. The whole code which the Government is now putting forward is a continuation of that process. [Quorum formed.]

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

-I again rise to address my remarks to clause 14.

Senator Gair:

– The honourable senator called attention to the state of the Committee for his own benefit.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I make no apologies. When I get up to address the Senate what I say is worthy of an audience. I think I was justified in calling a quorum becauseI think that those honourable sena- tors who were outside the chamber would be very much impoverished and deprived if they did not hear my words of wisdom.

Senator Georges:

– He cannot understand it.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Senator Gair perhaps cannot comprehend the remarks of some people in the Senate. Clause 14 repeals section 109a of the principal Act. Of course, honourable senators have to realise that we are working somewhat in the dark because the Minister refuses to reply to anything. Whether or not he can reply I do not know. We have a complete wall of silence around the Minister. He has evaded everything. He is not concerned with the protest of the trade union movement. lt is notorious that he was very active at one time in actions against trade unions. Now, it could well be that the penal provisions assist him.

Section I 09a permitted the taking of action against a trade union. As Senator Murphy said, this was introduced only in 1965 as one of the solutions to the problems of industrial unrest. After 5 years of achieving nothing it is to be deleted because it is valueless in view of the fact that we now do not prosecute under section 109a. Clause 14 of the Bill seeks to make section 109 operative. As section 109 has been amended by a previous clause we should have a look again at proposed new section 32a of the Act. We must have misgivings as to whether we were correct in not opposing proposed new section 32a. I believe that we must reconsider this proposed new section at some time. Where previously it was an offence to refuse to comply with an award under the proposed new section it will be an offence to engage in conduct that would hinder, prevent or discourage the observance of an award. 1 think that proposed new section 32a gives too wide a definition of ‘conduct’. The offence is an entirely different one. In view of the fact that we have some misgivings about proposed new section 32a it might be well to retain section 109a for the present. I think it is very important for us to take cognisance of the reaction of the trade union movement to what has taken place tonight.

Senator Branson:

– You are opposing this?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am seeking to get some information on the question but the Minister is silent.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Order!

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I apologise. MiTemporary Chairman, but the interjections that are being made would be better left unsaid, although an interjection from the Minister now and again would be appreciated because we are somewhat worried about the stale of his health. We are worried about whether he has lost his tongue or has been struck dumb at this late hour of the night. The trade union movement is certainly not dumb on the question, lt will be vocal in the near future.

As I said when we were considering clause 13, while we have the continuation of the right to fine and prosecute for the collection of fines imposed on previous occasions there will be animosity from the trade unions, which will continue the fight. If we get rid of section 109a. under what power could we collect these fines? 1 would like the Minister to give me some information on this because we would not like the idea to go out that we lack the ability to put trade unionists in gaol for not having paid fines. Such a situation I believe would be quite contrary to the Government’s desire and we should make sure that we have these provisions. I ask the Minister whether he has any comment on why section 109a of the principal Act is to be repealed?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

2.50 a.m.] - The comment tha I would like to make is perfectly well known to Senator Cavanagh. The repeal of section 109a was requested by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. This section has always been objected to by the Labor Party. The fact that there is no opposition to it now by the Labor Party shows the extremity to which it is prepared to filibuster.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– We have heard the Minister say: ‘lt has always been objected to by the Labor Party’. 1 recall an honourable senator in this chamber speaking on section 109a. It is important to remember that we are putting to this Committee of the Senate that the whole aspect of this legislation is wrong and that the qualifications which the Government is inserting in the section are futile; ameloriation from time to time is all nonsense. Listen to what this honourable senator said:

In addressing myself to the Bill, I can only think that the author of it is a will-o’-the-wisp.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Could you give the Committee the reference.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes. I am referring to page 830 of the Senate Hansard of 13th May 1965. The Senate was dealing with this very section. The honourable senator continued:

It is a bill that is not only futile; it is silly, it is mischievous and it is misconceived.

That was a very interesting observation. The same honourable senator also said:

IfI need any certificate for the inanity of such a measure it is provided by the amendment that was introduced as a last thought in the Committee stage in another place. 1 invite the Senate to examine the proposed new section 109a (3.), which embodies the amendment introduced in another place. I think that the proposed sub-section (3.), with all the paraphernalia, shows the stupidity of the Bill.

Despite what the Minister says now, that quotation was not made by a member of the Australian Labor Party. As the Minister well knows, it was made by himself.

Senator Georges:

– Was he a Minister then?

Senator MURPHY:

– He was not then a Minister and perhaps he was more able to speak his mind. The late Senator Cohen spoke in relation to this same section 109a, the repeal of which we are considering. He spoke at considerable length to show how poor this provision was and how the trade union movement was being deluded by it. I myself made a contribution to the debate. I said:

Mr President, it says a lot for the patience and forebearance of the Australian Labor Party and of the trade union movement that they arc prepared to welcome even so feeble an attempt to cut down the jurisdiction to issue labour injunctions as this Bill represents. As Senator Cohen has well said, the penal provisions are a blot upon the industrial system.

Senator Cohen and other honourable senators referred at considerable length to this industrial system. We went through the matter and indicated then and there the injustices under which the trade union movement was suffering. The whole trade union movement has been seeking the inclusion of a reasonable provision in the Act, but instead of including some reasonable provision the Government insists on introducing this kind of outrageous legislation, which inserts a few clauses, and says: We will fix you up with this’ - some nonsensical things about costs. This is what the Government is doing again on this occasion. I remember also the observations which the Minister for Works made on that occasion in regard to what the Government was doing about costs.

I have outlined the history of the Government in regard to industrial legislation. The Government will be wondering why there is industrial unrest. It will be because the Government is perpetrating these injustices. It is enabling provocative action to be taken by employers. Nobody in the trade union movement wants to strike. It hurts the workers very much to strike.It is only as a last resort that this action is taken. They do not want the imposition of bans and limitations unless they are designed to achieve a proper industrial result. This kind of action is not what the workers want and they should not be driven to it. The employers should not have these weapons to use against the workers. A bit of commonsense and reason would enable us to have a far better industrial code than we have at present. This clause illustrates the futility of the Government’s approach to industrial matters. The Minister for Works conceded on the occasion to which I have referred that this provision was futile, but it was foisted upon the Labor movement and further provision of the same character will be foisted upon it as a result of this legislation.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I think I should place on record the remarks of the Minister for External Affairs (Mr McMahon) when as Minister for Labour and National Service, he made a ministerial statement on sections 109 and 111 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The position was not as the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) has pointed out. The Australian Council of Trade Unions requested that the penal provisions contained in sections 109 and 111 be deleted. After lengthy consideration by the Government, the then Minister for Labour and National Service. Mr McMahon, made a ministerial statement on the subject. J shall quote his remarks in order to clear up the position in regard to this clause. I agree wilh the point which has been made by Senator Murphy. 1 made the same point when I spoke on the issue. The Opposition argued that the so-called cooling off period which is provided under section 109a of the Act would be of no great benefit. The Opposition takes the same view about the proposals which the Government has just introduced. Anyway, on 1 1 th November 1964, Mr McMahon said:

For some months thc Government has been considering proposals made by the Australian Council of Trade Unions relating to the sanctions provisions contained in sections ‘09 and 1 1 1 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Aci. The ACTU has argued, amongst other things that employers and their organisations have resorted too readily lo the Commonwealth Industrial Court for orders to enforce bans clauses in awards and that they have loo freely employed legal representatives to build up the costs of proceedings. The National Employers Organisation has also pui its views lo the Government. In its opinion the penalty provisions are used only as a last resort and it has argued thai is should noi be deprived of the right lo use legal representation according to the needs of each case.

I do not propose to deal in detail with these arguments and the many others we have heard. I make this one broad statement of principle: Sanctions, in one form or another, are an essential part of our arbitration system. The Government has no intention of removing them. The Government’s attitude to this problem should bc seen against the background causes of a large number of recent industrial disputes, lt is deeply concerned with the irresponsible behaviour of unofficial groups in factories and plants which are usurping the legitimate functions of trade unions particularly on mailers concerning wage rales and conditions of employment covered by awards and agreements The ACTU is just as concerned about this problem. I have also frequently referred to the blatant attempts by some unions to exploit the severe labour shortage, especially the shortage of skilled workers. Unions have the right, even the duly, to seek lo improve the wages and conditions of employment of their members. Accepting this there must be a limit to the kind of industrial lawlessness a sophisticated community can be expected lo tolerate. This is particularly so in a community where there is highly developed machinery for the determination of wages and conditions of employment and where the unions use that system to secure the maximum benefits for their members.

Mr McMahon went on to say:

The Government has given considerable thought to the cases presented by the ACTU and the National Employers Organisation. We again confirm our view that proceedings before the Commonwealth Industrial Court under sections 109 and 111 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act should be used only as a last resort. More positively we want to encourage responsible discussions between the parties when claims are made and to encourage the parties lo take advantage of the conciliation machinery provided in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The objective is, of course, to reduce the risks of stoppages of work. The Government therefore proposes to introduce, in the next session, legislation which will provide, in clearly defined cases, where there is a threatened breach of an award, a 14-days cooling-0fT period before the sanctions provisions can be used. This cooling-off period will allow for private negotiations or negotiations under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

The Government has used almost the same sort of expression in relation to the provisions now before the Parliament. Mr McMahon then slated:

Conciliation to prevent a stoppage of work may nol succeed. We want lo make sure thai the opportunities for negotiation are in fact used. 1 mentioned a moment ago that our proposals concerned threatened breaches. There will be no change in the law when advantage is nol taken of our legislation and a union resorts lo strike action to force concessions.

On the matter of costs there arc grounds for some changes in the law. Again it is necessary to draw a distinction between the case where there is a threatened breach of an award and where there is an actual breach. Frequently unions have doubts about an employer’s intentions and it is only when the employer resorts to section 109 procedures that the union realises thai the employer meant what he said. In general what is intended is, where action is taken under section 109 of the Act in respect of a threatened breach, and. the breach does noi take place, no costs of representation will be allowed lo the employer. We have also decided thai costs of representation in relation to proceedings under sections 109 and 111. should be limited to junior counsel, unless the Commonwealth Industrial Court considers that issues of such a nature are involved that the use of senior counsel is justified.

That prescription has been repeated in this legislation. Mr McMahon continued:

One other cause for concern has been the actual wording of a bans clause. The wording of the clause is. of course, a matter for the Commission and will depend on its understanding of the industrial problems involved. So a hans clause may be directed to a dispute in a particular plant or, where the circumstances require it, more widely. The clause is often expressed to apply lor a specified time.

Complaints have been made that even where a clause contains a time limit, it has been extended by virtue of section 58 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which provides, in effect, that an award continues until a new award is made. The fact is that every bans clause need not necessarily be caught up by section 58. My intention in referring to this is to point out that the operation of this section can be excluded by attention to the drafting of the bans clauses so as to ensure that the clause does not continue any longer than was intended.

It is unfortunate that this great discussion should take place in circumstances such as these. We have said that the Bill is of such importance that it should have been properly debated. Of course we would have preferred - and it is not too late to do so yet - the Government to stand the legislation over. As I have just quoted, Mr McMahon in 1964 proposed a cooling-off period, which is now found to be of no great use. I come back to my first point. I think the Government would be well advised to leave this matter on the stocks. I think this Bill should not be discussed in the early hours of the morning. It should be debated further later in the morning.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I do not think the action of the present Government in repealing section 109 a of the principal Act, which is the cooling off period section, and replacing it with new section 32a is consistent with industrial harmony and peace. I think the suggestion made this evening by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) was right. He suggested that by this Bill the Government will not bring about industrial peace or harmony, because the penal provisions are being varied and not wiped out. While penal provisions are part of the arbitration system discontent and dissatisfaction will exist within the trade union movement and among workers involved in industry generally. It seems to me that section 109a was observed only occasionally. Indeed, employers used the penal powers quite capriciously in an endeavour finally to break the trade union movement - not only the craft unions but also the professional unions. I intend to draw the committee’s attention to a case we were all made aware of about this time last year.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Does this come under the proposed section?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am referring to clause 14 of the Bill, which seeks to repeal section 109a of the principal Act.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– It is within this context?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am addressing myself to the proposed repeal of section 109a and the insertion into the legislation of section 32a. I rise to support the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition when Senator Wright explained to Senator Cavanagh, as a result of Senator Cavanagh’s interrogation, that section 109 a is being repealed because of the objection to it over the years by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Labor Party. I think this must be the first time that this Government has ever listened to or acceded to any submission put to it by the Labor movement. As Senator Murphy said, not only the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Labor Party have been opposed to the provisions of this legislation. Senator Murphy referred to remarks made by Senator Wright when he was a back bench member of the Government.

Senator Wright:

-I rise to a point of order. This is repetition and I think it is sufficiently obvious that it is tedious.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– It may be repetition, but it has not yet reached the stage of being tedious.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister says it is repetition. I am emphasising and I intend to add to the matters Senator Murphy has already put to the Committee. I was saying, Mr Temporary Chairman, that it is not only the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions that have been lodging objection to this type of legislation. When Senator Wright was a back bench member on the Government side a Bill of this nature was introduced into the Parliament in 1965. This Bill introduced section 109a and the honourable senator had certain things to say. Indeed, as Senator Murphy has already said, at page-

Senator Sim:

– What has that to do with this clause?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am about to point out that if the attitude adopted by Senator Wright in 1965 had been acceded to by the Government at that time the Government would not have had the industrial difficulties and problems that it has had over the last 5 years. Senator Wright in opening his remarks in 1965 said:

I can only think that the author of it is a will-o’-the-wisp. It is a Bill that is not only futile; it is silly, it is mischievous and it is misconceived.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Who was the author of that?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That was Senator Wright speaking on the introduction of the second reading debate.

Senator Sim:

– 1 take a point of order. This is surely tedious repetition. Senator Murphy read out the same paragraph in Hansard that the senator is now reading. He is obviously making a farce of the whole thing, and it is rather serious.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have merely read the opening remarks of Senator Wright’s speech. [Quorum formed.] I only repeated the remarks that Senator Murphy read from Senator Wright’s opening speech on the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill in 1965 lo give further emphasis to what Senator Wright had to say later during that debate in regard to section 109a, the section which is now being repealed by the present Government. At page 833 of the Senate Hansard of 13th May 1965 Senator Wright had this to say:

If 1 need any certificate for the insanity of such a measure it is provided by the amendment that was introduced as a last thought in the Committee stage in another place. I invite the Senate to examine the proposed new section ]09a(3.), which embodies the amendment introduced in another place. 1 think that the proposed sub-section (3.), with all the paraphernalia, shows the stupidity of the Bill, lt provides that where an application for an order for compliance with an award is made at the same time as an application for an injunction to restrain the committing of a breach or the continuance of breach, the preceding provisions of the proposed new sections do not apply. Having provided that the Industrial Court shall have no jurisdiction to commence hearing an application for an injunction to restrain the continuance of a breach during 14 days or such longer period as an industrial commissioner might determine, the provision then says to forget all about it if the applicant for the injunction has at the same time lodged wilh the Court an application for a mandatory order. To paraphrase ‘Alice’, it seems to me that this is a case when little oars wilh little hands with little skill are plied. 1 shall leave the Bill on that basis for the consideration of the Senate.

Senator Sim:

– I rise to order. I draw attention to standing order 421 which states:

The President or the Chairman of Committees may call the attention of the Senate o or the Committee as the case may be, to continued irrelevance or tedious repetition, and may direct a senator to discontinue his speech:

Senator Murphy earlier read passages which Senator McClelland is now reading. I suggest it is tedious repetition.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have merely read what the Minister for Works had to say on this section when he was a backbench senator when the section was first introduced by amendment in Committee in another place in 1965. Had the Government heeded the advice of Senator Wright at that stage this section would not have io be repealed today at the request of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Labor movement. It is not only the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Labor movement which have lodged objections and queried the authenticity of this section over the years but also the present Minister for Works when the Bill was before the House in 1965. He had some very condemnatory remarks to make about it. Earlier I mentioned that not only were craft unions involved so far as this section was concerned but also professional organisations and industrial unions.

I refer to a letter that was sent to all honourable senators on 29th April last year by the Association of Architects Engineers Surveyors and Draftsmen of Australia which pointed out that the Association had been directed to appear before the Commonwealth Industrial Court because the employers were apprehensive that a stoppage might take place in the space tracking industry, ft was noi that a stoppage had occurred; it was that a stoppage might occur. So the professional association was dragged before the Commonwealth Industrial Court and the court ordered the association to ensure that a stoppage would not occur, lt was the first time that this professional association had been dragged before the Commonwealth Industrial Court. The hearing lasted I hour and 20 minutes and for that the association received a bill for 51,104. This was subsequently reduced to $806 as a result of the taxing procedure. But here was a professional association whose members had not stopped work. Because it was felt that they might stop work, the association was dragged before the Commonwealth Industrial Court at the behest of the employers. A hearing took place for I hour and 20 minutes and the association was ordered to ensure that a stoppage would not occur in the future, although at this stage no stoppage had in fact occurred. The association was then charged legal expenses of$806. It was pointed out this was the first time the association had been involved with penal sections. The association said that the reaction of its members had been one of overwhelming hostility to the existence of sections in an Act which permitted the employers to drain the resources of the trade unions through a move which might be based on mere apprehension. The repealing of section 109a and its substitution in the new Act by section-

Senator Prowse:

– J raise a point of order. Is it in order for a senator to eat a meal in the Senate?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I do not think that the Chairman of Committees is called upon to make rulings on the sumptuary habits of senators.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I hope that it is not being suggested that I am eating a meal and talking at the same time. What I was saying was that the mere repeal of this section and the insertion of another section in the new Act will not be repealing the ordinary provisions of the existing Act.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Motion (by Senator Wright) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 23

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson - Yes.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Stop the bells.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15.

Section 111 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (4.) the words “ under paragraph (a) or (b) “ and inserting in their stead the words “ under paragraph Co) “.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I move:

Leave out the clause, insert the following clause: “15. Section 111 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (4.).”

If this amendment is carried, the next amendment that we propose will be consequential. The amendment involves the basic argument that we have advanced from the start of this debate. Section 111 of the Act provides the contempt of court powers. There is provision for the imposition of a penalty of $1,000 on an organisation, but not on a single employer. Provision is made for a penalty of $400 or gaol for 1 2 months foran official of a union. Sub-section (4) (c) provides for a penalty of $100 for an ordinary union member. As I pointed out before, some very stiff penalties are included in the new provisions. This section of the Act has been the subject of representations from the trade union movement for many years. It was one of the matters raised by the Australian Council of Trade Unions when it approached the Government in 1964 and asked for sections 111 and 114 to be repealed. As a result of representations on the matter the Government brought down modifications to section 109a. which has not proved successful. 1 quickly restate our argument by saying that under that section heavy penalties have been imposed on the trade unions, but at the same time very minor penalties have been imposed on employers. In addition to the fines of about 560,000 imposed on trade unions during the 1968 metal trades actions, Mr Woodward Q.C. has stated that in his opinion fines totalling $100,000 were imposed on the unions in 1968-69. But against that, let us consider some of the actions which have been taken against employers for breaches of awards. Honourable senators will be astounded to see how minor some of the penalties have been. I refer to a question by Mr Clyde Cameron on 25th February 1969 addressed to Mr Bury who was the Minister for Labour and National Service at that time. Mr Clyde Cameron asked:

  1. On what occasions has action been taken miller section 1 19 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act against un organisation or person bound by an order or award for breach or non-observance of any term of the order or award?
  2. What were the dates of such proceedings, who were the parlies and what were the penalties imposed in each case?

The Minister answered:

Information is only readily accessible in relation lo action under section 119 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act taken by inspectors, who were first appointed in 1934. During the period 1934 lo 1962 inclusive proceedings were taken by inspectors on seventy-nine occasions. Details since 1962 are set out in the following schedule.

The schedule which then followed showed many cases of offences by employers, but the penalties were quite minor. 1 propose to cite a few examples. On 21st August 1964 Trenchermen Pty Ltd of Victoria was prosecuted for a breach of the Liquor Trades (Ho. els and Wine Saloons) Award for an underpayment of wages and nonpayment of pro rata annual leave. In the first case the penalty was £5 and in the second case the penalty was £5 plus total costs of £25 4s. On 12th November 1968 an employer was prosecuted for a breach of the Vehicle Industry (Long Service Leave) Award in that he failed to pay for long service leave and failed to retain time and wages records. In the first case there was no penalty and the charge concerning failure to retain time and wages records was withdrawn.

On 12th November 1968 an employer in Queensland was prosecuted for a breach of the Metal Trades (Long Service Leave) Award in that he failed to pay for sick leave. That charge was withdrawn on payment of the debt. On 25th October 1968 an employer in Queensland was prosecuted for 67 breaches involving the under-payment of wages, failure to post rosters, failure to keep time and wages records, failure to maintain first aid kit and failure to post copy of award. These offences attracted the highest penalty in this group; it was $680 with $27.50 court costs plus $146.50 professional fees. On 3rd September 1968 an employer in Western Australia was charged with a breach of the Theatrical Employees (Drive-In Theatres) Award involving the under-payment of wages. In that case the penalty was $20 plus costs of SI 00.

Senator Greenwood:

– I rise to order and again refer to standing order 203. I claim that the honourable senator is not referring to the clause under consideration. He has been dealing for a long time with particular offences and the results thereof. These were offences that were committed under section 119 of the Act. and section 119 is not sought to be amended by clause 15 of this Bill. My submission is that there are 2 particular sections of the Act under which offences are committed; one of them is section 1 1 1 and the other is section 1 19 and it is not, within the meaning of standing order No. 203. proper to discuss offences under section 119 when what the Committee is considering is section 111.

Senator MURPHY:

– Mr Temporary Chairman, on this point of order it is obvious from the second reading speech of the Minister and from the whole history of this legislation that the 2 sections are closely connected and that proceedings may be brought under one or the other of these sections in various circumstances.

I think that Senator Greenwood would know that. A discussion of section 1 1 1 of the principal Act could hardly be intelligible, if one is considering the enactment, without reference also to the provisions of section 119. in fact a strong argument could be made, and has been made, for the elimination of section 1 1 1 entirely, because of the existence of section 1 19. lt has not emerged from what has been said by Senator Bishop that he is not speaking in relation to section 111, so his remarks are entirely relevant. Anyone familiar with the industrial jurisdiction - and no doubt Senator Greenwood would have some acquaintance with it - would be aware of the inter-relationship and the interdependence of these 2 sections. So if, in fact, Senator Bishop were referring to matters dealt with under section 119 that would be entirely related to a discussion of section 111.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Order! I have been examining the principal Act. I think, Senator Bishop, that you have been straying slightly from clause 15 but I seem to detect that perhaps you are preoccupied with clause 16 and you may wish to debate clauses 15 and 16 together.

Senator BISHOP:

– Are you ruling that way?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– No.

The option is with you. If you should like lo take them together I will allow you to continue.

Senator BISHOP:

– No.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– If that is the case will you narrow your comments down to the context of clause 15?

Senator BISHOP:

– lt seems pretty apparent to me that when we are talking about penalties imposed on workers and trade unions we must, of course, consider penalties imposed under the Act on employers. The cases I mentioned arose from actions taken mainly by inspectors of the Department itself. They were actions against certain employers for breaches of the award. However let me refer more specifically to what has happened in relation to the present legislation. I have already mentioned that the penalties against an ordinary union mem ber have been increased under the legislation. Let me compare the sort of action which might be taken against a union or its members in relation to a strike and the sort of action which might be taken against an employer. I instance a specific case which has been pointed out to me. If the right were given to apply the new penalty to the 28.000 employees of General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd who went on strike for 15 days in 1964 the Commonwealth Industrial Court judges could lawfully have imposed an added penalty amounting to S210m if the provisions of the Act were fully applied, but if General MotorsHolden’s had been found guilty of a 15-day lockout the maximum penalty which could be applied would be S7.500. This only highlights the fallacy of the so-called Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

I repeat thaI the 2 principal sections of the Act ought nol to be in it. If at this stage the Government cannot find its way clear to introduce more improved provisions than it is now introducing, it should return to the tripartite discussions, which were partly successful, in relation to the new procedures for settling industrial disputes. I am all in favour of this course of action. I have been a member of a number of committees whose purposes were to do exactly this.

In recent years the International Labour Organisation has given some thought lo establishing codes for works committees and for the protection of, for example, shop representatives in undertakings, lt is rather amazing to see the recommendations from overseas. Countries such as West Germany recommend maximum protection for union representatives. On the other hand we apply penalties. Recommendations which will be considered by this Government and by workers delegates and employers delegates at the next conference will give more than normal protection to a shop steward. Many countries recommend that in the case of redundancy or retrenchment a shop steward ought to be retained irrespective of whether his job has become redundant. The trend overseas is not to impose penalties on ordinary members of unions who may be involved in disputes but rather to give them the maximum protection to ensure that their functions in representing workers in a plant can be carried out without victimisation.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– Senator Bishop has offered an amendment to section 111, which is the section of the Act which empowers the court to punish for contempt. That follows from Dr Evatt’s amendment of 1947 which made the court a court of superior record, as well as giving jurisdiction ancillary to section 109, which this Committee has already retained. Section 109 deals with contraventions of the Act. The clause which Senator Bishop’s amendment seeks to remove from the Act prescribes a maximum penalty. If it is removed, the Court will have power to punish for contempt to an unlimited extent. I move:

Question put.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 23

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Bishop’s) be agreed to:

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 22

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Question put:

That clause 15 stand as printed.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 24

NOES: 22

Majority . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 16 (Limitations on appeals to High Court).

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I think I should say that clause 16 is only a consequential clause. Therefore, consistent with the last decision, it should stand as printed.

Clause agreed to.

Proposed new clause16A.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

May I suggest even to those who have been supporting this Bill that here there is no need to rush it into law. There is no special reason why it should be pushed through in the next few weeks. This is a very important provision. Whatever honourable senators might have thought about the benefits other clauses of the Bill may or may not confer on the industrial scene I would like every honourable senator to consider the merits of this propoasl, because it is very important. Even members of the Democratic Labor Party have indicated in public that something ought to be done about the award of costs under this enactment, and here is a very reasoned proposal to do something about the awarding of costs in this jurisdiction. There arc sound reasons for it. Apart from proceedings in the Industrial Court we also have proceedings before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the Registrar: but peculiarly, even in those areas there is a power to order costs before the administrative bodies, the Commission and the Registrar. I imagine that it would be rarely used, but the principle applies where the awards for costs are made before the Court, and they are productive of industrial discontent.

In regard to the penal clauses in particular, I suppose these awards of costs have been the aspect that has maddened the trade unions more than anything else because of their unjust record. We have had, along with the multiplication of provisions that have been referred to, these orders for costs - sometimes in a fairly simple industrial matter - which may amount to multiple orders and run into tens of thousands of dollars. In fact, I would say that the way in which costs have been awarded against the unions has been scandalous. I make no apology for saying that I think the Court itself ought to have guarded the position much more carefully and seen to it that this scandalous position did not arise. But it has arisen. The Industrial Court itself, under an interpretative power that is given to the Court in a certain situation, has adopted the practice of not making orders for costs at all, whatever the fate of the application. This has meant that people have been encouraged to use the tribunal. It has acted well in the public interest. We have an example of other areas where the costs are not awarded. There is a very famous tribunal in NSW which has been in existence for a long time, namely, the Industrial Commission of New South Wales. Although the Commission has a power to award costs the fact is that it has fallen into disuse because by common consent, I think, the orders which used to be made were so trivial that no-one ever bothered about imposing them. The charges in some cases were the equivalent of $10 or $20. I think if my recollection is right that the Commission does not concern itself with making the orders or if they are made no-one would bother to collect the amounts involved. Therefore in practice the orders for costs have ceased to be made by that tribunal. This practice works well.

The bodies concerned with this legislation are principally public bodies - trade unions and organisations of employers - created, as was said by Mr Justice Isaacs in the Australian Shipbuilding Board case, for great public purposes. It is not right that these bodies which are created in this way to carry out these activities should be impeded by the incidence of heavy orders for costs. This is the position in the Industrial Court. Certainly the trade union movement wants to do away with them. Why should not this Parliament accede to that view and remove this element from the legislation. If the trade unions have to go before the Commission, the Registrar or the Court they will pay their own way. If they have legal representation they will pay, and if they choose to have their own officers or employees appear they will do so. Why introduce this element of discord that on top of someone losing in proceedings he will have to pay the costs? We can understand this situation in jurisdictions in which one private citizen and another are opposed in matters unconnected with public purposes. Let the one who loses pay because this is a rare event. But trade unions are engaged daily before tribunals and these orders should not be made.

The amendment moved by the Opposition goes not only to the proceedings before the Court, the Commission or the Registrar but also to proceedings before the High Court itself. This is a very important matter because in its practical application the unions or for that matter the employers organisations often take to the High Court questions challenging the awards or orders of the Commission. The Opposition’s amendment uses the word ‘award’ and honourable senators will notice that under the interpretation provisions of the enactment this covers orders and so on. The amendment has been drafted with that in mind. Often we will have an award made by the Commission - it may be by the Full Bench or it may be by a Commissioner. Notwithstanding the endeavours to exclude appeals and reviews of such awards the High Court has held that section 75 of the Constitution permits an application to be made to the High Court for a prohibition or other prerogative writ of that nature to call into question the award on the basis that those judicial or administrative officers who make it are officers of the Commonwealth.

The great O’Shea case led to an upsurge last year. The Tramway and Motor Omnibus Employees Association had obtained an award from the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. 1 think the first award was made in 1960. The Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board applied to the High Court for an order of prohibition in respect of the award. The Tramway Association went into the High Court to defend the Commission’s decision. Honourable senators will recall that on the day before we entered into this discussion last year the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) said: ‘It is the duty of the Commonwealth to protect the Commission and to uphold the Commission’s decision’ or words to that effect. I do not recall the precise words, but they were used later in the debate. He said: ‘It is the duty of the Commonwealth.’ But did the Commonwealth go into the court in order to try to uphold the award of the Commission? No, the Commonwealth let the Tramway Association go into the court and defend the award, and the Association lost.

So the Association went back to the Commission, and after another year or so another award was made and a similar thing happened. The employer’s organisation went to the High Court and the Tramway Association went in again to defend the Commission’s award. Again it lost in its endeavour to uphold the award and again heavy costs were awarded against it. A third time the Commission made an award and a third time the employers went to the High Court and again the Tramway Association lost. Then a fourth time the Commission made an award. On this occasion I think that a minority of the High Court took the view that it was in substance much the same thing. The employers went into the High Court again. The Tramway Association again went into the High Court to defend the award. I think that by a 3 to 2 majority the High Court upheld the Commission’s decision. The Commonwealth at no stage came in to the High Court to endeavour to uphold the Commission’s decision. It refused even to assist the Tramway Association to pay its costs.

I note that the Government assisted members of the Australian Democratic Labor Party when they appealed to the Court of Disputed Returns against the election of Senator McClelland to this chamber, but the Government did not see fit to assist the Tramway Association when it had to go to the High Court to defend the decision of those whom the Commonwealth itself has appointed to the Commission. This meant that the Tramway Association got into very serious financial difficulties. It was committed for tens of thousands of dollars.

In other proceedings before the Industrial Court, which I described earlier, the circumstances were such as to cause Conciliation Commissioner Horan to say that an injustice was done to the Association. So he removed the bans clause. They may not have been his precise words, but they are in the record of the debate last year. The Association was in the difficult position where it just could not pay the costs.

This is a very serious matter, and something ought to be done about it. It is a real matter. 1 think that the jurisdiction would be greatly improved and there would be an advancement of the cause of industrial peace if the clause which we propose were inserted in the Bill. I should like to hear the answer to this question: Why should the present provision be retained? Why should not those who are dealing in this jurisdiction be in the position where if they want to engage legal representation and argue these matters they will pay for it? The other party should not be involved in heavy costs. This question ought to be removed from the industrial arena. I think it would be a very great step forward if it were to be clone. We see the experience of the industrial tribunals which act well without awarding such orders for costs.

Leaving everything else aside, the Government has said that it is endeavouring to improve the Act. We suggest that our amendment would be a substantial step forward in this direction. This provision relating to costs has been an area of aggravation. Why not agree to our amendment? The proposition which was mentioned by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Snedden) was that the regulations would be altered. He said that the Govern ment was not prepared to eliminate completely the awarding of costs. He went on to say:

However, it will amend the Conciliation and Arbitration regulations to apply to proceedings under section 1 19, as amended, the provisions of the regulations that in certain proceedings under sections 109 and 111 costs cannot be awarded in respect of more than 1 counsel or in respect of Her Majesty’s counsel. . . .

My respectful submission is that this guarantee is not worth the paper on which it is printed. I challenge the Minister for Works to correct me if what I am saying is not right, but my understanding of the law is that a tribunal would apply thisprovision at present and would not allow costs to be awarded. This would not be permitted in an assessment of costs. The costs of more than I counsel or of Her Majestey’s Counsel-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Laucke:

– Order! The Leader of the Opposition’s time has expired.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– After prolonged procrastination this morning Senator Murphy has put forward by way of amendment the proposal that section 116 of the principal Act be repealed and a new section 1 16 inserted in its stead. His proposal would prohibit an industrial tribunal from awarding any party costs under any circumstances. Section 116 of the principal Act is the usual type of provision which permits a tribunal to award costs as it thinks fit. Senator Murphy referred to the second reading speech which was made in the other place by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Snedden), who said that the usual provision would be modified in favour of the unions to give them an unusual benefit whereby, in proceedings tinder sections 109 and 111, the costs of a Queen’s Counsel or a second counsel would not be allowed unless the tribunal before which the proceedings are heard specifically directs that the nature of the case warrants the employment of such counsel. I move:

Question put. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 23

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That proposed new clause 16a be inserted in the Bill.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 22

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clause 18 (Imposition and recovery of penalties)

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– We are opposed to this clause because we think that all that is happening is that penaltiesare being imposed in a worse form than exists in the Act. While the Government is proposing to meet the complaints from the union movement by easing to some extent the penalties that are imposed as if each day was a new offence, penalties are still imposed under new section 119 (1d.). It reads:

The maximum penalty that may be imposed under sub-section (1.) of this section in respect of a breach of a term of an order or award is -

where the penalty is imposed by the Court -

in a case to which the next succeeding sub-paragraph does not apply - One thousand dollars; or

if the breach is a separate breach by virtue of a provision included in an order or award in accordance with paragraph (c) of sub-section (i.) of section forty-one of this Act - Five hundred dollars; or

In any other case - Two hundred and fifty dollars.

Section 41(l.)(c) of the Act as it was reads: fix maximum penalties for a breach or non-observance of any term of an award, not exceeding Two hundred dollars in the case of an organisation or an employer who is not a member of an organisation bound by the award or Twenty dollars in the case of a member of an organisation.

But the fact is that we do not agree, as has been said, with the penalties. We consider there is no need to include any penalties at all. Certainly there is no need for the very steep penalties which are imposed in this case -$ 1,000, $500 and $250. In our opinion, it is a retrograde step.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– This clause was fully discussed in the second reading speech and the debate in the second reading stages. It is a clause which considerably ameliorates the previous application of daily penalties, safeguards the position in relation to proposed sub-section (1b.) and (1c.) and limits the maximum penalties, which are reduced in comparison with the previous penalties. I move:

Question put. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 22

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That clause 18 stand as printed.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman -

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 23

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 19 (Directions that proceedings be instituted).

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– This clause seeks to amend section 126 of the principal Act. which slates:

The Registrar or an Inspector shall whenever so directed by a member of the Commission, institute proceedings for an offence against this Act or for the recovery of a penalty under section 119 of this Act.

Clause 19 seeks to add the words: other than a penalty for a breach of a term of an order or award in relation to which section 32a of this Act applies.

Section 32a has been inserted in the Act tonight. A doubt has been raised in my mind as to how a penalty is to be collected in relation to the new section 32a. Section 126 provides the power to collect a penalty but the Registrar or inspector so empowered cannot collect the penalty if it is imposed under the provisions of the new section 32a of the Act. Had I been able to ask a question on this point when we were debating the previous clause it may have been clarified, but I did not have that opportunity.

I appreciate that the Standing Orders do not provide priority for a Minister to speak in a debate, but as a matter of courtesy and tradition certain procedures are followed. When a Minister abuses those procedures and will not permit a full inquiry into a particular clause of a Bill. I think that you, Mr Temporary Chairman, should very seriously consider whether the back bench senators should have an opportunity to question who is to be called as the senator to lead in a particular debate. I ask: What is the position as to the collection of penalties imposed for a breach of section 32a of the Act, in view of the clause we are now debating?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– The usual procedure is the issue of a summons but, of course, the preliminaries must be observed before a penalty is imposed under section 119. Those preliminaries are provided for in section 32a. Clause 19, which we are now discussing, is necessary to prevent any possibility of its being considered appropriate for the Registrar or an inspector to institute proceedings of this nature. I move:

That the question be now put.

Question put:

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 22

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 20 (Application of section 32A of Conciliation and Arbitration Act to orders or awards of the Coal Industry Tribunal.)

Motion (by Senator Wright) proposed:

That the question be now put.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I will put the question again. The question is:

That the question be now put’.

Question put.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 22

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to

Clause 21 (Amendments of Conciliation and Arbitration Regulations)

Senator Cavanagh - Mr Temporary Chairman-

Senator Wright - Mr Temporary Chairman-

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Senator Cavanagh, do you yield to the Minister?

Senator CAVANAGH (South Australia [5.0 a.m.] - No. There is great acclamation in the chamber that justice has been granted on this occasion. There are times when even a Minister has to take some notice of democracy. I hope we still have some democracy left in Australia, although tonight’s proceedings would not resemble it too much.

Senator Greenwood:

– You might have some democracy but you have no liberty.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-I appreciate that that happens, but there is less democracy for the trade unions under this Bill. Clause 21 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill provides: (1.) The Conciliation and Arbitration Regulations are amended as set out in the Schedule to this Act. (2.) The amendments made by the last preceding sub-section shall be deemed to have taken effect on the twenty-first day of May. One thousand nine hundred and seventy. (3.) The Conciliation and Arbitration Regulations as amended by sub-section (1.) of this section may be amended or repealed by a regulation under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1970.

The pertinent part of the clause on which I want information is sub-clause (4.) . It states: (4.) Any payments made during the period from and including the thirteenth day of December, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-seven, to and includingt he twenty-first day of May, One thousand nine hundred and seventy, that would have been lawfully made if the amendments of the Conciliation and Arbitration Regulations effected by sub section (1.) of this section had taken effect on the thirteenth day of December, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-seven shall be taken to have been lawfully made.

I seek information on the payments that are envisaged in this clause. That brings up the important question of why we are passing a Bill now to make retrospective payments to 1967. Why is there need for this regulation? Perhaps the Minister could inform me

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– Those who participated in the debate upon these regulations will recall that that was the date from which the officer constituting the tribunal was appointed. I move:

Question put. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 22

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

In the Senate

Bill reported without amendment.

Motion (by Senator Wright) proposed:

That the report of the Committee be adopted.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– Mr Deputy President, I wish to oppose the resolution that the report now be adopted. I do this because I believe that what the Government has shown us tonight is one of the most disgraceful exhibitions that any government could provide in a Parliament. We have seen this Government, after narrowly surviving the election which was held last year, call Parliament together to sit for1 day only last year after which we were passed into the hands of Divine Providence. We then were away, and indeed we needed to be. We had an extraordinarily long adjournment of several months. We returned, and no business was before this Senate for week after week after week.

Towards the end of the present sessional period, business was produced by the Government in great haste. Agreements were entered into between the Opposition and the Government as to how the business of this chamber could be conducted. It is well known that agreements were entered into with regard to the times of meeting, with regardto the extended sitting hours and with regard to the extended days of sitting. Those agreements have been broken. They were broken tonight in order to stampede through this House a Bill that is of the greatest importance to every wage earner in Australia, of the greatest-

Senator Gair:

– It all sounds like bulldust to me.

Senator WHEELDON:

– If Senator Gair has something to say on the Bill, he can say it.

Senator Gair:

– They reckon you are having another trip.

Senator WHEELDON:

– They reckon I am having another trip! Goodness gracious me!I think the same witticism has been passed about 15 times this evening by Senator Gair. On each occasion, the same inane grin has been on his face. I would not want to speculate on what he has been doing to cause him to repeat the same inane interjection a number of times-

Senator Gair:

– I have not been on the-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Order! Senator Gair, you must resume your seat. You are presently out of your place in the Senate.

Senator Gair:

– Thank you. I will go back.

Senator WHEELDON:

– We have seen a performance again tonight by the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) who has shown throughout his whole career a violent hatred of the trade union movement and of members of trade unions. He is a man who has never missed an opportunity to berate the tradeunion movement and its elected officers; a man who, on the discussion of the Stevedoring Industry Bill in 1965, said that he wanted to destroy ‘this wretched Federation’, referring to the Waterside

Workers Federation. He now sits here as a Minister-

Senator Poke:

– Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. I refer to standing order 438. You ordered Senator Gair to resume his seat. Standing order 438 provides:

If any Senator -

persistently and wilfully disregards the authority of the Chair: the President may reportto the Senate that such Senator has committed an offence.

I submit that Senator Gair has committed an offence under the Standing Orders. I suggest that it is now in your hands to deal with Senator Gair.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order! The point of order is not upheld. Senator Gair, you must cease interjecting from the position which you now occupy.

Senator Gair:

– That is what 1 understood. I did not think Senator Poke could read.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! I call Senator Wheeldon.

Senator WHEELDON:

– The Minister has shown a hatred for the trade union movement which he has evidenced once again tonight in dealing with a Bill which is of the greatest importance to the trade union movement. It is a Bill which is jocularly described as a ‘Conciliation and Arbitration Bill’. The Minister has shown tonight just what he means by conciliation by moving on 1 clause, when he knew very well that no-one even intended to oppose it, the gag before anybody even had an opportunity to stand. The sort of conciliation which he has shown tonight is the sort of conciliation that he wants to see shown towards the trade unions in their dealings with the employers. He has acted tonight as if he were still in his old occupation of prosecuting drunks in the Hobart police court. That is an occupation which he ought to be following, not that of a man responsible, even if only in a subordinate capacity, in a small job but nevertheless one which is too big for him, handling in the upper House of this Parliament Bills which affect the destiny of about 2 million Australian workers. He has treated this whole matter with contempt. He has treated this Parliament with contempt. He has not been interested in learning what the ACTU had to say about this matter. He knows very well that there are honourable senators sitting on this side of the House, such as Senator Bishop, Senator Cavanagh, Senator Milliner and Senator Brown -I do not want to enumerate all of them but there are honourable senators-

Senator Little:

– Do not leave me out.

Senator WHEELDON:

– Yes. I will leave the honourable senator out. But there are honourable senators on this side of the House who have a close association with the ACTU - which is an important party to proceedings relating to the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill - and who have a contribution to make to this debate as have people who are officials of trade unions and people who have had a long association with and speak for the ACTU. So contemptuous has Senator Wright been of the ACTU and the people who speak on behalf of that body that he moved the gag before he even knew whether anybody was going to speak. I am sure that when this Bill has been passed Senator Wright will be here saying that proceedings for contempt of court should be taken against someone who has not complied with some provision that he gagged through tonight without giving the opportunity to representatives of the labour movement to be heard inside this Senate. He is an irresponsible man. He is unsuited for his job. I believe that he has reflected great discredit upon this Government and upon this Parliament. It is a shameful performance of the petty little gauleiter, and I believe that what he has done tonight-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! I suggest to the honourable senator that he moderate his language.

Senator WHEELDON:

-I accept your advice Mr Deputy President, but this is a serious matter and I ask you to excuse me if I feel somewhat incensed because the legislation we are dealing with tonight has caused trade unionists to be sent to gaol. It has virtually destroyed financially a large number of organisations of the working people whom Senator Wright despises so much from his old days of prosecuting in the police court.I believe that the workers of Australia will show the same contempt for this Bill as Senator Wright has shown for this Senate tonight and for the workers representatives.

This struggle is not over merely because the Bill has been jammed through this

Senate tonight without allowing a proper discussion, in breach of agreements which the Opposition entered into with the Government and which were broken in defiance of any cannon of common decency. The ACTU, the Australian trade unionists, the Australian working class, the Australian Labor Party and the Australian people generally know precisely what they can expect from this Government and its minor advocates. They know that this is the sort of treatment that they can expect when they come before courts operating under the provisions of an Act which has been imposed upon them in such a cruel, petulent, petty and contemptible way.

If this Bill is passed I believe that we have to show our total opposition and our total repudiation of the way in which this Government has acted tonight so that we can go back to those in the trade union movement and tell them what happened, show them the Hansard report, show them the record of the gags moved by Senator Wright, and show them the interjections of Senator Sim. Then they can have some idea of the intelligence of the people who are sitting on the other side of this chamber. We can show them who voted for these gags. I believe that if we were still sitting here at 5 o’clock tomorrow morning or 5 o’clock next week it would be well worth the task if it meant that another such shocking burden as this would not be imposed upon the working people of Australia as has been imposed by this Bill and imposed in a way so contemptuous of the Australian Parliament, Australian democracy and the people of Australia.

Motion (by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) put:

That the question be now put.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President - Senator Bull)

AYES: 23

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the report be adopted.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President - Senator Bull)

AYES: 23

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Third Reading

Morion (by Senator Wright) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Motion (by Senator Wright) proposed.

That the question be now put.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - The motion is: ‘That the Bill be now read a third time and that the question be now put.’

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- The question is: ‘That the question be now put’. That is my ruling.

Minister has moved one motion. If he is moving 2 motions he is out of order. There is the motion that the Bill be now read a third time. We are entitled to debate that matter. Senator Cavanagh rose to debate it. I submit that he should be allowed to speak on it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- The Minister is in order and I am putting the motion.

Motion by Senator Murphy proposed:

That the ruling be dissented from.

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

That the question requires immediate determination.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– The construction which has been placed on the Standing Orders in this instance is a matter which deeply involves the democratic processes of this chamber. The attempt of the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) a moment ago to stifle debate in this chamber was perhaps one of the worst attempts he has ever made. Let us examine the background of the matter. The Minister contends that he is able to move a motion in this chamber and then, without anything being said in regard to it, gag the debate. If this action is permissible there is no reason why the Minister will not be able to stand in his place in the future in relation to any other matter and move a certain motion and then move that the question be put without any other honourable senator being heard and without reasons being given for gagging the debate. Standing order 216 states:

On the Order of the Day being read for the Third Reading of a Bill, the Question shall be proposed That this Bill be now read a Third time’.

Standing order 217 states:

Amendments may be moved to such Question by leaving out ‘now’, and adding ‘this day 6 months’, which, if carried, shall finally dispose of the Bill; or the Previous Question may be moved.

Standing order 218 states:

After the Third Reading no further Question shall be put, and the Bill shall be demeed to have passed the Senate.

The question of the third reading of a Bill is open to debate and honourable senators are entitled to engage in discussion of the measure. To put at the same time the question That the question be put’, which the Minister has purported to do, means that two inconsistent questions are being put in the one motion. This is not permissible because one question is open to debate and the other is not. Honourable senators are entitled to discuss the motion for the third reading of a Bill. The question That the question be now put’ should be separate from the motion for the third reading of the Bill. Another honourable senator can move the motion That the question be now put’, but it is the Opposition’s submission that it is inconsistent for the motion That the question be now put’ to be put immediately after the motion for the third reading of the Bill.

Mr Deputy President, you should take into account in giving your ruling the fact that the consequences would be alarming if, during debates in this chamber, an honourable senator was able to move as part of the same motion That the Bill be read a third time and That the question be now put’. The two matters have not been separated; they are part of the same motion. Therefore, I submit to you, Mr Deputy President, that your ruling was incorrect and that the Senate ought to dissent from it.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I submit that the submission of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) is misplaced. Standing order 65 provides that any motion connected with the conduct of the business of the Senate may be moved by a Minister of the Crown at any time without notice. Pursuant to that when I moved the motion for the third reading I moved that the questtion be put. Mr Deputy President, your ruling in respect of that has been dissented from. I now move in relation to the motion for dissent from your ruling:

That the question be now put.

Question put. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President - Senator Bull)

AYES: 22

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . l

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the ruling be dissented from.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President - Senator Bull)

AYES: 22

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . 1

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - The question now is in relation to the motion for the third reading of the Bill:

That the question be now put’.

Question put. The Senate Divided. (The Deputy President - Senator Bull)

In Division.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - There is no point of order.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT - At this stage during the. division it is out of order.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President - Senator Bull)

AYES: 23

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2755

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Motion by (Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:

That intervening business be postponed until after consideration of General Business Item No. 6 in the name of Senator Murphy.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2755

QUESTION

BROADCAST OF SENATE PROCEEDINGS

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I am advised that the normal time on Fridays is 10 a.m. While I am on my feet may I say to Senator Devitt in relation to the question he asked about the heating arrangements that the matter is being attended to.

page 2755

QUESTION

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– Your motion appears in a different form on the notice paper. Perhaps you should ask for leave to amend it.

Senator MURPHY:

– I ask for leave.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator MURPHY:

– My motion continues:

  1. Each Committee shall proceed to business notwithstanding that all members have not been appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.
  2. Each Committee shall elect a Government member as Chairman.
  3. The Chairman may from time to time appoint a member of the Committee to be Deputy-Chairman and the member so appointed shall act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee.
  4. In the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman, shall have a casting vote.
  5. A Standing Committee shall not meet while the Senate is actually sitting, unless by special order of the Senate.
  6. The foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

There has been some modification of these proposals and some discussion amongst honourable senators. Perhaps I should explain the intention of the proposals. Normally 8 senators would serve on a committee but it may happen that fewer senators are needed on a particular committee. Because of the nature of the work of a committee it may be necessary to set up sub-committees and in that event more senators may be required to serve. It seems desirable as a matter of drafting to allot a membership of 6 by selecting 3 members of the Government Parties, 2 of the Opposition and 1 of the minority groups when the occasion arises. Then it would be simple enough for the Leader of the Government in the Senate and for the Leader of the

Opposition to add another 2 members, 1 from each side of the chamber, to bring the membership to 8. In an exceptional case it might be necessary to have a membership of 10, and this would involve variations, lt is a simple matter of drafting that we should start off with 6 members rather than 8; perhaps a little more difficult machinery may be involved in raising or lowering the number of members. The real intention is that in most cases the membership would bc S. lt is simple enough to do that.

There seems to be a consensus that minority groups should be represented by I member on the committees. A problem arises on account of the Australian Democratic Labor Party and Senator Turnbull, who was a member of a party constituted bv himself but is now an independent senator. I do not wish to be offensive or provocative, but the fact is that after an election there may be a change in the number of senators in the second nongovernment party in the Senate. Problems may arise as to the reasonable allocation of membership of committees as between minority groups. I appreciate that the DLP has put forward a proposal that there should be a provision for ils members to serve on 6 of the committees and, in that event, Senator Turnbull would serve on 1 committee.

We do not know what the future holds. When framing the proper provisions it seems reasonable to say that if there is agreement between the minority groups as to which committees its members are to serve on, well and good. It could happen that the committees would have a membership in the proportion of 6 to I, or 5 to 2, or in the event of an election, there would be changes in that proportion. This seems to be a reasonable proposal. Only in the event of a difference of opinion would the question of the membership of a particular committee be resolved by the Senate. It seemed to be more desirable than a proposal which emanated from the others where the number was fixed. Such a fixation may be desirable at one point of time but it may not be desirable at some other time. There is appropriate provision for appointments. Where a decision is made for an appointment of a member of the Australian Democratic Labor Party hat v would be done, as wilh the others, by the Leader of the Party. Where there is a single senator who is not a member of such a party, he would make the appointment himself. The appointments would be notified to the President.

Then there is the provision which seems to be wanted and which attempts to meet the modification that a Minister shall not be appointed to the Committee. The next provision is that each Committee shall proceed to business notwithstanding that all members have not been appointed. That is because there may be some occasion when nobody from the minority groups may want to go on to a committee. Some hiatus may occur; someone may die or something else might happen. The intention was that in any of those events the Committee would be able to proceed. The next proposal is that each Committee shall elect a government member as chairman. That is what has been done in the past. Rather than have any holdups on this account, it is proposed that this shall be continued, although not always has the Opposition been happy with those who have been appointed as chairman. For myself, I think thai at some stage we will have to consider whether this ought to be done by the Senate and remove the element of (he chairman being preselected. The next provision is for the appointment of a member as deputy chairman. That is a fairly usual provision. The provision relating to the quality of voting is a standard measure. There is a provision that a standing committee shall not meet while the Senate is actually sitting, unless by special order of the Senate. There is provision in the Standing Orders to deal with this, although not perhaps in this way. The word ‘special’ there would be intended to mean not a general order which would be made saying that committees will sit but a special order. This would be done to meet a special situation - a special occasion; something quite out of the ordinary which could not be met by some general order that the committees could meet. It will be recalled that Senator Wood raised this question during the debate on the original substance of this matter. Those seem to us to be reasonable proposals.

I know that other proposals are being put forward. There does not seem to me to be a great deal of difference between them and what we propose. I have considered what has been suggested by the

Democratic Labor Party. As 1 understand it the DLP is not saying that it wants a different number of members on the committees. We provide for 8 members. I suggest that this number is an improvement which will enable a little flexibility. In the way that it is drafted we could have 6, 8 or 10 members to meet the circumstances. There is a provision which recognises the position of the various parties in the Senate. There is proper machinery for this purpose. Also there are further provisions which seem to be desirable. 1 do not want to prolong the debate - I am certainly not suggesting that it should be shortened - but I suggest to the Senate that these are reasonable provisions. If we are to be defeated by a propostion which is put up by the DLP then I suppose we will just have to live with it, but I hope that this matter will not be carried to the point of our fighting over what after all are fairly small differences. I cannot see any difficulties arising if my motion is carried. 1 cannot see any disadvantages. The Democratic Labor Party is entitled to move an amendment but I would suggest that if it is lost the members of that Party do not try to frustrate the carriage of my motion which is reasonable. If the Democratic Labor Party’s amendment fails, let the motion go forward and let us have the committees without there being any appearance of that Party trying to prevent them coming into operation.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– lt is unfortunate that this matter should come up in these circumstances at this early hour of the morning or at this belated hour of the previous day. As an amendment to the motion moved by Senator Murphy I move:

Implicit in the amendment is a formula by which the non-Opposition and nonGovernment groups within the Senate shall be given representation on these committees. We propose that the second non-Government party, which is the official title given to the Democratic Labor Party for certain purposes and recognition in this Parliament, should be entitled to serve on 6 of the 7 committees and that in the particular and current instance, Senator Turnbull, who is now sitting as an Independent, be entitled to sit on 1 committee as a strict written-in entitlement. In that respect my amendment differs very gravely from the motion proposed for the Opposition by Senator Murphy. There is no entitlement given in that motion to the minority party - Senator Turnbull - to have representation on a committee at all.

Senator Murphy:

– Well he is happy with my motion.

Senator BYRNE:

– I do not care whether he is happy or not. If Senator Murphy reads his amendment he will see that Senator Turnbull is given no entitlement at all. 1 shall read Senator Murphy’s amendment and its purport will become quite obvious. It reads: . . one senator from the minority groups If the minority groups agree on the appointment of a member of the second non-Government party in the Senate,–

That is the Democratic Labor Party - the appointment shall be made by the Leader of that Party:

That is if agreement is reached. It continues:

If the minority groups agree on the appointment of a senator who is not a member of that Party, the appointment shall be made by the senator agreed upon. Appointments shall be made by notification in writing to the President. In the event of no agreement being reached by the minority groups, the appointment of a member of the minority groups shall be resolved by the Senate.

That writes in no entitlement whatsoever - no explicit entitlement - for Senator Turnbull to be on a committee at all. He has an entitlement only if the Democratic Labor Party and he agree that he shall be on a committee. If agreement cannot be reached the matter has to be left to the Senate to resolve. On the contrary the Democratic Labor Party’s amendment specifically writes in an entitelment for the minority group, Senator Turnbull, to serve on a committee, and only the question of which committee comes into consideration. If that cannot be resolved then the Senate shall decide it. That is the effect of the amendment. He is entitled to serve on a committee. Senator Murphy’s proposal contains no entitlement for him to serve on any committee. It is only in the event of agreement with the DLP that he has an entitlement.

Senator Murphy:

– Does it not come down to the same thing? Does not the Senate resolve it?

Senator BYRNE:

– It does not come down to that at all. I think the Senate could be explicit. We, as a Party, would welcome the Opposition’s amendment because it gives us complete control virtually over total minority representation. We did not do that. We explicitly vacate any entitlement we might have to Senator Turnbull or to any other independent. We recognise his entitlement pro rata to be on 1 committee. Only in the event of a dispute as to which committee he might elect to serve on does the matter go to the Senate. That is a very grave difference, and we think an extraordinarily important difference. We speak for minority groups in the Senate. We think that the Senate should recognise not only the rights of the

Government, not only the rights of the Opposition, not only the rights of the DLP but certainly the rights of somebody who is not in any of the Party groups. Our amendment does that. Senator Murphy, in his original proposal, moved that the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Government, ex officio, be members of the committee. The idea behind these committees would be that they should not be political forums.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– That is not what the motion says now.

Senator BYRNE:

– No. I am speaking of the original motion. They should be objective tribunals for discussing matters of parliamentary and administrative concern. In that suggestion the only ones mentioned were the 2 leaders to whom 1 have referred. The leader of the non-government group was not mentioned. That suggestion, if it had been pursued, would have been unwise and perhaps discrimatory. Senator Murphy has not pursued that proposal in the present motion which is a variation of his original motion. But he says that the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to be represented by some person of his expressed personal nomination, apparently, and the Leader of the Government is entitled to be represented on the committee by a person of his designation but a Minister may not be represented. In those circumstances, while the Minister, Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, may not act on the committee he can designate a particular senator to be there for him. In explicit terms, he is really the Minister’s nominee and to that extent virtually his agent. In addition, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Government may each appoint an additional senator to any committee. Therefore, the Minister is estopped. Apparently, the object of Senator Murphy’s proposal - I would share it - is that the executive should not be represented on this committee, which is a backbench committee and a parliamentary committee as distinct from a Committee which will sit in judgment on the executive. Here we have an express provision for a representative designated by the senior member of the executive in the chamber to sit on that committee. That is a complete intrusion of the executive in this committee. I think that is a total contradiction of the whole purpose of the proposition which Senator Murphy is otherwise proposing in his motion. For those reasons Senator Murphys proposal is nol acceptable to the Democratic Labor Party. It intrudes the executive on to the parliamentary committee, lt has a designee of the Minister where we think that there should not be one. It provides this confrontation on the floor of the committee by the express representatives of the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Government in the Senate. If it were lo be the practice and principle for some reason good and sufficient that the nominees of these gentlemen should be there, I can see no logical reason or no reasion in justice why the leader of the second nongovernment party should not be on the committee if that principle is adopted. I am against that also.

We believe that it would be most unwise of the Senate to agree to Senator Murphy’s proposal because it discriminates particularly against the explicit acceptance of a minority group, not being our group, for membership of a committee by right and entitlement quite beyond the discretion of the Senate. The Senate might in conceivable circumstances deny Senator Turnbull membership of any committee. If he cannot agree with us and we say: ‘No, we cannot agree’, the matter goes to the Senate, which may deny Senator Turnbull membership of any committee. Our proposal writes in his entitlement, and the Senate cannot take it away. I believe that that is of vital importance. In other words, our proposal is for a parliamentary committee in the true sense of the term, a back bench committee in the true sense of the term, a committee that will be segregated from the Executive in the true sense of the term and a committee that will represent all groups in the Senate in the accepted and true sense of the term. For those reasons, and without intruding unduly upon the time of the Senate, 1 have moved our amendment.

Senator Little:

– I second the amendment.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South’ Wales · LP

[6.26 a.m.] - The motion that was placed on the notice paper by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) has been the cause of considerable discussion in the Government parties. I feel bound to say that, having indicated that we would bring the motion on for debate - that was the undertaking that I gave some time ago - we had a meeting of the Government parties several days ago now. At that stage we had the advantage of having the notice of motion and also a view expressed by the Australian Democratic Labor Party on what it proposed to move. The Leader of the Opposition has significantly reconstructed his motion and the amendment moved by Senator Byrne contains some variations from what we understood to be his Party’s original proposal.

The view expressed by the Government parties; - I want to make it quite clear that it echoed the expressed sentiment of the Leader of the Opposition - was that we do not wish to create a situation that will deter in any way the setting up of the committees so that they will not be in operation when we come back for the Budget session. But we had grave concern in relation to the proposal to put a Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on the committees. We were equally concerned wilh the lack of a proposal to p- it the Leader of the Democratic Labor Party on the committees. We came to the overall judgment that to have Ministers or leaders on the committees at all would tend to inhibit the very concept of the committees. We felt unanimously that the best thing would be for the committees not to have senators on them actually as Ministers or leaders. In the event, the proposal has not been further floated: so we do not need to argue about it any more.

The motion contains a whole series of machinery proposals to which I do not propose to make reference either. I believe that we arc on common ground that they are designed to make the committees work effectively. I agree with the proposal about special provision being made for committee sittings during sittings of the Senate. All the statutory committees require a resolution of the Parliament to enable them to sit during sittings of the Parliament, except where the necessary provision is inherent in their establishment. I think there is such a provision in respect of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I believe that in regard to the actual number of committees we will have and our capacity to find senators for them - we must remember that in the Senate the numbers game will be involved - it is essen- tial that we must see to it thai the committee system does not destroy the fundamental function that we have in this chamber. 1 agree that some special safeguards need to be provided. Not a great deal of difference exists between the two resolutions. Firstly, the position of the second non-government party, as it is expressed, is i think important. It is equally important that the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party should have responsibility, in the same way as the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition have, in relation to appointments to committees.

Senator Murphy:

– We have done that.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Yes, we have done that. I believe that, as Senator Byrne has suggested, Senator Murphy’s motion could be construed as meaning in a sense that if an escalation occurred in the number of senators on a committee the subsequent nominees would have special reference from either the Leader of the Government or the Leader of the Opposition. It is an argument that I think should be answered. No doubt, Senator Murphy will respond to that argument when he exercises his right of reply. 1 refer to this because the Government Parties have expressed the view that they would support the proposals of the Australian Democratic Labor Party.

The decision could be marginal in relation to the one paragraph regarding which difference may arise. I refer to the paragraph which relates to the representation of the minority parties. In our judgment, no doubt can exist that the Australian Democratic Labor Party should not be required to have any responsibility outside the members of its own Party. The responsibility of that Party is to its members. Where the question of an independent senator or another minortiy group, if honourable senators wish to express it that way, is involved, the decision should not be tied in any way at all to the Australian Democratic Labor Party but a provision should be written into the motion to protect the interests of the minority group.

To the extent therefore that the amendment moved by Senator Byrne in our view tends to do that more than the proposal moved by the Leader of the Opposition, I would indicate that, whilst there may be some personal expression from the Government level, the Government Parties would tend to support the amendment moved by the Australian Democratic Labor Party. I hope that we can resolve this matter. I hope that we do not inhibit the right of anybody who has a point of view to deal with that point of view. I know at least one honourable senator who does wish to present a point of view. When that is done, 1 think we should resolve the question and that we should see to it that, when the Senate meets again, the Committee system will be ready to commence functioning immediately.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– The Senate has before it a motion and an amendment. Between the two, as has been said, there is very little difference. Just the same, there are what might be termed minor aspects which should be considered. The proposition presented to us for consideration originally by the Australian Democratic Labor Party was preferable to that which was suggested originally by the Australian Labor Party. The Opposition’s motion has been amended. 1 think that possibly the motion as amended may have some appeal to me. However it is my intention to support the proposal of the Australian Democratic Labor Party.

Views have been expressed regarding the number of senators who can serve on these committees. The new indication is that each committee shall consist of 6 senators comprising 3 Government senators to be appointed by the Leader of the Government, 2 Opposition senators to be appointed by the Leader of the Opposition and 1 senator from the minority groups. I believe that this proposal will give a better spread of the work on the respective committees among senators. This would probably be preferable to having a definite number of 8 senators. In addition provision is made whereby the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition may each appoint 2 additional senators to any committee. I look upon this aspect as being of some value insofar as we know that some of the legislation which comes before us would not require a very great deal of investigation. Other legislation is more important and as a consequence it may need a bigger number of senators, I should imagine, in order to give more importance to the findings of the committee when they are presented to the Senate. In that respect it does appeal to me.

Senator Byrne’s statement that the amendment provides a definite position for the independent senator on one committee is, of course, correct. I do not see the difficulty which may possibly be seen in the motion in regard to the independent senator because it states that in the event of no agreement being reached by the minority groups, the appointment of a member of the minority groups shall be resolved by the Senate.

Senator Byrne:

– Does that mean that the minority group has no entitlement? The Senate may decide that a minority group representative would nol bc appointed. Our proposal gives an entitlement of one.

Senator WOOD:

– We are trying to work out what is the best for the Parliament. 1 interpret this motion to mean that if there were a difference between the Democratic Labor Party and the senator concerned it would then come before the Senate for a decision. 1 doubt very much if the Senate would not agree to having an independent senator on a committee. My interpretation is that this as a safeguard to ensure that some justice is done to the independent member.

Senator Byrne:

– Our proposal provides a built in entitlement.

Senator WOOD:

– I know it provides for one member. I think there is probably a little more elasticity in this. For instance, there may be individual senators who may have certain qualifications and the Democratic Labor Party may feel that a person should not be on one committee but that he should be on other committees because of his special qualifications. I do not see any difficulty there, lt appeared to me that if an independent senator had special qualifications he could possibly serve on more than one committee. 1 know that it might be said that a person is only entitled to be on 1 committee but I should think that the aim of the Senate in setting up these committees is to try to get the best people we can who have some understanding of the workings of particular committees. Here we have two pro posals which do not differ to a vet) great extent. The only difference of importance is that in accordance with the present motion a Minister shall not be appointed as a member of a committee. That is. of course, very important to ensure that committees do not have some influence from the ministerial side of Parliament. The aspect of the original motion which concerned me was that there was too much control by Ministers and the heads of parliamentary parties. In the motion moved by Senator Murphy that earlier indication is not evident. Looking at it on a balance, it seems to me that the motion has appeal, particularly in relation to the size of a committee and the elasticity provided by having b goer committees to cope with work of a more important nature.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– First of all, the position of Senator Turnbull is perfectly covered because, in the first place, all of these proposals are unless otherwise ordered.

Senator Byrne:

– The Senate can do anything.

Senator MURPHY:

– lt is not for Senator Byrne to say that the Senate might deprive Senator Turnbull of the opportunity of silting on a committee. If the Senate was so minded it could do so at any time under any of the proposals. But the proposition is a reasonable one. As this stands he is perfectly protected because if he disagrees then the matter becomes one for the Senate to decide. So how can Senator Turnbull be disadvantaged? He knows that he is not disadvantaged in such a situation. I am told that the proposition put forward would be perfectly acceptable to him. A question was raised about the appointment to the committees of 2 additional senators. This is to enable an enlargement. We can either have 8, go down to 6 or up to 10. But there is nothing about ex officio representatives and nothing about special representatives They will not be personal representatives. They will be on the same basis as the others. Even if honourable senators are concerned about the exclusion of the Ministers it is only in this proposal thai there is a specific exclusion. Otherwise under the proposal that is being put up by the Democratic Labor Party the Ministers could in fact be among the 4 Government senators to be included.

I think this is flexible. That meets the proposition of having a smaller number on the committee if that is necessary to meet manning commitments. I ask that the Senate vote against the amendment. If the amendment is carried then I think we should vote for the motion as amended. If the amendment is not carried I ask that the Senate vote for the motion. Let us solve the matter. If there is not that much difference between them surely that is a reasonable course. Let the proposal work.I ask that the motion be carried.

Question put -

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

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President - Senator Bull)

AYES: 22

NOES: 22

Majority

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Murphy’s) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President - Senator Bull)

AYES: 22

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . -

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2762

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) - be leave - agreed to:

That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.

page 2762

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth

Anderson) agreed to:

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till a day and hour to be fixed by the President, which time of meeting shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 2762

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Dried Fruits Export Charges Bill 1970.

Australian Institute of Marine Science Bill 1970.

States Grants (Universities) Bill 1970.

Australian Film Development Corporation Bill 1970.

Parliamentary Allowances Bill 1970.

Port Augusta to Whyalla Railway Bill 1970.

Export Payments Insurance Corporation Bill 1970.

International Monetary Agreements Bill 1970.

States Grants (Teachers Colleges) Bill 1970.

Handicapped Children (Assistance) Bill 1970.

Gladstone Power Station Agreement Bill 1970.

Canned Fruits Export Marketing Bill 1970.

page 2763

QUESTION

HOUSING

(Question No. 324)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Min ister for Housing, upon notice:

  1. What is the amount of money currently owing on housing loans throughout Australia?
  2. What is the estimated amount of money which will be required to be found by housing loan borrowers to cover the recent increase in interest rates?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

  1. Published statistics available to my Department on currently outstanding housing loans provided by major financial institutions are as follows:
  1. The latest available information is at dates shown.
  2. Loans to individuals.

  3. Including indirect loans through building societies.

    1. Statistics currently available do not make possiblethe provision of a meaningful answer.

page 2763

QUESTION

LEAVE TO INCORPORATE QUESTIONS ON NOTICE NOT GRANTED

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

-I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard answers to 2 questions on notice.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Is leave granted?

Senator Murphy:

– No.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Leave is not granted.

Senate adjourned at 6.56 a.m. (Friday) till a day and hour to be fixed by the President.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 18 June 1970, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1970/19700618_senate_27_s44/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant