Senate
5 May 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1971

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMuIlin) took the chair at 2. IS p.m., and read prayers.

page 1373

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. In the light of the proposed cut of 30,000 in our migrant target for 1971-72, will the Minister provide details of any specific reductions on a nation by nation basis or will the date of application lodged by intending migrants determine their inclusion in the reduced annual overall migrant intake?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · VICTORIA · LP

– I am unable to answer specifically the question directed to me by the honourable senator. I shall convey his question to the Minister for Immigration and ensure that he receives a reply.

page 1373

QUESTION

TAXATION CONCESSIONS

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware of the keen desire of many South Australians who are preservationists of architecturally beautiful and historically interesting buildings to save the old Australia and New Zealand Bank building in King William Street from demolition because of its unique and outstanding architectural design, character and beauty? Is the Minister aware that the preservation project is sought to be financed by subscriptions from the public? As it is vital to the success of the campaign to raise funds that donations be tax deductible, will the Minister ask his eoi-, league to give favourable consideration to the application of the committee conducting the campaign to have donations deductible for taxation purposes and so ensure the success of the move to retain this magnificent building in the very heart of our city?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

I am not aware that there is a move for the preservation of the Australia and New Zealand Bank building in Adelaide, although I can appreciate the type of thinking which would prompt people to come together for that purpose, having regard to the very beautiful city of Adelaide. My understanding is that, as a general rule, the concessional allowance for donations is directed more towards those made to charitable organisations. Some gift or some donation to a charity, under certain circumstances, by the right of the Treasurer, is an eligible taxation deduction within the limits of the taxation law. I am not aware whether this would apply or could reasonably be expected to apply in this type of case, but the decision is for the Treasurer to make. Perhaps I should not prejudge him or his decision on the project. I will have the matter referred to him.

page 1373

QUESTION

HOSPITAL CHARGES

Senator KENNELLY:
VICTORIA

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister for Health, by reminding him that yesterday I asked him a. question about increased hospital charges. Having learned very quickly, his answer was that the matter was one for the State. While I agree that, in the main, it is, I ask him now whether he will make representations to his colleague the Treasurer to look at the whole area of hospital finances in Victoria with an idea of helping the hospitals, whether they be public, intermediate or private bed hospitals, out of the tremendous difficulties in which they find themselves.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The assistance rendered by the Commonwealth Government to the States is, of course, regularly discussed by the State Premiers when they meet with the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. It is for each State government to determine how much of its resources will be allocated to hospital services. This matter comes within a realm in which the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are constantly dealing. I do not think it requires any reference from me in this particular area. But, quite apart from that area, over the years the Commonwealth has very substantially assisted in the financing of hospitals through its hospital benefits scheme, lt does this not only by way of the Commonwealth benefits which are provided to complement the insurance fund benefits but also in the tremendously expensive - and the expense is growing, too - area of contributions under the special account system, the provision for pharmaceutical benefits and also the contributions to hospitals on account of pensioner beds. These are areas of existing Commonwealth assistance. As I said yesterday, the whole question of Commonwealth assistance, in the light of the increasing charges which hospitals must make, is a matter under review.

page 1374

QUESTION

TELEVISING OF SPORT

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. I remind the Minister that on 7th April I asked a question in relation to an application made to the Trade Practices Commissioner concerning the televising of Australian Rules football in Perth. In view of the fact that the Trade Practices Commissioner conveyed his decision to the interested parties within a few days of my question, I ask: When will I receive a reply?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I regret very much that the honourable senator has not received a reply to his question, though I am sure that he and I are very pleased that the person who sponsored the inquiry was so promptly informed. I will again raise the. matter with the Attorney-General so that the honourable senator’s question may be answered. I will ensure that the honourable senator ls supplied with that answer. .

page 1374

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport: Did 2 Commonwealth marine surveyors in Adelaide declare the vessel Hanna’ unseaworthy and issue the ship with a temporary certificate of 60 days’ duration in order that it might proceed, unladen, to a docking port for substantial repairs? Did the ‘Hanna’ then ignore the need for repairs and load a full cargo of ilmenite in Bunbury? Did the Bunbury harbour master then inspect the ship and declare it unseaworthy and have his opinion confirmed by another Commonwealth marine surveyor who travelled from Fremantle te inspect the ship? Did the Hanna’ then obtain a clearance to allow it to leave Bunbury and did it subsequently sink in relatively fine weather conditions on 4th March 1971? Were the ‘Hanna’ and its cargo insured? If so, for what sum? Will the Minister conduct a full and open inquiry into the circumstances leading to the sinking of the ‘Hanna’?

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

– The honourable senator has asked a detailed question which

I would not be able to answer. I will have to refer it to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I have made some notes of the contents of the honourable senator’s question. I will get the balance of it from Hansard.

page 1374

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. It refers to the maximum income concessional allowance available to a parent in respect of the education expenses of his children. I ask: Is the Minister aware that the allowance has lost a great deal of its value since 1964, when the present figure of $300 was fixed? Is he aware that in independent schools fees and costs have greatly increased - some by as much as 70 per cent - since that time, and that the salary scale of teachers has increased by an even greater percentage? Will he take these factors into account when the Budget is being prepared later this year and press for a review of the concession?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I am aware of the concessional allowance and I am aware that fees for schools have been increased. As I have said on other occasions, all these matters are considered at Budget time. As the honourable senator has requested, I shall refer the matter to the Treasurer so that it can be examined as usual at Budget time.

page 1374

QUESTION

TAPERED MEANS TEST

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Health. When can I expect an answer to a question I asked on 17th February, which was the day after the beginning of the session? It is question No. 866 and it reads as follows:

  1. Is it a fact that many pensioners previously eligible to hold a pensioner medical card have had these withdrawn as a result of the tapered means test introduced in the 1969 Budget?
  2. Did these withdrawals take place about 12 months after the Budget announcement contrary to the statement of the then Treasurer, Mr McMahon, that fringe benefits would not cease to be available to persons who were pensioners at that time?

As this is a most important question in relation to those who have had their medical care taken away from them, can I get an answer to that question before the session closes?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am quite sure that the honourable senator will have his answer before the session closes. Indeed I am a little surprised that he has not received an answer. I say that because I know that I have attended to this matter. I will take immediate steps to ensure that the answer is supplied. In short I inform the honourable senator because of his interest in this matter that there has been no change as a result of the tapered means test beyond the statement which was made at the time, that is, that those pensioners who came in as a result of the tapered means test and only because of the tapered means test would not be eligible for the fringe benefits associated with it. However, in the light of what the honourable senator has said, I will immediately investigate the matter and I assure him that he will have a reply.

page 1375

QUESTION

MEAT

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing . the Minister for Primary Industry whether he has seen a report that Australia may not be able to fill its meat export quota to the United States of America this year and that if this is the case it could have an adverse’ effect upon our future quotas and sales? Taking into consideration the replacement of stock following droughts in some areas, is it also a fact that the limited number of abattoirs with export licences is also affecting our ability to supply this very important market? lt this is so, will the Minister do all in his power to bring more export killing works, including the Adelaide Metropolitan Abattoirs, which is the major killing works in South Australia, up to standard so that this important market can be supplied?

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

– I did see the report to which the honourable senator refers, and I obtained some information on it. Australia’s shipments of beef and mutton to the United States of America this year are about 50,000 tons below those of last year. I understand that this is due to certain factors, the main ones being the unusual weather experienced in Queensland, the prohibition - now lifted - on mutton shipments to the United States of America, shipments of beef to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the lower level of stocks carried forward this year compared with last year. I understand that the Aus tralian Meat Board and representatives of the meat export industry will meet in Sydney next Tuesday. They are meeting especially to review the position in relation to the United States of America. This meeting will examine the steps to be taken to ensure that the United States quota is filled. It is expected that Queensland meat works will be operating at peak capacity for the balance of this season, and from now on supplies should be much more plentiful. I can assure the honourable senator that urgent steps are being taken to ensure that sufficient abattoirs are licensed for export. I understand that to date 34 works,- including 2 works in South Australia, have been relisted to ship mutton to both the USA and Canada.

page 1375

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question once again on the subject of local’ government finance to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the Minister aware of the strong and growing body of public opinion that the Commonwealth must play a greater part and take’ the “necessary initiatives towards a resolution1 of the serious economic plight of local government in Australia? Will the Minister earnestly consider this matter with the object of reaching a better understanding of this rapidly developing problem, the solution ofwhich I believe can only be reached by a radical change of heart on the part of the Federal Government? Finally, does the Minister see any possible’ hope that my continuing advocacy for local government may one day be rewarded?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON^

Virtue earns its own reward. ‘ I cannot look into the future but I would say that I cannot remember a Premiers Conference during which aspects of local government were not discussed. As I said in answer to Senator Murphy the other day, or perhaps it was the honourable senator, the Premiers Conference is. the occasion for dealing with matters associated with local government. The States have sovereignty and I would imagine that they would be very reluctant to relinquish , it. .They would like the money but I do not think they would like to relinquish their sovereignty. I think the most powerful bodies in Australia in terms of government are the Premiers

Conference and the Australian Loan Council. Whilst the honourable senator’s advocacy is persistent, and we give him credit for it, I believe that the strongest weapon in relation to this problem is to be found in discussions between the Commonwealth and the States at the Premiers Conference level.

page 1376

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANK PRESERVATION TRUST

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate follows the question by Senator Laucke in respect to the activities of the Australia and New Zealand Bank Preservation Trust in raising money to preserve the important and unique historical ANZ Bank building in King William Street, Adelaide. I ask the Minister whether in conjunction with his representations to the Treasurer on this question he will also ask the Treasurer if he would receive a deputation from the Trust if so requested?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI would be happy to add that request to the list of representations that I would naturally make as a result of question time today.

page 1376

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. Is it a fact that the Australian Industry Development Corporation has been engaging staff? If so, what is the total weekly wage bill for the Corporation? What are the salaries paid individually? What are the classifications of the people receiving those salaries? Has the AIDC commenced the investigation of applications for funds? Has the AIDC been given any economy direction by the Government in respect of the control of its expenses?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I would need to refer that question to the appropriate Minister in the other House because of the range of detailed information that is required. I know that the Australian Industry Development Corporation has been advertising for staff. I cannot say what the weekly wages bill is. I cannot say which individuals will be appointed, nor their classifications. I would imagine, although I have nothing precise on this, that the Corporation would be investigating the various areas where it might assist Australian industry in development.

page 1376

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. I ask: Will the Minister ensure that the reasonable claims of the Association of Civilian Widows are placed before the Minister for Social Services and Cabinet before the next Budget is decided so that justice can be given to civilian widow pensioners and their children? The claims are that an education allowance be paid to children of civilian widow pensioners, that B class widows receive the standard rate of pension and that the ceiling limit of $520 per year permissible income for single widow pensioners be raised forthwith.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I will certainly convey the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for Social Services and doubtless he will determine what will be the matters he should place before Cabinet for its consideration. I am sure that the Minister for Social Services would view sympathetically the sort of matters raised by Senator Fitzgerald. But, as the Senate appreciates, these are all matters for determination in the light of priorities, which is what the Government is elected to do.

page 1376

QUESTION

THE SENATE

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he can tell us the Government’s proposals for the sitting times of the Senate. What measures does the Government have in mind for consideration by the Senate in order that Bills which notoriously have not been properly considered in the House of Representatives may be given due consideration in this chamber? In particular I ask him for an assurance that there will not be any attempt to gag measures through this chamber.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONPerhaps I can take a few moments to give an explanation or an opinion on a matter that is of special interest to all honourable senators. Last week I moved a motion setting out the sitting times for this week. It provided, as I recall it, for the Senate to rise at 4 o’clock on Friday and for us to sit until 1 1 o’clock each day. We have had some adjustment of the times. As I see the work load coming to us from the other place at the present time, and having regard to the number of Bills we have on our business paper now, it seems to me that if we continue at our present rate we definitely will be sitting next week. I am prepared to discuss this with Party leaders but it would seem to me that the probability is that we will come back next Tuesday for the purpose of completing the business. I believe it is very unwise for leaders to give assurances in relation to the gag because this involves a 2-way ride. If certain circumstances arose and in my judgment - and 1 personally have to be responsible for the judgment - there was an attempt at deliberate filibustering, to use an American expression, I would reserve my options to use the gag. At the present time I have no intention of using the gag but 1 would like to see an increased tempo in the work we are about to do.

Having stated my views about meeting next week, I would add one other thought: If the Senate wanted to abridge its procedures and concentrate on Bills on which we are divided, give speedy passage to Bills on which we are not divided and to bracket some Bills which are machinery matters, I think that with a high degree of co-operation the Senate could, if it wanted to do so, accomplish its task by late on Friday night. But as Leader of the Government I am not going to be seen to force that on the Senate. I think the probability is that, if we go on as we arc now going we will be here for perhaps 2 or 3 days next week.

page 1377

QUESTION

DOCTORS’ FEES

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister for Health. Has the Department of Health recently conducted a survey to determine how many doctors are charging the most common fee for medical services? Does the survey show that 20 per cent of doctors are charging above the common fee for services? Will the Minister release the results of this survey to the public? What action does, the Minister propose to persuade those doctors charging more than the common fee that they should lower their fees to the approved scale?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– Studies have been made by officers of my Department following upon details supplied to the

Department by various fund organisations. Those figures are not complete because difficulties in Victoria in the compilation of the figures have prevented any accuracy from being obtained as to what the position is in that State. Generally it is true - I emphasise the word ‘generally’ - that the observance of the common fees is in the range of somewhere between 75 per cent and 80 per cent for all services. I propose to release these figures but consideration is being given at the present time as to how they could be produced in a satisfactory way in the light of the fact that one major State- is not able to provide the figures at the moment. We expect that, those figures for a later period will be available from Victoria in due course. It is a fact, as I have said - and I reiterate it - that the way in which the doctors observe the common fees contributes, to the efficacy of our national health scheme. We know that the doctors have the right to fix their own fees. One can only hope that by the advice and encouragement which the Australian Medical Association gives and by the doctors’ own sense of responsibility they will observe the common fees. I hope that all steps which I can take and, indeed which all honourable senators can take, will be directed- towards building up the pressures that doctors should observe the common fees.

page 1377

QUESTION

SYDNEY (KINGSFORD-SMITH) AIRPORT

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Has the attention of the Minister for Civil Aviation been drawn to a statement made yesterday in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly by Mr Bannon, the member for Rockdale, to the effect that, the curfew at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport is being constantly broken ‘with the connivance of the Minister for Civil Aviation’? Will the Minister inform the Senate whether this statement is true?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– That statement is not true, nor do I appreciate the use of the word ‘connivance’ by a representative of another Parliament. The situation with regard to the curfew at Sydney is quite clear and it has always been clear. It is maintained except in exceptional circumstances. The local authorities in charge of the airport give relief because of operational considerations. On special occasions ^holidays and times like that - I give permission because of the number of people to be lifted. I have to balance the public interest of a great number of people who would otherwise be delayed against the problem of people living near the airport. I should like to direct the attention of members of the New South Wales Parliament to the fact that it is they and municipality authorities who authorise buildings around airports, not myself.

page 1378

QUESTION

INCOME TAX

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether the Federal Government indicated that there was to be a progressive review of the incidence of income tax with a view to a variation of rates of taxation and a reduction in the Impact on the middle and lower income groups? Is this review nearing completion? When does the Federal Government believe that it can announce a decision on this matter?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The honourable senator informed me yesterday that he bad it in mind to ask this question. 1 rather suspect that it arose out of some matters which were raised in another place on the same level. I have sought some information from the Treasurer about this matter. For some time past the Government has had the whole of our taxation system under review. In the carrying out of this review first priority has been given to the relief introduced in the last Budget from the burden of personal income tax in the middle and lower income groups. The Treasurer drew attention to the Budget Speech for 1970-71 when he recently stated in a reply in another place that the Government, having honoured its promise to reduce the burden of personal income tax, would be looking at other aspects of our taxation system. This review is continuing at the present time. The Commonwealth has under active examination ways in which it might be possible within the constitutional framework to give the States access to a new form of taxation. The Government hopes to be in a position to put firm proposals before the States at the next Premiers Conference in June. However, the precise form of any such tax is a matter which has not been considered by the Government. The honourable senator can be assured that we are mindful of the need to keep the burden of taxation as low as possible, consistent with the need to pay for demands from the community for goods and services of the kind normally provided by governments.

page 1378

QUESTION

QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD

Senator WILLESEE:

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation whether the allegedly redundant Qantas Airways Ltd pilots have been invited to apply for positions in the Department of Civil Aviation as air traffic controllers? Can the Minister state what change in salaries would be involved?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Department of Civil Aviation has had a need for extra air traffic controllers for quite some time. In the past, we have had to recruit people with the necessary qualifications from the United Kingdom. It is perfectly true that that situation exists now. It has occurred to us in considering the problems of Qantas that amongst the Qantas pilots there would be people who would be qualified to be air traffic controllers. We have made it clear that applications will be considered from all people, including those people. The rate of salary which they would receive if they were appointed after selection by the selection panel is something I cannot give the honourable senator out of my head. I shall obtain the information for him. I should imagine that their salary would depend on their rating and their level of qualification. However, as a general exercise we believe that this offers an opportunity for people, particularly those with flying qualifications, to serve in another field if they would like to do so.

page 1378

QUESTION

IMPORTED BLOOD STOCK

Senator LAUCKE:

– Is the Minister for Health aware of the concern of Australian studmasters at the seemingly inordinate delay being experienced in obtaining permits for the importation of thoroughbred horses which have been purchased by them in England? Can the Minister indicate the cause of the delay? Will steps be taken to expedite the entry of such bloodstock into this country?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am aware that there have been problems recently with regard to the importation into Australia of bloodstock purchased in the United Kingdom. The reason for the problems derives from the fact that earlier this year there was a scare of glanders in horses. As a result a ban was placed upon the importation of horses into Australia and also into New Zealand. The position now is that the fear of glanders has been revealed to be only a scare and the prohibition upon the entry of horses into Australia and New Zealand has been removed. However, delay has arisen first because it is very difficult to get direct shipment from the United Kingdom to Australia and, secondly, because the usual means of bringing horses to Australia through the Panama. Canal and via New Zealand has met with the difficulty that New Zealand wants the legal position clarified, for this reason: If there should be a refusal on the part of Australia, in future to receive bloodstock from England, New Zealand would be left with the bloodstock without any ability to determine what should be done with it. I can assure the honourable senator that I am alive to the question he has raised. Problems are involved and wc are seeking to see whether the difficulties with regard to proclamations and regulations can be overcome as speedily as possible in order to help the people concerned.

page 1379

QUESTION

QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD

Senator BISHOP:

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation whether any progress has been made in talks between Qantas Airways Ltd, the Air Pilots Federation and the Minister in connection with the pending retrenchment of air crew by Qantas, and also in respect qf the training of crews for the operation of jumbo jets. Is it a fact that an amount of $200,000 would cover the complete cost of retaining the employees it is proposed to retrench? In that circumstance it is not sensible that the Government should attempt to maintain the full complement of Qantas air crew on the basis that business will return to Qantas within the ensuing 12 months?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Very substantial progress has been made in discussions between Qantas and its employees with the general assistance of the Department of Civil Aviation. I have taken a great interest myself. Considerable progress has been made towards the commencement of the training of crews for jumbo jets. Various sums of money have been mentioned in respect of the proposed retrenchment of air crew. I do not think that $200,000 is an accurate figure. I think it is a sum greater than that. Nonetheless, I understand what the honourable senator is saying and it is in accord with my own view. The main aim is to resolve the difference and to get Australia’s international airline operating, and operating profitably.

page 1379

QUESTION

MUTTON

Senator YOUNG:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware that the Australian price for mutton, including export mutton, varies between 5c and 7c per lb live weight? Is he also aware that Australian mutton is selling in the United States of America for 42c per lb c.i.f.? Can the Minister give the reason for the great discrepancy between prices paid to Australian producers and prices being obtained in the United States for similar meat?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I do not know whether the honourable senator’s statement is correct. I do not know whether it is valid to compare auction prices in Australia with prices received for Australian mutton in the United States of America. I believe that the competition between the buyers in Australia should ensure’ that producers receive a return that is in keeping with the supply and demand situation. The only thing I can add is that in- answer to a question recently I pointed out that to increase the demand representatives of the trade in New Zealand, Australia and the United States of America had decided to set- up a committee to, in effect, promote mutton by trade education and consumer education in an effort to encourage the consumption of mutton. The only thing I can think of in this matter is that if we can build up the mutton trade we can then build up prices here.

page 1379

QUESTION

HOSPITAL CHARGES

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Health. Does he think that the domino theory will apply as a result of the recent increases in hospital admission charges? If so, could he give an interim report on any discussions that have taken place with other State governments and hospital contribution fund authorities?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I think it is apparent to anybody who reflects on the matter that, with the tremendous increases in the remuneration of nurses’ in particular, and other persons who are employed in hospitals, subsequent to those increases in costs there would have to be a rise in hospital charges. Rises occurred in Western Australia, Tasmania and South Australia, and the recent announcement of increases in Victoria presages, I expect, some announcement in New South Wales. However, I am unable to express any view on that: It is just a contemplation of what is likely. I assure the honourable senator, as I have assured other honourable senators before him, that this is a matter that is receiving my attention, because we recognise that there is a genuine problem which has to be considered. I think the hospital contribution funds in Western Australia and South Australia have already adjusted their rates of contribution to take account of the increased charges. As I have said, this is an area which is under review at the present time.

page 1380

QUESTION

CENTRAL WESTERN QUEENSLAND SURVIVAL GROUP

Senator MILLINER:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. Did the Minister recently meet representatives of the committee known as the Central Western Queensland Survival Group? Was the Minister impressed with the seriousness of the submissions presented by such representatives? What action does the Minister propose to take to implement any of the proposals of the representatives of the aforementioned group to overcome urgently their immediate problems?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I do not know whether the Minister met representatives of the Central Western Queensland Survival Group. If the honourable senator says that he did, I imagine that that would be the case. The honourable senator can be quite sure that the Minister, being a Queenslander with a lot of experience on the land, would have been most impressed with the seriousness of their problem and will do all he possibly can to hear their case, help them and take whatever action lies within his power.

page 1380

QUESTION

POLDA BASIN PIPELINE

Senator LAUCKE:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. Further to my question of last week with respect to the provision of a pipeline for the reticulation of water from the Polda Basin to Kimba on Eyre Peninsula in South Australia, I ask whether a decision has yet been made with respect to this project? When I last asked the question a reply was to be made within a few days of that time. Is the reply yet available?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I am well aware of the honourable senator’s interest in this matter. I have not yet received a reply to that question and I do not know whether a decision has yet been made. However, I shall ask the appropriate Minister about this so that at least we can try to find out before the House of Representatives lifts.

page 1380

QUESTION

GROOTE EYLANDT

Senator MURPHY:

– In addressing a question to the Minister for Health I refer to a question that I asked him some time ago about the absence of resident medical, services on Groote Eylandt. What has been done about the provision of a resident doctor on Groote Eylandt to deal with the 2,000 people there? If nothing has been done, what does the Commonwealth propose to do about it?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I was under the impression that I had given a reasonable and . fairly comprehensive answer to Senator Murphy when he asked this question about a fortnight ago. I have nothing to add to what I then said. This is a matter which creates its own particular problems because of the difficulty, in essence, of attracting persons who are able to render medical services in outback areas. Nevertheless, there are facilities which are available and those facilities will be maintained.

page 1380

QUESTION

GROOTE EYLANDT

Senator MURPHY:

– Does the Minister for Health recall that on 21st April I asked him a question about Groote Eylandt, in reply to which he said:

I certainly shall inquire, because the Leader of the Opposition has asked me to inquire, into the facts that he has related.

The Minister then gave some information about the services that he thought were available to Groote Eylandt and said:

I shall look further into the matter as the

Leader of the Opposition has asked me to do, and I shall give him such information as I am able to obtain.

Does the Minister regard what he said a few moments ago as a fair compliance with what he undertook to do when he said that he would look further into the matter and give the information for which I asked? I suggest to the Minister and press him, if he would, to look into the matter of medical services for Groote Eylandt and see what can be done to provide a better medical service for the people of that island who have no resident medical doctor.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I regret very much that Senator Murphy should become rather heated about this matter or suggest in some way that I was seeking to avoid doing what I promised to do. I can assure the honourable senator that, after he asked the question which he states now was asked on 21st April, I arranged for inquiries to be instituted so that I could be given more information thanI then had. The information has not yet come before me, but when it does come before me I shall look at it. From the way in which the honourable senator asked his original question which has prompted this further question it appears to me that there was an implication that nothing was being done. I assure the honourable senator that the matter is being looked at, but there are these essential basic problems that I mentioned to him in my earlier response.

page 1381

QUESTION

HOSPITAL CHARGES

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I ask the Minister for Health a further question. If we are expected to accept his thesis that increased salaries for professional staff employed under hospital industrial awards have made increased admission charges inevitable, I should like to know what role the Minister has played in directing or advising hospital benefit funds in South Australia and Western Australia as to what percentage of their massive reserves should be used to cushion these increases.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The honourable senator will appreciate that amendments to the National Health Act last year gave to the Minister for Health a general power of approval and a power to vary the decisions of these organisations. I am assured that the decisions made in Western Australia and South Australia with regard to contribution rates did come before my predecessor. The benefits which the hospi tal benefits organisations provide do represent the way in which individuals can safeguard themselves against the very heavy burden of hospital expenses. The Government has a very real concern in ensuring that these organisations do the job that they are set up to do.

page 1381

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

(Question No. 897)

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

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

  1. What is the Australian Government’s attitude towards the British decision to sell seven helicopters to South Africa.
  2. Does the Government agree with this move to give military support to racialist South Africa, in breach of the United Nations Security Council embargo on arms sales to the Vorster regime, which is supporting Rhodesia in defying the British Government.
  3. Will the Australian Government support the governments of the United States, Canada, Malaysia and the black African Commonwealth Nations in any diplomatic action to prevent the arms sale if it disagrees with the spirit and intention of the British decision.
Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the following reply:

The answer to all three questions is contained in the then Prime Minister’s reply to questions in the House by the Leader of the Opposition on 25th February.

page 1381

QUESTION

WOOL

(Question No. 986)

Senator KANE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. What quantity of wool is presently stockpiled by the Australian Wool Commission and what percentage of the Australian wool clip sold since November 1970 does this represent.
  2. What procedure does the Commission intend to adopt in selling this accumulated stock, in what bale quantities will it be sold and will sales be guanteed as by the Commission to type and quality.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. Because of the depressed state of the wool market the Australian Wool Commission has purchased or has had passed-in to it fairly large quantities of wool as a result of its reserve price operations. Early in March of this year the Wool Commission commenced to make available for publication the percentage rate of its day-by-day purchases in wool auction rooms around Australia. For commercial reasons, however, it is the policy of the Commission not to release full details of its stocks of wool, nor of their purchase cost.
  2. In view of the unfavourable market conditions already referred to, the present policy of the Commission is not to resell wool from its stocks for the time being except where the types required are currently in short supply at auctions.

page 1382

QUESTION

ATOMIC ENERGY

(Question No. 1015)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

Can an interim report be made available of the findings of the team, mentioned by the Minister on 26th January 1971 in answer to questions asked in the 1970-71 Senate Estimates Committee D, which was to be sent to examine the extent of rehabilitation of the Finniss River carried out by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

The team which visited the Finniss River area in August 1970 noted some clearing of dead trees and the construction of an embankment to stop overflow from White’s open cut.

The team will re-visit the area as soon as practicable after the end of the wet season.

page 1382

QUESTION

ANTARCTICA

(Question No. 1022)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minis ter for Supply, upon notice:

  1. Does Australia maintain a total ban on the killing of seals and other mammals in its Antarctic Territories.
  2. Are regular counts made to ascertain accurate figures of the seal population.
  3. Is Macquarie Island included in any such a survey or is this Island left to the supervision of the Tasmanian Government.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. (2) and (3) It is convenient to deal with the 3 parts of this question together. The Department of Supply, through its Antarctic Division is involved in this matter in relation to Macquarie Island, the Territory of Heard Island and McDonald Islands and the Australian Antarctic Territory.

The Antarctic Division has established a station on Macquarie Island in the sub-Antarctic and usually has about 20 officers wintering there. Work is carried out there in many fields, including zoology. Studies in zoology have covered the elephant and fur seals, the royal penguin and other birds and animals. Macquarie Island is a dependency of the State of Tasmania and under State legislation the island is declared a wildlife sanctuary. The Antarctic Division expeditions comply strictly with the State legislation which, for example, requires the granting of prior permits for the killing of seals. Killing is permitted for scientific purposes only; in recent years the total number of all species killed per annum for all purposes would not reach 45. It is the practice for each leader of the expedition to be appointed a curator under the State legislation for the purpose of exercising control on behalf of the State of Tasmania.

The Territory of Heard Island and McDonald Islands, also in the sub-Antarctic, is currently visited intermittently by summer parties. The station is closed down. By virtue of the Heard Island and McDonald Islands Act 1953-63 the laws in force in the Australian Capital Territory apply in the Territory of Heard Island and McDonald Islands. The Animals and Birds Protection Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory provides absolute protection to seals and other mammals. The Ordinance allows for permits to be issued covering the collection of specimens for special purposes only; no species have been killed in the last fifteen years.

Similarly, by virtue of Section 6 of the Australian Antarctic Territory Act 1954-63, the laws of the Australian Capital Territory apply automatically to the Australian Antarctic Territory insofar as they are applicable. Thus, the Animals and Birds Protection Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory would apply in the Australian Antarctic Territory. Additionally, the Antarctic Treaty of which Australia is a signatory includes as one of its objectives the preservation and conservation of living resources in Antarctica and the participating Governments have agreed specific measures for the conservation of Antarctic fauna and flora. The Agreed Measures provide that each participating Government prohibit the killing, wounding, capturing or molesting of any native mammal or bird except in accordance with a permit. Permits are issued to the Officers-in-Charge of the Australian Stations in the Territory for the killing of seals or other mammals for scientific research, dog food or in emergency situations only. Of recent years, the total number of ail species killed each year has averaged 75. Under the Antarctic Treaty each participating government exchanges information on the killing of Antarctic species.

At present, there is no regular counting generally of the seal population although, from time to time, known breading grounds are inspected and counts taken. However, the location of all seal breeding grounds in the vast antarctic continent is not known.

In respect of whales in Antarctica, these mammal are covered by the International Conventions for the Regulation of Whaling which prescribe restrictions and catch quotas.

page 1382

QUESTION

DRUGS

(Question No. 1050)

Senator WEBSTER:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Will the Minister request the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories to submit a report to Parliament indicating how the production of certain drugs, now available under the National Health Scheme, could be made available at much cheaper rates than at present.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

No. It is not considered that the Commission would be an appropriate organisation to prepare a report along the lines sought by the honourable senator particularly in relation to drugs available under the National Health Act that are not produced by the Commission itself.

However, the terms of reference of the House of Representatives Select Committee appointed to enquire into and make recommendations on all aspects of the provision of and arrangements for the supply of pharmaceutical benefits under the National Health Act includes an examination of all factors contributing to the cost of the scheme. No doubt the Select Committee will consider whether the production of certain drugs could be made available more economically than at present.

page 1383

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT ENGINE WORKS

(Question No. 944)

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister for

Supply, upon notice:

  1. How many marine diesel engines have been built at the Department’s Engine Works at Port Melbourne since I960.
  2. What has been the horsepower of each engine and to whom have they been sold.
  3. How many personnel have been employed in manufacturing the engines each year since 1960.
  4. What is the current order position.
  5. What is the maximum power output of an engine the works is capable of producing.
  6. Are any engines manufactured to local design and with whom has the Department of Supply licensing arrangements.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. Fourteen.
  2. The following table shows the type and horsepower of each engine and for whom they were built:
  1. Employment levels at Commonwealth Government Engine Works since 1960 have fluctuated from151 to 194 depending upon workload. It should be noted that a considerable content of the engines is supplied by local industries such as structural fabricators, steel foundries, cast iron foundries, etc.
  2. The Commonwealth Government Engine Works has recently received a Letter of Intent from Whyalla Shipbuilding and Engineering Works for the supply of one Sulzer 7RND90 Engine of 20,300 horsepower to be installed in the Botany Bay Tanker (Caltex).
  3. The Works is currently capable of producing Sulzer engines in the RND90 bore size with outputs up to 2,900 hp per cylinder up to 12 cylinders, i.e., a maximum manufacturing capacity of 34,800 hp in a single unit. Present testing capacity is limited to 26,000 horsepower.
  4. No engines have yet been manufactured to local design for large marine diesel engines. The Department of Supply has a licensing agreement with the Doxford and Sunderland Shipbuilding and Engineering Co. Ltd, United Kingdom for engines up to 22,500 horsepower and with Sulzer Bros, Winterthur, Switzerland for engines to 48,000 horsepower. The Department also has an agreement with Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries, Japan for the servicing of Pielstick engines in Australia.

page 1383

QUESTION

INDUSTRY ADVISORY COMMITTEES

(Question No. 946)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice:

  1. How many Industry Advisory Committees are established in the Department of Supply.
  2. What is the classification of each and what are their specific functions.
  3. How often do they meet and where.
  4. To whom are their recommendations made.
  5. What are the names and occupations of the members of each Committee and who are their employers.
  6. What, if any, remuneration do these Committee Members receive.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. There are 8 Industry Advisory Committees.
  2. Of the Industry Advisory Committees listed in the reply to Question No.539 of the House of Representatives (see Hansard, 10th March 1971, pages 804-3), the Materials Industry Advisory Committee has since been dissolved. The present Industry Advisory Committees are as follows:

Aircraft and Guided Weapons Industry Advisory Committee

Chemical Industry Advisory Committee

Electronics and Telecommunications Industry Advisory Committee

Leather and Footwear Industry Advisory Committee

Machine Tools and Gauges Industry Advisory Committee

Mechanical Engineering Industry Advisory Committee

Rubber Industry Advisory Committee

Textiles and Clothing Industry Advisory Committee.

The Committees advise the Minister for Supply on the satisfaction of defence requirements by their sectors of industry, as indicated by each Committee’s title and on associated raw materials.

  1. The Committees meet as required and wherever most convenient. On average, each Committee would meet about 3 times per year, although this varies considerably from Committee to Committee.
  2. See answer (2) above.
  3. The names and occupations of the members of each Industry Advisory Committee are as follows:
  1. No remuneration is paid to non-Departmental members for their services, but they may be reimbursed (at the current rates for the Public Service) for travelling and accommodation expenses incurred in performing such services.

page 1385

QUESTION

PASSPORTS

(Question No. 984)

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

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

  1. Has a passport been issued to Alan Cameron Charles Stewart of 3 Elm Grove, Armadale, Victoria.

which country did he travel and what was the date of his departure.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. There is no record of the issue of an Australian passport to an Alan Cameron Charles Stewart in the past 5 years.
  2. The records held in the Department of Immigration of passengers leaving Australia, which date from 1st January 196S do not contain the name of Alan Cameron Charles Stewart up to 31st January 1971. Records from 1st February 1971 to the present date are not yet available for checking.

page 1386

QUESTION

FOREIGN LANGUAGE POLITICAL PUBLICATIONS

(Question No. 1012)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minis ter representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Are the contents of various overseas foreign language political publications monitored.
  2. Does the publication ‘Hrvatska’ come within the ambit of such surveillance.
  3. What does the Attorney-General know of the origin of ‘Hrvatska’ and the political causes it espouses.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The Attorney-

General has. supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (I), (2) and (3) Various overseas foreign language publications are read from time to time. They include ‘Hrvatska’. This is the official organ of the Croatian Liberation Movement and is published in Buenos Aires where that organisation is based. The organisation espouses the establishment of an independent Croatian state.

page 1386

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 1024)

Senator MILLINER:

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

What is the average administrative cost in Australia and overseas for each immigrant to be brought to Australia in the year 1970-71.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

Expenditure brought to account by the Department of Immigration is not dissected to show the administrative cost of bringing each migrant to Australia.

However, an assessment of $66 per migrant has been made on the basis of estimated expenditure directly associated with overseas recruitment, en route services and reception in Australia in respect of the revised 1970-71 immigration programme of 170,000.

This estimate excludes integration, education and accommodation costs in Australia as well as expenditure brought to account by other departments under the ‘common services’ arrangement, which operate at overseas posts where 2 or more Commonwealth Departments are accommodated in the same premises. In such cases the cost of shared staff and facilities is charged to the appropriations of the host department - generally the Department of Foreign Affairs. Thus the costs of some locally engaged staff, rental of office premises, communication, transport and other office expenses at some overseas posts are not included in the above assessment of the average cost per migrant.

page 1386

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 1025)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

  1. How many officers of the Department of Immigration were stationed in Asia (excluding Turkey), Africa, North America, South America, Great Britain and Eire and Continental Europe (including Turkey and the Mediterranean area), during each of the past 5 years?
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration has supplied the following answer:

The following table shows the number of Australia-based Department of Immigration officers stationed overseas during each of the past 5 years:

The figures in brackets represent Department of Immigration officers included in the total who are or were temporarily on the establishment of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

page 1386

QUESTION

F111 AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 1054)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for

Air, upon notice:

  1. What was the total amount paid to the United States of America as at 6th April 1971 towards the purchase of the 24 F111 aircraft on order for the RAAF.
  2. What is the total amount still owing.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. The total amount paid in respect of the project as at 6th April 1971 is $US228.288m of which amount $US223.449m has been paid to the United States Government.
  2. The total amount still owing will depend on the outcome of the final decision regarding acceptance or otherwise of the aircraft Final costing for some elements of the project is still to be the subject of discussion and agreement between the United States and the Commonwealth.

page 1387

QUESTION

ART GRANTS

(Question No. 1092)

Senator MILLINER:

asked the Minister representing the Vice-President of the Executive Council, upon notice:

Will the Minister arrange for representatives of the Australian Council for the Arts and officers of the Department of Education and Science, to discuss with officers of the Queensland Branch of the Council the distribution of financial grants in Queensland?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The Vice-President of the Executive Council has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Australian Council for the Arts does not have a branch in Queensland. However, I have been assured by the Council that its officers work in the closest collaboration with the Queensland authorities in considering recommendations for grants to organisations in that State. The Department of Education and Science is not concerned in (he provision of grants for the performing arts.

page 1387

QUESTION

FISHING INDUSTRY RESEARCH

(Question No. 1045)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minis ter for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. What is the total amount available for fishing industry research in Australia.
  2. What is the total amount expended to date.
  3. What organisations and regions have successfully made application for assistance from the Australian Fishing Industry Research Committee.
  4. What organisations and regions have applied for assistance from the Australian Fishing Industry Research Committee but have not received assistance.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. It is assumed that this question refers to moneys available from the Fishing Industry Research Account, which was established under the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969. Under this Act the Commonwealth pays into an account an amount equal to that raised by the States from the fishing industry and paid by the Stales into their own fisheries research funds, which are used by the States to finance State projects. The Commonwealth fund which comprises the Commonwealth contribution only, is administered by the Minister for Primary Industry and is available to finance projects likely to make the most significant contribution to the Australian fishing industry. The first grants from this fund will be for the 1971-72 financial year. The Commonwealth’s Lability to the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account as at 30th June 1971 is expected to be about $492,000.
  2. As the first grants from the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account will be for the 1971- 72 financial year no moneys have yet beenexpended.
  3. Grants from the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account to the following organisations for 1971-72 have been approved on the recommendation of the Fishing Industry Research Committee:

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Division of Fisheries and Oceanography and Division of Food Research - Research on the prawn fishery in northern Australian waters, and investigations into the factors affecting the quality of abalone and prawn products.

Victorian Department of Fisheries and Wildlife - Research on the school and gummy shark fisheries of South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania and New South Wales;

New South Wales State Fisheries, Chief Secretary’s Department - Research on oyster cultivation in New South Wales waters; The Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry (on behalf of the Australian Fisheries Council) - Training of fisheries officers; and conducting a National Fisheries Seminar.

Western Australian Department of Fisheries and Fauna - Research on rock lobsters in West Australian waters.

Western Australian Department of Fisheries and Fauna and the Western Australian Branch of the Australian Fishing Industry Council - Scholarships for fishery students.

Further details on these projects and the amounts involved were given in a Press release on 20th April 1971.

  1. The applications which were not recommended by the Fishing Industry Research Committee are as follows:

Mr A. G. Shanahan Moreton Bay, Queensland, development of an oyster (spat) catching frame.

Taronga Zoological Park Trust - New South Wales, use of high volume pump for zoo plankton collection.

New South Wales State Fisheries - Brackish water trout culture at Port Stephens.

New South Wales State Fisheries - Investigation of latest developments in overseas aquaculture.

University of New South Wales and the New South Wales State Fisheries - Raft culture of mussels in south east Australia.

Ulladulla Fishermen’s Co-operative - Survey of the potential of commercial fisheries in the Ulladulla area.

Mr K. Flynn Establishment of a prawn, oyster and crab farm at Cairns, Queensland.

Oxley Regional Development Committee - Survey of the sportfishing potential of the Oxley Region of New South Wales.

Victorian Department of Fisheries and Wildlife - Scallop culture in Port Phillip Bay.

Tasmania”, Department of Agriculture - Martculture research and development.

The C. Hulls Co.- New South Wales, development of ferro-cement fishing boats.

South Australian Department of Fisheries .and Fauna Conservation and Adelaide University - Study of abalone ecology in South Australian waters.

Tasmanian Department of Agriculture - Survey of pelagic fish resources.

CSIRO Division of Food Research- Study visit to Europe by an officer of the Division.

CSIRO Division of Fisheries and Oceanography and Queensland Department of Primary Industries - Prawn research on Queensland’s east coast.

British Tobacco (Aust.) Ltd - Aquaculture of tiger prawns at Moreton Bay, Queensland.

Queensland University - Study of Eastern Australian Flathead.

Queensland University - Purchase of a trawler for research work.

Mr R. K. Bryson Townsville Queensland Tropical oyster culture.

Sevrup Fisheries Pty Ltd - Brackish water culture of trout and salmon at Bridport, Tasmania.

Bermagui Fishermen’s Co-operative - Survey of the scallop resources of the Bermagui area.

The Hunter Valley Research Foundation - Study of fish marketing and potential in New South Wales.

Queensland University - Study of invertibrates in Moreton Bay.

page 1388

QUESTION

MIGRANT TEACHERS

(Question No. 983)

Senator POYSER:

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

  1. Has any provision been made at the Enterprise Migrant Hostel at Springvale, Victoria, for teaching migrants English. If so, why must teachers of advanced students in one section of the gymnasium have to compete with a junior grade in another section?
  2. Why must classes and teachers be constantly inconvenienced by having to move all their gear and equipment so that the gymnasium may be used for the purpose for which it was built?
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. and (2) When detailed planning of the Enterprise Hostel at Springvale took place, in the period from 1964 to 1966, it was not proposed to conduct migrant education classes in the Hostel itself but to rely instead upon the facilities available in the community.

Late in 1970 following the Government’s decision to expand the migrant education programme action was taken to establish in the actual Hostel intensive instruction for non-English speaking migrant children before they were passed on for enrolment in the normal school system and both full-time and part-time courses for adults residing in the Hostel. Improvisation consequently became necessary to meet classroom requirements.

Since the migrant education centre in the Hostel was opened in January 1971 under the supervision of a Departmental Language Training Officer, classes under teachers provided by the Victorian Education Department have been held in the Recreation Hall, in the foyer adjoining it, in the Child Minding Centre, the Library, the Youth Centre and the Staff Sitting-room. The Recreation Hall is used for full-time classes for children 6 hours a day during the normal school week, and for adults for 2 hours in the evening 2 nights a week. Otherwise it is available for recreational purposes. Any movement of gear and equipment is handled by the Hostel staff. The shortcomings of the present arrangements are recognised but any temporary inconvenience caused is far outweighed by the value of the courses of instruction being provided.

page 1388

QUESTION

COMMUNIST CHINA

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 27th April Senator Hannan asked me the following question, without notice:

Will the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the Senate whether the Government of Communist China has yet accorded full diplomatic recognition with mutual exchange of envoys at ambassador level to the Government of Great Britain? If China has so recognised Great Britain, will the Minister advise the date of such recognition. 1 said that I would obtain a precise answer from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who has provided the following:

The Governments of the United Kingdom and of the People’s Republic of China have recognised each other since 1950, and offices headed by Charges d’Affaires are maintained in the respective capitals.

page 1388

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Senator HENDRICKSON:
Victoria

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– Yes. Last week we were discussing in this chamber a law and order Bill. During the course of the discussion of that Bill I listened to Senator McManus when he made his contribution to the debate. On Friday morning, although I was not here, I heard over the radio the statement that Senator McManus made. He said that he had been misrepresented, and it is about that matter that I wish to make my personal explanation today. I take this opportunity to set the record straight.

It is true that last Wednesday I said to my colleague, Senator Cavanagh, in the course of the discussion on the law and order Bill, which Senator McManus supported, as I mentioned before, that some people changed their minds on various subjects and I told Senator Cavanagh of the trouble in Melbourne in 1919 when the Melbourne City Council refused the organisers of the St Patrick’s Day procession the right to do as they had done for many years, that is, to march up Bourke Street on the Saturday closest to March 17th. No doubt, as Senator McManus has stated, the trouble in Ireland had something to do with the refusal of the Melbourne City Council to grant permission for this march. I and many others thought the banning of the march was a grave injustice. At that time I was in a different position to Senator McManus. He stated in his explanation that he was in short pants. I was in a very different position. I had not long returned to Australia after spending 3 years with the Australian Imperial Force in Egypt and France fighting for the right to demonstrate peacefully - I stress peacefully - against any suppression of our democratic way of life.

Everyone was accustomed to the St Patrick’s Day march which was always carried out in an orderly fashion. Along with other returned soldiers, some Catholics, some Protestants and others with no religion, I was invited to march in the procession, and we decided, whether or not the city council granted permission, that we would march in protest against a vicious secretarian local government by-law which would have victimised a large number of people and forever destroyed the St Patrick’s Day procession. I was just as proud then to demonstrate against a bad law as I was to march in last year’s moratorium peaceful demonstration against another bad law.

Senator Young:

– You would be lucky to find a peaceful demonstration last year.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– It was quite peaceful. I do not believe in anything that is not peaceful.

Senator Young:

– You should go to Adelaide.

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– People like the honourable senator probably caused what happened in Adelaide. The St Patrick’s Day Procession Committee applied to the Melbourne City Council for permission to hold a march on the Saturday afternoon nearest to St Patrick’s Day in 1919. The application was refused. The council subsequently advised the committee a few days before the march was to take place that permission would be granted on condition that the Union Jack must be carried at the head of the procession. This condition was accepted by the committee. I think I might mention here that the organisers of the procession had decided to have the march even if the city council had persisted with its refusal. I wonder what attitude Senator McManus would have adopted had permission not been granted. It was not easy to comply with the condition laid down by the Melbourne City Council and to get a flag carrier to carry the flag. It was not until the march was about to commence that a poor old derelict who had been hired lo carry the Union Jack took his place at the head of the procession. Before the march had proceeded more than a dozen yards this derelict was assaulted by 2 young Irishmen who were subsequently arrested and fined, but not before they had dragged the Union Jack to the ground, poured petrol or kerosene on it and set it alight. The march was resumed and proceeded up Bourke Street without the Union Jack, and that made it an unlawful procession. The Irish Pipe Band led the march, and after the band came the open motor car in which Dr Mannix and other church dignitaries travelled. Large numbers of people, probably thousands, marched in that illegal procession. One of them was Senator McManus. Many of the marchers roared with laughter when they were told of the scuffle and the burning of the Union Jack. I wonder whether it could be possible that Senator McManus, the great anti-Labor and law and order man today, also roared with laughter when the Union Jack was burned.

Senator Gair:

– Where was Arthur Calwell?

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– He was in it, but so was I. To complete the story, the Melbourne City Council prosecuted the organisers of the procession because they had failed to honour their obligation to see that the Union Jack was carried respectfully from the start of the march to the finish. The City Council lost the case. Dr Mannix again headed the procession the next year, but this time with an escort of 14 Victoria Cross winners on white horses, while 10,000 World War I veterans of all religions marched behind the car in which he travelled. The 2 young Irishmen who burned the flag were James Butler and Patrick Riordan. Butler is dead and Riordan is probably dead. Most of their relatives today could be strong supporters of the law and order party, the bitter reactionary Australian Democratic Labor Party. I would like to have it recorded in Hansard that I am just as proud today as 1 was in 1919 that I took part in that march.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

- Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation in regard to this matter.

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

Senator McMANUS:

– 1 must thank Senator Hendrickson for having informed me prior to making his statement that he intended to make it. He said: ‘I want to make an explanation but it will not contain anything vindictive’.

Senator Hendrickson:

– It was not vindictive. It is true.

Senator McMANUS:

– That is not so. That was the statement made by Senator Hendrickson. I merely want to say that as Senator Hendrickson is shortly to leave the Senate I have no desire for him and myself to part as bad friends. Therefore I will make no comments on his reference to myself other than to say that his accusation that I took part in an illegal procession is untrue. It was 51 years ago. I was a boy at school. I marched with my school and we were informed before the procession that the Melbourne City Council had agreed that the procession could be held.

page 1390

PULP

Tariff Board Report

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– 1 present the report by the Tariff Board on the following subject:

Pulp (New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement).

page 1390

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND WELFARE

Senator Dame IVY WEDGWOOD (Victoria) (3.19)- I bring up the report of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare relating to mentally and physically handicapped persons in Australia, together with a copy of the evidence taken by the Committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Is leave granted? There being no objection leave is granted.

This report will be the last presented to the Senate by me but it is the first presented by one of the new legislative and general purpose standing committees, and will, I hope, be the forerunner of many similar reports to the Senate by those new standing committees. Significantly, the Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs, which I also had the privilege of chairing, recommended the appointment of a Standing Committee on Health in its reports to the Senate of September 1969 and June 1970.

The Standing Committee on Health and Welfare received over 70 written submissions from interested departments, organisations and individuals from all over Australia. Sworn evidence was received from 45 witnesses from all States at 10 public meetings conducted in Canberra. Where evidence was taken, the submissions appear in Hansard, but I shall table the remaining submissions so that they will be available to all interested persons. I hope that honourable senators will set aside the time to read and comprehend what is a graphic record of great misfortune to countless thousands of people.

During the inquiry it became evident that the size of the handicapped population is unknown and that services to the handicapped have developed in a piecemeal and fragmented fashion. Six Commonwealth departments accept a measure of responsibility for the handicapped and the Committee considers that some form of coordination is essential. Over the years a great amount of reliance has been placed on organisations which have been dependent to a large extent on voluntary assistance, both financial and physical. The Committee was told that voluntary organisations are reaching, or have reached, a situation where they can no longer carry the increasingly heavy burden. The Committee came to the conclusion that more financial support from both Commonwealth and State sources is necessary if the problems of the handicapped are to be minimised, let alone solved. Little evidence was found of long term planning of facilities for the handicapped. There appeared to be little co-ordination between the many authorities and organisations concerned, and little uniformity of services or of training of staff.

After considerable deliberation on the evidence received, the Committee has made 85 recommendations. As explained in the report, the aim of the Committee is not to particularise on the problems of specific groups but to assess the overall situation of all mentally and physically handicapped persons in Australia, with the hope that the recommendations will result in general improvements that will flow through to particular disability groups. The recommendations include surveys of the handicapped, disability registers, research, prevention, early diagnosis, treatment, education, rehabilitation, employment, accommodation and provision of staff, with particular emphasis on research and prevention.

Evidence received indicated that medical research has identified only a handful of these causes of congenital defects, and that little research is being carried out at present in Australia. Concern was expressed that while there may be a decline in the incidence of brain damage at birth, there is an ever increasing number of persons handicapped as a result of home, industrial and road accidents. Any campaign directed at prevention of handicap must include research and education aimed at preventing such accidents. Evidence showed a lack of pre-school facilities in Australia for handicapped children. The point was well made that these children required pre-school education much more than children in general. The Committee is of the opinion that particular consideration should be given to the provision of pre-school education for handicapped children. It recommends that the Commonwealth and States should lay down a programme for the establishment of pre-schools for the handicapped, but until such a programme is implemented, funds should be available to those voluntary agencies wishing to conduct their own schools.

The Committee is deeply concerned that all States have not accepted responsibility for the education of moderately retarded children, and recommends that full responsibility should be undertaken for the education of all handicapped children. The Committee is also concerned at the lack of a comprehensive rehabilitation service available to all persons requiring such a service. It is of the opinion that all patients should have access to treatment and rehabilitation facilities. Furthermore, that patients requiring rehabilitation treatment should not be obliged to travel to capital cities to obtain services. The Committee recommends that a division of rehabilitation should be established within the Commonwealth Department of Health, and that all aspects of medical rehabilitation should be undertaken in State hospitals, rehabilitation centres, units or clinics, lt also recommends that the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service restrict its activities to programmes of vocational training, re-training and work adjustment, and that these facilities be available, not only to specified beneficiaries, but to all patients referred from the previously mentioned hospitals, rehabilitation centres, units or clinics. The Committee noted a lack of vocational counselling services for handicapped persons to be placed in employment, and makes several recommendations aimed at improving these and follow-up services.

It was claimed in evidence that the means test at present operating on the sheltered employment allowance was the greatest single barrier to the rehabilitation of many handicapped workers, and several recommendations are designed to help to alleviate this situation. Witnesses felt that increased community services should be provided to ease the burden of those handicapped persons willing and able to live at home. The report contains recommendations concerning day care facilities, emergency accommodation, assistance in the installation of aids to daily living in the home, and the expansion of home nursing, paramedical and other domiciliary services. The Committee was told that there was an Australia wide shortage of all categories of staff concerned with the handicapped, and it recommends postgraduate medical diploma courses in rehabilitation and physical medicine, scholarships for those medical practitioners willing to pursue these courses, and further courses of training for nurses, teachers, therapists and social workers. Valuable evidence was received from representatives of voluntary organisations, and the Committee commends them for the magnificent work they have done over the years. Without their help the problems would be insoluble.

The Committee was left without doubt that if there is to be a move away from the present piecemeal approach to the provision of assistance to the handicapped in the community, co-ordination, research, long term planning and adequate finance are essential. To this end the Committee believes there is a need for the establishment of a national advisory council for the handicapped. The function of this advisory Council would be to advise both Commonwealth and State governments on the total needs of the handicapped in the community, and to help to establish priorities in the creation of new or additional facilities.

The Committee would wish me to place on record its thanks to Dr Colin Campbell, Secretary to the Committee; to Mr Boris Andrusiak and to Mrs Nance Best. All Committees owe much to the officers of the parliamentary service, who carry the extra work and responsibility associated with select or standing committee inquiries. The thanks of the Committee also go to the staff of Hansard and the reproduction and printing staff. Called upon, as they invariably are, to work under pressure to a timetable, they always succeed in meeting the target date. I desire to record my personal thanks to those I have mentioned, and to any others who have anything whatsoever to do with this inquiry. T should like particularly to mention Dr Colin Campbell. He is a young officer of the Senate, with great potential, and with many years ahead of him. I take this opportunity to commend him for his application to a subject that would be foreign to his previous experience, but his devotion to the task indicated a deep sense of responsibility, coupled with much ability.

Both of these qualities I appreciated deeply during the work of the inquiry.

Finally, and by no means least, 1 wish to thank the members of the Committee. Drawn as they were from Government, Opposition and Independent Senators, they represented a cross section of Australian political opinion, but at all times they demonstrated the worthwhile contribution that all people of goodwill can make to finding the best solution to a great human problem. As I mentioned earlier, this is my last report to the Senate. 1 am conscious of the great complexities associated with the problems of handicapped persons, and it may well be that there are areas untouched by this report, lt would be my hope that future references to the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare and the sustained interest of senators will ensure that the community is fully aware of, and responsive to, the needs of all handicapped people.

When I made my maiden speech 211 years ago I indicated that in my opinion the quality of a people and of a nation could be judged by the attitudes towards the young, the aged, the sick and the brave. I believe this as fervently today as I did then. I thank the Government for the privilege of chairing two major committees that have had as their objective the amelioration of the problems of those who, for one reason or another, come within those categories. 1 hope that others will take over where I am leaving off. T move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Senator FITZGERALD:
New South Wales

– As a member of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare J concur with the remarks of the Chairman, Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood, about the report presented today. I feel that it will prove to be a very valuable report. I also wish to place on record the Committee’s appreciation of the work of Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood as Chairman of the Committee. Although she is retiring from the Senate I feel that her name will long be remembered through her association with a number of Senate committees. She mentioned several, but there are others. I believe that when the report on mentally and physically handicapped people is read and discussed it will be found that it contains some very worthy recommendations.

I am certain that Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood’s name will always be remembered in connection with this work.

I also pay a. tribute to Dr Colin Campbell, Secretary of the Committee, and to his efficient assistants. As the Chairman stated, the Hansard staff helped considerably in preparing the document presented to the Senate today. This is the first report presented under the new Senate committee system. It is an immense report, of 100 pages. Every honourable senator should be very pleased that the report has been brought down in such good time. I conmend the report to honourable senators and members and I hope that the Government will endorse its recommendations, for I feel sure many thousands of men, women and children who are handicapped in so many ways - ‘I have in mind, too, families who have the major responsibility of caring for their loved ones who are handicapped - will gain great assistance when the recommendations in the report are acted upon.

Governments have a reputation for moving slowly in providing benefits. About 16 years ago with Senator Anderson, as he was then, I requested from Sir Robert Menzies, the Prime Minister of the day, help for handicapped people. It is true that government benefits have been granted since that date, but I sincerely believe that much more can and will be done when the recommendations contained in the report are put into effect. Great assistance can also be given to dedicated people such as teachers, members of the medical profession, hospital staffs and all associated with the rehabilitation of handicapped persons. I realise that the report will be placed under the very keen scrutiny of the Minister for Health, the Government and government departments, and many organisations which provide aid in many ways to the ill and infirm members of the community.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I think it is important for the Senate to note that this is the first report of any of the Standing Committees which have been set up recently by the Senate. I am extremely pleased that the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare has been able to bring down what appears to be an extremely comprehensive report. We are indebted to Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood not only for chairing the Standing Committee which has produced the report but also for her services in chairing what is now known as the Wedgwood Committee - the committee which dealt with medical and hospital costs. I think we would all like an opportunity to study the report presented today before it is discussed. I hope that we will be able to discuss it before the Senate rises for the recess, while Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood is still with us. In any event, I think we would all like to see it given proper consideration. I ask for leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted. Debate adjourned.

page 1393

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

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

– by leave - I move:

That the Publications Committee, or any sub-committee thereof, when conferring with a similar committee or sub-committee of the House of Representatives, have power to move from place to place.

Amendments made in 1970 to Senate standing order No. 36 and House of Representatives standing order No. 28 gave the Publications Committee broad powers of inquiry. However, the Committee does not have the power to move from place to place. The power is required initially to enable the Committee to inspect the new Australian Government Publishing Service Printing Office, the Department of Supply Central Drawing Office and the PostmasterGeneral’s Department printing works in Melbourne during the winter adjournment. It is expected that the need will again arise from time to time for the Committee to move from place to place in the course of its inquiries. A similar motion, relating to the House of Representatives Publications Committee, was agreed to by that House last Monday.

page 1393

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

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

That Senator Wilkinson be appointed to fill the vacancy existing on the Standing Orders Committee which was caused by the discharge yesterday of Senator Lacey from that Committee.

page 1394

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill provides for the validation until 30th June 1971 of customs duties collected in pursuance of Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the Parliament between 28th April 1971 and 4th May 1971. In particular the Bill validates duty collections under Tariff Proposals Nos 7 and 8 (1971) introduced on 28th April 1971 and Tariff Proposals No. 10 (1971) introduced 4th May 1971. Proposals No. 9 (1971) are the subject of the Customs Tariff Bill now before the Senate.

The Bill will validate duty collections on tariff changes arising from the acceptance by the Government of the Tariff Board reports on:

Pins, hairpins and curling grips;

Refractory products;

Mining and metallurgical machinery, in respect to diamond drilling machines only; and

Pulp (New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement).

Honourable senators will note that the validation extends only to 30th June 1971. The tariff alterations will be re-introduced by ‘Gazette’ notice to operate from 1st July 1971 in a form compatible with other tariff changes which may operate from that date. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Byrne) adjourned.

page 1394

PUBLIC ORDER (PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY) BILL 1971

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 4 May (vide page 1365).

Clause 4.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– In dealing with this clause, which is the definitions clause, I ask Senator Greenwood, as the Minister representing the Attorney-General, to tell me the derivation of the addition to the definition of ‘assembly’. This states that ‘assembly’ includes the conduct in connection with that common purpose of all or any of the persons in the assembly’. The definition of ‘assembly’ as a whole is as follows: assembly’ means an assembly of not less than 3 persons who are assembled for a common purpose, whether or not other persons are assembled with them and whether the assembly is at a particular place or moving, and includes the conduct in connection with that common purpose of all or any of the persons in the assembly.

I would like the Minister to tell me where this is taken from, whether it appears in any other legislation in other places, and why the definition of ‘assembly’ includes the words ‘conduct in connection with that common purpose of all or any of the persons in the assembly’.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

– Having listened to what Senator Murphy has said, I suggest that it is quite clear from the definition of ‘assembly’ that it extends to an assembly which is moving and is not confined to a static assembly. As he has said, the definition also includes ‘conduct in connection with that common purpose of all or any of the persons in the assembly’. These words have been included having regard to the provisions of clause 6 (1.), which reads:

Where persons taking part in an assembly that is in a Territory or is wholly or partly on Commonwealth premises conduct themselves, in the Territory or on the Commonwealth premises, in a way that gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that the assembly will be carried on in a manner involving unlawful physical violence to persons or unlawful damage to property, each of those persons is guilty of an offence, punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months, or both.

It is undoubtedly in order to ensure that that clause is comprehended within the definition.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– It is rather curious, is it not, to include contact along with an assembly? The word ‘assembly’ is used afterwards. There are other things attached to it. They may be certain conduct, and so forth. Yet the very definition includes the words ‘conduct in connection with that common purpose of all or any of the persons in the assembly’, and in connection with’ is a phrase of very wide import. Is the Minister able to say precisely where the draftsman took this from?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

– I think it is merely a matter of ensuring that the definition is a comprehensive one. After all, where a person takes part in an assembly he can be a person associated with it or he can be a person engaged in some activity within that assembly. As I understand the definition, it is clear - this is the intention, as 1 see it - that the definition of the word assembly’ quite specifically includes ‘the conduct in connection with that common purpose of all or any of the persons in the assembly’. It is the participation of a person in the assembly. I would have thought it was clear that the assembly refers not only to the grouping together but also to the activity of people in that assembly.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– Can the Minister not see the point of what I am coming to? Later in the Bill this word ‘assembly’ is used very often. If the Government is to take into the definition the conduct of any person, it means that there will be an enlargement which probably will not be apprehended by everyone, in that assemblies can be dispersed and all sorts of crimes can be committed by people merely because what is dragged into an assembly is the conduct of any person. It is not merely related to the assembly itself. Apparently the conduct of any single person is involved. It is curious to join with the assembly the conduct of even one person.

Surely there must be some explanation of this. Normally in legislation there are side notes showing where the provisions are borrowed from. The draftsman normally does not get these things out of the air and use entirely new expressions. If, as I suspect, we are pursuing a completely different line and making inroads into the rights of people which, it is probably not suspected, are completely different from the measures which have operated in the common law countries all over the world, it is well that we know. If this is something that does not exist anywhere else in the civilised world, let us be told. If it has an origin, let us be told that. Are the Minister and the Attorney-General (Mr N. H. Bowen) unable to tell us whether this is a form which has been used in any other legislation in the Commonwealth or elsewhere in the world? Or has this been devised for the new law and order campaign?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

– I know that Senator Murphy tries to read into this Bill, and doubtless he is trying to read into this clause, more than can fairly be read into it. Let me put it in this way, which is consistent with what I have said but with a different emphasis: A person is in an assembly if he is in a group, whether stationary in a particular place or moving along a street. In those circumstances I should think that there would be no question that a person was in that assembly. But supposing a person walking along the street suddenly darts out with a view to assaulting some person whom he sees standing on the footpath and whom he does not like. Is the person doing that in an assembly or is he outside the assembly? The purpose of the definition is to say - I quote it again because I think the point is clearly understood if one reads it: assembly’ means an assembly of not less than 3 persons who are assembled for a common purpose, whether or not other persons are assembled with them and whether the assembly is at a particular place or moving, and includes the conduct in connection with that common purpose of all or any of the persons in the assembly;

It cannot be far roving and completely unrelated to the activity which is involved in the assembly; it must be conduct which is in connection with the purpose of the persons in the assembly. Senator Murphy has asked whether this is to be found in any other legislation. To the best of my knowledge, relying on the advice of those who advise me, this is not to be found in any other legislation. It is designed to meet the modern situation and to ensure that the provision is sufficiently clear and comprehensive to embrace all those persons who go into a demonstration. It means that a person cannot say: ‘I was not part of the group at the time I was committing the offence as I had left the group.’

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I should like to know what kind of conduct is in contemplation.

Senator Gair:

– Obstruction and interfering with the rights of other people.

Senator MURPHY:

– If this is so, there are other provisions, not only here but also in the Crimes Act and elsewhere, to deal specifically with obstruction. Obstruction can be dealt with. Any kind of violence can be dealt with. I think we have indicated that we would not object if violence of some kind to a person or property were maintained as an offence against the law, but this is something which goes further. We have first of all a situation which is unprecedented. Nowhere in the civilised world is an assembly defined to go further than an assembly of people and include conduct. In this provision we have an incongruous conjunction of things without precedent, and it is not necessary to have this because there are other provisions which deal directly with obstruction, violence and the kind of misconduct that Senator Gair indicated ought properly to be the subject of some provision in the law. It seems to me that there has been no reasonable explanation of why this extension occurs in this unprecedented way in this definition.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– 1 should like to seek some elaboration from the Minister of the definition of ‘unreasonable obstruction’. We were told in the second reading speech that one of the purposes of this definition was to draw a balance between freedom and order. It is clear from a reading of this definition that the draftsman was confronted with the problem of reconciling two competing rights. The definition states: unreasonable obstruction’ means an act or thing done by a person that constitutes, or contributes to, an obstruction of. or interference wilh, the exercise or enjoyment by other persons of their lawful rights or privileges (including the rights of passage along the public streets) where, having regard to all the circumstances of the obstruction or the interference, including its place, time, duration and nature, it constitutes an unreasonable obstruction or interference, and ‘unreasonably obstructs’ has a corresponding meaning.

The paramount right which is stressed in this definition is the right of persons to pass along the public streets. But there is another right, and if we are to believe that the Government is sincere in its desire to strike a balance between freedom and order, one would have thought that some reference could be made to that right at the outset of this definition. The right to which I am referring, of course, is the right to peaceful demonstration.

I refer to a situation in which a policeman is interpreting his brief on the spot in the heat of the moment, without regard to any niceties and with or without prejudice. Honourable senators will recall that Senator Little took me to task for suggesting that policemen had such things as prejudices, but I stick to my guns and maintain that this is something which has to be taken into account. The fact is that policemen sometimes have prejudices. In that situation, the policeman interpreting his brief on the spot, without having anything more in this definition, would be entitled to regard the rights of people proceeding along the street as being so paramount that the rights of peaceful demonstration would run a very poor second. When it came to the task of a magistrate construing this clause and weighing the evidence which might be adduced by the policeman who had been on the spot, it would be reasonable to expect that much more weight would be given to the question of whether people walking along the street had had their rights interfered with in any way. This definition completely misses out in achieving the balance which the Government claims that it set out to achieve.

I ask the Minister whether he would be prepared to consider the insertion in the definition of words which would go some of the way towards redressing the balance which is sought. For example, I suggest that after the words ‘having regard to all the circumstances of the obstruction or interference, including its place, time, duration and nature’, words something like these could be inserted: ‘and including a proper consideration of the right and enjoyment of persons to peaceful assembly and peaceful protest, the public communication of ideas and social comment, and a proper balancing of the interests they represent.’ I do not suggest that those words are framed with any nicety or that necessarily they are the best words, but I suggest that if that idea were injected into the definition the proclaimed intent of this Bill would come somewhat nearer to fulfilment. I suggest also that policemen carrying out their task on the spot and magistrates called upon later to decide between competing interests would get far greater guidance from a definition such as that.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– 1 propose to enter this debate to discuss 2 of the definitions contained in clause 4 on which 1 should like some enlightenment. Senator Murphy and Senator James McClelland have discussed the definitions, but I propose to deal first with the definition of ‘assembly’ about which not much has been said. The definition states that 3 people may constitute an assembly. During the debate on the second reading of the Bill Senator Rae pointed out that in British law it has been accepted that 3 people constitute an assembly. Senator Greenwood in replying just now to Senator Murphy stated that the definition would include conduct not dealt with in any other legislation. But we have adopted it here to meet the requirements that we think are essential in Australian conditions, as we find them today. In the light of that, [ ask: Do we find it necessary, despite the fact that an assembly has been described as an assembly of not fewer than 3 people, under the conditions that we find in Australia today, to permit the power that the Bill gives - and the Bill gives power to police and other persons - to be held when there Ls an assembly of 3 people only?

As long as I have been taking an active interest in politics there have always been demonstrations of some kind, but no-one worried about them until recently when the demonstrations were getting so large in size that they were becoming difficult to control. I do not think that policemen or the persons mentioned in the other clauses of the Bill should have the right to exercise the power that the Bill provides. If a policeman sees an assembly of 3 people standing outside his gate, whatever their purpose, he has the right to exercise that power, when there is no need to invoke the law. Therefore I ask whether we should adopt an assembly of 3 people when, by our very framing of the definition of assembly, we are departing from the accepted laws in regard to assemblies, etc.

I wish to take up, and possibly on a different line, the matter that Senator Murphy raised. I think we must recognise that an assembly can be at a particular place or it can be moving. The definition of assembly concludes:

  1. . and includes the conduct in connection with that common purpose of all or any of the persons in the assembly.

The initial part of the definition states: assembly’ means an assembly of not less than 3 persons who are assembled for a common purpose, whether or not other persons are assembled with them . . .

They must be assembled for a common purpose. As I said, the definition concludes:

  1. . and includes the conduct in connection with that common purpose of all or any of the persons in the assembly.

How far does this go? Does it permit a constable to decide that someone who is not closely associated with the demonstration can be doing some action in connection with the common purpose? 1 wonder whether an individual writing a slogan at home the night before could be engaging in conduct in connection with that common purpose. Clause 7 states:

A person who, in a Territory or on Commonwealth premises, while taking part in an assembly, wilfully and without lawful excuse … is guilty of an indictable offence . . .

Clause 6 states:

Where persons taking part in an assembly that is in a Territory or is wholly or partly on Commonwealth premises conduct themselves, in the Territory or on the Commonwealth premises, in a way that gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that the assembly will be carried on . . .

They do not have to be doing an unlawful act. They can be doing an act or in an assembly that gives rise to a reasonable apprehension. I wonder whether a particularly emotional law enforcement officer, who sees a big assembly, could decide that the action of someone who may not be associated with it was such that that person was engaging in conduct in connection with the common purpose. This matter must be considered because the clause states:

  1. . in a way that gives rise to a reasonable apprehension . . .

The attitude of someone rather than a particular action is the deciding factor. Therefore, 1 think we should be on our guard in relation to that part of the definition of assembly which states:

  1. . and includes the conduct in connection with that common purpose of all or any of the persons in the assembly.

Why does the Bill want to go further than stopping or breaking up an assembly? Why does it want to go outside that range and include that last part of the definition?

The next point I want to raise was raised by Senator James McClelland in his speech during the second reading debate. Clause 4, the definitions clause, contains no definition of ‘in the vicinity of. The offence is committed if a person is ‘at a place or in the vicinity of. Why is there not a definition of ‘in the vicinity of? Does it mean alongside the place? The clause refers to being on Commonwealth property or in the vicinity of Commonwealth property. How far is one permitted to go? I think the Minister might explain that. That is not in this clause, but I mention it now. What is meant by ‘in the vicinity of? If that phrase is included in a clause, why is there not a definition of it in clause 4? Although it is not in clause 4 I raise it at this time because if another clause is to contain the term ‘in the vicinity of there should be a definition of that in clause 4.

I deal now with the question of what is an unreasonable obstruction. To engage in an unreasonable obstruction is an offence under clause 9, which states:

A person who, in a Territory or on Commonwealth premises, while taking part in an assembly, engages in unreasonable obstruction is guilty of an offence, punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding $250 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months, or both.

That is quite a severe penalty for those people who, while taking part in an assembly, engage in an unreasonable obstruction. If we look at the definition of an unreasonable obstruction we see: unreasonable obstruction’ means an act or thing done by a person that constitutes, or contributes to . . .

This comes back to that part of the definition of assembly which states:

  1. . and includes the conduct in connection with . . .

There the offence is not the assembly but the conduct in connection with the common purpose. Here the offence is not committing the unreasonable obstruction, but it is the helping or contributing to the offence. It is hard to ascertain how far this contributing to an unreasonable obstruction can be extended. Do I somehow contribute to the offence because the night before I was on the planning committee, because I spoke at a previous meeting, because I advocate the occupying of a street corner or because I contributed in some way to the making of the banners for a procession? What could be called an unreasonable obstruction? Are those instances of an unreasonable obstruction? There is to be a penalty for causing an unreasonable obstruction. Why is the definition extended to include ‘or . contributes to’ without knowing how it will be actually interpreted? The clause continues: . . an obstruction of, or interference with, the exercise or enjoyment by other persons . . .

This could mean the innocent bystander. As we have seen in Adelaide, when a street comer is occupied it is a source of excitement to those who are not participating in the unlawful assembly. But they are contributing to the unreasonable obstruction. All those who are going about their shopping and who witness what is happening on the corner are contributing to the unreasonable obstruction. Is it the intention of the Bill to include them in the definition and so make them guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty? Is the intention to stop sightseers? On many occasions unreasonable obstruction occurs. The clause continues: . . of their lawful rights or privileges . . .

If I am going to participate in an unreasonable obstruction in an assembly or contribute to an unreasonable obstruction in an assembly and I desire to keep within the law I would have to know whether it would be an interference with the lawful rights and privileges of other persons. I doubt whether the average participant in a march would know what are the lawful rights and privileges of another person. I also doubt whether this legislation makes it clear what they are. It would be necessary to examine a lot of court judgments to determine what are the lawful rights and privileges of other persons.

It would appear that while a person can obstruct in some circumstances he cannot obstruct if it is against the lawful rights and privileges of another person. We know that these rights and privileges include the right of passage along a public street. If 3 people stand on a corner for the common purpose of trying to get 20c to buy a drink from the next person who came along the street could they be regarded under this legislation as causing some obstruction to passage along the street? A person who wishes to ensure that he is within the law has to have a lot more knowledge than simply what are the lawful rights and privileges of people passing along the street. He has to know also whether, having regard to all the circumstances of the obstruction or interference, including its place, time, duration and nature, the obstruction constitutes an unreasonable obstruction.

I suppose an obstruction could be caused which does not come within the definition of an unreasonable obstruction, but how would a person know whether the obstruction was unreasonable? Apparently obstructions can be regarded as reasonable at some time and unreasonable at others. Many factors have to be taken into consideration in determining whether the obstruction is unreasonable. These include consideration of the place, time, duration and nature of the obstruction. If T am caught up in an obstruction which could be regarded as unreasonable only because of its duration how long can I participate in that unreasonable obstruction before I am guilty of an offence? Would it be half an hour or three-quarters of an hour? No pronouncement is made as to the length of time. If a group stops on the corner of a street for only 5 minutes would this bc regarded as causing an unreasonable obstruction? Would a person who is caught up in an assembly just because he is passing by or a person who stops to see what is going on be in breach of this legislation? Would a person be able to avoid being in breach of the legislation if he knew that at a particular time of the day the legislation permits him to stand on a corner? What would be the position if the corner occupied did not come within the ambit of the legislation? Could a person stop there for a certain period of time? If so, what is the period of time and what is the nature of the obstruction which would not constitute unreasonable interference? There is some suggestion that this provision will be altered. It ‘certainly needs to be clarified. I hope that the Minister will give me some idea of how one can keep oneself within the law.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:
QUEENSLAND

– Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– I should first of all like to refer to the definition of assembly as it appears in clause 4 of the Bill.

Senator Rae:

– Why not let the Minister reply to matters which have been raised up to date by honourable senators?

Senator WHEELDON:

– I should like to make a further contribution on those aspects first. 1 should like to deal with the definition of assembly, which is a matter that has already been raised. I think the matters that I will be mentioning follow matters which have already been mentioned by other honourable senators. I do appeal to the Minister to concede that, whatever may be said about the political or moral merits of the definition of an assembly as it appears in clause 4, it is written in appalling English. It seems to me to be a most incomprehensible clause to appear in a Bill which is meant to set out a code of conduct. The definition states: “assembly’ means an assembly of not less than-

I am not discussing the merits of it now; I am merely talking about the wording of this part of the clause - 3 persons who are assembled for a common purpose

That is clear - whether or not other persons are assembled with them and whether the assembly is at a particular place or moving . . .

I am at a loss to know what is added to the meaning of this definition by saying whether or not other persons are assembled with them’. The fact that it is an assembly of not less than 3 persons would seem to suffice as far as the definition is concerned without adding ‘whether or not other persons are assembled with them’. I am completely bewildered as to what this expression seeks to add to what has already been said. As far as I can determine it is merely a waste of ink and paper because it does not affect anything very much. The definition concludes by referring to whether the assembly is at a particular place or moving and includes the conduct in connection with that common purpose of all or any of the persons in the assembly. I ask the Minister to reconsider the drafting of this definition and to improve the wording of it so that it is comprehensible to me at least. Is it meant to include the conduct of all or any of the persons in the assembly in connection with that common purpose or does it mean the conduct in connection with that common purpose of all or any of the persons in the assembly? In other words, does the phrase of all or any of the persons in the assembly’ qualify the word ‘conduct’ or does it qualify the words ‘common purpose’? It is very vague to me what this means. I think it is very important that this matter should be clarified. I am not for the moment casting any strictures on the motives of the persons who drafted the Bill, but it seems to me that, as it stands at the moment, the phrase ‘of all or any of the persons in the assembly’ could qualify the word ‘conduct’ or it could qualify the words ‘common purpose’. It could give 2 totally different meanings. I ask the Minister to have a further look at this definition and to attempt to bring down some clarification so that we will at least know the aims of the definition, which at the present time I certainly do not know.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

– Quite an amount has been said by the last few speakers. I come initially to what Senator Wheeldon said. He, in a sense, reiterated the type of questioning which Senator Murphy raised. 1 must say that one can only but regret that Senator Murphy and Senator James McClelland should raise certain points and then depart from the chamber for some 20 minutes instead of waiting to get an answer. One must doubt how interested they are in the answers to their questions.

Senator Wheeldon:

– I am here.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I know that Senator Wheeldon and Senator Cavanagh are here and I will respond to them, but I do feel that, if this debate in the Committee stage is to be conducted on the basis that information is available to be given, the persons who ask questions should have the courtesy to remain here to hear the replies to them. As far as the wording of the definition of an assembly is concerned, I indicated earlier that it could cover the area of a person who might, while being a part of the assembly and having a common purpose, move out for a short time and do something and then come back in. I should have thought that the additional words conduct in connection with that common purpose of all or any of the persons in the assembly’ would be capable of a construction to cover that sort of person. But quite apart from that, the words to which I have just referred are advisable because later clauses of the Bill indicate that certain consequences flow from a person having an apprehension that the assembly will be carried on in a certain way, that is, involving violence.

There is an interesting point - 1 think it is a neat point - about which the draftsman must be concerned, and that is: How is an assembly carried on? The grouping together of people will constitute an assembly but an assembly can be carried on only if there is some conduct. It may be that Senator Wheeldon would say that that is being rather pedantic that if you are just staying where you are doing nothing you are part of the assembly and the words are not needed which indicate that conduct which is being engaged in is part of that assembly. But I think it is fair for the draftsman to take the view that one should be comprehensive in the way in which one defines ‘assembly’. I have sensed as I have been saying that that Senator Wheeldon has been protesting that that is not his point. I would be interested to hear what he has to say so that the point which he is endeavouring to make is better elucidated.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Could I interrupt you briefly, Senator? My point is this: If conduct is not qualified by ‘of ali or any of the persons in the assembly’ but is conduct in connection with the common purpose of all or any of the persons in the assembly does this mean that some person who is nowhere near the assembly but who has been engaged in conduct in connection with the common purposes of all the persons in the assembly can be involved? I do not mean someone who is in the assembly and then leaves it, but someone who has never been near the assembly but has been engaged in some conduct relating to a common purpose of the members of the assembly?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Having heard what Senator Wheeldon said, I think he has taken up a point which Senator Cavanagh made earlier. I would say in answer to both honourable senators that the interpretation which they are putting forward is one which cannot be sustained on this language. It is conduct of persons in the assembly. I would have thought that must mean conduct of persons while they are in the assembly, and it would be unreasonable to suppose that any court would accede to an interpretation that a person could be regarded as exposing himself to consequences for conduct which he is engaging in in an assembly because of what he was doing the night before. It offends my sense of the ordinary meaning of words. I am quite sure that it can only be devised in the sense that one is probing this on the basis that any questions one asks can be given some sort of credence just by putting words together. If one looks at this clause reasonably, 1 do not believe that it is capable of such an exaggerated interpretation. I will read it because I think that the reiteration of the words indicates precisely what is involved. Assembly’ is defined to mean: an assembly of not less than three persons who are assembled for a common purpose, whether or not other persons are assembled with them and whether the assembly is at a particular place or moving, and includes the conduct in connection with that common purpose of all or any of the persons in the assembly;

So that you are comprehending within the grouping of these people the things which they do in that grouping in connection with the purpose for which the assembly has been called together. Let me deal with some of the other points which have been made. Senator James McClelland suggested that there should be added to the definition words which indicated an affirmation of the right of peaceful demonstration. I do not believe that there is anything in the clauses of this Bill which suggests that a person does not have the right to peaceably demonstrate if he wishes to do so. Indeed, we all accept that that is a right which we all have, and it appears to me unnecessary in a Bill which does not in any way seek to take away right of peaceable assembly to affirm that this right of peaceable assembly exists. To my way of thinking it is an unnecessary and cumbersome addition to put in words which could only make the task of any judge or tribunal which has to interpret the words all the more difficult.

Senator James McClelland also suggested that a person going along the street might find himself unsure as to whether or not he was entitled to proceed along the street because there is no affirmation of his right to do so. I must say that if one considers the context in which the honourable senator was posing this problem, namely, the definition of what is an unreasonable obstruction, here again it is a matter of what in any particular circumstance is a reasonable or unreasonable thing. The question of whether or not an obstruction is unreasonable depends upon whether a court determines that the act or thing being done by a person amounts in all the circumstances of the obstruction or the interference, which it must be, is unreasonable having regard to the place, the time, the duration and the nature.

Perhaps 1 may give an example not of a positive situation where the clause might have operation but the type of situation in which conceivably it could. If outside the General Post Office in Melbourne there was a crowd of people which blocked all the 4 roadways at that intersection and there were people who were hurrying home from their work to catch a train at Elizabeth Street and they were not able to move through that crowd, then I would have thought that such an obstruction was an unreasonable obstruction. In each case it depends upon what is meant by reasonable. This is the type of area where courts over a long period have developed a facility in determining what is reasonable. It is part of the standard of the ordinary man which the courts apply, and I think it is a fair thing to leave it to the courts to decide whether in any particular circumstance the obstruction is unreasonable. Accordingly I feel that the genera) point which Senator James McClelland is seeking to establish is one that does not require the addition of words. The position is for the court to determine in each case, whether or not there has been an unreasonable obstruction or interference.

Senator Cavanagh raised the point as to why the assembly should be an assembly of 3 or more persons. It is the old common law definition of an unlawful assembly that you must have at least 3 people in that assembly. It is also the language of the statutes of the various States of Australia that before you can have an unlawful assembly you must have 3 or more people. 1 would imagine that the carrying ‘ forward of this language is the carrying forward of what has always been the case.

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND · DLP

– As distinct from the Consorting Act.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I do not think the provisions of the Consorting Act have any relevance to the provisions of this Bill. But I do sense that it is prudent to maintain a definition which has long existed. Senator Cavanagh suggested that there was no definition of the word ‘vicinity*. I suggest that there are some words which, because of their ordinary meaning, ought not to have a definition, and ‘vicinity’ is a word which, as I understand it, means haying a close rather than a remote proximity to the protected premises or the place to which the word relates. I suggest to the Committee that there is no need for any greater precision. Senator Cavanagh also questioned whether or not an innocent bystander might be caught up in the offence. Clause 9 states:

A person who . . . while taking part in an assembly, engages in unreasonable obstruction is guilty of an offence. . . .

I would have thought that the important thing to consider in that connection is that a person must be taking part in an assembly.

If a person is a genuine innocent bystander, and it is on that basis that I answer the question, that innocent bystander cannot be taking part in an assembly because the definition of assembly means that persons must be assembling for a common purpose. If an innocent bystander happens to be caught up in a group of persons he is not assembled for a common purpose because he has no community of interest with the other persons who have assembled together.

In the same area I think Senator Wheeldon raised a question on why the words in the definition of assembly ‘whether or not other persons are assembled with them’ are necessary. I think he would appreciate that it would be open for a defendant who is charged with some conduct arising out of the activities of the assembly to say: ‘All right, there were certain persons associated for a common purpose but there were also some other persons there and they were not associated for the common purpose.’ Therefore the defendant ought to be adjudged not guilty. The point of this definition is to ensure that that sort of defence will not be available if, in fact, 3 or more persons are assembled for a common purpose. We do not want these people to say that out of a group of SO people 2 of them were not part of the common purpose, so the assembly was not grouped together for a common purpose. I think he will appreciate the point. He knows what this definition is designed to exclude.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– I still do not think that I have been able to make myself sufficiently clear. I have had the same problem in making myself clear to Senator Greenwood as the draftsman who was responsible for this definition has had in making himself clear to me. I merely suggest to the Minister again that as far as the definition of assembly is concerned it would at least read much better and be more intelligible if, instead of the present wording, it were to say: ‘includes the conduct of all or any of the persons in the assembly in connection with that common purpose’. It would make a lot more sense and not contain its present ambiguity. I do not want to dwell on that. What I want to come to is the last definition appearing in the clause which 1 think really goes to the heart of the Bill. I refer to the definition of unreasonable obstruction. In doing this I would like to refer again to the judgment of His Honour Mr Justice Black in the case of Gregory v. the City of Chicago which was heard in the Supreme Court of the United States.

In his reply to the second reading debate yesterday Senator Greenwood claimed that I had quoted some of Mr Justice Black’s observations out of context and had in fact given a false picture of the position that Mr Justice Black took on the matter of unlawful assembly. He then proceeded to quote some of the dicta of Mr Justice Black to the effect that one could not allow assemblies to be of such a type whereby people were not able to carry on their normal business and whereby churches were invaded by hordes of people wanting to have meetings while the church services were in progress and so on. I would submit that in fact if one merely looks at this aspect of Mr Justice Black’s judgment in isolation this is taking his words out of context. If one looks at the whole of the judgment he said 2 things. He said, first of all - this is what he referred to first in his judgment - that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in the Bill of Rights does guarantee freedom of assembly. Having established the principle that freedom of assembly is guaranteed under the law of the United States, the law then must look at what restrictions must be imposed upon freedom of assembly so that the undesirable consequences, such as those which were referred to in the part of Mr Justice Black’s judgment which were quoted by the Minister could not take place. But I repeat that the essential part of his judgment was the reference to the constitutional right to freedom of assembly. It should be recollected that the judgment in the case of Gregory v. the City of Chicago was for the appellants, not for the City of Chicago.

During the course of his judgment Mr Justice Black and other members of the Supreme Court of the United States, but in particular Mr Justice Black, used the phrase ‘meat axe ordinance’. He described the ordinance of the City of Chicago in that way because it allowed the authorities a tremendous range of options which would enable them to hold that an assembly was an unlawful assembly. The point that was made in upholding the appeal in this case was that the ordinance was so vague that it was not a proper ordinance and was an undue interference with the right of freedom of assembly. The point raised by Senator James McClelland is one with which I agree completely and one which I believe should be fundamental to any Bill of this nature. Senator James McClelland has said that there is no right given within this Bill - nor is there a right in any other legislation nor, as far as I know, is there a right even in common law - for freedom of assembly. What we do have here are a series of sanctions against free assembly in the event of certain things taking place or in the event of certain persons believing that certain things may take place.

If the ordinance of the City of Chicago relating to unlawful assemblies was a meat axe ordinance, what on earth can be said of the definition of unreasonable obstruction in the Bill? It is in these terms: . . means an act or thing done by a person that constitutes, or contributes to, an obstruction of, or interference with, the exercise or enjoyment by other persons of their lawful rights or privileges (including rights of passage along the public streets) where, having regard to all the circumstances of the obstruction or interference, including its place, time, duration and nature, it constitutes an unreasonable obstruction or interference, and ‘unreasonably obstructs’ has a corresponding meaning.

What I believe is evil about this definition is that no effort is made within the definition to say what are the circumstances which should be taken into account.

Senator Greenwood:

– You cannot be serious.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I am perfectly serious. Senator Greenwood cited the example of people marching along the street and crowding around the post office so that people could not catch the train at the Elizabeth Street Railway Station and cars could not pass freely. This happens on Anzac Day and during the Moomba Festival. This happens during a very great number of officially sanctioned public demonstrations of one kind or another, demonstrations in which people show their patriotic fervour or celebrate some occasion which apparently they feel warrants some sort of celebration.

Because these are officially sanctioned demonstrations - these are demonstrations in the same way as any other demonstration is a demonstration - or Establishment demonstrations showing dedication to our glorious dead, bidding farewell to our future glorious dead, celebrating the arrival of some religious leader or celebrating the anniversary of the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce, it apparently is regarded as being reasonable in all the circumstances that persons should be obstructed in going about their business. What I believe should be included in any Bill of this type is some statement of the sort of demonstrations allowed to be held. It is obvious that however great the obstruction will be, no-one will stop an Anzac Day parade, a St Patrick’s Day parade or a Moomba parade.

Whatever obstruction is caused, the parade will be allowed to go on. The sort of demonstration which is to be stopped is a demonstration which has not been called by the Establishment. Merely to say that it is a matter which in all the circumstances appears to be unreasonable obstruction can, 1 put to the Ministers, mean no more than an obstruction caused by a demonstration of a type which the authorities do not like. I do not see what else it can do.

Because if there is no definition, if you are saying, for example - and I know that this is a matter largely for local authorities of some sort - that there shall be allowed only 12 demonstrations per year, or something like that, and they shall be allocated to various public bodies in accordance with their membership, or whatever it may be, it may perhaps be unreasonable to argue against the prohibition of other demonstrations. Obviously society could not function if demonstrations were taking place outside the Melbourne Post Office every day of the week. But merely to have the words ‘unreasonable obstruction’ without any definition of them and to say that the courts shall rely on this is, I believe, going to come back to a situation where it is going to be right in the hands of the Government, in the hands of the police force, to say which sort of demonstrations they believe are unreasonable and which are not unreasonable.

There is no charter of rights in this Bill. There is certainly anything but a charter of rights even implied in the definition of unreasonable obstruction’. AH that is given here is the opportunity for the State to say: This is an unreasonable obstruction’, and I fail to see what sort of defence anybody could have. If people were protesting about the Vietnam war, or whatever else it was, and had the same number of people in the streets as they do at the time of the Moomba Festival and they were stopping people from passing by, it could be said that this is unreasonable. The Minister himself said it would bc unreasonable if people could not get down there to catch the train or could not drive their cars over Elizabeth Street, or whatever it may be; this would make it an unreasonable obstruction. It is not regarded as an unreasonable obstruction in the case of the Moomba Festival or the Anzac Day parade if people cannot drive their cars over Elizabeth Street or Collins Street but I am sure it would be regarded as an unreasonable obstruction if in the case of the Moratorium demonstration people could not drive their cars over those intersections.

For that reason I think there should be a much stricter definition of ‘unreasonable obstruction’ and it ought to be coupled with some statement of the rights of people to hold demonstrations and provide an obstruction without leaving it so loosely as an ‘unreasonable obstruction’.

As the Minister was at pains to claim that in some way I had misrepresented the judgment of Mr Justice Black, I would ask him whether he does not agree as a lawyer - not as a member of the Liberal Party or as a Minister - that if Mr Justice Black, whom he quoted with some reverence last night, was correct in finding that the ordinance of the City of Chicago relating to unlawful assemblies was a meat-axe ordinance, this definition of ‘unreasonable obstruction’ in this Bill is not ever so much more a meat-axe provision than the ordinance of the City of Chicago ever could be upon any construction.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

– Two matters have been raised by Senator Wheeldon. First, he wants to take issue with something which he believes I fairly said last night in regard to what Mr Justice Black said in the Supreme Court of the United States of America. I referred to Mr Justice Black simply because I thought he gave a very fair statement of the sort of privacy which individuals ought to be entitled to. Of its kind, I think it is a classic statement.

Senator Wheeldon:

– I agree with the whole of it.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am very pleased to hear that Senator Wheeldon does agree with what Mr Justice Black said because, as I see it, that is what this Bill is designed to achieve. Today Senator Wheeldon again quoted what Mr Justice Black said in the case of Gregory v. The City of Chicago. He quoted him again in order to equate the provision which the United States of America Supreme Court was considering with the provision which is before the Senate at the present time. One leaves aside the fact that there is not much advantage to be gained by utilising precise

American provisions and seeking to make some comparison with precise Australian provisions, but because Senator Wheeldon raised it let me indicate what that provision was in the United States. I think it was a vague provision and I think it is fairly entitled to the castigation which Mr Justice Black gave it. It read:

All persons who shall make, aid, countenance, or assist in making any improper noise, riot, disturbance, breach of the peace, or diversion tending to a breach of the peace, within the limits of the City; all persons who shall collect in bodies or crowds for unlawful purposes, or for any purpose, to the annoyance or disturbance of other persons; . . . shall be deemed guilty of disorderly conduct, and upon conviction thereof, shall be severally fined not less than one dollar nor more than two hundred dollars for each offense.

I do not deny that Mr Justice Black used, in a general way, the expression ‘meat axe ordinances’. He said: . . we have been careful to point out that the Constitution does not bar enactment of laws regulating conduct, even though connected with speech, press, assembly, and petition, if such laws specifically bar only the conduct deemed obnoxious and are carefully and narrowly aimed at that forbidden conduct.

I leave Mr Justice Black because I accept broadly as a principle worthy of emulation what he said and I turn to what this Bill says in the context of what Senator Wheeldon has been criticising. He is looking at the definition of ‘unreasonable obstruction’ which is contained in clause 4 of the Bill. But one also has to look at clause 9 to see how this definition does have an operation in the text of the Bill. Clause 9 states:

A person who . . . while taking part in an assembly, engages in unreasonable obstruction is guilty of an offence. . . .

Of course, the person must be engaging in an assembly, he must be part of a group, before any offence is committed. Then he is guilty of an offence if he engages in unreasonable obstruction’. If there were no definition of ‘unreasonable obstruction’ I think it would be fair to say that it would be open to numerous interpretations. The point of the definition is, in the language of Mr Justice Black, to narrow what is the conduct with which we are concerned. So one comes to the definition of ‘unreasonable obstruction’. We have then to find that it is ‘an act or thing done by a person’ which, firstly, constitutes by itself or, secondly, contributes to an obstruction or interference with the exercise or enjoyment by other persons of their lawful rights or privileges.

One of the lawful rights or privileges which is referred to is the right of passage along a public street. Unquestionably that is one of our lawful rights and privileges. Equally I would think that it is one of our lawful rights and privileges to be able to go to an election meeting and to address that meeting. Yet we know that not so very long ago there were concerted attempts made to prevent the late Mr Holt from addressing his election meeting. I would have thought that Senator Wheeldon would value as one of his rights the right to address people in a public concourse or to go to a meeting, and that he would regard any group which sought to prevent him from doing that as interfering with his lawful rights and privileges.

But that is not the only point which the definition is concerned with. It must constitute or contribute to an obstruction or interference with a person’s lawful rights or privileges and the exercise or enjoyment of them where, having regard to all the circumstances, it constitutes an unreasonable obstruction or interference. The circumstances of the obstruction or interference which are to be looked at include its place, its time, its duration and its nature. One would suppose that if it occurs on a Sunday morning when the streets are relatively free that could be a relevant circumstance. If the obstruction is for a matter of 3 or 4 minutes, that is a relevant circumstance. But if the obstruction occurs at the busiest time of the day, when people are moving home from their work, and it lasts for the best part of an hour, that also would be relevant in determining whether it is reasonable or unreasonable.

The point which all of this gets to is that if a person is alleged to have committed an unreasonable obstruction, it is for a court to determine whether or not that person is guilty of an unreasonable obstruction. We know that the courts of this land are independent. I think it is quite wrong to suppose that if a person goes before the courts he is going to be dealt with by the authorities, using the word ‘authorities’ in the same sense as if they were the police and the Government. There is the clearest possible distinction between the functions of the courts and the functions of those who prosecute. I believe that most Australians accept that principle and do not question it. I think that that is always the greatest safeguard in this area. If anyone believes that he might possibly be wrongfully, inadvertently or deliberately brought before the courts he has the opportunity to say what he was doing in a particular area at a particular time. It is my experience, and I am sure it is Senator Wheeldon’s experience, that presumptions in our country are presumptions in favour of the innocent. In my submission that is one reason why that particular provision ought not to give rise to the concern which Senator Wheeldon expressed.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– These definition sections are very important. I think that if honourable senators would address themselves to the question which has been raised by the Minister for Health (Senator Greenwood) who in this Chamber represents the Attorney-General (Mr N. H. Bowen) they would see that the situation is not quite as simple as he says. It is not a case of an unreasonable obstruction being dealt with by the courts. One is not dealt with for simply engaging in unreasonable obstruction. The definition is a very subtle kind of definition. The definition of ‘unreasonable obstruction’ does not state that it is something which is unreasonable in all the circumstances. According to the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Bill ‘unreasonable obstruction’ means an act or thing done which not only constitutes but contributes to an obstruction. The definition then goes on to deal with whether the obstruction is unreasonable in all the circumstances but it leaves it to the courts to say whether the act or thing which contributes is unreasonable. A person may be doing something reasonable which contributes to an obstruction which, in the whole of the circumstances, appears to be unreasonable. The definition does not relate back to apply only to a contribution which was unreasonable. In the circumstances it might have been a reasonable thing to do. But if it is shown that that in some way contributed to an obstruction which was unreasonable in all the circumstances that person is guilty of an offence.

I do not see that that very subtle and cunning definition which has been implanted in the Bill is a reasonable approach to the rights of citizen. At least it would have been enough to say that a person who engaged in an unreasonable obstruction shall be guilty of an offence. In any event one is obstructed every day in the street. In the streets of Sydney one sees newspaper boys not only obstructing traffic but also practically setting up newspaper shops on the footpath. Yet I have never heard anyone say: ‘Pack it up’, even though they are occupying many square feet of the public thoroughfare. But if someone desires to stand on the footpath with a banner in his hand saying: ‘I am against the war in Vietnam’, that suddenly becomes an unreasonable obstruction to all passers by.

Senator Cavanagh:

– There has to be 3 persons with a common purpose.

Senator MURPHY:

– No. This provision is contained in clause 1 2 (2.) which states: (2.) A person who -

  1. engages in unreasonable obstruction in relation to the passage of persons or vehicles . . - and so forth. That clause does not refer to an assembly but only to a person. There is no doubt that this definition provision is intended to extend further and further and to cramp and restrict people more and more so that the citizen who wants to protest has to try to find some way in the interstices of the maze of law which has been created. He cannot do something which, though reasonable in itself, contributes to an unreasonable obstruction. I do not know why the Minister refuses to accept the proposition that if we are going to have this definition there ought to be a balance in the Bill which would provide that a person can lawfully do certain things, that he can protest, that he can dissent and so on, if his behaviour taken as a whole is not unreasonable. Why would that not be a proper provision to put in the Bill? I suggest that this definition clause should not be accepted.
Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

– I think Senator Murphy is trying to make an unreasonable proposition out of simple words. He has been talking generally without giving specific examples. I instance what he said about the word ‘contributes’. I refer again to the definition. It states: unreasonable obstruction’ means an act or thing done by a person that constitutes, or contributes to, an obstruction of, or interference with, the exercise or enjoyment by other persons of their lawful rights or privileges . . .

Where one or two people happen to sit down in a street, that does not constitute - I should imagine - an unlawful or an unreasonable obstruction of other persons rights. But if 200 people sit down I would have thought that it does. The act of each person does not constitute the obstruction but the act of one person when allied with another person’s act contributes to it. I think that is a reasonable proposition for government to take note of and it is reasonable to have the word ‘contributes’ in this provision. I think it is wrong to suggest that there are offences created by this legislation which are not offences. It is not an offence for a person simply to stand on the street and have a placard - it does not matter what the placard says. Yet that is what Senator Murphy was suggesting in the last expression he used. The question of whether an obstruction is an unreasonable obstruction depends upon all the circumstances of which a court is the judge. That is the case with regard to every offence in this legislation where the words unreasonable obstruction’ appear.

Earlier Senator Wheeldon talked about the fact that apparently people could obstruct the traffic on Ancac Day and obstruct the traffic when there is some great procession which has the approval of the authorities. Undoubtedly obstructions occur. But as far as this Bill is concerned it no more excuses that sort of demonstration than it excuses the sort of demonstration which a lot of honourable senators opposite would engage in terms of political agitation. The point is that in each case it is a matter for the court to determine whether the obstruction is unreasonable. I would imagine that the case of an Anzac Day procession is a valid circumstance which the court would take into account. If it were a major political demonstration which had the support of a lot of political leaders, that again would be a circumstance which the court would take into account. If people want to go before the courts to argue these cases then, as I said before, the courts are always receptive to reasonable arguments.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I want to say a final word in rela tion to clause 4. I am not satisfied that the whole question is as the Minister for Health (Senator Greenwood) who in this chamber represents the Attorney-General (Mr N. H. Bowen) stated. I am concerned that the common man should know his rights. Whether it is the Returned Service’s League of Australia at an Anzac Day celebration or whether it is a Moratorium demonstration, I would think that the organisers would study the law and have amongst themselves someone who could interpret the law. According to this clause assembly’ means an assembly of not less than 3 persons. If I and 2 of my mates want to demonstrate outside Parliament House against the abortion law or in favour of marriage law reform what are our rights? How can we demonstrate? I expressed my concern about the word ‘assembly’ before. I was impressed with what Senator Wheeldon said. The Minister gave his understanding of the meaning of the word ‘assembly’ as he said a judge would interpret it. I do not accept that. After all, both Senator Wheeldon and the Minister may be aspirants for that position in the future. At this stage they disagree as to the proper interpretation of the word ‘assembly’. But obviously it means an assembly of not less than 3 persons. Therefore those persons must be assembled for a common purpose whether other persons are assembled with them or whether the assembly is at a particular place or is moving. But the definition also includes conduct in connection with the common purpose of all or any of the persons in the assembly. I, on my own, may engage in conduct in connection with the common purpose and even though I am not in the assembly I engage in conduct as defined in the Bill. Senator Wheeldon’s interpretation appears to me to be proper and logical but the Minister says that it is incorrect. If it were held that my demonstration for law reform in company with others at the front of Parliament House was conduct in connection with a common purpose my 2 companions who assisted me in the printing of the publication or banner would come within the definition of conduct in connection with the common purpose. That would be true of the 3 of us or one of the persons in the assembly.

L think 1 should point out that the Minister was unjustified in criticising Senator James McClelland for raising points and leaving the chamber without listening to the replies. 1 know that Senator James McClelland had an urgent engagement at 4 o’clock and was justified in leaving. I am sure that he would be most anxious to hear the replies and that his attitude reflected no disregard for the Minister. The Minister has claimed that Senator James McClelland said that the Bill does not affirm the rights of peaceable demonstration. The Bill does not set out howI should act in demonstrating at the front of Parliament House in order to keep within the law. The Minister’s reply is that of course it does not do this because that is a right that anyone can exercise at any time providing he does not cause an unreasonable obstruction. He said that it is for a court to decide at any time what is reasonable.

An ordinary citizen who may wish to demonstrate outside Parliament House gets no assistance from this Bill in determining his lawful rights. It is necessary for him to know in advance whether a court would accept that a demonstration at that particular place at a particular time and for a certain duration is reasonable or unreasonable. Should not the Bill spell out what would be permitted in the way of a demonstration? Should it not state how I and my 2 companions can lawfully protest? Although we wish to keep within the law, we will have doubts whether a court would regard 10 o’clock in the morning as a reasonble time to demonstrate. If a court should decide that that is an unreasonable time we would be guilty of an offence even though we thought it to be a reasonable time to demonstrate. We might regard a demonstration lasting 20 minutes as of reasonable duration, but a court may regard any time longer than a quarter of a hour as unreasonable. Although we would have every intention of lawfully exercising our right to demonstrate, we could be committing an offence. These problems arise for ordinary citizens because of the very loose and poor definitions in the Bill.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

– I rise for 2 pur poses. I said earlier when responding to questions asked by Senator Murphy and Senator James McClelland that it was regrettable that they were not here. I apologise for what I said because I have since learned that they were away on an engagement which had been arranged and which other people on my side knew about. I do not wish to elaborate the 2 points I made earlier in answer to Senator James McClelland. Shortly stated, as I see it, the point is that the right to peaceable demonstration is an existing right and there is nothing in the Bill which would take it away. I see no reason to have inserted into the clause a provision expressly asserting that which as I understand the language of the Bill is in no place under challenge. Indeed, to insert a provision in this clause which relates to definitions would merely be to add confusion to the existing definition of an unreasonable obstruction. I think the language is perfectly clear. Nevertheless, it has been challenged by honourable senators opposite as being obscure. If there is any point in what they have said, undoubtedly it would not aid matters to add further words along the lines suggested by Senator James McClelland.

Senator Cavanagh has said that it must be recognised that the definition of an assembly requires first that 3 persons are present. It requires second that those 3 persons have a common purpose. It does not necessitate but includes as part of the definition the conduct which these people, grouped together, engage in. When the definition uses an expression in relation to conduct, namely, ‘in connection with that common purpose of all or any of the persons in the assembly’, it is designed to catch that common purpose. In short, it does not mean that every person in the assembly must have the common purpose. It is sufficient if a large enough number of them have a common purpose.

Question put:

That clause 4 stand as printed.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator Bull)

AYES: 27

NOES: 23

Majority .. ..4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (When assembly is ‘in relation to’ protected premises or a protected person.)

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– The Opposition will be opposing this clause, which reads:

For the purposes of this Act, but without limiting the operation of this Act -

an assembly is in relation to protected premises if persons in the assembly are on protected premises, or are at a place in the vicinity of protected premises by reason of the fact that that place is in the vicinity of those protected premises; and

an assembly is in relation to a protected person if persons in the assembly are at a place by reason of the fact that a protected person is present at or in the vicinity of that place.

The Opposition’s criticism of this clause relates back to clause 4 and the questions which have been raised by Opposition speakers on what constitutes an assembly and on the lack of definition of ‘vicinity’. I can well understand that, within the terms of the judgment of Mr Justice Black which has already been referred to, certain provisions have to be made within the framework of a free society allowing free assembly to prevent certain things from taking place. For example, certain steps have to be taken to protect Parliament while it is in session and steps have to be taken to protect the operation of the courts and various other things that one does not need a very vivid imagination to picture.

I shall be speaking only momentarily now, because 1 think most of the debate will take place after the Minister has elaborated the reasons for the inclusion of this clause in the Bill. However, what we put to the Minister is that once again this is what Mr Justice Black described so unfavourably in his judgment. It is a meataxe provision. It includes all sorts of people engaging in all sorts of activities at or about these protected premises, which in themselves may be peaceful and orderly but which merely need to consist of 3 or more persons in order to come within the ambit of the Bill. For that reason, at this stage I ask the Minister whether he would clarify to the Committee precisely what the Government has in mind in introducing this clause and what is the purpose of the clause other than the general purpose of preserving what has been euphemistically described as law and order.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

– In response to what Senator Wheeldon has said, I think it is necessary to look at the substantive clauses of the Bill to find when certain offences are created. Clause 15, as one example, states:

Where persons taking part in an assembly that is in relation to protected premises-

And they may be diplomatic or other premises - or a protected person conduct themselves in a way that gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that the assembly will be carried on in a manner involving unlawful physical violence to persons or unlawful damage to property, each of those persons is guilty of an offence.

The definitions clause is concerned to clarify what is meant by the expression ‘assembly that is in relation to protected premises or a protected person’. Clause 5, which defines this, states:

For the purposes of this Act, but without limiting the operation of this Act:

an assembly is in relation to protected premises if persons in the assembly are on protected premises, or are at a place in the vicinity of protected premises by reason of the fact that that place is in the vicinity of those protected premises; and

an assembly is in relation to a protected person if persons in the assembly are at a place by reason of the fact that a protected person is present at or in the vicinity of that place.

That clause, as I understand it, simply puts into statutory form what is an obviously reasonable proposition, namely, that an assembly relates to protected premises if the assembly is, firstly, on the protected premises or, secondly, at a place in the vicinity of those protected premises for the very reason that that place is in that vicinity. It makes a corresponding provision, of course, with regard to protected persons. I would have thought that what is involved in the provision was quite clear. Unless any honourable senator wants to find out something more about it, I feel that that is an adequate explanation.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I suggest that the full implications of this clause can be appreciated only if it is considered alongside clauses 21 and 17. Clause 21, which is an evidentiary clause, states:

In proceedings arising out of this Part, evidence that persons taking part in an assembly were at a place in the vicinity of protected premises, or were at a place at which, or in the vicinity of which, a protected person was present, is evidence that those persons were at that place by reason of the fact that it was in the vicinity of the protected premises, or by reason of the fact that the protected person was present at or in the vicinity of that place, as the case may be.

I suggest that, reading clauses 5 and 21 together, this effect ensues: My mere presence at a place which is in the vicinity of a protected place or person is evidence that I was taking part in an assembly in relation to protected places or persons, or at least I would carry the onus of proving that I was not taking part in the assembly.

Then, under clause 17, if persons other than myself conduct themselves in a way that gives a sergeant of police reasonable apprehension of violence, etc., I can become involved in the illegality of the assembly. Let me give an example. The Yugoslav Consulate-General is situated in Knox Street, Double Bay, which is a busy shopping centre. If I went to Knox Street, Double Bay, to buy a shirt and I happened to be caught up in a gathering outside that Consulate-General, under these clauses I could be deemed to be taking part in an illegal assembly in relation to that protected place or to any protected persons who happened to be in it. I should like the Minister to explain whether the Bill contains any safeguards which would prevent that effect from being achieved by the combined operation of clauses 5, 21 and 17.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– Perhaps while the Minister is answering that matter he could advert also to another aspect which seems to be of considerable relevance to what Senator James McClelland has just been saying, that is, the aspect that the Bill is intended to change both the statute law and the common law in relation to the sort of situation which the honourable senator has been mentioning. If he found himself in that situation and if a police officer requested or required him to assist in preventing there from being any disturbance of the peace, a riot, rout or unlawful assembly taking place, the honourable senator would have to assist the police officer and, if he did not do so, he would be guilty of an offence of failing to give assistance when required to do so. This would apply also to any other person who was present.

This is one aspect which perhaps is relevant to the consideration raised by Senator James McClelland and it is something which it is intended to clear up by this Bill. It is a carry over from the early days when, as I understand it, a law keeping officer, be he sheriff, policeman or whatever he was, was unlikely to be able to call by radio or get by speedy motor vehicle or some other means any assistance which was necessary. So he had the power to call to his aid, in effect to ride posse with him, any citizens to whom he could give the direction that they should do so. This is something which still exists today and will continue to exist, unless this Bill goes through with the amendments which are proposed.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

– Senator Rae gave a pertinent legal answer to the particular example raised by Senator James McClelland, but I feel that there is a legal answer on the basis of the actual provision. May I say right at the very outset that in the example which Senator James McClelland postulated as to what might be his predicament near the Yugoslav embassy in Double Bay that I would not regard him as taking part in an assembly in the example that he gave. But leaving that aspect aside and assuming that he was in a group and that therefore the example that he was seeking to give might have some basis to it, one then has to examine the predicament which he would face.

Clause 21 (1.) to which he referred is an evidentiary provision designed to assist clause 5. Its effect is that if a person gives evidence that an assembly was at a place in the vicinity of protected premises or of a protected person, it is evidence that the assembly was there by reason of that fact. It is important to note that this evidence, which is allowed only by virtue of the statutory provisions in clause 21 (1.), is not conclusive evidence. It may be rebutted by evidence of some other person that the choice of the location of the assembly was accidental or coincidental, or it may be inferred from the evidence generally. The reason for this provision is the difficulty, which is fairly well recognised, of proving positively the reasons for a person’s behaviour. It is quite easy for the person himself to give evidence of his reasons. I might assume that, because there is a demonstration close to an embassy, the demonstration is occurring because something has occurred in that embassy or in the nation of which that embassy is representative and with which the demonstrators are concerned. In that sort of context it would not be difficult for those organising a demonstration in the vicinity of protected premises, if that were not the case, to say simply that it was not the case and that it was a mere accident.

If it were shown that the matters with which the assembly was concerned had no connection with the activities of the foreign government, this would usually conclude the matter. One could not imagine that a group of persons - for example, the Salvation Army - who were having a demonstration which happened coincidentally to be close to an embassy could be regarded as being, in the case of the Salvation Army, in relation to those premises. However, if there were a group which was not so easily capable of being identified as is the Salvation Army, but which was waving banners which had a particular common appeal in the writing on those banners and they happened to be near an embassy which had a real connection with the point which was sought to be made by the demonstrators, it would be reasonable to supose that that demonstration was in connection with that embassy. However, if someone was prepared to come along and say that it was not so, that it was a sheer accident, be would be entitled to do so, and if he could sustain what he said it would be the end of the matter. It seems to me that it is wrong to suppose that an evidentiary provision, which is designed simply to put people who claim that it is an accident in the position of having to assert in the court that it is an accident, is an unreasonable provision.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Dealing first with the example mentioned by Senator Rae, one might be excused for believing that he does not live in the real world if he imagines that that is what happens at demonstrations - that somebody who happens to be mixed up in a turbulent throng, innocently, in the way that I postulated, is usually approached by a nice polite policeman who says: ‘Excuse me, sir, are you or are you not taking part in this unlawful assembly?’, and waits politely for an answer; and, when he is assured that the person is innocent, then requests him to assist him in maintaining the peace. It is within my own knowledge that things are quite different from that out there in the real world. 1 shall cite an example which goes to show that things are not quite like that out in the streets. A member of my own family had ceased work at a time corresponding with the passage of some demonstrators passed her work place during the last moratorium campaign. She crossed the road and was on the footpath and was in almost exactly the same situation as I was postulating earlier. A policeman approached her and told her very rudely to move on. She said to him, in the way that I suppose Senator Rae suggests I should say to his imaginery policeman: ‘But I am just on my way home.’ His response to that was to push her into the gutter. I think we have to concern ourselves with the realities of what happens in demonstrations.

I pass from that to what Senator Greenwood said. In effect he said that if one happens to get caught up in the situation which I suggested could happen one is merely put into the position in which, under the Bill, one will be given an opportunity to prove one’s innocence. I do not think that is a measure about which either Senator Greenwood or Senator Rae, as lawyers, should congratulate themselves. The position is that a man who happens to be in the vicinity of a certain place or a certain person at a certain time - and without any of the ideal policeman of fantasyland about which Senator Rae seems to know - could find himself in court and subjected to the task of proving that he was there innocently. If Government supporters feel proud of this measure, I am afraid they have a different notion of law and order from mine.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

– I will not remain seated and allow these accusations to be made without the facts being stated. It is all very well for people to say, with a plausibility in their tone, that one is merely asserting that a person has to prove his innocence, lt is very easy to make these glib assertions, but it *s far more difficult to sustain the point when one has to look at the clauses and point to the actual clauses which would justify the assertions. 1 suggest that Senator James McClelland point to the clauses which justify that sweeping assertion which he made. Take the situation where there is an assembly. Clause 16 refers to a person taking part in an assembly in relation to protected premises and who wilfully and without lawful excuse causes actual bodily harm or damage to any person and is brought before the court to be charged. That person may not direct any attention to excusing himself of the allegation that he caused actual bodily harm. He would be concerned to assert that he was not taking part in an assembly in relation to protected premises. If he could show that he was not taking part in an assembly in relation to protected premises, for him that would be a complete acquittal. He would not have to worry about the actual bodily harm that was caused.

Therefore I would imagine that the real point of the inquiry into clause 5 is whether it is reasonable to have a provision defining what is meant by those words in relation to protected premises’. That is all clause 5 does. It says that an assembly is in relation to protected premises if it fulfils one of 2 conditions. The first is that, if it is on the protected premises, clearly it is in relation to them. Secondly, it is in relation to protected premises if it is in the vicinity of the premises - in close proximty, as I would put it - simply because the place where the assembly is taking place is nearby to those premises. Clause 21 permits a statement to be made by the court that the premises were close to where the demonstration was taking place and that there was that necessary connection which made the assembly ‘in relation to’ those premises. If anybody says that is not right all he has to do is say so. I do not believe that putting that requirement on a person is requiring that person, in the context which I have put to prove his innocence. lt is typical of the glib phrases which suggest that this Bill does monstrous things which, on examination, cannot be borne out.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I wish to add one further comment to what has been said by Senator James McClelland and to which the Minister for Health (Senator Greenwood) has replied. Senator James McClelland made great play of the fact that apparently I and possibly the Minister as well have no knowledge or experience of what happens in the real world of demonstrations or unlawful assemblies. I am quite prepared, as I said by interjection, to accept that he may have a far greater knowledge of what happens in unlawful assemblies than I have.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Why not stop at the statement that he would have a far greater knowledge than you?

Senator RAE:

– Senator Cavanagh, I am about to demonstrate that his knowledge of the point that 1 was making is in inverse proportion to the knowledge that he displays of unlawful assemblies. The point is - I would have thought that he would have been well aware of it - that, as the law now stands, any person may be directed to participate in quelling the riot or in assisting the police to put down the riot. That would mean that, if Senator Cavanagh went along to see that a demonstration which he had planned and organised went off according to plan and organisation, he could be called upon by the police to participate in putting down that unlawful assembly. I would have thought that he would not approach that situation with complete equanimity. In fact 1 would have thought that he would be rather alarmed to think that he could be called upon to do so. If he failed to do so he would be guilty of an offence with which he would be charged.

Senator James McClelland referred to the polite conversation with the police officer who asks: ‘Are you engaged in this unlawful assembly?’ or some such question and the reply is: ‘No, I am not, I am on my way home’. The brutal fact is that it is possible for the police officer simply to give a direction to any person present. Under the law as it stands - which is to be repealed by this Bill - if that person does not assist the policeman that person is committing an offence because he does not assist in putting down that riot or in overcoming that unlawful assembly.

Senator HANNAN:
Victoria

– I think the extravagant criticism which has been levelled by honourable senators opposite at this clause and the preceding clause is a fair measure of their desperation. Since most of them who have spoken have been lawyers, they would know that in interpreting the statute law they should follow the principles set down by Crais’ Statute Law Interpretation’ and similar authorities which state that words have to be given their plain, ordinary, natural meaning. The Oxford dictionary gives an example of the definition of ‘in the vicinity of. It means ‘in the neighbourhood of, near’, or ‘close to’. Whether the facts of a particular case establish a person as being in the vicinity of a place or embassy will be a question of fact for the court to decide on any particular occasion. I think the example given by Senator James McClelland in relation to the embassy at Double Bay is far fetched and unreal. The simple answer, without going through all the rigmarole, is that if a person were caught up in such a situation, as the honourable senator well knows, that person simply does not have the common purpose required to be part of the assembly, and that is the end of the matter. The decision is not taken by a policeman; the decision is taken by a court.

To suggest that all policemen push demonstrators into the gutter is unreal. This does not happen in real life. I have seen policemen behaving in the most restrained, the most tolerant and the most patient fashion while louts have been pushing lighted cigarette butts into the flanks of their horses or rolling marbles under the hooves of their horses. I have seen all these types of provocation of police and in only one instance have 1 seen what I would call violence in retaliation. I think it is quite unfair to Commonwealth police officers and perhaps to State police officers, who may be implementing this legislation if it becomes law, to suggest that these types of people are fascist brutes - which might be the inference to be drawn from what honourable senators opposite have said. This clause is for evidentiary purposes only, as the Minister has pointed out. The violent, pointless, irrelevant attack that has been made upon it is simply a measure of the desperation of those who are anxious to ensure that people who break what might normally be called the ordinary rules of civilised behaviour are protected from the penalty of their actions.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I was not going to intervene but, in view of the remarks made by Senator Hannan, I think the contrary view ought to be put. I was in Hyde Park at a demonstration which started off as a public meeting on, I think, the day before the Georges River byelection in New South Wales, which the Government of that State lost and deserved to lose. It was a peaceful protest. I remember that night watching a television coverage of it which I think profoundly affected the by-election the next day. It showed for all the world to see a sweet young lady of about 16 or 17 standing peacefully in the park with pamphlets in her hands - she was not handing out many of them, either. I have never seen anyone who looked so peaceful and unobstructive. The camera was on her for some time. While she was standing there a policeman came up to her and tried to take the pamphlets off her. Because she hung on to the pamphlets he lumbered her. The policeman put her in the police waggon and took her away. He did not knock her about. No undue violence was used. However, I think it must have shocked the whole community to think that this young girl could be bundled into a police waggon and taken away to a police station when she was not doing anything that anyone could reasonably take objection to. I think it is this kind of attack that makes the community very concerned about provisions which enable people to be arrested when they are not doing anything that calls for the intervention of the law. The Opposition is not satisfied with the explanation given by the Minister. It will therefore oppose the clause.

Question put:

That clause 5 stand as printed.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator Bull)

AYES: 27

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (Assemblies involving violence or apprehension of violence).

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– Clause 6 provides that where persons taking part in an assembly in the specified places conduct themselves in a way that gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that the assembly will be carried on in a manner involving unlawful physical violence to persons or unlawful damage to property each of those persons is guilty of an offence punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding $250 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or both. The Opposition has indicated already that it is not opposed to laws which make it an offence to commit physical violence or damage to property without lawful excuse. The Opposition has not said otherwise. People are entitled to personal safety and there ought to be laws to protect them. In fact, over the years it has been found that the law is far too often unduly protective of property rights and not sufficiently protective of personal safety or of certain economic rights which are protective of the person. The Government has been concerned mostly about property rights rather than the rights of human beings.

Clause 6 deals not with physical violence and not with damage that is done but with persons in an assembly conducting themselves in a way that gives rise to a reasonable apprehension. This is not a provision which should be written into the law. The law is elastic enough already. We find already that in the demonstrations that are carried on persons are accused of all sorts of things from obstructing traffic to indecent language and resisting arrest. The Government now seeks to include a provision in the law to the effect that if people in an assembly conduct themselves in a way that gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that the assembly will be carried on in a manner involving unlawful physical violence they can be punished by the imposition of a fine of $250 or 3 months imprisonment or both. It does not involve any physical violence at all. A person can be in an assembly where there is no physical violence at all, but if someone says that there was a reasonable apprehension that there would be, then that person is up for 3 months gaol or a fine of $250. We say that that is unreasonable.

Senator Young:

– Do you want to see them hurt first?

Senator MURPHY:

– That is a typical remark from the Government senator. I put the proposition that the offence here is committed even though there has not been any physical violence, and the senator suggests that it is right and proper that a person should be subjected to imprisonment for 3 months even though there has not been any physical violence whatever. I would inform Senator Poyser, who is interjecting that I am doing all right by myself if he will let me go on. I do not mind his interjecting when honourable senators opposite are talking, but I ask him not to do it when I am speaking because it doubles the competition. We do not think that it is fair or reasonable that there should be an offence punishable by 3 months gaol, when for the elements of the offence to be established in the court that Senator Greenwood keeps talking about all that is needed is for someone to say that there was a reasonable apprehension of physical violence. If a person comes within the limits of this he can be convicted even though there has been no physical violence at all. Surely in circumstances such as these it would be better to have the kind of provision that if a person commits physical violence or if, as is provided in the Crimes Act, he threatens physical violence, this may constitute an offence. But in this case the law is being stretched. It is being made all the more elastic and designed to cover cases where a demonstration may be carried on in a perfectly peaceable fashion, with no physical violence taking place, and yet people can be arrested because it will be suggested by someone that there was a reasonable apprehension that there would be some physical violence.

Senator Wheeldon:

– He would be not only arrested but convicted and sent to gaol.

Senator MURPHY:

– As Senator Wheeldon says a person may be not only arrested but also convicted and sent to gaol. This is another method used to ensure that there will not be peaceable assembly. If the Government is looking for the preservation of the right of peaceable assembly, surely it is enough to say that if there is physical violence, if there is damage to property, let those acts be regarded as offences and let them be punishable. We have not said otherwise. But the present proposal is stretching it out under the cover that we have to protect people. Here is a provision capable of being applied to the citizen when it ought not to be applied. We do not support the provision.

Next 1 would like to ask the Minister why there is this difference between clause 6 (2.) and clause 7. Clause 7 reads:

A person who, . . .while taking part in an assembly, wilfully and without lawful excuse causes -

actual bodily harm to another person; or

damage . . .

Clause 6 (2.) reads:

A person who . . . while taking part in an assembly and without lawful excuse, does an act or thing by way of physical violence to another person or damage. . . .

This sub-clause omits the word ‘wilfully’. The honourable senator on the opposite side spends his evenings reading Craies’ Statute Law Interpretation’.

Senator Hannan:

– It is not such a bad book.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes, it is a good book. These 2 provisions appear together in the Bill, and one says ‘wilfully and without lawful excuse’ and the other says without lawful excuse’, leaving out the word ‘wilfully’. On the face of it, it seems to me that under clause 6 (2.) a person can be guilty of the offence even though it might not have been committed wilfully. I ask the Minister why the word ‘wilfully’ is not in that sub-clause. Is the Minister prepared to have the word ‘wilfully’ put in there so that if it is not intended to apply to persons who might innocently, although without lawful excuse, do some act or be involved in it - one knows the extending provisions of the Crimes Act which involve all sorts of people who are in any way party to a matter - those persons will not be charged? If the Minister does not agree that the word ‘wilfully’ should go in, will he explain why it has been left out?

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I simply want to take the opportunity to ask the Minister for Health (Senator Greenwood), apropos of the first matter raised by Senator Murphy, whether perhaps Halsbury’s Laws of England’ are incorrect and whether he thinks that they do not accurately represent the law, because otherwise Senator Murphy has put forward a rather preposterous proposition. Senator Murphy said that the use of the words in clause 6(1.): ‘. . . that gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that the assembly will be carried on in a manner involving unlawful physical violence to persons. . . .’, is an outrage in law. I had a look at the definition of ‘assault’ which is contained in the third edition, volume 10 of Halsbury’s ‘Laws of England’, page 741. The definition reads:

If no actual violence is used, there must, to constitute an assault, be some threatening act sufficient to raise in the mind of the person threatened a fear of immediate violence. 1 wonder where the difference is between the definition of ‘assault’ as given there and the same type of principle which is embodied in clause 6(1.) of the Bill, which does not in any way at all introduce some novel principle of law enforcement and is a common matter dating back many centuries and is well known in the law of the United Kingdom and of every State of Australia.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

– The proposition which Senator Murphy is putting to the Committee is quite astounding when one analyses it because, whilst he says that his Party regards it as quite proper to have laws which make it an offence for a person to do an act of physical violence and to do an act of damage to property, the Australian Labor Party will not permit any law to be passed which would prevent those things from happening. To me that is absolutely extraordinary. There is no justification to be made for such a view by using hyperbole and a loud voice. We have a provision in clause 6 which not only is reasonable but also it mitigates the existing law, which presumably the Labor Party would prefer to have in force. Clause 6 states simply: (1.) Where persons taking part in an assembly

In the language of this debate, let it be known, where a person is taking part in a demonstration - that is in a Territory or is wholly or partly on Commonwealth premises conduct themselves . . in a way that gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that the assembly will be carried on in a manner involving unlawful physical violence to persons or unlawful damage to property, each of those persons is guilty of an offence . . .

The first point I would make is that under the existing law - it prevails, I think, in almost every State of trie Commonwealth - if there is unlawful damage to property or if there is unlawful physical violence to persons committed by anyone in that unlawful assembly, everybody in the assembly is guilty of the offence. What this Bill does is to say that only those persons who conduct themselves in such a way shall be guilty of an offence. That is decidedly a better provision than the existing law. Is the Labor Party again going to vote against this clause in preference to what exists at the present time? I hope that there will be one spokesman who will be prepared to justify why he wants these old provisions which have lasted for almost 200 years in preference to something which is mitigating.

Senator Murphy:

– If there is physical violence. This is apprehension of physical violence.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– This is one area where I challenge exactly what Senator Murphy has said, and one can challenge it by going to the exact provisions which apply in the various States.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was replying to submissions which bad been made by Senator Murphy that there were defects in clause 6 of the Bill. I sense that the point which Senator Murphy has been stressing is that the provisions of clause 6, insofar as they make it an offence for a person to be a member of an assembly and to engage in conduct that gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that the assembly will be carried on in a manner involving unlawful physical violence to persons or unlawful damage to property, should not be inserted. I had said that there were existing provisions which were far more onerous in their impact and that the provision which the Bill includes is one which mitigates the existing situation. If one examines the existing provisions of the law, the point that was made in the second reading speech of Senator Wright is well established. I think it is worth repeating. Senator Wright said:

The Bill will also mitigate the unnecessary severity of existing laws. A person may be guilty under the present law of the offence of taking part in an unlawful assembly, a rout or a riot although he did not himself commit a breach of the peace or so conduct himself as to give rise to an apprehension that a breach of the peace would occur.

The existing law, therefore, means that any person taking part in an unlawful assembly, if a breach of the peace occurs or if there is an apprehension that a breach of the peace might occur, is guilty of an offence. Clause 6 of the Bill indicates that it is only the persons whose conduct gives rise to such an apprehension who will be guilty of an offence. I repeat what I said before the suspension of the sitting that I think it is incumbent upon members of the Opposition, if they vote against this provision as they intend to do in the light of what has been said, to justify how they prefer to maintain a more onerous and severe provision than the one which is to be inserted. If they do vote against it, I think it merely proves that there is hollowness in the plea that they are opposing this measure at every stage, because opposition just for the sake of opposition without intelligence or reason does not, I think, indicate a standard of judgment which behoves the Opposition. Likewise, if one considers the various provisions in the States at the present time one sees borne out those points which I have been making.

If one takes the statutory law in force in New South Wales at the present time with regard to unlawful assemblies - of course, it is the application by the Australian Courts Act 1828 of the common law provisions which apply - one finds that it is an offence at common law to take part in an unlawful assembly. The section states that an unlawful assembly is an assembly of 3 or more persons with intent, either to commit a crime by open force or to carry out any common purpose, lawful or unlawful, in such manner as to give firm and courageous persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly reasonble grounds to apprehend a breach of the peace in consequence of it. I would have thought that the language which is proposed in this Bill is infinitely better language, lt relates to a person whose conduct is such that it gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that the assembly will be carried on in a manner involving unlawful physical violence to persons, or unlawful damage to property. The language is far clearer.

Let us examine the provisions in other States. The Victorian provision is comparable to that of New South Wales. In Queensland the criminal code provides that taking part in an unlawful assembly, being an assembly of 3 or more persons with intent to carry out some common purpose, assembled in such a manner as to cause persons to fear that they will tumultuously distrub or provoke others tumultuously to disturb the peace, is an offence. I do not think that is language which really conveys meaning to people in the 1970s. In Western Australia the criminal code provides, in language similar to the Queensland Code, that taking part in an unlawful assembly with the intent to carry out some common purpose and to assemble in such a manner as to cause persons to fear that they will tumultuously disturb or provoke others tumultuously to disturb the peace, is an offence. In Tasmania the criminal code provides that taking part in an unlawful assembly, being an assembly of 3 or more persons with intent to effect any common purpose in such a manner that persons may have reasonable grounds for alarm, is an offence.

One could imagine, in the light of all that members of the Opposition have said, that on the standards which they predicate those statutory provisions in the States should give them more cause for concern than the provisions which are proposed by this Bill.

Senator Cavanagh:

– They do. They both give us concern.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Senator Cavanagh says that they both give him concern, but all I say is that if the language of the clause which is now before the Senate is clearer than the language of the existing provisions, and if the penalty ultimately is a different and lesser penalty than what is in the present statutes in the States, why - 1 challenge Senator Cavanagh as I challenge any member of the Opposition - is the Labor Party proposing to vote against this clause?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Because it is another repressive Act. We have enough now.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– It is all very well for Senator Cavanagh to say that this is a repressive Act. That is the sort of thing we constantly hear from the Opposition and, as I have said time and again in the course of this debate, when the Opposition establishes what is repressive, then one can argue the merits of the question on the basis of what it puts forward. But simple assertion, no matter how emotively couched, is no substitute for objective reasoning and plain reference to the provisions which are complained of.

The other point which Senator Murphy raised was that clause 7 of the Bill provides that a person who. in a Territory or on Commonwealth premises, while taking part in an assembly, wilfully and without lawful excuse, causes actual bodily harm or damage, is guilty of an offence, whereas clause 6 provides that a person who, while Caking part in an assembly and without 1 awful excuse does an act or thing by way of physical violence or damage to property, is also guilty of an offence. The distinction between those 2 clauses is that the word wilfully’ appears in clause 7 and not in clause 6. Senator Murphy asks: ‘Why should not the word “wilfully” appear in clause 6?’ Again I say that this approach indicates a lack of plain examination of the provisions, the actual words of the clauses. If one looks at clause 7 where the word ‘wilfully’ appears, the expression used is ‘a person who wilfully causes actual bodily harm’ whereas in clause 6 the expression is ‘a person who does an act or thing’.

A layman might say to me that there is not very much distinction between them and ask why I am labouring the point, but a lawyer knows that there is a distinction between the expression ‘a person who wilfully causes’ and the expression ‘a person who does an act’ because the interpretation which the courts for many years have placed upon the word ‘wilfully’ is that it must involve some conscious deliberate action. Accordingly, if a person causes an act he may do it wilfully or inadvertently. Therefore it is proper to say whether or not he is doing it wilfully or inadvertently. The clause refers to a person who ‘wilfully’ causes an act. There is no occasion whatever for putting the same word into an expression which does not require that at all.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Why do you not do that in clause 6 (2.).

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I have made my point. I would be interested in, and I am quite prepared to respond to, any argument put up by the Opposition. ‘Wilfully’ involves doing an act, by the very definition of the expression. If it is a matter of causing something to be done, you have to say whether it is wilfully done or inadvertently done. But insofar as there is a difference of expression in the 2 clauses, I think the point is well sustained without further elaboration by me. What I have said is by way of response to what Senator Murphy said. As 1 said if any other honourable senator wants further clarification of these clauses or of clause 6 I will do the best I can for them.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– Sub-clause (1.) of clause 6 of this Bill is the most appalling subclause in an appalling Bill. The purpose of this sub-clause as I understand it - I think my understanding of it would be the same as the understanding of anybody else - is that it is purely one of intimidation. It states:

Where persons taking part in an assembly that is in a Territory or is wholly or partly on Commonwealth premises conduct themselves, in the Territory or on the Commonwealth premises, in a way that gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that the assembly will be carried on in a manner involving unlawful physical violence to persons or unlawful damage to property, each of those persons is guilty of an offence, punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding Two hundred and fifty dollars or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months, or both.

This sub-clause does not say that this person needs to have taken part in an assembly which was carried on in such a manner as to cause unlawful physical violence to persons or unlawful damage to property. It refers to people conducting themselves in a way which ‘gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that the assembly will be carried on’ in such a manner.

Earlier in the debate there was an interjection from Senator Young when the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) was speaking about this subclause. Senator Young then asked: ‘Do you think that the damage ought to be done or the assault ought to take place before any action is taken?’ That question is irrelevant to the sub-clause before us because this is not a preventive sub-clause; it is a subclause which imposes a penalty upon persons after the act. Under this sub-clause there is no need to establish before a court that any physical damage or any harm to property actually took place. All you would need to establish is that there was a reasonable apprehension’ that such damage to property or such harm to the person would take place. If you took part in an assembly which would give rise to a reasonable apprehension, in the terms of the sub-clause, that such should take place, then you are liable to the penalty of $250 or 3 months imprisonment.

Senator Rae, in a most extraordinarily specious piece of reasoning which followed a long reference to Halsbury, told us that this in some way was parallel to the definition of assault under common law whereby if somebody makes threatening gestures he is guilty of assault. There is no parallel whatsoever. One cannot be convicted of assault because someone had a reasonable apprehension that someone was going to strike someone else. There has to be actual evidence given of the fact that the threatening gestures or words - whatever they were - took place in order to justify a conviction of that offence of assault. For someone to say that he had a reasonable apprehension that an assault may take place is not grounds for a conviction on the charge of common assault or any other sort of assault.

What is so odious about this odious provision is that it says that all that is needed in order to sustain a conviction is a reasonable apprehension that such and such should have been the case - a reasonable apprehension that there should have been unlawful physical violence or unlawful damage to property. A reasonable apprehension could nonetheless be an unfounded apprehension. There is nothing inconsistent about that. One can have a reasonable apprehension that something will happen while at the same time that apprehension is unfounded. It would be reasonable if one saw smoke coming out of a house to think that it was on fire, but it may be an unfounded apprehension. The smoke might be coming from some quite different source. It might be caused by somebody burning candles inside the house or by somebody having a Christmas party.

This sub-clause does not use the words a well founded apprehension’; it says ‘a reasonable apprehension’. The Minister, Senator Greenwood, has said that we should not make vague allegations; that we should analyse the words. It is quite conceivable, quite possible, under the terms of sub-clause 6(1.) of this Bill that a person could be convicted if a police officer, or whoever else it is who is laying the charge, could establish that he had a reasonable apprehension that there would be physical harm caused to some person or damage to some property. As far as I can see, it would be no defence to say that even though the apprehension was reasonable it was nonetheless unfounded. The sub-clause uses the words ‘a reasonable apprehension’. It does not say ‘a reasonable and well founded apprehension’.

I am in two minds as to whether we get these Bills before us in this form because of the shortage of staff and the difficulty of obtaining competent people in the Attorney-General’s Department to draft them for us. or whether it is part of a deliberate policy by the Government. This sub-clause entails intimidation. How can anybody taking part in an assembly be assured that somebody is not going to have a ‘reasonable apprehension’ that such and such is not going to happen? How can one be confident of that? One can be determined that there will be no damage to property, that there will be no assault and-

Senator Rae:

– You cannot-

Senator WHEELDON:

– -Look, Mr Chairman, I have listened to Senator Rae reading the index to ‘Halsbury’ and that is about enough for one night. One could take every precaution in an assembly that there would be no acts of violence and that there would be no damage to any property, but how could one take a precaution that somebody would not have a reasonable apprehension that there would not be such violence or such damage to property? This is an intimidatory subclause and it is in keeping with the rest of this Bill.

This Bill is not a serious effort to codify the law relating to assemblies. It makes a mockery of the statement by the former cricketing Attorney-General who has now left the Ministry because of his loyalty to his former leader. It makes a mockery of the statement he made in his second reading speech on this Bill in another place, that the purpose of this Bill is to mitigate penalties against persons who take part in assemblies. This sub-clause shows us precisely the purpose of this Bill. Its purpose is to intimidate people who have the audacity to demonstrate against a Government whose foreign policy and domestic policy is collapsing; a Government which cannot retain the support of its own backbenchers; a Government which has to appeal to things of this kind, to base fears, to suppression, in order to retain itself in office.

Senator HANNAN:
Victoria

– Senator Wheeldon makes a wholly unwarranted assumption when he says that his understanding of this clause is the same as anybody else’s. Most people would apply a reasonable touchstone or a sense of English grammatical construction and an understanding of what the words mean. But when we get the emotional flapdoodle with which he goes on it is quite clear that reason has taken flight.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What is ‘flapdoodle”?

Senator HANNAN:

– That is a good question. I shall come to that point before I finish. The honourable senator complained about a reasonable apprehension. If the apprehension is not well founded it is difficult to conceive a set of circumstances - apart from the burning of candles which he referred to - in which it would be reasonable and therefore the conviction could not be sustained by a court. I think the Minister for Health (Senator Greenwood) who in this chamber represents the Attorney-General (Mr N. H. Bowen) has made it abundantly clear that the Opposition has failed completely to meet the graveman of this matter. He has made it clear that this is a moderating piece of legislation. Once it comes into effect throughout the Commonwealth its real effect will be to reduce, not to increase penalties. How a genius like Senate Cavanagh can call it repressive I shall never understand. Senator Murphy raised the matter of the word ‘wilfully’. I think he has a point. While I do not think it adds very greatly to the strength of the legislation to insert the word ‘wilfully’ it is my belief that adding that word, as is done in clause 7, does no harm. It does not destroy in any way the philosophy behind the clause.

Senator Murphy:

-I shall move an amendment shortly.

Senator HANNAN:

– I ask the honourable senator to wait until I have finished speaking. I have said that I do not believe that the insertion of the word ‘wilfully’ destroys the philosophy behind the clause.

Senator Wheeldon:

– What does the honourable senator mean by velocity?

Senator HANNAN:

– I said philosophy. The honourable senator would not know what that meant. As I was saying, I do not think it changes the reading of the clause at all. Perhaps it could make it a shade clearer. I think that I have said enough.

Clause 6. (2.) A person who, in a Territory or on Commonwealth premises, while taking part in an assembly and without lawful excuse does an act or thing by way of physical violence to another person or damage to property is guilty of an offence, punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding One thousand dollars or imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months, or both.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– One of the best courses we can probably pursue is to deal with clause 6 (2.). I move:

That clause would then read: (2.) A person who, in a Territory or on Commonwealth premises, while taking part in an assembly wilfully and without lawful excuse, does an act or thing by way of physical violence . . .

We see that the Government has thought fit to insert the word ‘wilfully’ in clause 7 which we have not yet reached. That clause states:

  1. A person who. . , while taking part in an assembly, wilfully and without lawful excuse causes -

    1. actual bodily harm. . . .

Surely the same consideration ought to apply to clause 6 (2.) otherwise some prosecutor in one of the country courts or in the special Federal court is going to say: The legislators deliberately left out the world “wilfully” in Clause 6 (2.), meaning that the act did not have to be wilful. It simply means that unless he shows some lawful excuse, even for something which was relatively innocent, he is guilty of the offence.’

Senator Rae:

– Is mens rea an ingredient for Clauses 6(1.) and 6 (2.)?

Senator MURPHY:

– I should have thought it would be but there is this conjunction between clause 6 (2.) and clause 7. Clause 7 expressly states ‘wilfully and without lawful excuse’ and clause 6 (2.) simply states ‘and without lawful excuse’. The honourable senator knows what lawyers will argue with the aid of Halsbury. They will say: ‘Well, that does not mean wilfully. It means that if a person commits an act, unless he can show some lawful excuse - even if it were innocent - he is guilty even though it was not done wilfully.’ They would say: ‘The legislators would not have passed this Bill in this way with the aid of Halsbury. They would never have allowed that to pass through the chamber because those 2 clauses are next to one another, both dealing with physical harm and damage to property. One clause states ‘without lawful excuse’ and the other states ‘wilfully, and without lawful excuse.’ The legislators are not that foolish. They would not have allowed that bill to pass without understanding that there was a clear difference between those 2 clauses. In one clause wilfully was eliminated and in the other clause it was not. A person could be guilty under the clause with which we are dealing even though his actions were not wilful. I think this is a reasonable amendment to make to the clause.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– Normally I would not have intervened in such a legal debate with my legal betters but T cannot resist replying to a reference made by the Minister for Health (Senator Grennwood) who is handling the Bill. I gained the impression that he expressed amazement that the Opposition was fighting a step by step action against this Bill. I want to refute that point. Senator Murphy and Senator Wheeldon have dealt with the definition of wilfully’. As far as the Opposition is concerned outside World War T and World War II we have seen many instances where genuine radical causes for justice have culminated in some serious conflicts with the law when there was no need for that to happen. We have seen the subsequent antitrade union and anti-civil rights legislation. We had the Rothbury incident between the wars and in 1920 in Sydney we had the International Workers of the World trial. Each of those incidents prove that there was an over reaction by the Government of the day. I refer to those incidents in dealing with the ‘wilful’ aspect. Had we reached the situation which Prime Minister Trudeau reached in Canada we would not have had anything like those incidents. The nearest we got to that was in an incident to which Senator Cavanagh drew the attention of the Senate. A chap in South Australia who was an Australian Rules umpire and who was involved in a lot of political activities claimed that we were on the verge of a lot of lawlessness. That never happened. Had we had some of those situations I would have been more sympathetic towards what the Government contemplates.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It was only political propaganda.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Senator Cavanagh, in his usual clearcut interjection, has indicated the point I was going to make. But I want to take it a little further. It seems to me that in Australia we have the idea that we are different to the United States and Canada and that if we do reach the kind of situation that we have had in some instances the law is incapable of handling it. I have waited in vain tor Senator Greenwood to justify this clause by saying that it meets the situation with which Senator McManus enthralled us the other night. If he did this I would say that there is a gap in the law. No one has had the courage to say that there is something wrong with the Victorian judiciary. Far be it for me to suggest that there is. We are in an age when there are constant radical causes. I do not have much confidence in the fact that the Government will not be inclined to use these additional powers to blunt some of the genuine crusades. If. for some reason, the Australian Democratic Labor Party were to cross the floor with the Australian Labor Party and eliminate these clauses I ask Government supporters not to tell me that the Government would be lying naked as far as legal redress is concerned. The Government would have to use other measures. During my speech on the second reading I pointed out to Senator Greenwood how Mr Renshaw when Premier of New South Wales was able to harass the little Nazi Party by charging it with all sorts of breaches of the peace under existing laws.

Premier Lang of New South Wales in the 1930s used the Consorting Act against the razor gangs, but those were different circumstances. It was not a question of attacking civil liberties. Our respect for the law is equal to that of any other party, but we are not at war now. No vast conspiracy is abroad and a lot of the fears that Government supporters have about demonstrations are groundless. The Government is trying to present this measure as a sort of emergency piece of legislation, but it would be more in keeping with World War II than a peacetime situation. If this was a time of mass murders or kidnappings this measure might be justified, but that is not the case. This Bill is suggested to be a deterrent, but the civil upsets it allegedly seeks to deter are non-existent.

Senator HANNAN:
Victoria

– Whilst I have carefully examined clauses 6 and 7 and I realise that one deals with summary offences and the other deals with indictable offences, and whilst I believe as I said earlier that the wording of clause 6 is adequate as it is, it is my personal belief that the legislation would be mildly improved by the insertion of the word ‘wilfully’.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I accept Senator Hannan’s apology for making a mistake before.

Senator Hannan:

– I did not make a mistake.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The honourable senator indicated before that he would support an amendment if it was moved for the insertion of the word ‘wilfully’. Now that such an amendment has been moved he states that it will mildly improve the legislation. He has said that as a let-out; he cannot support the proposed amendment because of its insignificance. An arm has been twisted in the Government forces in the short time that has intervened between the honourable senator’s previous speech and his last speech. If Senator Murphy was expecting the support of Senator Hannan to carry his proposed amendment he will now have learned that Senator Hannan cannot give his support.

Senator Hannan:

– Why do you say that?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Because you now find that it only mildly alters the legislation.

Senator Hannan:

– You do not know how I am going to vote.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Yes, I do.

Senator Murphy:

– I do not accept that. I will wait to see how he votes.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I have every confidence in my Leader. Now that my Leader has indicated that Senator Hannan will vote for the proposed amendment, I am sure that he will do so.

Senator Murphy:

– No. I suggest that we wait to see how he votes.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Yes. I oppose this clause. I gave the Committee a preview of my attitude when I incorrectly addressed myself to it when clause 5 was before us. I expressed the opinion then that the Opposition could not find fault with a provision to take action against somebody who wilfully and without lawful excuse acted physically against an individual or damaged property. I have assumed that the word ‘wilfully’ will be included in sub-clause 2. As I stated previously, subclause 1 does not provide for the commission of an offence. All that is necessary is an action that gives rise to a reasonable apprehension in somebody’s mind.

I hope that the Committee will be tolerant with me because I do not have the benefit of a knowledge of Halsbury. But leaving Halsbury aside, I have had some experience of how this provision could be applied. We marched in quite a peaceful demonstration through Adelaide on one occasion, from Elder Park to Victoria Square and back again, an overall distance of about 2 miles. During that march I thought that a certain group acted with sufficient provocation to justify action against its members by the police. However, because of the heavy influence of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the United States Central Intelligence Agency no arrests were made amongst those who were provoking the police. There was a scuffle with this particular section.

Senator Webster:

– Would you explain what you mean about ASIO?

Senator Gair:

– He means that a section provoked the police.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– One small section did provoke the police. On the return section of the march a sergeant of police stood in front of me observing a scuffle. He was apparently pushed from behind by one of the group to which I have referred. He turned around and punched in the face a lad standing next to me. Immediately a number of policemen simply grabbed the lad and bundled him into a paddy wagon. When the case came to court I gave evidence on the lad’s behalf. I had not seen him before the incident, but he was completely innocent of the charge laid against him. While I was giving evidence the prosecutor presented to me half a dozen photographs showing the lad with the sergeant of police concerned. In some of the photographs the lad was shown to be in a menacing attitude. One photograph showed him holding a big lump of wood in his hand. When we left the court I spoke to the lad and his counsel. I said to the lad: You must be found guilty on this charge despite my evidence. The photographs they produced are enough to convict you. How did it happen that you had this great lump of wood in your hand?’ He said: T was carrying a banner and it broke off*. The photograph was taken when the procession was passing the T & G building. The cameras had been on that lad from the time that the procession began until the time that he was arrested. There was a determination from the beginning of the procession to institute proceedings against that individual.

The photograph I have described would be considered sufficient evidence to constitute an offence under the provisions of clause 6, although he had committed no offence while carrying the wood. He had not committed an assault upon anybody with it. He had demonstrated quite peacefully on that occasion. At the time of a previous demonstration he had been charged and fined and there was a determination on the occasion I have described to get certain individuals. Under repressive legislation such as this measure a conviction could be gained because there would be cause for reasonable apprehension in the mind of a policeman who was out to get the individual concerned.

State laws are used against demonstrators in a repressive fashion. Now the Commonwealth seeks to add another repressive law. The question of whether we are satisfied with the State laws does not arise, nor does the question of whether this measure may not be as harsh as others. Laws already exist to cover demonstrations. As Senator James McClelland pointed out during the debate on the second reading of the Bill, there is no need for this legislation. The purpose of this Bill is not to stop demonstrations. It has been introduced purely for political reasons. I ask the many learned counsel in the chamber whether one of them can tell me, with the assistance of Halsbury, the meaning of clause 23, which provides: (1.) Offences against this Act, other than an offence against section 7 or section 16, are punishable on summary conviction. (2.) Proceedings for -

  1. the commitment of a person for trial on indictment for an offence against this Act; or
  2. the summary prosecution of an offence against this Act, shall be instituted only with the consent in writing of the Attorney-General.

We are now considering clause 6. Can a charge not be laid under the provisions of that clause except with the consent of the Attorney-General? Is this not purely a political prosecution?

Senator Murphy:

– The agent provocateur cannot prosecute.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– That is the whole question. Although a person creates a reasonable apprehension, nothing need happen to him. The man in the other place will decide whether or not there is political advantage in prosecution. That is the whole purpose of the legislation, and that should be understood. It is not legislation that is necessary. The State legislation and the Crimes Act contain provisions to deal with this whole question. It is purely a case of politics. We are being asked to add yet more legislation to the other undesirable legislation refusing the right to demonstrate which is operating in the States now. We are asked to accept it because, perhaps, it is not as bad as the legislation that we have.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

– I have reiterated on numerous occasions that so many statements are being made by the Opposition without any foundation that those statements, when they are made, ought to be nailed. Just before Senator Cavanagh sat down, he said that the Government’s motive in introducing this legislation was political, and he used the word ‘political* in its worst sense. He said that there were provisions in the Crimes Act which were adequate. I know that it is not wise to invite interjections, but I ask Senator

Cavanagh to say which provision in the Crimes Act is adequate to clause 6.

Senator Hannan:

– He would not know.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I know that he would not be able to make the statement, because there is no such provision. I took the trouble in the second reading debate to refer to those provisions which one honourable senator on the Opposition side had been prepared to enumerate as being adequate provisions. When one looks at those provisions one finds that they deal with a very minor part of the general purport of this Bill. No provision about which 1 have heard from any member of the Opposition covers the area that is now being covered by clause 6 of this Bill. If that be the case, then I say that if members of the Opposition will stand up persistently and without foundation to make accusations that are completely inaccurate the point should be made constantly, and that is what I am doing. I can only hope that in the interests of debate and in the interests of giving real information to the people of Australia there will be an end to these erroneous general statements which have no foundation because, challenge being made, the attempt is never made to justify them.

Senator Cavanagh:

– They have foundation.

Senator Murphy:

– You asked for an interjection. I will give the answer if you want it.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am endeavouring to respond after about 5 other senators have spoken since I last spoke. When Senator Wheeldon was last on his feet he raised some points for my attention. He said, in extravagant language, that clause 6 was the most appalling clause in a most appalling Bill. One fails to see what is appalling about a clause which says that a person who does an act or thing by way of physical violence to another person or damage to property is guilty of an offence, or which says that a person in an assembly who conducts himself in a way that gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that the assembly will be carried on in a manner involving unlawful physical violence to persons or unlawful damage to property commits an offence which ought to be subject to our law.

Senator Wheeldon made some statements that are quite incredible. An examination of the clause indicates that before a person can be guilty of an offence under this clause he must be a member of an assembly and he must conduct himself in a way that gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that the assembly will be carried on in a way involving unlawful physical violence. One cannot have an apprehension until some conduct or some action has been taken by a person, and that is the basis on which a judgment can be formed. If someone is brought before the court and charged under this clause, one of the questions which have to be answered is whether or not there was a reasonable apprehension. The court is the body which has to be satisfied, and the court will not be satisfied unless it has placed before it some facts upon which the judgment on whether or not there was a reasonable apprehension can be made. I think it is outrageous that people will stand up in this chamber, in the face of the language of these clauses-

Senator Gair:

– Particularly legal men.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am referring to what Senator Wheeldon said, lt is outrageous that people should stand up in the face of what the actual clauses say and ignore the fact that a reasonable apprehension, in the language of the clause, is based upon whatever conduct people exhibit in their behaviour. The other point that has arisen concerns the amendment moved by Senator Murphy. I do not know whether Senator Murphy heard what I said earlier, but before he came in this evening I indicated that there was a reasonable basis for the inclusion of the word ‘wilfully’ in clause 7 and the absence of that word in clause 6 (2.). I pointed out that ‘wilfully’, as it has been interpreted - over the years its interpretation has undergone some changes - means simply that a person deliberately does an act. Where we have an expression, as in clause 6 (2.), that a person does an act, it seems unnecessary to put in the word ‘wilfully’. It does not add anything to it. In clause 7, where we have the word ‘causes’, perhaps point is given to it by adding the word ‘wilfully’, although I doubt very much whether it does add anything to it.

The Opposition makes a plea that this is an oppressive measure. This is the very first amendment it has moved of which it did not give notice. I am prepared to accept the amendment, not because I feel it improves the Bill but because I do not think the insertion of the word detracts in any way from the impact of the Bill. If it makes it more palatable and acceptable to other people, I am prepared to have the word inserted; but, of course, that is for the Committee to decide. I, for my part, support anything which makes it quite clear that a person who commits an act which creates unlawful physical violence or unlawful damage to property or gives rise to the reasonable apprehension that those consequences will ensue ought to be subject to the rigours of the law. Whether or not such a person does such an act wilfully is, I think - in the light of the way the courts interpret these provisions these days - of little consequence. However, bearing in mind that the word ‘wilfully’ appears in clause 7, even though it is in relation to an indictable offence carrying a penalty of imprisonment for 3 years, whereas in the other case the penalty is a maximum of 3 months, 1 am prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

– The question now is: That the clause, as amended, be agreed to’.

Senator Murphy:

– Mr Temporary Chairman, I do not mind sub-clause 6 (2.) standing, but I should like to say something about sub-clause 6 (1 .).

Senator Greenwood:

– We are dealing with the Bill clause by clause. At present we are dealing with clause 6 and an amendment to sub-clause (2.) has been moved. I submit that when we come to vote on the clause we will be voting on the whole clause as amended. I suggest that the discussion should proceed on that basis.

Senator Murphy:

– The Minister will recall the age old rule that when voting on any motion or any proposition which involves 2 distinct things it is a right of those who are voting to have the questions separated. That is what we are seeking to do now. I do not mind whether the matter is dealt with afterwards or now, but I ask that sub-clauses (1.) and (2.) be dealt with separately. It is our right to have them dealt with separately.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– It is the wish of the Committee to deal with the clause in 2 parts? There being no objection, that course will be followed. The question is that clause 6(1.) stand as printed.

Clause 6(1.)

Where persons taking part in an assembly that is in a Territory or is wholly or partly on Commonwealth premises conduct themselves, in the Territory or on the Commonwealth premises, in a way that gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that the assembly will be carried on in a manner involving unlawful physical violence to persons or unlawful damage to property, each of those persons is guilty of an offence, punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding Two hundred and fifty dollars or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or both.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– Referring to sub-clause (1.), the Minister has made some very interesting observations. He said in answer to Senator Cavanagh: Senator Cavanagh said that clause 6 (1 .) was bad and that the law was sufficient without 6 (1.).’ The Minister went on to say that that was not right, that there was no law which covered the offence which is created by this sub-clause. I think that is a good point which has been made by the Minister and I am prepared to accept it. But if one studies its implications one finds that it means that in this Bill, for the first time, a new offence has been created.

Senator Rae:

– What absolute rubbish.

Senator MURPHY:

– This is what the Minister said. He said that the law does not cover this offence at present. No doubt in due course Senator Rae will be able to supply us with a passage from Halsbury’s Laws of England’ which he will suggest will cover the position. We all await that with interest. However, I am prepared to accept what the Minister says - that the law does not cover the offence that he seeks to create.

Senator Rae:

– What about section 73 of the Tasmanian Criminal Code?

Senator MURPHY:

– The honourable senator speaks of the Tasmanian Code. My understanding is that this Bill relates to

Commonwealth Territories, Commonwealth places and Commonwealth instrumentalities and is not related to the matters dealt with by the Tasmanian Code.

Senator Rae:

– The honourable senator is saying that this is introducing a new law.

Senator MURPHY:

– This is what the Minister said. I fail to see what the Tasmanian Code has to do with this proposition. The Minister is saying that unless we have this provision carried persons who commit offences in Commonwealth Territories and other Commonwtalth places which are subject to this Bill will not be covered. I think he is right. This is a measure specially designed to deal with them, but I think we should reject it. English law, the Australian law which has followed it, and Anglo-Saxon law all over the world for some time has proceeded on the basis that physical violence should be penalised and the doing of damage to property should be penalised. I believe that the laws covering these subjects arc already wide enough and that we should circumscribe extremely carefully any endeavours to have putative offences which would enable a person to be guilty of an offence because somebody had a reasonable apprehension that he might commence the offence. There is enough in the Crimes Act, which no doubt would operate with this Bill, to deal with attempts, incitement, urging, encouraging or in any way participating in the commission of an offence, in addition to crimes of violence, without starting to say that a person shall be guilty of an offence although he has done nothing, has committed no physical violence or damage to property, but because somebody reasonably apprehends that he is going to do so. In this situation he would be guilty of an offence for which he would be liable to a penalty of 3 months gaol or a fine of $250. That is not a good provision to introduce into the law, especially when it is introduced as a curb on the freedom of assembly and the freedom of speech.

Senator Byrne is not here tonight. I am sorry that he is not here. He is a consistent attender in the Senate. There may be some good reason for his not being here - I have no doubt that there is - but it is a pity that he is not here. I would like him to listen to this.

Senator Gair:

– When Senator Murphy is not here we do not always know where he is.

Senator MURPHY:

– I am not saying that Senator Byrne is often not here. All I am saying is that I regret that he is not here to listen to the argument. It is very disturbing, when dealing with the issue of freedom of assembly and speech, to think that this kind of offence will be engrafted on our legislation so that people will be subjected to arrest, charge and conviction although they have committed no violence to any person and no damage to any property. Let us not be turned away by the honeyed words of the Minister representing the Attorney-General. A person can be convicted under this clause although he has committed no physical violence, although he has done no damage to property, although he may be able to prove that he had no intention of committing any physical violence and no intention of causing damage to property. If the elements of the offence are satisfied he can be convicted if it is proved that he was taking part in an assembly in a Commonwealth Territory or any other place covered by the Bill, or that he conducted himself in a way that gave rise to a reasonable apprehension on the part of some police constable - this would be the usual thing - not that he would do something but that the assembly would be carried on in a manner involving unlawful physical violence to persons. Although this person might swear, and it be accepted, that he did not commit violence or intend to commit violence, that he did not do damage to property or intend to do damage-

Senator Wheeldon:

– Nor did the assembly.

Senator MURPHY:

– Nor did the assembly commit any physical violence or do any damage to any personal property - the elements of the offence can be satisfied and he can be convicted of the offence. We do not think that is a reasonable way to achieve a balance between the right of peaceable assembly and the protection of people. That is why I am disturbed that those who might listen to these matters are absent. We are prepared to vote to provide for offences for any person who commits physical violence, who commits damage to property, who threatens to do that or attempts to do that; but why should we be

Public Order (Protection of saying that a person will be committing an offence in these circumstances because somebody apprehends it, notwithstanding that the person can prove that he did not do it, that he had no intention of doing it and that the assembly of which he was part did nothing of that sort? For these reasons, which we think are good and fair reasons which should commend themselves to any citizen, we will oppose sub-clause (1.).

Senator HANNAN:
Victoria

– I do not think it is necessary to answer the first part of Senator Murphy’s speech because it has been answered by the Minister for Health (Senator Greenwood). This clause refers to Commonwealth Territory and Commonwealth premises. Senator Murphy suggested that the clause could mean the conviction of a person who has done nothing. It would appear that the Leader of the Opposition has not read all the clause.

Senator Gair:

– He has read it, but he could not understand it.

Senator HANNAN:

– That might well be the case, but I would hesitate to pass any criticism on the gentleman’s erudition. The person who is to be charged has to be part of an assembly. An assembly is given a definition in which a common purpose and certain other matters are necessary before a person is actually a participant in an assembly. That being the case, the gentleman joining an assembly has to conduct himself - I use the words ‘conduct himself because it is what he does that is important - in such a way as to cause reasonable apprehension on the part of the authorities. He has to do something. An overt act is required, as is required in nearly every criminal matter. There must be some overt act.

Senator Cavanagh:

– There does not have to be an overt act.

Senator HANNAN:

– What do the words conduct oneself mean? ‘Conduct’ means to act - to conduct oneself in a certain manner. As Senator Murphy pointed out earlier, one could commit an assault by adopting a threatening attitude or threatening posture if one is apparently in a physical position to be able to carry out the threat. For example, there is the story about Senator Cavanagh’s lump of wood. We heard a very moving tale about that.

Persons and Property) Bill 1427

The lump of wood happened to be part of a pole. I do not know whether the pole was sharpened to be used as a spear. I want to know whether the Opposition suggests that a person who was conducting himself in such a manner that he was threatening to heave lumps of wood about the place is not to be regarded as guilty of a breach of the Act and, therefore, punishable. I support the clause.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– I welcome this clause because I believe that it will provide the Commonwealth; with the means to prevent an offence which threatens the ability of members of Parliament, in their private offices, to conduct their affairs without threat or hindrance. I refer to the events that happened in Melbourne a couple of weeks ago.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You did that the other night.

Senator McMANUS:

– Yes, and I think it is worth repeating because your Party apparently ignores or condones the events. In my absence a group of 28 to 30 louts, who had been demonstrating in the streets, obviously with premeditation suddenly rushed into the Commonwealth Offices in Melbourne. The young lady whose duty it is to receive people and to inquire about their business was in a sadly shocked state as a result of the attitudes adopted by these people. Obviously they had been advised where my office was located. These 28 or 30 louts rushed up the stairs, rushed directly to my office, rushed into the office and locked the door. They said to my secretary: If you keep out of the way you will not be hurt’. Having done that, they looked at my papers, sat on chairs in the room and used the telephone. When the police finally burst into the room the louts climbed outside and down some scaffolding. When the police attempted to arrest them, they kicked the police. They resisted arrest. This clause will enable that kind of action to be prosecuted as an offence.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It will create at least 6 other offences.

Senator McMANUS:

– I regret that Senator James McClelland is on the side that he is at the moment because this was not always so. If the office of a member of Parliament can be invaded in that way and if members of his staff can be told that 5 May 1971 if they keep out of the way they will not be hurt, this is a threat to our parliamentary system. This will mean that threats can be used to deter a parliamentarian from carrying out his duty. Would anyone here say that there is not induced in a young female secretary a feeling of reasonable apprehension when the door of her office is burst open and when 28 or 30 louts threaten her that if she does not keep out of the way she might be hurt? Who would suggest that? T think the attitude adopted by the Australian Labor Party tonight is one of complete hypocrisy. Its members defend this kind of action because they know that the Leftists and the Communists will never do it to them. That is why they defend such action. I do not care whether it is a parliamentarian or an ordinary citizen, he is entitled to defence from this kind of action. What happens when the Government takes action to defend parliamentarians from this kind of action? Members who claim to be part of our democratic system defend such action and laugh at it because they know that it will not happen to them.

Senator Sim:

– If it happened to them, they would not laugh.

Senator McMANUS:

– I know they would not. I regard the attitude of the Australian Labor Party tonight as colossal hypocrisy. When the people of Australia hear the attitude of members . of the Labor Party tonight they will have no difficulty in understanding why the Australian Labor Party has been out of office for 21 years.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– We heard from Senator McManus a very good reason why we should be giving consideration to these provisions, why we should not be dealing lightly with them, why we should not be dealing frivolously with them and why we should not be trying to use means of debate which would not be regarded as fair or intelligent play in a first form debating team. Senator Murphy has said that this is an unheard of introduction. The unheard of introduction is the introduction into the law of the Commonwealth of something which the Minister for Health (Senator Greenwood) has said is something new so far as Commonwealth law is concerned. I refer to the provision that persons who conduct themselves in a way that gives a reasonable apprehension that the assembly will be carried on in a manner involving unlawful physical violence to persons or unlawful damage to property are guilty of an offence. Senator Murphy said that this is something novel to the law, that this is something which is being introduced for the first time by this Government, that this is something which should be resisted as an undue intrusion upon the liberty of the subject and something which has such novelty value that it should be regarded as a most reprehensible intrusion into civil liberty.

Let us look at how well based that assertion is. I refer to that well quoted valume, to which so much reference has been made this evening - volume 10 of Halsbury, page S8S. That gives the common law definition of unlawful assembly. That definition goes back hundreds of years. It states:

An unlawful assembly is an assembly of 3 or more persons with intent ‘either to commit a crime by open force or to carry out any common purpose, lawful or unlawful, in such a manner-

I ask honourable senators opposite to listen to this for a moment - as to give firm and courageous persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly reasonable grounds to apprehend a breach of the peace in consequence ‘of it.

That is the common law definition. Senator Murphy may like to look at such a decision as Thomas v. Sawkins, which is reported in 1935 (2) Kings Bench at page 249. Senator Wheeldon may also like to have a look al it.

This matter has been discussed in detail quite recently as to the common law meaning, but let us pass on without going into detail, unless somebody wishes me to do so. and have a look at the Australian situation because it might he different from the common law situation. We find that in the States of Tasmania, Western Australia and Queensland we have a criminal code in which the provision as to unlawful assembly has been taken in general terms direct from the common law. For instance, the Queensland legislation provides that when 3 or more persons, with intent to carry out some common purpose, assemble in such a manner or, being assembled, conduct themselves in such a manner as to cause persons in the neighbourhood to fear on reasonable grounds that the persons so assembled will tumultuously disturb the peace or will by such assembly needlessly and without any reasonable occasion provoke other persons tumultuously to disturb the peace it is an unlawful assembly. I pause simply to say that once again we have the use of the words ‘on reasonable grounds to apprehend’.

Let us look now at the Tasmanian legislation. There an unlawful assembly is defined as an assembly of 3 or more persons with intent to effect a common purpose and so on, with intent to assist each other for a common purpose and so on, who manifest such intention as aforesaid in such a manner as to give firm and courageous persons in the neighbourhood of such assembly reasonable grounds to apprehend a breach of the peace. Again we have the same use of the common law phraseology of ‘reasonable grounds to apprehend a breach of the peace’ and reasonable grounds to apprehend a tumultuous disturbance’ or whatever it may be.

Senator Wheeldon:

– This reminds me of legal history 1.

Senator RAE:

– It is a pity that Senator Wheeldon did not pay more attention to his lecturer. Let us have a look at other provisions of more recent times because I think that this is of some considerable significance to the consideration being given to this matter by the Senate. Let us have a look at what a completely independent - a nonpolitical body considering a draft criminal code produced in 1969 in relation to this provision. The Law Council of Australia produced in February 1969 after a considerable amount of work, as Senator Greenwood and others would be well able to testify, a draft criminal code for the Territories of the Commonwealth. Clause 177 of that draft criminal code, which was produced as recently as 1969, again provided that where a group of 3 or more persons assembled for any purpose forbidden by law or with intent to carry out any common purpose, lawful or unlawful, in such a manner as to endanger the public peace or to cause persons in the neighbourhood to fear on reasonable grounds that the persons so assembled would tumultuously disturb the peace or needlessly and without any reasonable occasion provoke others to do so, the persons so assembled would be guilty of the indictable offence of unlawful assembly. So, as recently as 1969, a completely independent, non-political body - the Law Council of Australia - recommended for use in the Territories of the Commonwealth a provision similar to the provision in the Bill that we are now debating.

Again I remind honourable senators that Senator Murphy would have them believe that this provision is a novel introduction by this Government of something unheard of and unknown in the law. It has been known in the law for hundreds of years, it has been applied in very State of the Commonwealth and it was recommended by a non-political body as recently as 1969 for introduction into the Territories of the Commonwealth. All I can say is that anyone who now has the slightest belief in anything that Senator Murphy puts forward as a basis, unless it is substantiated by something other than his assertion, is indeed gullible.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– I do not want to spend a great deal of time on what Senator Rae said other than to say that I find it rather extraordinary that somebody who took us back to the first term of first year law with quotations form Halsbury at such length should have told us that the Law Council of Australia had advocated provisions similar to those in clause 6 (1.) of this Bill, without reading the recommendations of the Law Council of Australia. I have in the past looked at the minutes of the Law Council of Australia, but I cannot recollect that it at any stage recommended that clause 6(1.) of the Bill which is before the Senate was needed or anything remotely -

Senator Young:

– He never said that.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I am sure that Senator Young is very familiar with the proceedings of the Law Council of Australia, but I doubt whether even he could produce any recommendation from it on this subject. If Senator Young wants to make a speech he can do so later on. I am sure that we would be all terribly bored by what he had to say. I would like to speak myself at the moment. Senator Young will have an opportunity later to exhibit his knowledge of the recommendations of the Law Council of Australia. I think I could properly say that his knowledge of its recommendations would be as great as his knowledge of most subjects which come before the Senate.

I wish to refer to the remarks of Senator McManus on this subject. For the second time during the course of this debate Senator McManus referred to the incident that occurred when some people came into his office. I for one would not defend people who break into anybody’s office. I am sure that it must have been a most distressing experience.

Senator McManus:

– You are defending it.

Senator WHEELDON:

– No, I am not defending it.

Senator McManus:

– You are defending it here tonight. You are continually defending it.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I am not continually defending it. This is the second time that Senator McManus has told us the story about people coming into his office. I would feel somewhat more sympathetic towards his predicament than I do at the moment but for the fact that just before the dinner adjournment tonight he and his Leader, Senator Gair, found it a matter of great hilarity that a violent assault had been committed upon Dr J. F. Cairns, the honourable member for Lalor in the other place. Both of them found it highly hilarious that Dr J. F. Cairns should have been subjected to a violent assault which resulted in a charge of attempted murder being levelled against a person who has now absconded. I am not very impressed by the crocodile tears that Senator McManus has shed tonight about the intimidation of somebody in his office. This is a matter which nobody in the Australian Labor Party defends. However, along with his Leader, Senator Gair, Senator McManus found it to be a great joke that an attempted murder should be committed upon a member of the Australian Labor Party. Any respect which I did have for Senator McManus, and I did have some respect for him, no longer exists. I do not find a violent assault upon Dr J. F. Cairns to be a funny matter. I have never had any respect for Senator Gair, but I did have some respect for Senator McManus.

Senator Gair:

– It was never mutual, 1 can tell you that.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

– -Order! I ask Senator Wheeldon to come back to the terms of the Bill.

Senator Gair:

– I just wanted to let him know that it was not mutual if he had any respect for me because I have never had any for him.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I can assure Senator Gair that I have never had any respect for him, so that he does not need to tell me that the feeling was not mutual.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

–

Order! The Committee will come to order. I call Senator McManus.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I had not finished, Mr Temporary Chairman.

Senator McManus:

– You resumed your seat.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I resumed my seat because you were speaking, Mr Temporary Chairman. Senator McManus referred to an episode that took place in his office. Persons were charged under the existing laws as a result of that incident. I do not know what happened in regard to those charges. Apparently somebody was convicted. However, these people were charged under the existing law and I believe they were properly charged. The Bill which is before the Committee now, particularly clause 6(1.), provides that persons may be convicted of an offence if they have engaged in action which has given rise to a reasonable apprehension. One would assume that no use would be served by repeating the same thing over and again but, despite his readings from Halsbury, Senator Rae does not seem to be able to understand, the Minister does not seem to be able to understand and Senator McManus does not seem to be able to understand that to be convicted under this provision one need have committed no offence whatsoever, committed no assault whatsoever and committed no violence against any property whatsoever but merely have given rise to a reasonable apprehension to some person even though that apprehension was not well founded or was founded on nothing whatsoever other than some suspicions. If a person can establish to the court that he had what be regards as a reasonable apprehension, that is sufficient for a conviction to be recorded. That is the crux of clause 6(1.) and that is the reason why the Australian Labor Party is opposed to it.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– If Senator Wheeldon desires at any time to debate the circumstances of the attack upon Dr Cairns I will be pleased to debate it with him. I merely point out that at the time this incident occurred I issued a statement which appeared in the Press deploring it and stating that it was entirely wrong. I regard to the other matters which have been raised by Senator Wheeldon. Senator Wheeldon is attempting to drag a red herring across the trail to conceal the fact that, while beginning by saying that he deplores what happened in the invasion of my office, he then went on to make statements - he has made them earlier - which indicate that he has no objection, that on the contrary he regards the invasion of the office of a parliamentarian and the intimidation of his secretary as perfectly acceptable forms of protest and dissent. There is no other conclusion that anybody can draw from what Senator Wheeldon has had to say.

If he says that he has lost any respect for me, I would reply by saying that I have lost any respect for him since he has risen to his feet and completely repudiated the story that he has been telling in the Committee all night. If he thinks it is an acceptable form of dissent, let him say so, but let him not appear before us and, pretending as he does that he disapproves, do all that be can to ensure that this kind of action can be repeated in the future. I say to Senator Wheeldon that there was a time when the Australian Labor Party stood for high principles, but today when it defends the indefensible, when it goes to bat for louts who in the name of dissent actually try to indulge in anarchy, when it shows that if it became the government it would tolerate this kind of thing, it forfeits the respect of every decent citizen, as Senator Wheeldon has forfeited that respect tonight.

Senator WHEELDON (Western Australia) - Mr Temporary Chairman, I wish to make a personal explanation.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?

Senator WHEELDON:

– Yes. Senator McManus has just said that I have defended or have not opposed persons who invaded his office and that I have defended the right of persons to invade the offices of members of Parliament. I have never said anything remotely resembling that.

Senator McManus:

– Do not run away.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I am not running away from anything. I think the Minister would agree with me that when I was speaking I said that I deplored events where people invade the offices of members of Parliament or anybody else. What I did say was that the clause which is before the Committee now has no bearing upon the attacks on the offices of members of Parliament or the entering of anybody else’s office. I have never at any stage said that I supported or did not condemn attacks upon members of Parliament or their offices. I challenge any member of the Senate to refer to any excerpt from Hansard in which-

Senator Sim:

– In your second reading speech.

Senator WHEELDON:

– Is Senator Sim saying that in my second reading speech I said that I approve of attacks on members of Parliament or their offices?

Senator Sim:

– You said that nobody had any right except a right of dissent. I will quote it to you if you like.

Senator WHEELDON:

– If Senator Sim can produce a passage where I said that nobody had any right except a right of dissent then I will be startled indeed, because it certainly will not be a copy of any Hansard report of my speeches that I have ever read. I refute what Senator McManus has said, that is, that at any stage during the course of this debate, despite the assistance that Senator Rae is giving to his friend Senator Sim, I have ever said that I am in favour of attacks being made on members of Parliament or their offices.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I think a lot of emotion is being aroused here tonight. A lot of false accusations have been made. At no stage during debates on this Bill, starting when Mr Whitlam spoke in another place, have we defended the type of thing that Senator McManus has raised tonight. Mr Whitlam made it very plain, Senator Wheeldon has reiterated it several times tonight, Senator Murphy has made it plain, Senator James McClelland made it plain in his maiden speech on this Bill and has interjected several times, that the type of offence that was committed against Senator McManus’s office was a dastardly thing and it could have been handled by the law of the country, and in fact it was. Mr Whitlam made the point that he deplored the fact that bombs were thrown at embassies, and every member of the Australian Labor Party agreed with him. What we have said is that this matter started off as a political gimmick some time ago. It was tried in a State election. It was going to be tried in Federal election. What I have said right throughout is that there is no need for these clauses to be brought into being to handle cases such as throwing bombs at embassies or invading the premises of Senator McManus.

Senator McManus leant very heavily towards the fact that he is a member of Parliament. That does not cut any ice with me. There are very few members of Parliament compared with the 12 million people in Australia. If the things that I understand were done in Senator McManus’s office were in fact done, then every decent person in Australia condemns those things. To say that Senator Wheeldon does not condemn them is a complete travesty of the truth. Senator Wheeldon has taken the trouble - it is a thing that he does not usually do - to stand up and make a personal explanation to make it completely clear that what happened was something that he deplores and something which should have been handled by the normal laws of the country.

The objection that we take in this is the same that we took many years ago. I am one of the few people in this Parliament who had to stand and fight when the Communist Party Dissolution Bill was introduced. Because of the title of that Bill we met with opprobrium for quite a few months, until finally we got the Australian people to agree with us. The whole crux of that Bill was that you could not have thought police in the community; you could not imagine what somebody was going to do. All of us at times think that somebody has ill designs towards us. From the way some people talk in this Parliament at times one would think that the next step was going to be violence, but it does not happen. In the community in which welive, until a crime is committed, then and only then can the law step-in.

I was looking at the Crimes Act in this regard. Honourable senators have heard enough of it without my repeating it. It has been pointed out by Senator Wheeldon, Senator James McClelland and Senator Murphy that one cannot imagine what might happen, and this is what one would be doing if one says that there is going to be reasonable apprehension. Goodness me, some of the old people that come into this place have reasonable apprehension every day of the week that something might happen. There is always reasonable apprehension that inflation will take over, that there is going to be war, that the Russians are going to invade us. I have lived in reasonable apprehension in the years I have been in this Parliament. I make the point again that the law is completely adequate. As a matter of fact, some of the laws that the Government is trying to pass tonight are inferior to the present Commonwealth laws.

Senator Gair:

– What are you complaining about then?

Senator WILLESEE:

– The honourable senator should have a look at section 7a of the Crimes Act. It states:

If any person -

incites to, urges, aids or encourages; or

prints or publishes any writing which incites to, urges, aids or encourages. the commission of offences against any law of the Commonwealth -

That is, any law at all from the post and telegraph laws up -

  1. . shall be guilty of an offence.

How can the Government say that these laws that it is bringing in tonight are not completely unnecessary. There are plenty of my colleagues to handle this debate and I did not think it was necessary for me to come into it earlier, but we are getting completely off the beam when accusations are made such as those levelled against Senator Wheeldon tonight. He has vehemently denied them, and in this place a denial is generally accepted, but evidently his denial is not accepted by Senator McManus. The fact is that we cannot have words such as ‘reasonable apprehension’ in the laws of this nation particularly when we have the Crimes Act which covers things such as that. If one incites, urges, aids, encourages or does anything at all against any Act of the Commonwealth one is guilty of an offence. Then why on earth should the Government be bringing in a law such as this? The throwing of bombs at embassies in Canberra, and the invasion of Senator McManus’ office in the way we have heard from him tonight, or the invasion of anybody else’s office, is to be condemned by everybody and dealt with as it was dealt with by the laws of the Commonwealth as they stand today.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– I rise only because by interjection tonight I said that Senator Wheeldon believed that the only right was the right to dissent and that the people who opposed dissent had no rights. I said that he had said that in his speech on the second reading of this Bill. 1 have before me a copy of that speech and I rise merely to put the record straight. At page 1077 of Hansard of Wednesday, 28th April, Senator Wheeldon at the conclusion of his speech said, and may I say that I quoted this last night and said that the Leader of the Opposition in another place, Mr Whitlam, did not agree with Senator Wheeldon:

The Australian Labor Party says that the prim,ary right is the right for people to demonstrate and the right of free assembly, not the rights of those people who object to it.

Therefore I say that Senator Wheeldon laid down clearly that there is only one right in his mind and that is the right to demonstrate, not the rights of those people who oppose demonstrations. I believe that my interjection was correct according to Senator Wheeldon’s own words. We have heard all about the people who throw bombs at embassies and so forth. I deplore this and oppose it as much as does anybody else in this chamber, but I find it interesting to note that neither Senator Wheeldon nor any member of his Party has objected to it. In fact, rather than object they led and took part in the harassment of members of the diplomatic corps representing South Africa in Australia.

Senator Willesee:

– Where?

Senator SIM:

– Where? Goodness me. Members of the other place took part in the blowing of horns and the harrassment of members of the South African Embassy. They boasted about it and challenged the police to take action against them. Yet somebody asks: ‘Where?’

Senator Young:

– They went back again the next day.

Senator SIM:

– They went back again the next day to repeat the performance, as my friend Senator Young has said. Let us be clear and sensible about this. There is no selective morality in this. If we oppose the harassment of members of the Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Yugoslav Embassy or any other embassy, which I do, then in equal right we oppose the harassment of members of the South African Embassy or any other embassy in Australia. Let us be clear. There is only one morality, not the selective morality in which the Labor Party believes. But, as I said, I rose merely to quote Senator Wheeldon and, using his own words, to condemn him when he says that there is only one right and that is the right to demonstrate.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– 1 regret that a little heat has been engendered into this debate.

Senator Gair:

– Do not forget the mothers club.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I think you and I will get on a little better if you do not interject. I think that Senator Wheeldon is able to look after himself and I cannot see how-

Senator Gair:

– He is not doing it very well though, is he?

Senator KENNELLY:

– I say again that Senator Wheeldon is able to look after himself, but for Senator Sim to say that in his speech Senator Wheeldon did everything but condemn the actions in the office of Senator McManus is not, I think, in accordance with the facts.

Senator Sim:

– I did not say that.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Yes you did. You said that that was not in his speech on the second reading of this Bill. But be that as it may, we are discussing the clause that I mentioned when I spoke during the second reading debate on this Bill. Surely to goodness, we are entitled to oppose the wording in this clause and to entice other people to oppose it.

As I said right from the beginning, there are ample laws in this country to cover everything that this Bill proposes to cover. As everyone knows, it was brought in by the Government because it thought there would be an old style law and order election as there was in the days when Senator McManus and 1 stood together against it. In days gone by neither of us liked the thought of law and order. God forbid. We are both descended from people who hated the thought of it. They were sick of law and order. My father, God bless him, was told by his father that he would never have come to this country had it not been for the law and order in his own country which, of course was forced on him. One could say that the words alone are repugnant. Then we see in the clause the words gives rise to a reasonable apprehension’. Who can define that? Who will define that? The Minister will not be on the bench when some constable or sergeant, who thinks he is carrying out the law, has to get up in court and say: ‘I believe that this person’ - be it Senator Gair or myself - acted in a way that gave rise to a reasonable apprehension that the assembly would be carried on in a manner involving unlawful physical violence’.

Senator Little:

– We hope he is not on the bench.

Senator Gair:

– If I am on the bench you will get justice, but if he is on it I cannot guarantee that.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Well, of course-

Senator Branson:

– You are not against law and order, are you?

Senator KENNELLY:

– Me? No, I am not, but there are ample laws in the country already. We are cluttering up the statute book. I do not like those words law and order’. They are repugnant.

Senator Branson:

– But that is your Irish ancestry.

Senator KENNELLY:

– And it is a good ancestry, the same as that of Senator McManus. He sticks to it and so do I. But why clutter up the statute book of this nation? When we are discussing this clause we have to ask ourselves why it was brought in. That question has been asked before. It is valid and can be repeated. When Mr Askin lost an election on law and order in New South Wales there was no Federal election. The Government ran away from it.

Senator Sim:

– He did not lose it. He is still in government.

Senator KENNELLY:

- His majority suffered very severely. It was a by-election in New South Wales. I think I remember saying in my speech on the second reading that the Government has had more than one go on this aspect of law and order in years gone by. I did not like it. This Bill is nothing but window dressing in order that the Government can say: ‘We want law and order. The Labor Party does not want it and therefore it is not fit to govern this country.’ As the Government missed the bus in regard to this Bill in that an election was not held, I ask: Why clutter up the statute book? I ask Government supporters to satisfy my inquisitiveness. Are there not sufficient laws already in this country to do everything it says it wants to do with this Bill?

As I said before, I have nothing in common with those people with long hair that sit down in Bourke Street. 1 am quite honest; I have nothing at all in common with them. I hope they do not impede, me - I would not be too pleased if they did. If they come into my office as they did into the office of Senator McManus I hope there is a side door because I believe in the right kind of valour: Do not get hurt. When all is said and done, this is the national Parliament of a great and wonderful nation. All that the honourable senators on the Government side are doing is to play little politics. If they were playing big politics I would enjoy it. But this Bill represents little politics which is unworthy of any government, irrespective of what name it bears, lt is seeking to clutter up the statute book with an Act for which there is no need. We will be able to protect the people.

Senator Gair:

– He is-

Senator KENNELLY:

– I do not know what Vince is saying Mr Temporary Chairman, but I hope it is all right. I appeal to those 4 or 5 honourable senators in the corner. I well remember the day when 3 out of the 5 would have said: ‘Fancy supporting this sort of legislation.’ Therefore one wonders today-

Senator Gair:

– 1 can tell you where you buried your dead. I survived.

Senator KENNELLY:

- Mr Temporary Chairman, I do not want to interrupt. I have never wanted to interrupt a speaker. If my friends in the corner want to keep going, I will keep quiet.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I ask that the debate be confined to the clause.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Therefore I ask my colleagues of yesteryear to read this clause. That is all 1 want them to do. I want them to think for one moment and ask themselves why, in 1971, they would vote for this clause. Irrespective of what little differences may have occurred in the meantime one wonders how far they can go. I ask the Committee to give this Bill the thought that it deserves and treat it in the way that it deserves by saying to the Government: ‘You have all the laws on your side. Put them into operation and let the courts decide who has broken the laws of this country’.

Senator HANNAN:
Victoria

– I am amazed at the speech made by Senator Kennelly. Not since the days of Cromwell have the Irish been so insulted. What is all this nonsense and rubbish about hatred of the laws? He should know very well that some of the most distinguished lawyers in the British Commonwealth have come from Ireland. They do not hate law and they do not hate law and order. What they object to is unlawful violence. However, let me return to the only point made by Senator Kennelly. He said that this Bill was unnecessary. I refer the Senate to a man whom he doubtless regards as a potent authority, a man to whose authority he would defer, perhaps, and that is Dr J. F. Cairns.

Senator Gair:

– Who is he?

Senator HANNAN:

– I am not going to describe him. He is a member in another place.

Senator Little:

– He leads the students in revolt.

Senator HANNAN:

– Students for a Democratic Society, perhaps. I do not know. At all events, he is a member of what is euphemistically called the Federal Labor Advisory Council in Victoria - a quaint name for a body - and also is a member of Parliament in another place. I think that Dr Cairns has scotched once and for all the suggestion that this Bill is unnecessary. Referring not specifically to this particular line under discussion in this clause but to the general philosophy behind the clause, Dr Cairns made a statement in respect of 5 women who were prosecuted in Melbourne under certain State legislation. They spent a certain time in gaol for breaches of the law. I want to read Dr Cairn’s statement, which does more than anything else to prove how necessary is this legislation. There is not legislation on the statute book, as claimed by honourable senators opposite, which is adequate to deal with this type of offence. Dr Cairns said:

In respect of other inquiries I have made, I find that the only time when any of these women were on the floor is when they were being dragged out or lifted out of the Department qf Labour and National Service into the hallway where they could be arrested legally. That dragging them out of the Department was strictly illegal, because until the Bill which is now before this House is passed there is no power to do that.

The Department referred to is Commonwealth territory. All I do is translate the remarks of Dr Cairns from that situation to the clause before us and say that unless this type of legislation is put into force the Commonwealth is not adequately empowered to protect its citizens and its members of parliament, as in the case of Senator McManus. whose privacy was invaded and whose secretary was threatened. The Parliament has not given its own instrumentalities the power to deal with these most objectionable occurrences. I find it repugnant that honourable senators opposite can give any support for the type of people who would breach ordinary common decency in this fashion.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

– I feel I should make some response to a number of things that have been said. It is some little time ago since the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) spoke but he raised some points which I think are very pertinent to the issue involved in clause 6. I do not know how many times it has to be asserted, how many times the clause has to be read, how many times the sheer accuracy of what is involved in these words has to be sheeted home to the Opposition. Senator Murphy said that under clause 6 (1.) a person may be convicted of an offence if he has committed no act of violence, if he has committed no act of damage to property and if he says he has no intention of committing either an act of violence or an act of damage. That statement is correct. But what Senator Murphy ignores is the fact that it is sub-clause (2.) which deals specifically with those provisions. Clause 6 (1 .) deals with reasonable apprehension which a policeman may have that a person is about to commit crimes of violence or crimes of committing damage to property. We believe there should be a law that where a person is about to commit those offences the law should be able to step in and not wait until the offences are committed. What an absurd view it is for honourable senators opposite to put forward. Do they believe that the police should be devoid of power if a person is about to commit murder? Should the murder be allowed to happen? Should the police be devoid of power so that they cannot take action to prevent a robbery or larceny or should they be able to step in? That is what this clause is concerned with. No matter how the Opposition by words and emotions seeks to cover such a situation it cannot ignore that fact.

Basically when a person is engaged in an assembly - or, as honourable senators opposite wants to call it, a demonstration - and by his conduct, by the things he does, the things he says and by the atmosphere which he builds up, he gives ground for a reasonable apprehension that there will be unlawful physical violence or damage to property then I believe the law should say that that person should be stopped from doing what is about to happen. That is the view which is implicit in this measure which is before the Senate. I think that when Senator Murphy poses the question as he does he ignores what is plain and explicit in the language of the Bill which is before us. No-one on this side of the chamber has said that this is such a new and novel provision that it has no counterpart in existing law. There are existing laws in this respect. The provision which we have before the Senate not only clarifies the archaic law which has its origin a way back in antiquity but it also sets out quite clearly, so that a person can understand, the limits beyond which he cannot go. I repeat that the penalty for this offence is clearer and less than it is in archaic provisions. Above all it limits the offence to those persons who engage in the conduct.

Under the old laws, such as the common law which currently applies in the Australian Capital Territory, any person who engages in an assembly, whether or not he personally engages in conduct which is unlawful, is still guilty of an offence. This provision provides that only those persons who engage in certain conduct will be amenable to the law. We say that that is an improvement. If the Opposition still wishes to live in the archaic mists of old laws which were founded in the Middle Ages they are entitled to do so. By their votes 1 understand they intend to do just that. The Senate is indebted to Senator McManus for revealing and reiterating from his own personal experience what can happen under existing laws. His office was invaded. His secretary was terrified. He was subjected to what the Opposition regard as the rights of free expression.

I think it should be recognised that in Victoria there is a law. poised by the State Government, which is applicable to the conduct of those who invaded Senator McManus’s office. That law has been in existence in Victoria tor a number of years. In only one other State is the law which was used in the case of those who invaded Senator McManus’s office applicable and that is the law which was recently passed in New South Wales. That law is not in existence in any other State. There is a law in South Australia which provides that a person who remains on a person’s property without lawful excuse is guilty of an offence. As I understand it that law is available in one other State. But there are other States in which there is no comparable law.

Clause 6 of this Bill deals with Commonwealth premises in whatever State they may be situated. It deals with the position in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. It provides a law which is explicit and, as 1 have said, is fairer than the existing common law provisions upon which we have to rely. In those circumstances I want to hear whether the Opposition is genuine in its reasonable opposition - as it claims - to this measure. I wanted to hear answers to these points. But possibly fae* is expecting too much.

Senator Willesee stated that section 7a of the Crimes Act is an adequate subsitute. All that section 7a of the Crimes Act provides is that a person who aids, encourages, abets or incites the breach of Commonwealth law is guilty of an offence. I would have thought that is a reasonable provision. But there still has to be a Commonwealth law in which the aiding and the abetting is an offence. We say that this is a desirable and appropriate Commonwealth law which ought to be enacted. Senator Kennedy has said, in that broad and generous expansive mood which we see in him these days, that at the present time there are sufficient laws in existence. I ask him whether he will enumerate these laws. That is a challenge which I have put to honourable senators opposite on countless occasions and no-one has responded to it.

Senator Kennelly also asked who was to define ‘reasonable’ in the phrase ‘reasonable apprehension’. I should have thought that this is part and parcel of the laws of every State. We have a law in most States that a person who drives a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor is guilty of an offence. Who determines whether a person is guilty of that offence? In the first place, a police officer forms an opinion and as a result of that opinion he charges a person. The person goes before the courts. It is for the courts to determine whether the offence has been committed. Precisely the same principle applies to this offence which is being established under clause 6 of the Bill.If there is not a reasonable apprehension which a police officer believes he has, then the court will say so and the person will be acquitted. 1 fail to see where there is not a promotion of public order, a preservation of rights and an innate fairness in this provision. I hope the Senate which has already given over 2 hours to the debating of this clause will restrain its ardour for other clauses of the Bill upon which I am sure there will be equal debate.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The level of this debate has been severely debased by the last few speakers. I include among those the last speaker, the Minister for Health (Senator Greenwood). I would like especially to comment on the hit-run intervention in this debate by Senator Sim which was designed to show that Senator Wheeldon had, in some way, supported violence in what he had said. Senator Sim interjected during Senator Wheeldon’s speech and suggested that he could find in Senator Wheeldon’s speech on the second reading some support for this outrageous suggestion. I forget the honourable senator’s exact words but the purport of his interjection was that Senator Wheeldon had not opposed and had, in fact, condoned the use of violence.

Senator Sim:

– No, I did not.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Will you tell us what you said, Senator?

Senator Sim:

– I said that Senator Wheeldon supported the right of dissent but he did not support the right of anybody to object to dissent.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I shall accept Senator Sim’s modified version of what he claims against Senator Wheeldon which is that Senator Wheeldon does not support the right to oppose violence. Is that what you said, Senator?

Senator Sim:

– No. ‘Dissent’ was the word, not ‘violence’.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bull:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! I ask the honourable senator to address his remarks to the Chair.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes, Mr Chairman. I shall repeat the passage from Senator Wheeldon’s speech which Senator Sim quoted in support of his allegation. I ask honourable senators to listen closely to this sentence. Senator Wheeldon stated:

The Australian Labor Party says thatthe primary right is the right for people to demonstrate and the right of free assembly, not the rights of those people who object to it.

If Senator Sim -still thinks that that means what he said then I despair of being able to convince him. This is central to our argument and something which we have said throughout this debate. What should come first in a democracy is the right of peaceful assembly, the right to dissent. Any limitation of that right should come second. We do not withdraw from that stand for one moment. To read into that attitude any suggestion that we condone or support violence or do not oppose violence is misrepresentation of language. Senator

McManus has told us over and over again that his office was invaded by demonstrators. In some way or other, it appears to me, he claims that we are responsible for that because we are supposed to condone it. I repeat, as Senator Murphy and Senator Wheeldon have repeated, and as every speaker from the Opposition in this debate has repeated, that we do not condone violence. We oppose violence. We claim that there are plenty of laws to deal with violence. Does Senator McManus claim that the violent demonstrators at his office were not dealt with according to law? 1 asked in my second reading speech to be told what has happened in this country in respect of demonstrations that no laws can be found to deal with the demonstrators. Nobody has yet come up with an answer to that question. Senator Greenwood has not told us what has happened in this country, what threats there have been to law and order that could not have been dealt with by existing laws.

In Senator Greenwood’s last contribution to this debate he said that he was indebted to Senator McManus for his contribution. We may ask why he was indebted to the irrelevant and tendentious contribution of Senator McManus. Its only purpose was to draw a red herring across this debate by suggesting that the Labor Party is condoning and supporting violence, and by implication, when Senator Greenwood expresses his indebtedness for that contribution, he is lending some colour to the baseless allegation made by Senator McManus. I think that was a contribution unworthy of Senator Greenwood and 1 would welcome from him an unequivocal statement that nothing that has come from this side of the chamber constitutes support for or condonation of violence.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– I was invited by Senator Kennelly as a member of the Australian Democratic Labor Party, the corner Party, to take part in the discussion on clause 6 as it is the DLP which will decide whether this clause is included in the measure. I was invited to recall to mind some past events. Because Senator Kennelly invited me to do so I allowed my memory to stray back over incidents which might substantiate the need for this clause.

Senator Kennelly:

– You were not in the Party then.

Senator LITTLE:

– I was in the Party at the time of everything I am about to recall. You were also in the Party and if you listen to my recounting of certain memories I have no doubt thai you will agree that provisions such as those in this clause have been used often by governments of every political colour, including the Government led by Ben Chifley which you and I supported. Indeed, they have been used in the domestic affairs of the Party to which Senator Kennelly still belongs and I no longer belong. I will recall that in the Labor movement we had a very strong principle in relation to the right to strike. I still subscribe to that principle because I am still a trade unionist. What I have to say about the Labor movement is relative to this legislation because the Labor Party has said that there is no need to change any laws; that there is no need to strengthen the laws. The Labor Party ignores completely the fact that in the community today is an organised force that is undermining our society by using the weaknesses that exist in the present law to carry demonstrations far beyond the peak they have ever previously reached - far beyond the limitations of reasonable and peaceable assembly to the stage where violence has occurred. It has been proven that the law is inadequate to apprehend the people who have been engaged in that violence.

I may have to recount certain incidents to refresh the minds of members of the Labor Party but I am certain that members of the great listening public outside this Parliament tonight do not need to hear a reiteration of events that occurred outside the offices of the American Information Service in Melbourne. Windows were broken and marbles were thrown under horses’ hooves. Quite recently in Melbourne sporting events have been disrupted and young girls have been threatened and almost pushed off tennis courts by demonstrators allegedly demonstrating for something in which they believe, but engaging in the sort of mental violence against people that is very hard to tabulate. There have been great numbers of such incidents by organised forces.

When the late Ben Chifley decided that the sacred right in the Labor movement, the right of workers to strike, was being violated by what he described as the organised forces of the Communist philosophy in this country, he sent the troops into the coal mines and passed the necessary laws to confiscate the books of the Communist Party right throughout this country. He did so because he had a reasonable apprehension that the Communist Part as an organised force was abusing a right and principle that the Labor Party to which he belonged had stood for over the years. I move from that sort of political incident involving a Labor Government of which Senator Kennelly and I were both supporters and I will refresh his memory about events in the post-war years.

In conjunction with the British Government the Australian Government conducted a defence project at the rocket range at Woomera. The Communist Party and left wing union officials issued threats that by the application of black bans on the labour force in that project they would stultify the project that was being conducted in the interests of the people. The late Dr Evatt, then Attorney-General, was charged on behalf of the Labor Government to produce legislation to stop what the Labor Government reasonably apprehended to be disruption of a major project which was being conducted in the interests of the Australian people.

The stringent conditions of the special legislation that was introduced would make the clause we are discussing look like a pale copy of a Sunday school text book. The legislation provided for a fine of £1,000 or 1 years gaol simply for the mention of the imposition of a black ban. That is one provision I call to mind in the legislation that both Senator Kennelly and I supported in those days. So let us get away from reasonable apprehension not being used as part of legislation passed by a Federal Labor Government. Let us turn to the domestic affairs of the Labor Party. Senator Kennelly will remember the occasion when my colleagues and I who sit in this corner as the Democratic Labor Party were charged with an offence within the Labor Party machinery. We were charged with the shocking offence that we had been controlled by an outside influence.

Nobody has ever said what the outside influence was. We were not found guilty of that offence. Senator Kennelly, who supported the final decision, well knows of what offence we were found guilty. Mr Chamberlain of the Labor Party drafted the charge and it was supported by people like Senator Kennelly. They said: ‘There is no evidence to show that they are controlled by an outside influence, but we feel that they are guilty of a frame of mind.’ That is what they said about us in the Labor movement. For that offence the most extreme penalties of the Labor movement were imposed on us. But not for that alone. I do not want to mislead anybody. We sent delegates to the Federal Conference of the Labor Party in Tasmania.

Senator Poke:

– Mr Chairman, I would just like to ask, through you, which clause of the Bill Senator Little is speaking to. He has been on his feet for about 8 minutes and he has not at any point of time during his speech mentioned which clause of the Bill he is speaking to. He has indulged merely in an abusive attack on the Labor Party. Although I do not mind that, I ask you, Mr Chairman, to ask Senator Little which clause he is speaking to.

Senator Gair:

– The same clause as Senator Kennelly spoke to.

Senator Poke:

– I ask you, Sir, whether you will keep him to the clause of the Bill that is before the Chair.

Senator Hannan:

– In speaking to the point of order, 1 will not waste much time. 1 simply direct the attention of honourable senators to the fact that, far from wandering from the clause, Senator Little has in fact been using the actual words of the clause - ‘gives rise to a reasonable apprehension’. How much closer to the clause could Senator Little get?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I think all speakers have strayed from the clause of the Bill. I ask Senator Little to come back to it.

Senator LITTLE:

– I am trying to illustrate the words in clause 6 of the Bill. The Labor Party has made 3 speeches on reasonable apprehension’ not being suitable words to be in the clause, and I am justifying the inclusion of the words reasonable apprehension’ in clause 6. 1 think they are essential to the proper carrying out of the Bill. 1 believe that I am giving very adequate examples of occasions on which this type of clause has been used, under the laws of the Commonwealth, by governments of different political colours and, indeed, by political parties. I propose to show how even the right of free assembly becomes involved in the words ‘reasonable apprehension’ being applicable to something. That was, of course, the real reason why we were expelled from the Labor Party in the State of Victoria. We went to a conference in Tasmania-

Senator Kennelly:

– You were not a member of the Party then.

Senator LITTLE:

– If I might explain to my friend Senator Kennelly, when we returned from that conference-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Senator Little must direct his remarks to the Chair and cease replying to interjections.

Senator LITTLE:

– I am directing my remarks to the Chair, in giving this illustration of the right to assemble and hear from delegates a report on what happened in Tasmania. We received a letter over the signature of a gentleman named Mr Stout, who threatened us that if we exercised our right of free assembly and went to the meeting to hear the report we would be expelled from the Labor Party. The most extreme penalty that could be evolved within the rules of the Labor Party was imposed. I have no quarrel with it, because if that was the law of the Labor Party at that time I could have been said to have broken it, and Mr Stout probably had reasonable apprehension’ that 1 was likely to attend the meeting. Therefore the penalty was imposed on me.

I will make my final point to you, Mr Chairman. You may not be aware of the circumstances, as my former colleagues in the Labor Party are. They have recently had another Moscow trial of another executive in Victoria. The members of that executive are still running around Victoria complaining that they have never been charged with anything and they do not know what their sins were. But they were put out of the official positions that they held in the Labor Party. Indeed, one was a former member and future member of this chamber. He was said to be not fit to con trol the affairs of the Labor Party in the State of Victoria, which he had been elected by the members to do. But he is said to be fit to represent the Party in the Senate.

I believe that when we trip down memory lane with Senator Kennelly on the past performances of the Labor Party and the role that ‘reasonable apprehension’ has to play in law and order within the Commonwealth, within the political parties that may compose governments in the Commonwealth or within Boy Scout movements or any other organisation, we see that members of the Labor Party have a greater appreciation of the need to include in legislation the words ‘reasonable apprehension’ so that they can pin the crime. 1 reiterate the point I made at the beginning: When anybody argues that this clause is unnecessary or that this law is unnecessary, it is a valid argument if you ignore what is going on out in the community today and if you ignore another incident that happened to Senator McManus, which he has not recounted but which I will recount. He was invited by a university in the city of Melbourne to take part in some sort of a speak-in with 2 or 3 other speakers. He again was the person who was selected for the demonstrations’, the other speakers were heard in silence. That was the right of free speech and free assembly.

When Senator McManus began to address the meeting, the doors swept open and in came the demonstrators, parading in front of Senator McManus’s wife with huge banners with filthy statements written upon them for which, if they had been out in the public thoroughfares, they would have been arrested. Senator Kennelly would have been the first one to say that they should have been in gaol, where they belonged. But our laws are not sufficient to protect decent people. Whatever may have been Senator McManus’s capacity in a political meeting of any shape or form, or even in a lecture at the university, to protect himself, do we want the type of community and the type of behaviour which means that his wife can be subjected to such degrading experiences by young people who are supposed to be the intelligensia of this nation? Those people are being subsidised by the taxpayers of this country to attend the university and to write filthy words on placards to brandish in front of the eyes of respectable people who do not want to have anything to do with it.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– Apparently trying to explain, in words of as close as possible to one syllable, that the words proposed to be included in clause 6(1.) of this Bill, namely, ‘reasonable apprehension’, have no novelty factor has just simply not got the message through to honourable senators opposite. I spoke earlier of the fact that those words are incorporated in the codes of 3 of the States of the Commonwealth; they are incorporated in the common law of the United Kingdom; they are incorporated through the common law into the law of the other 3 States of the Commonwealth; and they are included in the draft criminal code prepared by the Law Council of Australia, which, if Senator Wheeldon wishes to look it up, is Parliamentary Paper No. 44 of 1969. 1 thought that, because perhaps honourable senators opposite were not impressed by the fact that every State of the Commonwealth of Australia has similar words in its own legislation in this respect, it might be as well to see what some other countries have done. We have dealt with every State of the Commonwealth of Australia and we have dealt with the United Kingdom; so let us have a look at Canada. We find that its Criminal Code, in section 64, in relation to unlawful assemblies, states:

An unlawful assembly is an assembly of 3 or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear on reasonable grounds that they -

will disturb the peace tumultuously; or

will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.

I simply say that so far as Canada is concerned - another quite separate country - it has been found necessary to include in the Criminal Code words which are of the same meaning as the words proposed in clause 6(1.) of this Bill. Because it seems that sufficient precedent is not to be found in the laws of the States of Australia, the draft territorial code, or the laws of Canada and the United Kingdom, I thought I would look at the laws of New Zealand also. I find that section 101 of the New Zealand Crimes Act 1908 provides:

An unlawful assembly is an assembly of 3 or more persons who, with intent to carry out in common purpose assembled, or conduct themselves when assembled, in such a manner, as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of such assembly to fear on reasonable grounds that the persons so assembled will disturb the peace tumultuously or will, by such assembly, needlessly and without any reasonable occasion, provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultouously. . . .

In other words, New Zealand has a provision almost identical with that applying in Canada. I wonder how much further we have to go to persuade people. I hope and trust that we will not again have to demonstrate, as clearly as it possibly could be demonstrated by reference to the exact sections of the legislation throughout almost the whole of the common law .countries of the world, that this provision has no novelty whatsoever - that it is common to all countries. As Senator Little has said, not only is it common to the legislation of the States of Australia but also it is common to an application in the Australian Labor Party in its day to day proceedings, apparently, although that is something about which 1 have not the expert knowledge that he has. lt is common also to the United Kingdom, to Canada and to New Zealand. I hope and trust that we will not have to worry any further about this argument that this Bill introduces some novelty which is unknown in the law of the common law countries as we know them.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I last spoke on this question at 8.30 p.m., after which the Minister replied to me and challenged me to refer him to certain laws. Although I have sought the call on every occasion when an honourable senator has concluded his remarks, it is not until now, at 10.22 p.m., that I have the call. This is despite the fact that some honourable senators have been called repeatedly. Without making any accusation against the various occupants of the chair during that time, I can only assume that they had reasonable apprehension that perhaps I would not have confined my remarks to the Bill and that therefore it was in accordance with their duty as temporary chairmen to ensure that 1 was not given the call.

Senator Gair:

– Why should you have it before others?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I have an equal right to the call. On previous occasions the Minister has had cause to refer to us provisions of the Crimes Act or other Acts relating to demonstrations. Tonight it has been suggested that there is no provision in our law to deal with this situation, but on other occasions a law has been found when it has been necessary to find one for the purpose of stopping some demonstration. 1 remind the Committee that in one demonstration in Adelaide 132 people were arrested, and that during a demonstration in Sydney 200 people were arrested. The law enforcement authorities had no difficulty on those occasions in finding laws under which people could be charged. There was nothing in the law to prevent those who entered Senator McManus’ office from being charged and punished. As I remember the case, which has been referred to quite often in this place, it is the only bad incident that has happened to Senator McManus as a result of a demonstration. Why that should have happened I do not know, but no doubt there is some reason for demonstrations occurring from time to time. On that occasion referred to by Senator McManus the police found a law to enable them to prosecute those who were caught. Although we do not know whether the facts are as stated by Senator McManus, who was not there at the time, we know that on two of the charges the court found that they were not guilty and that on the other charge they were released on a bond. We accept that the court would make a decision in accordance with the evidence which was presented, so apparently there was not sufficient evidence on two of the charges. Consequently we must take what was said by Senator McManus a little cautiously.

I join with my colleagues who have said that no one in the Australian Labor Party supports physical violence and no one in the Labor Party supports damage to property. Nevertheless I consider that some people invite that kind of action from emotional groups of individuals who are greatly concerned about some incident. I refer to people such as those who are trying to defend their sons, those who may be required to give their life in Vietnam or to take someone else’s life in Vietnam. There cannot be much condemnation of those people when they take even physical action against theose who have put their sons in the position where they may be sent to face death on a battlefield in a war which is of no concern to Australia. Some sections of our community may have the belief that physical action in these circumstances is justified. When bad laws create this kind of situation, can anyone say that we should not except some demonstration against or disobedience of that law or against the person or property of those who are the architects of the scheme which will send someone else’s kid away to be shot? These are days when we are fighting for survival - for life.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:
VICTORIA

– Order! I remind the honourable senator that he is straying a little from the Clause. My predecessor in the Chair ruled against Senator Little and said that he must relate his remarks to the clause. I am applying the same rule to the honourable senator.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I have the greatest respect for your ruling, Sir. If you consider that I was straying from the subject, I shall return to it. Senator Little stated that he was the victim of what he claimed was an unfair decision by a political party which had reasonable apprehension, but at no time did he say that the decision was right. He said that he was treated unjustly. But because he was treated unjustly he wants to inflict the same injustice on the whole population of Australia. His whole argument was that because he was treated unjustly as a result of a reasonable apprehension on the part of a political party to which he belonged -

Senator Little:

– 1 did not say that I was treated unjustly.

Senator Poyser:

– How could one do him an injustice?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMANOrder! Senator Canvanagh has the call and he should be heard in silence by his colleagues.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I think the biggest interruption is coming from the Democratic Labor Party. I do not agree with Senator Little’s views. I know something about the dispute to which he referred. The only weakness of the Labor Party was that it did not take action years before. Had it done so we would not be putting up with members of the Democratic Labor Party today.

Senator Gair:

– You could have gone to Woomera then. Chifley would not have had to stop you from going to Woomera.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The honourable senator drags in the fact that a Labor Attorney-General found it necessary to bring in somewhat strict repressive legislation in respect of defence projects, legislation of which I became a victim. I never supported that legislation. I point out that the Government which introduced it was defeated a year later. That Government was worthy of greater support than it received, but it was defeated because of its repressive legislation. The present Government will be facing an election next year. The whole point is that there are laws to cover the situations sought to be covered by this Bill. This measure will not give us a law that can be enforced against anyone by any law enforcement officer.

The Bill gives to the Attorney-General power to institute proceedings for offences under the Act. Clause 23 gives that power. The only exception is an offence under clause 16. An offence committed under that clause can be proceeded with without the authority of the Attorney-General. Those who break into offices, such as those who broke into Senator McManus’s office, will be brought before the court and those about whom some arresting officer has some reasonable apprehension that they will cause damage in an office such as Senator McManus’s office will, with the authority of the Attorney-General, be prosecuted. Those who break into Jim Cavanagh’s office will, without the approval of the Attorney-General, be not prosecuted. That is the intention of the law. The only clause which gives the law enforcing authorities power to proceed without referring to a political authority to say whether politics should be played or whether proceedings should be instituted for a breach of the law is clause 16 which relates to a person causing actual bodily harm to another person or causing damage to property to an extent exceeding $200. That clause relates to protected premises or to a pro tected person. Offences under that clause would be like the normal assault charges or the normal damages cases.

There is a complete set of laws for the purpose of instituting prosecutions. Recently Commonwealth law has been extended to make State laws applicable on Commonwealth property. Recently the Seat of Government (Administration) Act was amended to cover the citizens of Australia. There is no valid reason for this law, other than to create a fear that already has my Democratic Labor Party friends and the most backward section of my Liberal Party friends in a state of hysteria because of the impending threat of foreseeable demonstrations in which their offices will be invaded, their homes invaded and their lives endangered. The magnanimous Minister said that the Government will not enforce the clauses of this Bill any more than it will enforce the penal sections of the Arbitration Act or the National Service Act. He said that that was not the Government’s intention. The Government’s intention is to create fear. Having created that fear, before an election the Government will threaten to use this legislation. The Government will use it at election time. The Attorney-General, upon advice from the Cabinet, will say who will be prosecuted and who will not. This legislation is the greatest political stunt that has been pulled in Australia. We have sufficient legislation. The Government is creating a scare. By creating a scare it takes the eyes of the Australian public off the atrocities in, off the bad legislation in relation to and off the murder and rape of Vietnam perpetuated by the Government at present.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– 1 have listened to this debate on clause 6 for about 2i hours. The whole of the discussion is centred around the words reasonable apprehension’. I wonder how much more convincing the Opposition will take. Tonight we heard Senator Rae say that these words are used in laws in each State, the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand. Much has been said about demonstrations. We have heard about people going to offices and frightening individuals. I was in a position to see a demonstration in my home city of Adelaide last year. It was a very dangerous demonstration.

Senator Poyser:

– You watched it from afar.

Senator YOUNG:

– Yes, because I did not want to be counted as one of the many. 1 did not want to be a party to it. I thank Senator Poyser for his interjection. This is one of the points that I want to make. Parliamentary members of the Australian Labor Party, both Federal and State, to their credit, refused to participate in the march. Originally they had every intention of participating in that march. They withdrew, for the simple reason that they had a reasonable apprehension that there could be violence. That day emotion ran very high. Lots of very sensible people went along to demonstrate in a moderate way. With the emotions that were created, we saw anarchy in the streets - something I hope we will never see again in Adelaide or in any other city because this country has been a country free of violence. We want to ensure that future demonstrations - and nobody objects to demonstrations - are held in an orderly fashion and without violence. I emphasise that T give credit to those members of the Australian Labor Party who would not participate because they had a reasonable apprehension that there would be violence and they would not associate themselves with it. The Labor Party was prepared to accept that principle on that occasion. I do not know how much longer it will take honourable senators opposite to realise that these words are in laws of the States and in laws of so many other countries.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– During the latter part of the debate my name has been taken in vain quite often. I thought it would be just as well for me to answer those remarks and to put the record straight. I am quite a humble person who wants to live in peace and quietness. I have no intention of recounting the affairs of 19SS because 6 months before they happened I told the people involved that if they did not attempt to run the party as a Labor Party it would split up the middle. It did split up the middle. Prior to that I supported the Curtin-Chifley administration, as did those honourable senators who are now sitting in the corner - the members of the Democratic Labor Party. We protected this country when others ran away. I know about the coal strike of 1949. I know as much about it as does anyone in this country. I was one of the 4 who had more say about it than anyone else. It has been said that then we did things about which we are complaining today, but we governed this country in the interests of the people. A Labor Party government will always do that. People will fall by the wayside. I could trace the history of the Labor Party if you would be kind enough to permit me, Mr Temporary Chairman, but I will not play on your friendship.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I would not be that kind.

Senator KENNELLY:

– You know me, Mr Temporary Chairman; I would not play on a friendship. The honourable senator who wanted to say what the Labor Party did or did not do was a very new member of this Party. If Senator McManus had wanted to say something about that, with his 25 or 30 years in this Party, I would have bowed to him with great respect. I will not bow to one whose years in this Party were very few. Today it suits him not to oppose fresh legislation because today everything that he ever stood for previously is wrong. Why is it wrong? He knows better than anyone else that he and his ilk would not be here except for the grace of the Government. It is all right for Senator Little to say that he won in his own right, but there were reasons why he won in his own right.

Senator Wright:

– The honourable senator should take the risks that he took and see what happens to him.

Senator KENNELLY:

– The Minister for Works mumbles away and bumbles around. If he wants to interject he should make an audible interjection so that honourable senators understand what he is saying.

Senator Little:

– Why did the honourable senator not say that I was president of the Party? He said that I was not in it long.

Senator KENNELLY:

– How long was the honourable senator in it?

Senator Little:

– I was in it 10 years before the split.

Senator KENNELLY:

– If the honourable senator did not agree with what the

Australian Labor Party did why did he not have the courage to get out of it?

Senator Little:

– I did.

Senator KENNELLY:

– The honourable senator did not have the courage to get out of it.

Senator Little:

– I did have the courage to get out of it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

-Order! Senator Little you will cease interjecting.

Senator KENNELLY:

– The honourable senator should not try to tell me that he did not know who was controlling the Party in 1955.

Senator Little:

– We were.

Senator KENNELLY:

– What!

Senator Little:

– You and I and people like us.

Senator KENNELLY:

– No, I was not. I resigned in 1950 because I could see what was coming. I was secretary of the Party at the time, but 1 said: ‘No, they are not going to dictate to me how I should run it when the orders are not coming from upstairs’.

Senator Little:

– The honourable senator did not resign from the Party. He is still in it.

Senator KENNELLY:

– The honourable senator knows the history of the matter. As I was saying earlier, this legislation is not needed. Most speakers have referred to what happened m Senator ‘ McManus’ offices. Those honourable senators who have referred to - this incident have deplored the fact that it happened. However, the law took its course. It is not for me to say whether the courts were sufficiently severe in the administration of justice. I agree with Senator James McClelland that a red herring has been drawn across the track because the law has not been administered. All the Opposition is saying is that there is sufficient legislation on the statute book for the law to be properly administered. Why is the Government seeking at this late hour in the sitting to put this extra legislation on the statute book? I believe that the Government knows full well that this legislation will be administered only in extreme cases. In fact, the Government is not administering the laws which are already in the statute book. It administers some of these laws but not all of them. . .

My erstwhile legal luminary up the back of the chamber said that he was going to say what Dr J. F. Cairns said. When did Dr J. F. Cairns become that much of a legal luminary that I have to bow to what he says? I may agree with what he says, but I may not agree. The fact is the Government administers the present laws against some people but it lets others go free. The Government is unable to satisfy the people of this nation that it is administering the laws of the country without fear or favour and that it is not leaving some out because it thinks that they may kick up a row. As I pointed out in my speech on the motion for the second reading of the Bill, the law took its course against women who were unlawfully in Commonwealth offices - I did not agree with what they were doing - but it did not take its course against others who did the same thing. All the Government in fact did was give these others a cup of tea. How can one have respect for the law when that happens?

Senator Little:

– They did not call the staff Fascist pigs.

Senator KENNELLY:

– The honourable senator knows it happened.

Senator Little:

– I know what happened, too.

Senator KENNELLY:

– All 1 am saying is that this legislation is unnecessary. The Government is only trying to play politics in the worst possible way. The Government is playing on the beliefs of the people of this country that the national Parliament will not pass legislation unless it is needed. Reference has been made to the fact that there is similar legislation in Victoria. Surely it provides everything this Bill seeks to provide. The Minister shakes his head. Surely the legislation that was passed recently in New South Wales will meet any situation which may arise. I may be wrong.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I ask Senator Kennelly to speak to the provisions of clause 6 of the Bill.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Why is the Government trying to fool the people? It is not now going to have an election soon.

The Government missed the boat in that regard. The Government should contest any election which it holds on the question of basic priciples and not on law and order. I admit that it is necessary to have law and order, but the Government should not spend all of its time trying to ram this fact down the necks of the people. Whatever a Labor government did in the past it did in the interests of the nation. This practice should be followed by the present Government. I would not expect a Labor administration to pass unnecessary legislation in an attempt to fool the people. No more credence will be given to what the Government says and the Government will not get any more respect from the people of this country merely because it has placed this legislation on the statute book. The people of this country will merely say: ‘You have put some people in gaol because they burned their draft cards and you have put other people in gaol because they have not wanted to go to Vietnam, but how many have you not taken action against?’

Senator Cavanagh:

asked in how many of the clauses of this Bill will the consent of the Attorney-General have to be given before a particular provision can be implemented. Surely it would save the person who is prepared to go on with it a little bit of time and thought if the legislation could be put into operation irrespective of. whether the Attorney-General consented. The law is on the statute book. The police of this country, whether they be State or Commonwealth, should not have to wait until the Attorney-General gives them the nod to put a friend of so-and-so’s in gaol or a political adherent of this party or another party in gaol. As much as I detest the political party known commonly to us all as the Nazi Party I give it the right to operate if the people want it to operate. The Government is only making a mockery of justice by filling up the statute book with legislation that it knows in its own heart it will never exercise. If the Government wants the Parliament to receive the great respect that it deserves the Government should ensure that the people adhere to the laws that the Parliament passes. The Government is not helping the situation as far as its laws are concerned because it operates them only against the few and not against all who break them.

Question put:

That clause 6(1.) stand as printed

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator Bull)

AYES: 28

NOES: 24

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Sub-clause (1.), agreed to.

Clause 6 (2.), as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8. (l.)……

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– We of the Australian Labor Party find clause 8 objectionable in various ways. I do not wish to reiterate what has been said at some length on our objection to reasonable apprehension of violence. I think honourable senators on both sides of the chamber will agree that that is an aspect of the Bill which has been fairly adequately canvassed. However, we submit that there is one word especially in this clause which is highly objectionable, and that is the word ‘person’ which occurs in sub-clause (4.) (b). The clause states that where there is an assembly of not less than 12 persons and persons in that assembly have acted in a way which leads a sergeant of police reasonably to apprehend that violence will occur or that some damage will be done, the sergeant of police may then perform what is equivalent to reading the Riot Act, and it is then incumbent upon those assembled to disperse. At the expiration of a certain rime - 15 minutes - if those persons have not dispersed it is then lawful for a person to use such force as he believes ob reasonable grounds to be necessary for that purpose and is reasonably proportionate to the danger which he believes, on reasonable grounds, is to be apprehended from the continuance of the assembly. It appeared from the earlier debate that Senator Rae, at least, was an advocate of some sort of do-it-yourself law enforcement system. He drew some comfort from the existence of some long-standing obligations on citizens to assist in putting down routs and riots.

Senator Rae:

– 1 did not draw some comfort from it; I pointed out that it was being repealed.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– But the honourable senator applauded the existence of such measures in the past and suggested that, in the hypothetical situation that I suggested, I might find myself in under a previous clause, far from being molested or in any way dealt with by the police I would merely be asked to assist in the suppression of the riot. I know that Seantor Rae also pointed out that this provision was being repealed, but I gathered the impression that he considered that that sort of thing was a good thing, that persons other than law enforcement officers-

Senator Rae:

– If you look at Hansard you will see there is no basis for that statement whatsoever.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am glad to accept from Senator Rae the assurance that he does not believe in that. If so, I would anticipate that when we come to vote he will cross the floor to vote with the Opposition for the elimination of this dangerous clause, and I submit that it is a most dangerous clause. We have the situation where there might be a gathering of people espousing a certain policy which is violently objected to by another crowd of people on the edge of this assembly. This is not a fantastic situation. This is something that occurs every Sunday down at the Domain in Sydney. We bad a recent example in Sydney where there was a demonstration by anti-apartheid demonstrators at Mascot airport against some visiting South African surfers, and some Nazis who happened to be gathered there also took it upon themselves - without any orders from any police to do any dispersing - to intervene and to disperse this gathering. We believe that the existence of this word in this clause - the invitation to persons-

Consideration interrupted.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Bull:

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

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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The Chairman having reported accordingly.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke) - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, 1 formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at J 1.1 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 5 May 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1971/19710505_senate_27_s48/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant