Senate
19 August 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1971

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack) took the chair at 10.55 a.m., and read prayers.

page 139

PETITIONS

Education

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:

Whereas -

  1. the Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove some inadequacies in the Australian Education system.
  2. a major inadequacy at present in Australian education is the lack of equal education opportunity for all.
  3. 200,000 students from Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and other Tertiary Institutions, and their parents suffer severe penalty from inadequacies in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1968.
  4. Australia cannot afford to hinder the education of these 200,000 Australians.

Your petitioners request that your honourable House make legal provision for -

  1. The allowance of personal education expenses as a deduction from income tax purposes.
  2. Removal of the present age limit in respect of the deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance for students.
  3. Increase in the amount of deduction allowable for tertiary education expenses.
  4. Exemption of non-bonded scholarships, for part-time students from income tax.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Education

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:

Whereas -

  1. the Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove some inadequacies in the Australian Education system.
  2. a major inadequacy at present in Australian education is the lack of equal education opportunity for all.
  3. 200,000 students from Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and other Tertiary Institutions, and their parents suffer severe penalty from inadequacies in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1968.
  4. Australia cannot afford to hinder the education of these 200,000 Australians.

Your petitioners request that your honourable

House make legal provision for -

  1. The allowance of personal education expenses as a deduction from income for tax purposes.
  2. Removal of the present age limit in respect of the deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance for students.
  3. Increase in the amount of deduction allowable for tertiary education expenses.
  4. Exemption of non-bonded scholarships, for part-time students from income tax.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

page 139

NOTICES OF MOTION

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That there be referred to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs the following matter: Japan.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That there be referred to the Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts the following matter: The Petition presented to the Senate on 18 August 1971 by Senator Devitt concerning the granting of deductions from income for taxation purposes.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That there be referred to the Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts the position of and provision for deprived schools - a deprived school being a school in the inner urban or rural areas providing primary education, in which a high proportion of the school population is disadvantaged through background and/or environment - with a view to financial aid to the States to premit the recognition of such schools as special schools warranting a more liberal scale in staffing, equipping and servicing.

page 139

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Now that the Opposition’s policy on Vietnam has been vindicated by the Government’s decision to withdraw most of our troops by Christmas, will the Leader of the Government tell us what has been achieved by our involvement there, apart from death and misery both for Australian troops and Vietnamese, bitterness and division in our community, the cost to us of more than $2,000m and a reputation in Asia and most of the world which will harm our nation for decades? Will the Minister, in acknowledging Vietnam as the worst policy mistake in our history, indicate that the Government is prepared to attempt some kind of restitution to the Vietnamese victims and embark upon a massive civil reconstruction programme - not the miserly $25m over 3 years announced last night by the Prime Minister?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– Against a background in which the Prime Minister made a statement last night in the other place and I propose to put that statement down in this place - I have paid Senator Murphy the courtesy of sending a copy of the statement round to his office this morning - I invite the Senate and anybody who may be listening to understand that this is purely a propaganda question. Lest there be any misunderstanding, I inform the Senate that when I have made the Prime Minister’s statement by leave, which I am sure the Senate will give to me, I propose to arrange - 1 have suggested this - that, if it suits the convenience of the Senate, after we dispose of a motion relating to the disallowance of an ordinance, time will be made available today to discuss the Prime Minister’s statement. I put that on record because I want to identify the nature of the question the Leader Opposition has posed. As to the substance of his question, it is all nonsense in terms of the truth of history, and that will be revealed in the Prime Minister’s statement and the debate that will ensue in this chamber.

page 140

QUESTION

SEWAGE POLLUTION

Senator LAUCKE:

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, been drawn to a article appearing in this morning’s ‘Canberra Times’ in which the Goodradigbee Shire Council health surveyor, Mr K. Kirwan, claims that Canberra’s sewerage outfalls are responsible for the present pollution danger to the Murrumbidgee river system? 1 ask the Minister whether he will inform me of what action the Government proposes to take to arrest and overcome this alleged pollution danger?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– I did see the article in this morning’s ‘Canberra Times’ and I am sure that the Minister for the

Enviroment, Aborigines and the Arts also has had his attention drawn to it. I noted that in the report reference was made to the fact that the New South Wales Department of Health was undertaking inquiries. Undoubtedly the results of those inquiries will be made available to the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts and any other Ministers who have responsibility for such matters within the Australian Capital Territory. I will take the step of relaying to the Minister whom I represent the substance of the honourable senator’s question. I am sure that in due course the Minister will communicate a reply to him.

page 140

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. The 10c weekly subscription and the annual subscriptions to the Queensland Ambulance Transport Brigade have been rejected as an income tax concession. Why did the Treasurer sanction this rejection? What is the possibility of having the concession restored?

Senator SIR KENNETH ANDERSON:
LP

– I do not have the information to answer the honourable senator’s question, but I shall refer his question to the Treasurer without delay and get a reply from him. The question deals with a particular matter and it is proper that I should refer it to the Treasurer for a particular answer.

page 140

QUESTION

GOLD MINING INDUSTRY

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Treasurer. In view of the fact that the world monetary crisis may result in a long term increase in the importance and therefore the value of gold, will the Treasurer give further urgent consideration to the plight of the goldminins industry with a view to preventing the imminent closure of the few remaining gold mines that are in production?

Senator SIR KENNETH ANDERSON:
LP

I sought some information in relation to the value of gold and only a moment ago I was supplied with some background information from the Treasurer. Quite frankly I do not propose to give it in answer now. I want to examine it before I reply. For that reason I think it would be proper to put the question on notice.

page 141

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Health aware that the Canberra and Southern Districts Pharmacists Association has advised the public by way of newspaper advertisements that the increase from 50c to $1 in the patient contribution under the national health scheme will result in the removal of numerous items from the list of approved pharmaceutical benefits, including medicines widely used by the chronically ill. Can the Minister inform the Parliament of the truth or otherwise of the pharmacists’ statement? If the charge is true, which drugs and medicines will be removed from the free list?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Yesterday Senator Murphy, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, asked me a question about pharmaceutical benefits in the context of the Budget statement. I told him that I would be making a statement later in the day pointing out that the proposed variation from 50c to $1 would become effective when the relevant legislation was passed by the Parliament. I made that statement. I feel bound to point out that there has been some Press publicity on this matter. I read an article in a newspaper this morning which indicated that an unfortunate procedure had been adopted whereby what the journalist was expressing as his views became married to what I said in my statement. I suggest to journalists that they should quote a statement and then if they wish to express their own opinion they should add a footnote. I repeat that I read with interest in a newspaper this morning the comment of one journalist which seemed to me to be mixed up with my statement. That is a very dangerous practice.

I have also seen advertisements by certain pharmaceutical people who I feel got into print before there was a proper understanding of what is proposed. To be helpful I will see that a copy of the statement I issued yesterday is sent to Senator Keeffe and to other honourable senators this morning. One paragraph of the statement that I made yesterday reads:

There would be no deletion from the list of pharmaceutical benefits. Those benefits which were priced at $1 or under would remain on the pharmaceutical benefits list for pensioners. . . .

I want to make quite clear that the conditions will not vary from those operative now, when a charge of 50c is made. When the Parliament passes the legislation necessary to vary the charge from 50c to SI-

Senator Poyser:

– It may not pass it yet.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

I say ‘when’, lt is a policy matter and a Budget matter so we will pass that comment by. To get an understanding of the position one should merely convert in one’s mind 50c to $1 and the other conditions will remain the same. I think that is the best way to express it. 1 commend to the honourable senator the Press statement I released late yesterday afternoon.

page 141

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry heard a news report that a representative of the wool buyers’ association has stated that unless the overseas situation in regard to foreign exchange is normalised the wool sales to be held next week may have to be cancelled?

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

– I did hear the report referred to by the honourable senator. I understand from my inquiries that a number of sources are seeking information from the Government on this matter. However, the only answer I can give at this stage is that at present the Government is closely studying the position and no doubt will provide an answer in respect of this matter later.

page 141

QUESTION

BUTTER

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry: Did a large Victorian co-operative milk company recently make a sale of considerable quantities of butter on a new market in the Middle East? Was the price obtained for the sale in excess of the United Kingdom price? Was the company concerned allowed a promotion payment of only 40c a ton instead of the normal payment of $1 a ton allowed for such new markets? If so, what reasons were given by the Australian Dairy Produce Board for such a price differential?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I will have to make inquiries about the matter. The honourable senator knows that at present butter is selling on the British market at £stg460 a ton, so that the pdc: referred to by the honourable senator would have to exceed that price. The honourable senator will recall that earlier this year Australian butter producers were receiving only £stg290 a ton for Australian butter. However, I will make inquiries and let the honourable senator have some further information on the matter.

page 142

QUESTION

MEAT

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry noted a statement by the Chairman of the Australian Meat Board in relation to what he described as the necessity for the meat industry to prepare itself now against the threat of synthetic meats? Is the Minister aware of any steps being taken to meet the threat? If so, will he advise the Senate accordingly? Because of the special importance of the meat industry in the total rural establishment today, will the Minister give an assurance that the Department of Primary Industry will give every assistance to the retention of stability within the meat industry?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I have seen the report referred to by the honourable senator. 1 understand that Colonel McArthur, Chairman of the Australian Meat Board, was addressing a conference of the Graziers’ Association of Victoria. He referred to synthetic meats, the apathy of producers in this country and the inroads that synthetics had made into other industries in the past. I understand that he also referred to the production of synthetic meats in the United States of America, which is a very large market for Australian meats, and said that already General Foods and Dupont were making synthetic meat. I believe that the producers in this country have to produce an article that will meet the market throughout the world, because if they do not and we lose our sales in these markets this could have a very drastic effect on the only section of primary industry at the present time thai is holding its own as far as economics are concerned.

What action has the Australian Meat Board taken? In 1970 - I think in November - a co-ordination committee was set up by representatives of the Australian Meat Board, the New Zealand Meat Board and the American producers of lamb with the idea of promoting lamb in America. I understand that since that committee was set up it has turned more towards the promotion of meat generally. It is spending considerable money in America educating all sections of the community to eat more meat. At the present time a sizeable amount of our meat to America goes to the hamburger and sausage trades and no doubt this is where the producers of synthetics will aim. This is the point on which we have to concentrate. I understand the situation is being met by this committee set up by the 3 meat boards in Australia, New Zealand and America.

page 142

QUESTION

HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL BENEFIT FUNDS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Health. By way of preface I refer to a statement made by his predecessor, Senator Greenwood, at a Press conference in Sydney on 15th July that hospital and medical benefit funds would have to dip into their reserves to cover extras to a degree. Since most of these funds never take their members into their confidence as regards the inner workings of the funds’ financial operations can the Minister give me a specific breakdown on the utilisation of the massive reserves of the Hospital Contribution Fund of Australia and the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia which doubtless Senator Greenwood had in mind?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– 1 have some information which is a little lengthy but this is a fairly topical issue. Senator Mulvihill asked a question yesterday in relation to the funds and this information may be complementary to that given to him yesterday. The reconstruction and improvements made in the hospital insurance system which commenced in New South Wales on 1st August have meant that the public is receiving significantly greater value for its contributions. For example, although the public ward hospital fee rose by 50 per cent the equivalent hospital insurance contributions rose by only 17 per cent. The most favourable use of contributions in this way reflects in part the application of the Government’s policy to require health funds to reduce their reserves to a level equivalent to 3 months’ contribution income. [ remember in the early days the theory was not less than 9 months contributions should always be held. The reserves held by the 2 largest New South Wales organisations at 30th June 1971 totalled approximately $30.5m in the case of their hospital funds and $ 11.4m in the case of their medical funds. The combined annual income of these 2 organisations this financial year is estimated at $58.4m in hospital contributions and $37m in medical contributions.

As from 1st August hospital funds will operate only 3 benefit tables and benefits will not be paid in excess of the hospital accounts. We have had no direct experience on which to judge with complete precision the effects that the new provisions will have on the overall operations of the funds. Nevertheless the new hospital contribution rates have been fixed with the aim of causing hospital funds with excess reserves to operate in deficit in the current financial year. In other words, they will make use of their reserves and get them back to their contributors. Preliminary estimates indicate that a fall of approximately $4.3m should occur in their combined reserves. The reserves of the medical benefit funds - that is the medical funds as distinct from the hospital benefit funds - are not excessive bearing in mind the new level of contribution income. The new medical benefit contributions have been fixed for the ensuing 2 years to enable the medical benefit funds to meet their claim liabilities without adding to or depleting their reserves. I hope the honourable senator has noticed the distinction between the position of the 2 types of funds. Finally, I remind honourable senators that the annual accounts of registered organisations for the 1970-71 financial year and subsequent financial years will be laid before each House of the Parliament in accordance with section 76a of the National Health Act, which is the new provision that has been inserted in the Act.

Whilst I am on my feet I would like to advert to another matter. On 7th May of this year Senator Greenwood, the then Minister for Health, put down a statement in this place on medical fees and benefits. That statement is on the notice paper for debate. I think Senator Douglas McClelland has the adjournment on it. I propose to put down today a supplementary statement on health matters. I suggest to honourable senators that the adjournment should be taken on that matter and we could then have a cognate debate at some time on Senator Greenwood’s statement and my updated statement. In that way we would be able to obtain a better understanding of the obligations imposed on the medical and hospital funds as from 1st August.

page 143

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Is the Minister aware that it has been proposed, on the recommendation of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, that the new Australian National Line ship ‘Echuca’, which was purchased at least partly for the Tasmanian trade, be not manned on its arrival in Melbourne because of a dispute as to the necessity for a radio operator on that vessel? What authority adjudicates on the safety of the way in which ships are equipped and manned? If there is such an authority, has it expressed an opinion on this matter?

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

– I will need to refer the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I do not know the details of the authority that handles manning or safety problems. If I can obtain some information today I will ensure that the honourable senator is made aware of it before he leaves here tomorrow.

page 143

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator WILKINSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I appreciate that he proposes to make a statement later today on the question of the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam, but the aspect I have in mind may not be covered in that statement. Therefore, I ask: The Opposition is pleased to have its Vietnam policy partially adopted by the Government, but will the Leader of the Government give an assurance that all our troops will be withdrawn immediately and not just the combat troops? How many troops does the Government intend to leave in Vietnam to prop up President Nixon’s disintegrating Vietnamisation programme?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I do not want to anticipate what I will say when I read the Prime Minister’s statement on this matter, although the contents of it have been circulated fairly widely in the Press today. When I rise to make the statement I will have copies of it circulated. I hope that a debate on the statement will be held this afternoon and I do not think that I should anticipate that discussion.

page 144

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I wish to ask a question of the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it a fact that, under the arrangements by which the imposition of pay-roll tax will be transferred to the States, local government will no longer have to pay pay-roll tax? If so, will the Minister give further details of those arrangements to the Senate? In particular, will he inform the Senate of the date as from which the local government authorities will be exempted from this tax?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The question of the imposition of a pay-roll tax on local government authorities has been a very topical one in the Senate. It is appropriate that it should be again raised by an honourable senator. For some time the Commonwealth Government has been aware that many local government authorities, particularly those in rural areas, have been suffering considerable financial difficulties. We also have been aware, through numerous representations made to us by local government authorities, both directly and through members of Parliament, and indeed by senators, that many local authorities saw payment of pay-roil tax as a significant factor contributing ;o their difficulties.

At the Premiers Conference in June the Commonwealth, therefore, agreed that in transferring pay-roll tax to the States it would meet the full costs which the States would incur in exempting local government authorities from payment of pay-roll tax other than in respect of their business activities. The Commonwealth will meet this cost, which is estimated to be nearly $6m in 1971-72 and about $8m in a full year, by paying to the States higher financial assistance grants than it would otherwise have done. All States have agreed to exempt their local government authorities, and therefore they will become exempt as from the date of transfer of the tax. The States have asked that the tax be transferred as from 1st September 1971.

Subject, of course, to the necessary legislation being passed by the parliaments of the 6 States and the Commonwealth, the tax will be transferred on that’ date. The Government already has received expressions of appreciation from representatives of local government about this decision. We are confident it also will have the support of the Senate.

page 144

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE AIRCRAFT

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, addressed to the Minister for Air, refers to his recent visit to Europe to examine possible replacement aircraft for the Royal Australian Air Force, and related facilities. What types and makes of aircraft, and countries of manufacture, have been considered by the Minister? Have any purchases been approved? In view of the fact that there have been further retrenchments at the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation and the Government Aircraft Factories, has the Minister, on behalf of the Government, been able to indicate to any possible manufacturer that there should be co-production of any aircraft ordered by Australia? Does the Government intend to hang on to the Fill? If so, what is the current view as to its evaluation by the experts in the United States of America?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The honourable senator has asked me a series of questions and if I had to answer them in detail it would take nearly an hour. I did go to the Paris Air Show at the invitation of the French Government. While there I saw a number of modern strike and fighter aircraft. Having seen some of them in action, including our own Mirage and its successor, I then had talks with some of the manufacturers of those aircraft. In all cases 1 stressed the point of offset manufacture in Australia. I was accompanied by the representatives of the then Minister for Supply who also were having discussions with the manufacturers there. At present it is not expected that the Mirage will be phased out until the second half of the 1970s, that is, between 1975 and 1982. It will have to go out of operation by 1982. At present my Department is carrying out a very detailed evaluation of all possible aircraft available.

The honourable senator mentioned the Fill. This is a subject on its own. I can

Questions give no further information on it. The honourable senator will recall that in May last year, following the visit to the United States of the then Minister for Defence, Mr Fraser, the Fraser-Laird agreement, which included a clause providing for certain tests to be carried out, was announced. Upon completion of those tests it was expected that the Australian Government would be in a position to make a decision by the end of this year. Since that agreement certain of the tests have slipped.

Senator Keeffe:

– What do you mean by that?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– What I mean by that is that they have slipped behind in time. To get an indication whether those slips would mean that a decision could still be made in November or whether it would have to be made early next year. 1 sent senior officers of the Department to America to report on the situation.

Senator Keeffe:

– Like ‘Peyton Place’, this is a continuing story.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Apparently Senator Keeffe does not want to hear this answer. Those officers have returned. They have submitted a report to the Department of Air and to the Department of Defence. That report is being studied carefully, with a view to making a report to the Minister for Defence and to the Minister for Air. I hope that later the Minister for Defence will be in a position to make a submission to Cabinet as to whether a decision can be made at the end of the year.

page 145

QUESTION

PETROL

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry or to the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise. Does the Federal Government purport to have a petroleum price equalisation scheme whereby those users who are removed from the capital cities are assisted by Commonwealth subsidy to purchase at no more than 4c above the seaboard price? Will the Minister acknowledge the importance of this measure as being of significant benefit to people in outback areas and as being a very great contribution towards decentralisation? For this the Federal Government is to be con-

Questions 145 gratulated. Are the Minister and the Department concerned aware of the ability of most major petrol suppliers to meet competition in retail pricing of petrol to the extent of 8c, 10c and 12c a gallon discounts in some capital cities where volume sales are made and where genuine competition exists? How does the Department fairly calculate the true seaboard price of petroleum? Can the Minister assure the Senate that this situation has been studied closely and that subsidy is not being paid unfairly or at too high a rate?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I think it will be agreed that that was quite a long question directed to me wearing my 2 hats - Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry and Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise. It is true that country petrol purchasers have an ability to purchase petrol at 4c above the price in capital cities. It is equally true that this is of great importance to outback areas. It is also true that the Federal Government has to be congratulated for bringing this about. I have read that capital city price discounting for petrol has occurred to the extent of 8c to 10c a gallon. I think the Senate can be assured, from my experience previously, that the Department of Customs and Excise has a most precise section watching petrol prices and calculating subsidy and seaboard landing cost. This was my experience when I had a little to do with the Department. Beyond that I cannot comment accurately. I will direct the question to the Minister for Customs and Excise, where I think it properly belongs, to see whether I can get some information for the honourable senator.

page 145

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, cannot wait for later discussion. I refer to the question I asked yesterday about the safety of Australian troops in Vietnam. Will the Minister, without using emotional terms such as ‘stupid’ and ‘nonsense’, assure the Senate that contingency measures will be introduced immediately to protect our men in Vietnam from any unnecessary action which may lead to their injury or death?

Sentaor Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThere is quite a different pattern in the 19 August 1971 question asked by Senator Georges today compared with the one he asked yesterday and the answer I gave, if that is what he is referring to. As I understood the question yesterday, his proposition was that the Senate should decide the tactics for the commanders in the field. I said - and I repeat - that such a proposition was not in the interests of the troops in the field. I thought that, far from protecting them, if the Senate determined tactics, the troops would be at greater risk. That was the answer I gave and I do not detract from it. I suggest that the remainder of the question should go on notice because no doubt the matter to which it relates will be dealt with during the debate that we will have.

page 146

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator POYSER:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport aware that the radio operators’ organisation involved in a dispute over the manning of the ‘Echuca’ originally considered stopping all Australian National Line ships in support of its claim and that the intervention of Mr Bob Hawke resulted in the dispute being confined to the ‘Echuca’ only, thus preventing a major problem for Tasmania in relation to imports and exports?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I am not aware of this, but I might say that if Mr Hawke continues all the time to intervene for the Australian Council of Trade Unions to stop industrial anarchy he will have my warm support.

page 146

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it a fact that, after allowing for a reasonable carry-over of about 165 million bushels, the entire current wheat crop has been sold? Did this take place without any assistance from our modern Marco Polos or from Mr Whitlands recent hosts?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The honourable senator mentioned a carry-over of 165 million bushels of wheat. I think we can do even better than that. It has been estimated by the Australian Wheat Board that by 30th November the Board probably will have a carry over of 150 million bushels only. If this is the situation the Board will have had an ali time record sale of wheat. In selling our wheat we have had unusually strong demand from some Middle East countries because of crop failures in those countries. There have been heavy shipments to the United Arab Republic, which is an important market which was re-established last year. We have made a re-entry to the important market of South Korea, and we have made further sales to other countries which for some considerable time have been our customers. Although we were able to move wheat quickly in the first part of the season, unfortunately it is expected that the movement of wheat from Australia will be slower for the remainder of the season. If that does happen the honourable senator’s figure of 165 million bushels could be right but, as I said, the Board is expecting a carry-over of about 150 million bushels.

page 146

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service a question. As ref usal to serve when called up for national service carries a mandatory penalty of 2 years imprisonment to coincide with the time of service in the Army, and in view of the Government’s decision to reduce the time of national service in the Army to 18 months, will a similar reduction be made to gaol sentences imposed under the National Service Act? Will any reduction in gaol sentences be applied to the 2 persons now in gaol, namely, Geoff Mullen in New South Wales and Charles Martin in South Australia?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– A decision has been taken by the Government on that matter and it will be announced when the relevant legislation is introduced. As to the application of that provision to any prisoner now serving a sentence, I should think the Attorney-General would give consideration to each individual case upon proper application being made.

page 146

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minis:ter for Primary Industry so that he may resolve a matter for me. I understood that the proposal for the subsidy on wool was such that if the average price of wool was below 36c the Government would make up the difference to 36c. However, I have been given information by a wool grower who has said that that is not quite true; that every wool grower will benefit overall by roughly 20 per cent. In other words if wool is sold for 40c the grower will still receive an increase. Is there any truth in the information given to me?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I cannot help the honourable senator with his inquiry. The Budget outlines a scheme for wool deficiency payments to assist the industry. It is for one year and will apply to the wool clip of 1971-72. It is based on an average greasy price of 36c a lb. I understand that the Minister for Primary Industry will be making a statement on how this is to operate at some later period. I believe it will be early next week but I am not sure of that last point. That is the only information I can give the honourable senator.

page 147

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator MAUNSELL:

– Will the Minister representing the Postmaster-General indicate when the cable way for the national television station on Mount Bellenden Ker is likely to be completed? When is it expected that transmission of programmes will commence?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am informed by the Postmaster-General that the construction of the cable way to the summit of Mount Bellenden Ker will be completed by the end of this year. It is expected that if the programme proceeds as contemplated the whole works will be completed by the end of June 1972.

page 147

QUESTION

PRIORITY PAID MAIL

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Has the Post Office recently launched a campaign to advertise the priority paid mail service? Does this campaign involve sending business men a package of 4 spring loaded ping pong balls which pop out when the package is opened? What is the total cost of this promotional campaign? Does the Minister agree with Mr Neville Blyton, President of the Associated Chambers of Commerce of Australia, that this campaign is a dreadful waste of public money?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– Speaking in a purely representative capacity I am unable to answer the questions which have been asked by the honourable senator. I shall convey them to the Minister and ask that the honourable senator be given a reply.

page 147

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA

– The basis of my question which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation is a document entitled ‘No. 1 War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal, Annual Report for the year 1969-70’, which refers to the accommodation of all Melbourne based war pension tribunals on the 7th floor of TAA Centre, 50 Franklin Street, Melbourne. The quotation is essential for my question to be intelligible and it can be authenticated. The report states:

This Tribunal moved into its new premises in September 1969. Generally speaking, the standard of accommodation, and the principle of concentration of the Tribunals, has proved quite satisfactory. There are, however, two items which this Tribunal views with regret.

The first is the type of accommodation made available to the advocates employed by the Returned Services League, and their secretary. Melbourne is distinct from other capitals in that these advocates, rather than working from offices at League Headquarters, and visiting the Tribunal rooms as required, are permanently quartered within Tribunal premises. The standard of assistance given to appellants, naturally, is higher. However, by reason of the limited space available at TAA Centre, rooms with an outer view, and with some space, could not be provided. The advocates, and their secretary, have to use, as permanent offices, small internal interviewing cubicles suitable only for casual, rather than for permanent, occupation.

The second item is the absence of parking space for the motor vehicles of the Chairman and members, which was made available to them at and/or near the previous premises, ‘Rostella’

The question I ask is: Has the Minister taken any steps to provide suitable accommodation and facilities in place of those which are said in the report to be deficient? If not, when is the Minister likely to do so and thus enable a standard of service of the highest order to be made available to ex-servicemen and women to which they are justly entitled?

The PRESIDENT:

– Before I call on the Minister to answer the honourable senator’s question I must draw his attention to the custom of the Senate that questions are framed so as to seek and not give information.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I feel sure the honourable senator realises that I do not have the information in detail which he requires. I shall seek it for him and let him have it.

page 148

QUESTION

HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS

Senator LITTLE:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science aware that 20 Murrumbeena High School teachers in the State of Victoria, allegedly on strike since 26th July, during which period they have been receiving two-sevenths of each week’s pay, have decided to return to work 2 days before a holiday period for end of term; that they have returned to work with a threat to strike again in the new term; and that they will be paid for the holiday period? Does the Government approve of this flagrant exploitation and misuse of taxpayers’ money allocated for the education of our children but being diverted by this system of industrial banditry

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– Whatever sympathy I have with the views the honourable senator expresses, it is prudent that I should say that the matter pertains to a field which is peculiarly within the State responsibility. Nevertheless, his comments will be taken into account by the Minister who is responsible for supplementary finance in the Federal field.

page 148

QUESTION

QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Is it a fact that Qantas Airways Ltd will operate its 747s through Singapore to Europe and the United Kingdom? Does this mean that negotiations with the United States to allow 747s through that country have failed? If so, will Qantas now have to try to obtain paying load factors on 707s against Pan-American’s 747s? As this will mean increasing losses to Qantas, how long is the Government prepared to accept this situation without taking retaliatory action?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– There are a number of questions involved in this one question. Some of them bear upon negotiations which are still under way and are at a critical stage. It will be understood, I am quite sure, that in this exercise I have no wish to be provocative or to do anything more than try to support the Australian interest. Some assumptions are implicit in the honourable senator’s question; for instance, that the diversion of the Qantas 747s to other routes for the time being will necessarily make the airline worse off financially. As far as I can investigate the matter at the present time, that cannot be said to be the case. It can be assumed that this matter will be the subject of a detailed and careful response by the Australian Government on what I believe is a proper basis of government to government negotiation. The negotiation for our side is conducted carefully through the Department of Civil Aviation, in full and complete consultation with Qantas. In such negotiations we respond through our Department of Foreign Affairs and our ambassador in Washington. That process is currently going on. This is a difficult problem. It is one which we have set out to resolve as amicably as we possibly can, bearing in mind the total - I underline the word ‘total’ - Australian interest involved.

page 148

QUESTION

DRUG DEPENDENCE

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. What officers, if any, of his Department will attend the International Symposium on Drug Dependence sponsored by the International Council on Alcohol and Addictions to be held in Hong Kong from 18th to 22nd October? Will he reconsider the request received for Commonwealth financial assistance to enable a specialist representative of the Alcoholism Foundation of Australia to attend this important symposium? Will he endeavour to ensure that Australia is adequately represented at these meetings so that this country can continue to be kept informed on all aspects of the problems of increased drug taking and treatment of those suffering from the illness of drug dependency?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I would be the first to concur in the broad canvas of that part of the question which refers to the frightening consequences of drug addiction. Indeed, I can be counted along with, I am sure, all other senators as saying that we will do whatever we feel can be done. As the Minister for Health I have a special obligation and responsibility in relation to this matter which I will accept with real concern. 1 would need to get some information from my Department to answer Senator Marriott’s question, and I will get it without delay. I will certainly respond to the question on the next day of sitting. The question does not need to be put on notice because I will pick it up myself and see that a prompt answer is provided.

page 149

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator MURPHY:

– My question is directed to Senator Greenwood in his capacity as Attorney-General and the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. I ask him whether he will look into whether the law can be altered to provide that naturalised Australians shall be treated for all purposes as Australians and not be liable to deportation or cancellation of citizenship except, say, in cases of substantial fraud in the application for citizenship?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I will certainly look into the matters which Senator Murphy has raised. I must say that any inquiry J undertake would be facilitated greatly by any concrete examples he could give me of the matters about which he is complaining.

page 149

QUESTION

PETROL PRICES

Senator KEEFFE:

– Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware that some garages in the Australian Capital Territory and other areas propose to raise petrol prices within the next 2 days? Has the Government authorised the immediate increase in prices? If such authorisation has not been given, will the Government take immediate steps to prevent the increase until such time as Budget outgoing payments such as social service pension increases have been authorised by the Parliament?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

I would have to make inquiries about the matter. My understanding is that things of this sort are co-ordinated throughout the Commonwealth at a given time. Senator Keeffe is suggesting that somebody is trying to beat the gun. It is very naughty to beat the gun, because one usually gets called back to base. However, I will find out the particulars of the matter. If any thing can be done in the Australian Capital Territory I will certainly raise the matter with the Minister for the Interior.

page 149

QUESTION

DAYLIGHT SAVING

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior been drawn to a decision of members of the Northern Territory Legislative Council by a decisive majority to refuse to accept daylight saving for the Territory? Apparently they believe that it is not suited to the tropical low latitudes. Can the Senate have an assurance that this decision will not be interfered with from Canberra?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I read about this decision on daylight saving in this morning’s newspaper. All 1 can say about the matter is that I am not going to get involved in this punch-up except to refer the matter to the Minister to see what he has to say about it.

page 149

QUESTION

QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD

Senator BISHOP:

– My question which is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation, concerns charter operations by Qantas Airways Ltd. ls there final agreement between Qantas, the Department of Civil Aviation and the Government in relation to the establishment of a subsidiary charter company in view of the fact that BOAC is likely to operate between Kuala Lumpur and London some time in August? What is the likely data of such operations by Qantas? Will these Qantas operations and other of its operations mean a withdrawal of retrenchment notices which were given, as the Minister will remember, to some 150 air crew, cadet pilots and flight engineers who are likely to be put off in October this year?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Within 12 hours of the Qantas board deciding that it wanted to form a charter company it had the approval of myself and the Department in principle. It has been given approval to go ahead to operate charter flights and low fare flights using the aircraft in the present fleet by diversion or lease. As honourable senators would well know and as has been expressed in this place, the Government has been concerned for some time about the diversion of Australia-United Kingdom traffic to charter operators in South East Asia. It is within the area of responsibility of Qantas to work out the commercial and operational costs of the proposal and the time of commencement. That is where the responsibility is placed. Further consultations will be held between ourselves and Qantas as soon as Qantas is in a position to ask for them. That is how we work. Traffic rights have to be negotiated under the present pattern of government to government traffic rights negotiation. The honourable senator can be assured that continuously it has been the policy of myself and my Department to do whatever possible to sustain Qantas, and if it is in difficulty, to see as far as possible that the difficulties are overcome by market growth and not by diminished business.

page 150

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator CAVANAGH:

– My question, which I direct to the Attorney-General, arises out of a reply I received from the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service in which it was stated that the Attorney-General would consider on proper application remission of sentences of persons in prison. I ask: What is a proper application for the Attorney-General to consider reduction of the detention of persons in gaol for breaches of the National Service Act? 1 understand from the reply furnished by the Minister for Works that amending legislation will be introduced to reduce the gaol term imposed for breaches of the National Service Act. Will the Minister therefore consider applying to the 2 lads now in gaol for breaches of the Act any reduction in gaol sentences proposed by the amending legislation? Will the Minister consider immediately the case of Charles Martin in South Australia who has been so long in prison that he anticipates that with remissions he will be discharged at Christmas this year?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– Several aspects are involved in Senator Cavanagh’s question. Insofar as it invites consideration by me of an application which might be made after amending legislation to the National Service Act has been introduced, I decline to indicate what attitude might be adopted until the legislation has been introduced and its provisions made known. If an application is made, it is directed to the Governor-General. He has a prerogative which is exercised in appropriate cases on advice. As to the question of giving immediate consideration to cases of persons in gaol for offences under the National Service Act, any application made will be considered on its merits, but I am not aware that I am currently in receipt of any application.

page 150

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator MURPHY:

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral whether he will now treat my request as an application for remission of sentence in respect of the 2 young men in gaol? Will he without further ado investigate the cases concerned and see whether as a result of his own inquiries it would be proper in the circumstances now, without waiting for any legislative changes, to have these young men released or substantial remissions made of their sentences? I press him to do so, especially in the light of changing circumstances in Vietnam and the fact that in the United States system the man responsible for the dreadful massacres at My Lai is still not in prison, whereas 2 young men who have refused to be involved in that dreadful war are languishing in an Australian prison?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I will not treat a verbal application made by way of a question in this chamber as an application to be considered by me for presentation to the Governor-General for the exercise of a prerogative which he holds. I consider that any such application should be properly made out by way of a submission which invites consideration on appropriate grounds. I would say only that 2 persons who are in gaol at present in the circumstances described by the Leader of the Opposition are in gaol because they have chosen to ignore a provision which the law imposes and which thousands of other Australians have acknowledged and observed. Those thousands of Australians have acknowledged that provision notwithstanding that it has caused them personal hardship and inconvenience. They have done so because they conceive it to be their duty to their country and the right and obligation of every citizen to obey the laws of this country. Therefore, persons who choose not to obey the laws of this country can expect only, that the penalties which are imposed shall be enforced. Having said . that, if there are considerations which warrant the exercise of a prerogative of mercy it is the right of every person to make that application and in times past applications have been made, considered on their merits and appropriate dispensation granted. I repeat what I said in answer to Senator Cavanagh that I will give consideration to any application that comes before me.

page 151

QUESTION

MEAT EXPORTS

Senator GEORGES:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry and I refer him to the answer he gave to an earlier question on the threat posed to our meat industry by synthetic meats. I ask the Minister whether he is aware that there is a further threat to our meat industry. Is he aware that Australian meat cannot be exported to a brucellosis free area? Is he aware that the United States of America has almost eradicated brucellosis from its beef producing areas? What action does the Minister intend to take to prevent a situation arising in which our meat cannot be exported to the United States?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– Although aware of some of the points the honourable senator has raised, this is a policy matter and I will seek information from the Minister for Primary Industry. I ask the honourable senator to put his question on notice.

page 151

QUESTION

RAILWAY ROLLING STOCK

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct a question to the Minister reprsesenting the Minister for Trade and Industry. By way of preface I refer to a deputation of Sydney trade union officials which Senator Bishop and 1 introduced to the former Minister for Trade and Industry, Sir John McEwen, complaining about certain railway rolling stock for mining companies operating in Australia being constructed in Japan. In the face of assurances given by Sir John McEwen to the trade unions concerned, is the Minister aware that the fears of the trade unions have been rekindled by the recent announcement that Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd has recently given a substantial order for 584 100-ton capacity ore wagons to the Canadian firm of National Steel Car Corporation of Hamilton. Ontario? Will the Minister have an immediate investigation made into Hamersley Iron company’s policy which can cause a drastic cut in the Metal Trades Union workforce employed in the production of railway rolling stock?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The honourable senator, has considerable advantage over me in that he, with Senator Bishop, was a member of a deputation, understandably on behalf of the people they represent, to Sir John McEwen. I was not party to the deputation and Sir John McEwen is no longer with us. Nevertheless the facts as stated 1 am prepared to accept. I understand that this is an order for railway rolling stock worth about $10m. placed in Canada by Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd. The questions 1 would have to ask the Minister for Trade and Industry on behalf of the honourable senator are: Is this a danger to manufacturing capacity in Australia? To what extent is the capacity for such manufacture fully or over utilised? To what extent, if at all, does it represent a threat to employment of Australians in that field? All these matters are properly to be worried about. Like the honourable senator I am concerned to maintain Australian manufacturing industry exports in a fully viable state.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry inform the Parliament whether recent restrictions imposed by the United States of America on its currency will result in any loss or restriction of the export market for Queensland canned tropical fruits and fruit juices? If the information is not readily available will the Minister undertake to make a reply available before the first week’s recess in the present sessional period?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– 1 will have to seek that information and will endeavour to give it to the honourable senator on the next sitting day.

page 151

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. I ask: Why did the Minister not answer properly question No. 1091 I asked of him concerning how many eligible persons hud failed during the past 3 years to attend the medical examination that is required to be undertaken under the National Service Act? I received yesterday what purported to be a reply to that question. It informed me how many people were prosecuted. The question I asked was how many people had failed to attend a medical examination. A similar question was asked previously by Senator O’Byrne. On neither occasion has the information sought been supplied; instead some other information has been given.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– Because I have not had any notice at all of any complaint as to the answer which has been given, I do not have the text of the answer before me. I shall comment on it when I have a chance to peruse the question and answer.

page 152

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF DUPLICATING MACHINES

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask: Will he consider taking steps to enable those honourable senators who are interested in purchasing duplicating machines to assist them in their work in their electorate to purchase these machines at the same price as is paid for them by the Government?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI think I am correct in saying that the honourable senator’s question relates to the facilities available to members of Parliament.

Senator McLaren:

– Yes.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

These facilities are made available by the Department of the Interior. From memory, it makes a fairly wide canvass of honourable senators and members as to their needs. Additional facilities are generally provided as a result of party representation. An individual honourable senator or member who has special problems could seek a special concession but, generally speaking, any facilities that are made available are made available on an across the board basis. If the need did exist for duplicating machines in the offices of honourable senators and members, I think the case for their installation would be strengthened if representations were made on an across the board basis instead of on an individual basis. I think the honourable senator should raise this matter with his leader and try to convince him or his Party that such representations should be made.

page 152

QUESTION

NUCLEAR FALLOUT

Senator KEEFFE:

– Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware that there has been a serious increase in nuclear fallout on the milk and vegetable producing areas of north Queensland as a result of the current series of French nuclear tests in the Pacific Ocean? Will he inform the Parliament what action has been taken by his Government to have the tests suspended? Will he also issue a detailed statement setting out the quantities of the various elements which have been scientifically measured in the fallout this year?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

Two evaluation committees have been set up in relation to this matter. One comes within the responsibility of the Prime Minister’s Department and the other, as I recall it, comes within the responsibility of the Department of Supply. From time to time these committees make reports to the Government on their considerations and, from time to time, these reports are tabled in the Parliament. I will have to seek further information on the particularity of the honourable senator’s question. However, I do know that the Australian Government has in the past protested to the French Government about the tests that have been conducted in the Pacific Ocean area. These protests have been made through formal channels by the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister’s Department. I have already pointed out that two committees have a charter to examine the fallout and associated matters. I think I should direct the honourable senator’s question to both the Department of Supply and the Prime Minister’s Department in an endeavour to get a reply for him.

page 152

QUESTION

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE

Senator GEORGES:

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral: When will the report of the Administrative Review Committee be tabled in this House? No doubt he is aware that it has been considering the problem of administrative review since January 1970.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I understand, along with the honourable senator, that the Administrative Review Committee has been doing a tremendous amount of work. I anticipate receiving its report in the very near future. When I receive the report I shall inform the Senate accordingly as soon as possible.

page 153

QUESTION

ROYALTY PAYMENTS

(Question No. 965)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

What is the total amount paid to date by way of royalties due to the Commonwealth on the production, at well-head value, of (a) oil and (b) gas, in the offshore areas of Victoria.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. and (b) Total receipts by the Commonwealth and separate details of royalties on oil and gas production for each financial year are as follows:

page 153

QUESTION

PESTICIDES

(Question No.1 004)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minis ter for Health, upon notice:

  1. Does the Department of Health have a classified list of pesticides with such gradings as general use’, ‘restricted use’ and ‘use by permit only’.
  2. What form of liaison exists with State authorities involved in such controls and have any instances occurred where the Agricultural Council and the Department of Primary Industry have sought to weaken regulations aimed at curbing excessive use of pesticides.

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

  1. No. However the National Health and Medical Research Council issues recommendations on pesticides with the object of attaining uniformity of classification among States.
  2. The Australian Agricultural Council has established Technical Committees on agricultural chemicals. These committees consist of representatives of the State governments, the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry. The Committees examine matters relevant to the use of agricultural chemicals and make recommendations to the State authorities, which have undertaken not to register products unless cleared by the Technical Commitees.

No instances are known of either the Agricultural Council or the Department of Primary Industry seeking to weaken regulations aimed at curbing excessive use of pesticides.

page 153

QUESTION

SMOKING

(Question No. 1099)

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Has the Minister seen the recent statement on the health hazards of smoking by Professor Nossal, the Director of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institution of Medical Research, which is also signed by four of his senior research colleagues; if so, will the Minister reconsider his decision not to ban cigarette advertising and lake action to have the labels of cigarette packets carry appropriate health hazard warnings or, will the Minister name those persons who supply him with contrary advice.

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

I have seen the statement on the health hazards of smoking made recently by some membersof the staff of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research. The Government regards smoking as a major health problem and aims to educate the public in these dangers rather than to completely ban cigarette advertising. In view of the susceptibility of young people to television advertising, the Government recently initiated discussions to revise and extend the code governing the television advertising of cigarettes. These discussions have been completed and the revised and extended code will take effect from October 1st, 1971. The Government will introduce warning labels on cigarette packets sold in the Territories under its control when the State Governments agree to bring in similar measures in the various States of the Commonwealth.

page 153

QUESTION

DRUGS

(Question No. 1131)

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Are pensioners, in some cases given prescriptions from medical practitioners for drugs in the belief that they arc on the free list of pharmaceutical benefits, only to find on presentation to a pharmacist that the drugs have been removed from the list; if so, will the Minister make inquiries and, if necessary, take action to ensure that both pharmacists and medical practitioners are supplied with identical and current lists of free drugs.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

Both pharmacists and medical practitioners are supplied with identical and current lists of pharmaceutical benefits. Despitethis, it is possible that a prescription could inadvertenlly be written by a doctor for a drug no longer on the list of benefits.

Current information is conveyed to the medical profession in two ways -

by means of an entry in the ‘Explanatory Circular’ which forms part of the ‘Schedule of Benefits for Medical Practitioners’ issued three times a year.

additions and deletions of drugs from the benefit list are notified to the ‘Medical Journal of Australia’ and the ‘Annals of General Practice’ for publication.

The information supplied to medical practitioners concerning additions and deletions of drugs to the list of benefits is supplied concurrently to chemists in the publication, ‘Schedule of Benefits for Approved Chemists’ which is also issued three times a year.

page 154

QUESTION

NURSING HOMES

(Question No. 1162)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Will the Minister, as a matter ot urgency, review the tragic and critical financial plight of the elderly and sick persons throughout Australia who occupy beds in private nursing homes at fees in many cases $50 to $100 above the benefits paid by the Government, and will he also review the Situation of their relatives who, in many instances, have to deprive themselves and their families of basic necessities in order to maintain aged parents in relative decency.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

A thorough review of the Nursing Home Benefits Scheme is already being undertaken by the Government.

This review encompasses the financial position; of all patients in all nursing homes approved under the National Health Act and, of course, has implications ‘ for the relatives of many such patients.

The review is being advanced as speedily as possible, having regard to the many complex issues involved.

page 154

QUESTION

PENSIONER MEDICAL SCHEME

(Question No. 1163)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister for Health upon notice:

  1. Does the Pensioner Medical Scheme permit of any form of specialist medical service for aged and invalid pensioners; if not, does this cause unnecessary hardship and expense to persons least able to withstand stress.
  2. Does the Minister agree that the recent decision to upgrade remuneration of doctors partiicpating In the Pensioner Medical Scheme by almost 40 per cent, in no way improves the range or quality of care available.
  3. Will the Minister take urgent steps to make available to the old and sick of this country the same specialist medical services currently available to repatriation pensioners.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

  1. No. The Pensioner Medical Service was introduced to provide eligible pensioners, and their dependants, with free medical treatment of a general practitioner nature. The scope of the Service does not extend to the provision of free specialist treatment. However, specialist medical services are generally available to eligible pensioners, and their dependants, free of charge at the outpatient departments of public hospitals.
  2. The fees payable under the Pensioner Medical Service are reviewed at two year intervals. The increase effective from 1 July 1971 represented a recognition of the high and increasing costs incurred by medical practitioners in providing these important services. The fees payable have always been and remain on a concessional basis. The range or quality of care available under the Pensioner Medical Service is not related to the increase in fees.
  3. The Repatriation Medical Service is designed to provide a comprehensive and free medical service for Repatriation beneficiaries. The Pensioner Medical Service was introduced to provide pensioners with a basic medical service of a general practitioner nature and it was not intended that the Service should provide a full range of medical treatment. However, several matters relating to the Pensioner Medical Service are currently under examination to determine what changes, if any, to the present scheme should be introduced.

page 154

QUESTION

DRUGS

(Question No. 1169)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Did an article in The Medical Journal of Australia on 17th April 1969 point out the alarming increase in attempted suicides and indicate that the common mode of such acts was the taking of an overdose of prescribed drugs, legitimately obtained and often as a pharmaceutical benefit.
  2. Are the drugs prescribed for mental illhealth extremely expensive and would the Minister agree that, in many instances, patients should be given ‘hope’ instead of ‘dope’, but that the health services available for the community support of the emotionally disturbed are so limited as to force dependence on medicines.
  3. Will the Minister review the whole structure of the National Health Scheme, which is inadequate, outmoded and highly selective, and concerned only with consumer cost rather than quality and universal availability.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

  1. Yes
  2. There is a wide range of drugs available for the treatment of mental disorders, some of which are expensive. A number of these drugs are available as pharmaceutical benefits. With regard to the provision of mental health services, this is basically a matter falling withinthe responsibility of State Governments. However, the Commonwealth does not provide substantial financial assistance to State Governments for the purpose of building and equipping mental health institutions. This assistance is provided under the provisions of the States Grants (Mental Health Institutions) Act 1964-1970.
  3. As the honourable Senator may be aware, the National Health Scheme has recently been the subject of two Committees of Inquiry, and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is currently under investigation by a select Committee of the House of Representatives. I understand that this committee will be considering many of the matters raised in this question.

page 155

QUESTION

HOSPITALS

(Question- No. 1177)

Senator MILLINER:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister any knowledge of the installation in the Liverpool District Hospital in New South Wales of sophisticated electronic and telecommunications equipment which allows instant communications between patients and nursing staff.
  2. Will the Minister investigate the possibility of having this equipment installed in all public hospitals throughout Australia, if it is successful.

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

  1. Yes. I understand that the telecommunications equipment used in the Liverpool District Hospital is centred on a ‘PR0411’ private automaticloudspeaking exchange which is capable of serving one hundred outlets. A pilot scheme has been introduced into the Coronary and Intensive Care Units of the Hospital. A patient presses a single button (without the necessity to dial a number), situated on a loudspeaker intercommunication instrument which is built into a cabinet alongside his bed. This affords instant speech contact with the medical or nursing staff on duty in an adjacent area. The ‘PR0411’ intercommunication system also provides for direct dialling from the Supervisor’s panel to other key areas in the hospital such as X-ray and Pathology Departments, Casualty Ward and Administration Block.
  2. The furnishing of equipment in public hospitals is the responsibility of State Governments. The hospitals in the Commonwealth Territories under my control already have satisfactory systems of internal communication, but if the FR0411 system which has been installed in the Liverpool District Hospital on a trial basis proves to have marked advantages I would certainly arrange for the situation to be reviewed.

page 155

QUESTION

JET AIR AUSTRALIA LTD

(Question No. 1186)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister for

Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. Was the Department of Civil Aviation advised by Jetair Australia Ltd, at the time of the company’s purchase of two former RAAF Viscount aircraft, of its intention to bid for the aircraft; if so, did the Department advise the company that the aircraft could not be operated in Australia; if not, did the Department advise the company immediately after the purchase that it could not operate the aircraft in Australia.
  2. Did a Mr Gruzman fly as first officer on Jet air Australia Ltd, regular public transport flights, if so, what were his qualifications at the time.
  3. Did Mr Gruzman at any time seek the personal permission of the Director-General of Civil Aviation to fly as a first officer.
  4. Did any senior officials of the Department purchase shares in Mr Alexander Barton’s enterprises during 1970 or 1971.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. The Department was not advised by Jetair Australia Ltd of its intention to bid for the two former RAAF Viscount aircraft. When it became apparent that the Viscounts were still in Australia, the Director-General of Civil Aviation pointed out to Jetair that this was contrary to the Commonwealth’s intention that the aircraft be exported. When this became known to Mr Barton, he agreed to export them and sell them overseas. This was subsequently done. On 18 June 1971, Brins Australia Ltd, the parent company of Jetair, announced a loss of $265,965 on the sale of these aircraft.
  2. Mr Gruzman holds a commercial pilot licence endorsed for DC3 aircraft, and an appropriate instrument rating. Apart from night operations he was qualified to act as a co-pilot in the services conducted by Jetair. Mr Gruzman, in common with a number of other licensed pilots, was unable to meet the appropriate colour perception standards, as a result, his licence contains a restriction prohibiting him acting as a member of an operating crew in other than daylight operations and on international operations.
  3. No.
  4. No senior officer of the Department held shares in Jetair Australia Ltd, or its parent company, Brins Australia Ltd. Mr Barton was a Director of a number of other publicly listed companies engaged in non-aviation activities such as mineral and oil search. There would be no barrier to officers of the Department purchasing shares in such companies if they so desired.

page 155

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 1187)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

Did MacRobertson Miller Airline Services sell aircraft VH-MMT and VH-ANZ during 1970-71 for $8,000; if so, what was the condition of the aircraft and to whom were they sold.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

In 1969-70 MMA sold DC 3 aircraft VHMMT for $6,000 to Australian Aircraft Sales Pty Ltd.

In 1970-71 DC 3 VH-ANZ was sold for $3,000 to Consolidated Aviation Holdings Pty Ltd.

The condition of these aircraft was good, although VH-MMT had only 4,441 hours to go before a major airframe overhaul was due and both engines were virtually time expired, which also means major engine overhauls were about due. MMA judged it uneconomic to undertake these overhauls before selling the aircraft. No further overhaul work was done on the aircraft and it was subsequently sold overseas.

VH-ANZ which is powered by Wright Cyclone engines and, as such, is a ‘one off’ aircraft (other DC 3s being powered by Pratt and Whitney engines) had 5,108 hours remaining before a major airframe overhaul was due. One engine had 1,429 hours remaining before overhaul and the other engine had 218 hours remaining before its next overhaul. Again no further overhaul work was done on the aircraft before it was subsequently sold overseas.

Times between engine overhauls vary, depending on locality and type of operation, but 10,000 hours for the airframe and 1,500 hours for an engine are representative figures. Aircraft used in tropical areas have lower figures for both airframes and engines.

The price of any aircraft varies in proportion to the hours left in the airframe and engines before major overhauls are due.

On present day labour costs, the cost of a DC 3 airframe overhaul is in the vicinity of $35,000 while each engine overhaul would cost in the vicinity of $10,000.

page 156

QUESTION

DENTISTRY

(Question No. 1188)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

What action is the Department of Health taking to improve the situation of, (a) a falling dentisttopopulation ratio throughout Australia, and (b) a much less favourable provision of dental services in country regions than in metropolitan areas, in view of the results of the Department of Labour and National Service study of dental services in Australia.

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

The implementation of any measures considered necessary to remedy the effects of a falling dentisttopopulation ratio in the States of Australia and in country regions of those States, is a matter for determination by the respective State Governments. The Commonwealth’s responsibilities in this field are confined to the mainland Territories of Australia. When releasing details of the study undertaken by his Department, the Hon. Phillip Lynch, M.P., Minister for Labour and National

Service, indicated possible means of alleviating problems insofar as the availability of dental manpower is concerned. These include developments in the training of auxiliary personnel, for example dental therapists; wider adoption of the practice of fluoridation of water; and active encouragement of women to enter the dental profession. Measures such as those mentioned already introduced by the Commonwealth Government include fluoridation of the Canberra water supply and the training and employment of dental therapists in the Australian Capital Territory.

page 156

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WHEAT BOARD

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– On Tuesday Senator Hannan asked me the following question: 1 direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is the Australian Wheat Board a Commonwealth statutory corporation? Does it have its own corporate seal? How is it financed? Can it sue and be sued in its own name? Is it a fact that the Australian Wheat Board does not make an annual report to the Parliament? If not, is there any particular reason for this exemption? If this exemption is in fact allowed, is such exemption allowed to any other Commonwealth instrumentalities? If so, which instrumentalities are they?”

I now provide the following answer:

The Australian Wheat Board is a statutory corporation. In the words of the Wheal Industry Stabilization Act 1968-1970 the Board is . . a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal . . . and is capable of suing and being sued in its corporate name.’

The Board derives some of its powers from State legislation.

The whole of the costs incurred in the operations of the Board are met from the proceeds of the sale of wheat delivered to and sold by the Board. Thus the cost of marketing wheat becomes a deduction from returns to growers.

In the first instance the Wheat Board borrows money from the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank to pay a first advance to growers and to meet pool expenses. The overdraft is repaid from sales proceeds and ultimately the Board’s operations are financed by the growers who deliver wheat to it.

The Board’s enabling legislation does not require it to make an annual report to Parliament.

There are more than 50 Commonwealth statutory corporations which are responsible to a range of Ministers. So far as statutory marketing boards operating under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Primary Industry are concerned, those other than the Wheat Board are required by the terms of their respective legislation to report to Parliament. The Wheat Board however is unique in being the sole marketing authority operating under complementary Commonwealth and State legislation.

Under this legislation the Board operates a pooling and equalisation arrangement. Its accounts are necessarily on a pool rather than an annual basis. The duration of pools varies. The last of the wheat of the 1968-69 Pool for example, was not shipped until the latter part of July 1971 and it will not be possible to finalise the accounts for that Pool until about the end of the year.

It would not be meaningful for Wheat Board accounts to be drawn up on an annual basis with a balance sheet in which the overwhelming item would be a large quantity of unsold wheat, probably of two or more seasons.

The basis on which the Board operates and accounts for its operations is considered to be in the good interests of the industry. Pool accounts are published within a reasonable time after the completion of each Pool.

page 157

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– Yesterday Senator Keeffe asked me a question about the use of the Royal Australian Air Force crash boat at Townsville on 8th August. From inquiries made, I can confirm that the RAAF crash boat at Townsville was used on 8th August 1971 and that the boat left Townsville at approximately 7.30 a.m. and returned at approximately 6.30 p.m. The launch was used to convey the Minister for the Army and bis wife on a trip from Townsville. Other passengers on the boat were Brigadier Thompson, Commander of the Third Army Task Force, and Mrs Thompson, Group Captain and Mrs Cannon, 3 Army captains and the RAAF crew. I can assure the honourable senator that economies are being practised by my Department. The cost of keeping the launch at sea on this occasion was approximately $294.

I remind the honourable senator that from time to time requests are made to me for the use of the boat. No doubt he will recall an occasion on 31st May 1971 when a request was made to me by Mr Bryant of the Opposition’s Aborigines Committee. He requested the use of the crash boat to visit Palm Island. I was informed that the local agent was Senator Keeffe. Obviously Senator Keeffe made the arrangement. Quite obviously Senator Keeffe accompanied the Committee on that trip. There is nothing wrong with this. I make the boat available on such requests.

page 157

AUTRALIAN DELEGATION TO THE TWENTY-FIFTH SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– (Tasmania - Minister for Works) - For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Australian delegation to the twenty-fifth session of the United Nations General Assembly.

page 157

NEW GUINEA

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report to the General Assembly of the United Nations on the administration of the Territory of New Guinea for the year ended 30th June 1970.

page 157

PAPUA

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of the Territory of Papua for the period 1st July 1969 to 30th June 1970.

page 157

AUSTRALIAN EGG BOARD

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

– Pursuant to section 23 of the Egg Export Control Act 1947-1966 I present the twenty-third annual report of the Australian Egg Board on the operation of the Act for the year ended 30th June 1970 together with financial statements and the report of the AuditorGeneral on those statements. An interim report of the Board was presented to the Senate on 22nd September 1970.

page 157

WHEAT

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

– Pursuant to section 18 of the Wheat Research Act 1957 I present the thirteenth annual report on activities under the Act for the year ended 31st December 1970.

page 157

AUSTRALIAN MEAT RESEARCH COMMITTEE

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

– For the information of honourable senators 1 present the interim report of the Australian Meat Research Committee for the year ended 30th June 1971. When the final report is available it will be presented in accordance with statutory requirements.

page 158

AUSTRALIAN DAIRY PRODUCE BOARD

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the preliminary report of the Australian Dairy Produce Board for the year ended 30th June 1971. When the final report is available I shall table it in accordance with statutory requirements.

page 158

DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · West ern Australia · CP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report on the activites and developments of the Department of Supply for the year ended 30th June 1971.

page 158

TRADE PRACTICES ACT

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– Pursuant to section 105 of the Trade Practices Act 1965-1971 I present the fourth annual report of the Commissioner of Trade Practices with respect to his operations during the year ended 30th June 1971.

page 158

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– On behalf of the Public Accounts Committee I present the one hundred and twenty-eighth report of the Public Accounts Committee, which relates to the Australian Tourist Commission. With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate in Hansard a short statement on it.

Your Committees inquiry into the Australian Tourist Commission has served to highlight the importance of tourism as an international industry and as an activity of very great importance to Australia through its contribution to the earning of overseas exchange, the generation of additional income within Australia and as an instrument of goodwill and understanding. The evidence shows that the Commonwealth has long recognised the importance of international tourism and in 1929 became actively involved in this area when it arranged for the inauguration of the Australian National Travel Association. In this connection your Committee would pay tribute to the work of that Association over the years and its foresighted recognition in 1964 of the need for a new style of tourist organisation to meet Australia’s growing international tourist needs and which culminated in the establishment of the Australian Tourist Commission in 1967.

Arising from its inquiry your Committee would congratulate the Commission for its approach to the task of developing a professional marketing organisation in its structure, the integration of that structure with proper and adequate financial controls and the building of an organisation to develop Australian tourist facilities for projection to overseas markets. We would also congratulate the Commission on its approach to project budgeting, a system introduced from July 1970 following a careful examination that it made of the activities of the Canadian Government tourist organisation in relation to programme budgeting and the concepts adopted by that organisation.

In examining the affairs of the Australian Tourist Commission your Committee has borne in mind that the Commission had been in operation for only 3 years when its inquiry began. For this reason many of the problems that have confronted the Commission in the past have been mainly developmental in nature. On the basis of the evidence, however, we believe that some of these problems should have been resolved at an earlier stage in the Commission’s development. In this regard we note that it was not until 1969 that the Commission appointed management consultants to examine the problems involved in a number of defects in its accounting system to which the Auditor-General’s Office had drawn the Commission’s attention in 1968. We also feel that the Commission should have evolved rules relating to the conditions of employment of its staff prior to January 1970.

When our inquiry commenced the Commission had not tested fully the scope of the powers conferred upon it. We believe that the Commission should explore the extent of its existing powers and, if need be, discuss with the Minister at the earliest opportunity any variations that it considers should be made to those powers to increase its effectiveness, particularly if it is to become actively involved in the development of tourist facilities in Australia. Your Committee also believes that the Commission’s arrangements relating to its inventory of assets at its overseas offices require urgent examination and that inventory checks at all of those offices should be designed by the Commission’s internal audit organisation. Allied to this your Committee believes that a high priority should be accorded the introduction of an effective internal audit organisation within the Commission’s administration.

The evidence indicated that while market research carried out by the Commission has been costed in detail, it does not appear that the Commission has examined this facet of its work in terms of increases in its cost. As the Commission is evidently anxious to develop market research expertise in Australia we believe that the costs associated wilh such a development should be kept under close surveillance.

During our inquiry we examined witnesses on the matter of a formula for Commonwealth contributions that had been recommended to the Commission by management consultants. On this matter we would observe that while in years of increasing tourist activity a formula of the type recommended might result in larger Commonwealth contributions than would otherwise be made available, the application of such a formula in years of restricted or declining tourist activity might well result in reduced Commonwealth contributions. As a consequence this situation might inhibit the Commission in the exercise of its responsibilities in circumstances where a more intensive effort is, in fact, required.

Finally your Committee would observe that each year from 1966-67 to 1968-69 the Commission’s annual reports disclosed details of its executive staff located in Australia and overseas. It was not until 1970, however, as a direct result of our inquiry, that the Commission provided any information in its annual reports relating to its total staff employed. Your Committee notes with satisfaction the assurance given in evidence that staff details similar to those provided by the National Capital Development Commission in its annual reports can be provided in the annual reports of the Commission for years subsequent to 1969-70. I commend the report to honourable senators.

Ordered that the Report be printed.

page 159

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

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

That leave of absence from the Senate for 2 months be granted to Senator McManus on the ground of absence overseas to attend the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference.

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

That leave of absence from the Senate for 3 months be granted to Senator O’Byrne on the ground of absence overseas to the United Nations on the affairs of Parliament.

That leave of absence from the Senate for 2 months be granted to Senator Douglas McClelland on account of his absence overseas on the affairs of Parliament.

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

That leave of absence from the Senate for 2 months be granted to Senator Buttfield on the ground of absence overseas to attend the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference.

page 159

FUTURE OF AUSTRALIAN FORCES IN VIETNAM, AND NATIONAL SERVICE

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - I present this statement on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). When I use the word T it will be in the sense that it is the Prime Minister speaking. This was the statement that he gave last night.

I announce tonight that the combat role which Australia took up over 6 years ago in Vietnam is soon to be completed. In 1965, when Australia first sent troops to that country, the continued survival of the Republic was in dire jeopardy. The scale and weight of enemy attacks were increasing, and North. Vietnam’s intervention was becoming ever more brazen. It seemed only a matter of time before Hanoi and the Vietcong, which supported Hanoi’s cause, would take over the country by main force in defiance of the 1954 Geneva Agreements.

Beyond the immediate threats within and against Vietnam there was a militant China - a China which was giving direct moral and material aid to North Vietnam and which had in the recent past occupied Tibet and fought with India, a China whose ambitions and policies in the area were causing great concern. Nor was that all. The independence of Laos and Cambodia were in precarious balance. Insurgent activity in border areas of Thailand had already begun. Sukarnoist Indonesia was committing violence against its near neighbours, with the then powerful Indonesian Communist Party exercising major influence over Indonesian policies.

This, then, was the situation in 1965. This was the background against which the Australian Government decided to commit Australian forces to the aid of South Vietnam. That decision was made in the national interest pursuant to our obligations under the Manila Treaty and at the invitation of the Republic of Vietnam. Its purpose was to help, jointly with the United States and others, to sustain and develop the confidence of the government and the people of the Republic; to help defend it; to develop its capacities to deal with both overt aggression and externally promoted insurgency; and to enable it to make its own decisions about its future in a context of greater security. That purpose has now been substantially achieved.

Today the picture is different - in East Asia, in South East Asia, and not least in Indo-China itself. The aggression by North Vietnam has been slowed and its plans for over-running the South frustrated. Security throughout the country has improved remarkably. Successive pacification programmes have extended the physical control of the Vietnamese Government over the countryside. Political, economic and social advances have been made notwithstanding that the war has absorbed sp much of the people’s time and energies. Above all, the armed forces of the Republic, with considerable help from the allies, have grown in size and developed their skills, cohesion and effectiveness. This has enabled them progressively to take over responsibilities from allied forces and at the same time to conduct operations against North Vietnamese forces in Cambodia and to disrupt their supply lines in southern Laos.

To this changed and improved situation Australia has made a significant contribution. Australian forces of all arms have played an honourable and effective part in their areas of operation. They have been worthy of this country. They have been honoured by our Allies. The main Australian effort has been in the general area surrounding Saigon and in particular in Phuoc Tuy Province. There, the security situation has markedly improved. The enemy has largely lost the initiative. The Vietnamese territorial forces have been steadily developing their capacity. And in the last year have gradually expanded their own areas of operations. The enemy is still there of course, and some setbacks may yet occur. But it is our view, shared by the Government of the Republic, that the existing relative strengths are such that the territorial forces should be able to handle the likely contingencies.

In these changing and improving circumstances, the Australian Government has been giving close consideration to the future of the Australian forces in Vietnam. It has for some time been our policy to withdraw our forces progressively as and when in our judgment, and after consultation with the Republic of Vietnam and the United States, the situation has allowed it. In coming to this judgment we have on each occasion considered several factors, including whether the forces and administration of the Republic have been ready and able to assume increased responsibility for local security.

We now judge that the circumstances are such that further effect can be given to our withdrawal policy. I have recently been in correspondence on this subject with the President of the Republic of Vietnam, and also with President Nixon and Sir Keith Holyoake. I am now able to announce that the Government has decided to withdraw all remaining Australian combat forces from Vietnam. The forces will begin withdrawing in the next few months, giving the Vietnamese time to adjust their force dispositions. HMAS ‘Brisbane’, due out of service in Vietnamese waters early in September, will not be replaced. Most of the combat elements will be home in Australia by Christmas 1971. Shipment to Australia of stores and equipment will be completed in the early months of 1972.

The Government has already pledged that, as the withdrawal of our forces proceeds, we will provide other appropriate forms of military assistance as well as economic aid. We have accordingly approved an aid package for the Republic of Vietnam totalling $25m, to be spent over the next 3 years. The package will include civil projects of an economic development character as well as defence aid in the form of military training and equipment. Seven million dollars have been set aside for this assistance in the current financial year. This figure will be progressively increased during the 2 succeeding years.

We are also discussing with the Vietnamese Government plans to retain in the Republic some military training and advisory elements, for example instructors at the jungle warfare training centre in Nui Dat, if they are wanted and if satisfactory arrangements can be made. We hope that these elements will continue to work in close association with the United States effort in this field.

Finally, I express the Government’s conviction that the decision I have announced tonight is a mark of the success which has attended our policies and actions in Vietnam over the years. This does not mean that security in the area is yet fully achieved. The Government of South Vietnam will continue to face serious problems, aggravated by the continuing and flagrant North Vietnamese aggression in Cambodia and interference in Laos. South Vietnam is confident that it can overcome these problems if it continues to receive appropriate assistance. The Australian Government shares that confidence. It is the Government’s earnest hope that the war can be brought to an early end by serious negotiations, that peace and stability will soon prevail throughout the area, and that the countries of Indo-China - not excluding North Vietnam - will be able to devote their energies with the help of others to worthwhile productive efforts.

I now turn to national service. The present form of national service was introduced towards the end of 1964. Against the background of the situation at that time, which I have described, the Government decided that the strength of the Army needed to be increased from its then low level of some 23,000. It was apparent, notwithstanding pay rises some month* earlier, that this could nol be achieved in time by voluntary means alone. Accordingly, in November 1964, the then Prime Minister announced the introduction of the present national service scheme. Further developments in the situation led to the commitment in 1965 of major Australian Army units to Vietnam. In 1966 national servicemen were sent there. We now have a different situation.

There is improved political stability in South East Asia. We have decided to withdraw our forces from Vietnam. These factors have implications for the composition of our defence forces. The major portion of our defence manpower is obtained by volunteer recruitment. The Navy and the Air Force are both entirely volunteer forces. On the other hand for the full time Army, where the numbers are larger, more than one-third of the strength has had to be obtained in recent times by other than voluntary means to ensure an Army of the size we need. The extent of our defence manpower is measured not simply by the size of our Regular forces, but by the totality of the Regular, Citizen and Reserve forces. Fully trained former national servicemen in the Reserve are of particular significance. Reviewing the situation the Government has concluded that there can be some reduction in the number of men serving full time in the Army. The Government accordingly proposes to reduce the full time strength of the Army by some 4,000 in the immediate future. It has decided to do this by reducing the period of full time national service from 2 years to 18 months.

The present total liability of 5 years’ service for national servicemen will remain unchanged. But henceforth more of this service will be rendered in the Reserve - 3i years instead of 3 years as at present. National servicemen will be required to serve only 18 months full time. There will be complementary reductions in the period of part time service in the Citizen Forces which is at present available as an alternative to full time national service. These men will now normally serve a period of 5 years in the Citizen Forces. The number of men to be called up each year under the national service scheme, about 8,000, will be unchanged. At present, with 2 years’ full time service, this means a total of some 16,000 full time national servicemen in the Army at any one time. With only 18 months’ full time service, the number of full time national servicemen serving in the Army at any one time will fall to about 12.000. Correspondingly the total strength of the full time Army will fall by 4,000- from about 44,000 to 40,000. This reduction in strength will not affect the present organisation of the Army into 9 battalions. Some will be on a reduced basis.

The Government has given careful consideration to the effect of these changes on personnel already serving. We wish to ensure that the transition will be orderly and that as far as possible inequities are avoided. It has been decided that serving national servicemen who have completed 18 months’ service will be discharged broadly in accordance with their length of service. This will be done over a period of some 3 months commencing late in October or early in November. Legislation giving effect to the Government’s decisions will be introduced as quickly as possible. I am sure the Parliament will wish to give priority to it. In deciding on this reduction in national service, careful account has been taken of the strategic situation confronting us. While as I have said there have been improvements in many aspects of the situation in South East Asia, there are many continuing elements of insecurity and some new ones. At the same time, we see changes in the defence posture of our close allies, particularly the United States. These do not affect the fundamental character of our alliances. We must maintain a defence capability that is evident both to friendly countries and to potential enemies and which we could develop in adequate time should more immediate threats arise. National servicemen will still constitute a substantial proportion of our Army - some 12,000 in a total full time Army strength of about 40,000.

The Government will review force levels as necessary as part of the 5-year defence rolling programme. It is important against the strategic outlook for the 1970s and the 1980s to have the right balance of equipment and men in the defence forces as a whole. Close attention to be given to all practicable means of increasing voluntary recruitment. Before the introduction of national service in 1964 there were improvements in pay but their effect on recruitment was only marginal. Since then there have been substantial improvements not only in pay but in other conditions of service, for example, the provision of many more married quarters and much improved barrack accommodation. The Government’s establishment of the Kerr Committee, and the decisions it has already taken on the findings of that Committee, are further important steps. The Government will continue to ensure that conditions of service in our Armed Forces are as attractive as they can reasonably be with the aim of ensuring that the proportion of volunteers will be as large as practicable. I move:

Debate (on motion by Senator Wheeldon) adjourned.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– I suggest that the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. Today, after we have disposed of ministerial statements, we must dispose of a motion for disallowance of a regulation. When that has been disposed of we would come back to debating this statement as a priority - that is up until a quarter to six because after 8 o’clock general business is to be dealt with. In any event I would be prepared to negotiate on that matter at a later hour if necessary. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 162

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Ministerial Statement

Senator WRIGHT:
Min ister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– by leave - The statement I am about to make was made yesterday in another place by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Fairbairn). As the statement is couched in the first person honourable senators will understand that it relates to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

page 162

QUESTION

THE INTERNATIONAL SETTING

The Government considers that Parlia ment should have an opportunity to consider Australia’s foreign policy. I am, therefore, taking this early opportunity to make a statement. Important shifts are occurring in the policies and alignments of the major powers. These will have great significance for the area which is of most immediate political and strategic concern to us - East and South East Asia. We can discern the shape and the broad direction of some of these changes; we can identify trends. But it will be some time before we can assess fully their implications for the interests and policies of Australia.

One thing is clear. The fixed alignments of the Cold War are giving place to a more fluid and more complex pattern of working relationships among the major powers. No longer is the international situation a theatre for challenge and confrontation between 2 super-powers. Other powers are gaining increased influence upon the international scene. The space for manoeuvre among the larger powers is broadening. There are some signs of an encouraging trend towards negotiation and accommodation. There is now a real prospect that the numerically enormous People’s Republic of China will join the countries which operate within the United Nations.

The United States, which has since the last world war made such massive efforts to preserve stability in the international order, continues to maintain its treaty relationships and its guarantees against nuclear aggression, but is scaling down its external commitments and looking to other nations particularly in the Asian region to assume a greater degree of self-reliance. It is now seeking a new relationship with the People’s Republic of China. The Chinese, for their part, have given little evidence of moving from their basic objectives, but - perhaps partly because of difficulties in their relations with the Soviet Union - they are showing a new interest in broadening their external relationships and in joining the international community. The Soviet Union is negotiating with the United States on Berlin and for the limitation of strategic nuclear weapons; although it is at the same time seeking to extend its influence to new areas including South East Asia and the Indian Ocean, recently highlighted by its Treaty of Peace. Friendship and Cooperation with India.

Japan is becoming an economic and industrial super-power at a speed beyond common expectation, lt is gaining potential for great political influence, as well as an impressive capacity for aiding the developing nations of South East Asia. The European Economic Community though its growth in economic strength is proceeding faster than its growth in political cohesion, may also come to play a more influential role in international affairs. It too will have the capacity to take a larger part in assisting Asian nations by more liberal trade policies as well as increased aid programmes. In all this, there is some ground for hope that, in the course of time, the confrontations of yesterday will be replaced by a more stable equilibrium as the diverse and complex relationships among these powers develop.

For Australia and our neighbours, this changing pattern of relationships offers new challenges and new opportunities, lt calls for policies that are sensitive, flexible and imaginative. At this time Australia is seeking to broaden its relations with the Soviet Union and to normalise its relations with the People’s Republic of China. We are giving particular attention to the development of our relations with Japan. We continue, of course, to attach the first importance to our relations with the United States. We stand by our existing treaty relationships and alliances.

The stability and safety of our neighbours is of deep concern to us. We are studying the implications for them of this changing international scene. Although regional co-operation is not yet either as comprehensive or as far developed as it might be. most countries of our area belong to one or more regional organisations. The habit and usage of co-operation is slowly growing. It is already well established in the economic field. In the political field, we have seen such imaginative and far-sighted initiatives as the Indonesian call last year for a regional conference on the Cambodian crisis; and the Malaysian concept - difficult of attainment as it may seem at present - of a neutralised South East Asia linked by non-aggression agreements and guaranteed by the major powers. It is our hope that closer co-opera tion among our neighbours in the economic, social and political fields will not only contribute to their individual progress and welfare but also strengthen their collective voice and influence in international affairs which are of special concern to them.

No doubt we face continuing problems in the Asian and Pacific area. There is the task of establishing effective relations with the People’s Republic of China and of accommodating the People’s Republic within the United Nations while retaining a place for the Republic of China on Taiwan, in Vietnam the military situation has improved and South Vietnamese regular forces are continuing to assume increased responsibility for their self-defence. But the conflict is still unresolved and North Vietnam has its troops not only in South Vietnam but also in Cambodia and Laos.

Sitting suspended from J 2.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The statement continues:

Malaysia and Thailand, Burma, and Ceylon have still to contend with insurgency and subversion. India still faces the crippling burden of coping with some 7 million refugees from East Pakistan. Pakistan itself is torn by civil strife.

Our neighbours have made notable progress in promotion stability and economic development, but they continue to face formidable problems in raising the living standards of their peoples and finding markets for their products. In the South Pacific, the independent island nations are seeking new opportunities for political selfexpression. I now propose to say something about the most important of these questions and about Australia’s attidude to them.

page 163

CHINA

1 turn first to the question of China and its representation in the United Nations. A review of our China policy was first undertaken by the Department of Foreign Affairs in October 1970. Government consideration of the review began in February 1971. On 11th May the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) announced that the Government had as its long term objective to normalise our bilateral relations with the People’s Republic of China to which end it had been decided to explore the possibility of establishing a dialogue with the Government of the People’s Republic of China. The dialogue which has been opened has resulted in contact between our own diplomats and representatives of the People’s Republic of China in a number of capitals. I do not think it would be profitable to detail the form of this contact, the matters discussed or the outcome of the meetings. In delicate operations such as this, it is imperative that both sides act with discretion, confident that the other will act similarly. The dialogue which has begun will continue and, though it would be foolish to hope for a quick result, the Government is hopeful that the long run outcome will be satisfactory.

In a speech on 13th May the Prime Minister referred to the inevitability of mainland China becoming a member of the United Nations and holding the permanent seat in the Security Council that is now held by the Republic of China. He said then, as he and my predecessor have said on a number of occasions since, that we will do nothing to obstruct such entry. On 15th July President Nixon announced that he would visit the People’s Republic of China; and on 2nd August the American Secretary of State, Mr Rogers, made a statement on the question of Chinese representation in the United Nations.

The President’s announcement followed a few days of intensive talks between Dr Kissinger and Premier Chou En-lai. The Government has welcomed the President’s announcement, which was in accord with our previously declared policy of seeking to improve relations with the People’s Republic of China. We hope that the President’s visit to China will help to initiate a new era in peaceful international relations. At the same time, it would be premature to regard this development in Sino-American relations as anything more than a beginning. The President himself has spoken of the need to avoid excessive expectations of the visit. In his Press conference on 4th August, Mr Nixon said that a movement was being made from an era of confrontation without communication to an era of negotiations with discussion’. Realistically, one must share this sober assessment of the prospects and wish the President well as he sets out on a long, difficult road.

The Government has also welcomed the statement of Secretary of State Rogers made on 2nd August which was in accord with our declared policy of seeking to seat the People’s Republic of China in the United Nations, while opposing action to deprive the Republic of China of representation. For our part, we in Australia wish to see international relations reflect national realities. We hope that measures can be taken in the United Nations that will reflect the realities of the China situation and enhance the standing and reputation of that Organisation. The People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China both claim to be the sole government of China. The reality is that the People’s Republic of China controls the mainland and the Republic of China controls Taiwan. We have taken the view, therefore, that, in present circumstances, the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China should both be represented in the United Nations.

It seems to the Australian Government both inevitable and desirable that the People’s Republic of China should be represented in the United Nations and should hold the China seat in the Security Council. At the same time, we consider that the Republic of China should remain a member of the United Nations. It has a population larger than that of most members. It was an original signatory of the Charter and has been a loyal member of the United Nations since its foundation. It will be a bad day for the small and middlesized members of the United Nations if the right of 14 million people to be represented there is arbitrarily removed. The. question of recognition and diplomatic relations should be seen in proper perspective. We need to base our policies on an objective view of the facts and a careful assessment of our interests at all stages.

It should not be supposed, for instance, that Australian recognition of Peking would lead immediately and automatically to substantial trading advantages. The Chinese have indicated that they prefer at present to buy wheat from Canada, which recognises them, rather than from Australia, which does not. Ideological considerations, however, are not always decisive; nor is their influence permanent. Japan and West Germany, which do not recognise or have diplomatic relations with the People’s

Republic of China, sell much more to China than does Britain or France. Our reasons for seeking to attain normal relations with the People’s Republic of China are based on more substantial considerations than those of temporary commercial advantage.

We recognise that the establishment of full and normal relations with the People’s Republic on mutually acceptable terms will be a difficult and perhaps protracted exercise. In the past 12 months several countries have been able to establish diplomatic relations with Peking, but there has been little improvement in Peking’s relations with Asian and Pacific countries in our region. For Australia, of course, the main present obstacle is the fact that we recognise and conduct diplomatic relations with the Republic of China on Taiwan and that the People’s Republic refuses to enter into diplomatic relations with governments which recognise and deal with Taiwan. We do not underestimate the difficulties which this issue places in the way of our objective of full and normal relations with Peking. We shall nevertheless continue to work cautiously but steadily towards thai objective.

One encouraging factor, of course, is the agreement by the Chinese leaders to receive President Nixon. This decision reinforces other evidence that China may at last be abandoning the isolation of 4,000 years and moving to take its rightful place in the international community. Except for the few years between 1911 and the late 1930s, when there was somewhat intermittent and uncertain contact, China has never before played its full part in the concert of nations. We recognise that China’s full participation in the international community is likely to be a long, slow and sometimes painful process. Within China the struggle between pragmatism and ideology is still continuing. We have, as I have said, found no evidence of change in China’s basic foreign policy objectives as distinct from the means by which China seeks to pursue them.

A particular obstacle to the improvement of relations between China and its neighbours in Asia and the Pacific lies in the limited knowledge and understanding of the region which the Chinese people appear to have. We are seeking actively to understand the position and the interests of the people of China. We believe there is a corresponding need for a greater effort in China towards understanding the positions, interests, fears and hopes of its neighbours. The Chinese often speak of attempted encirclement, hostile military pacts, or the alleged dangers of the development of a capacity for self defence in other countries. Yet China itself has the largest army in Asia, even excluding the People’s Militia; it is the only Asian nuclear power: and it is consistently promoting revolutionary theory and practice in other countries. The doubts that China voice: about other countries are in fact held by most of its neighbours in respect of China itself.

Admittedly, the People’s Republic of China is not the strongest or the most developed power in Asia; but it is certainly the largest and can thus materially affect the future of countries in the Asian-Pacific region. Our hope is that it will come to play a more constructive role in the region than it has done in the past and that its eventual admission to the United Nations will advance prospects for the peaceful settlement of the problems in the AsianPacific region.

page 165

THE PROBLEM OF A SETTLEMENT IN INDO-CH1NA

The most pressing of these problems continues to be the achievement of a negotiated settlement of the conflict in Vietnam, and in Indo-China as a whole. I regret to have to say that, while there have been some changes of emphasis in the positions of Peking and Hanoi, all the information so far available to us continues to indicate that the prospects for such a settlement remain unpromising.

As far as can be seen at present, the changes I have mentioned are essentially presentational. The People’s Republic of China, for example, from opposing negotiations of any kind and advocating a strategy of protracted war, has now come out in support of the Vietnamese Communists’ 7-point proposals, which were tabled at the Paris talks on 1st July. This is an encouraging step in the right direction, but unfortunately it is a very small one in practical terms. It has been suggested that the 7- point proposals themselves contain some changes from previous Communist negotiating positions. It is true that they refer to the possible release of American prisoners of war, though under certain conditions, some of which are by no means clearly defined. Unfortunately, however, the changes are essentially presentational and represent no change in the substance of Hanoi’s position on the future of Vietnam. The Vietnamese Communists continue to demand not only the unilateral withdrawal of all allied forces from South Vietnam, but the cessation of all allied support for the Republic of Vietnam and the replacement of its Government by a coalition whose composition would be decided by the Communists themselves. So far all efforts by the representatives of the Republic of Vietnam and the United States at the Paris talks to seek clarification of some of the ambiguities in the 7-point proposals have been rebuffed. The Communists likewise refuse to discuss the American and South Vietnamese proposals. The situation thus remains that Hanoi continues to be unwilling to enter into a genuine negotiating process, and Peking, while now prepared to envisage negotiations, does so only on Hanoi’s terms.

Indeed, only 3 days after it was announced in Washington and Peking that President Nixon would visit China. Premier Chou En-lai told a group of visiting American scholars:

. the thing which in our view is most called tor, whether in the United Stales or abroad, is the withdrawal by the United States of their troops from Vietnam, and the evacuation of troops of other countries which followed the United Slates in Indo-China. It can be said that this demand for evacuation is even stronger than the call for restoration of relations between the Chinese and American people.

All the information so far available indicates that suggestions that China wants an early international conference on IndoChina are premature. Indeed, these suggestions have been explicitly rejected by the Chinese themselves. For instance in an editorial regarded as an authoritative statement of the Chinese Government’s views, in the ‘People’s Daily’ on 3rd August, scorn was cast on efforts to spread the word that a new Geneva Conference would be convened and stress was again laid upon the requirements of unconditional and immediate withdrawal by the United States of its troops from the whole of Indo-China. It is possible that the People’s Republic might be prepared to participate in an eventual conference called to ratify any solutions previously agreed to by the Vietnamese Communists themselves. But Peking is supporting the conditions in Hanoi’s 7-point proposals, and there is no evidence that China would agree to participate in a new conference on Vietnam, or on Indo-China as a whole, except on those conditions.

The Government deeply regrets that the prospects for a negotiated settlement, thus remain so discouraging. There is really no present alternative to continuing, in appropriate ways, to assist the people of the Republic of Vietnam to develop their own capacity to defend themselves. At the same time, however, the Government will continue to follow with close attention any modifications to the currently unacceptable prior conditions for a settlement demanded by the Communist powers. It will also continue to do whatever it can to work for a just and peaceful settlement of the present conflict in Vietnam, and in Indo-China as a whole. In this respect we believe that the countries of Asia have a particular contribution to make. As the Prime Minister said recently:

We believe that in any future initiatives for a peaceful settlement of the Indo-China question, great emphasis should be placed on participation by Asian countries. Stability is most likely to flow from greater Asian participation in solutions to Asian problems.

The Government will spare no effort of will or imagination to ensure that Australia plays an appropriate and constructive role in this process.

page 166

AUSTRALIAN RELATIONS WITH JAPAN

I turn now to our relations with Japan. In recent years Japan has assumed an increasingly important role in regional affairs and her bilateral relations with Australia have grown across a wide spectrum of interests to the point where Japan clearly ranks as one of our major foreign policy preoccupations. In the early years after the signing of the first Trade Agreement with Japan in 1957, AustralianJapanese relations pivoted on the growing trade ties. As our relations with them have broadened it has become desirable to introduce some order and system in our relations across the board.

On the political side we have maintained the closest contact at Embassy and Foreign

Ministry level. There is a constant exchange of views on important questions of mutual interest and it has become customary for us to hold annual consultations between senior officials of the two Foreign Ministries, rotating between Canberra and Tokyo. The latest series, concluded on 27th July, illustrated again how useful this contact has become and how many areas of common interest there are between the 2 countries. With Japan’s growing economic might it is only reasonable to assume that she will pursue a more active political role in our region. There have already been examples of such increased regional political awareness and this Government is convinced of the need for Australia and Japan to develop and maintain the closest possible relations in all fields. Towards this end a number of highly significant initiatives have been taken by the Government in recent months. First there has been the establishment, at ministerial level, of an Australia/Japan Joint Economic Committee and second, a Standing InterDepartmental Committee on Japan has been constituted at a very senior, level. The Ministerial Committee is expected to meet annually, alternating between Canberra and Tokyo, to hold consultations on trade and related matters and also on other matters affecting the economic relationship between the 2 countries. A number of Australian Ministers will participate in the meetings. When the Committee meets in Australia the chairmanship will rest with the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I understand that the Japanese Foreign Minister will chair the meetings held in Tokyo. The decision to establish this Committee emphasises the importance which we attach to close ministerial consultations with Japan and to expansion of our economic and commercial relationships. The Committee will in addition provide a useful framework for exchanges of visits by individual Ministers and officials.

The Government has decided to constitute a Standing Inter-Departmental Committee on Japan, charged with the task of ensuring that all policy recommendations concerning Japan are fully co-ordinated. This is a new departure in Australian Governmental practice. No standing committee exists to examine the totality of Australia’s relations with any other foreign country. The new Standing Inter-Departmental

Committee will be chaired by the Department of Foreign Affairs and will comprise seven other departments most concerned with relations with Japan. Before 1 leave this subject, I wish to mention another aspect: the need to increase genuine understanding and knowledge between Australia and Japan and our other Asian neighbours. The Government has already done a good deal to help, particularly in its support for education in Australia. Asian studies, involving language, history and culture, are already established in our tertiary institutions and the Australian reputation for scholarship in this area was marked this year by the Congress of Orientalists held in Canberra last January. But we consider that increasing attention should be paid to Asian studies in secondary schools. The Report of the Advisory Committee on the Teaching of Asian Languages and Cultures in Australia has recently been tabled in Parliament. This report deals with the desirability of placing greater emphasis on Asian languages and studies in secondary school curricula, with a concentration on Japanese, Indonesian/Malay and Chinese; the need for co-ordination between universities and State education authorities on which Asian language to introduce; and the achievement of some measure of specialisation among universities. These are the kind of practical measures which in time would help to develop in this country a more informed and sympathetic understanding of the language and culture of Japan and of our other Asian friends.

page 167

THE SOUTH PACIFIC

Another area of concern to us is the South Pacific. This is a region in which Australia is by far the largest, the most developed and the wealthiest state. We have, therefore, an obligation to play a role in the affairs of the region commensurate with our capacity and the needs of the independent and emerging states of the area. Perhaps the most significant facts about the South Pacific are its diffusion and diversity. It contains about 4 million people scattered over some 12 million square miles, only 3 per cent of which is land. They have reached different stages of economic and political development. They have received varying amounts of aid from their former metropolitan powers and international agencies. Hitherto, Australia has tended to concentrate on preparing Papua New Guinea for internal selfgovernment and ultimately independence. When Papua New Guinea becomes independent, it will be numerically the largest nation in the region, and one which has received greater economic assistance from Australia than that provided for any other territory by a metropolitan power.

But, if we are to play our proper role in the region as a whole, we must be prepared to expand our horizons. To this end, and despite the financial stringency under which the Government is operating, we have decided, as part of our forwardlooking policy for the South Pacific, to provide for a substantial increase of about 40 per cent in our aid to the South Pacific area. This is an earnest of our desire to make a positive contribution to the manifest needs of the area. We shall in the coming months be examining in consultation with the island governments the most effective means of developing and further enhancing this relationship. Honourable senators will of course be aware of our participation in the South Pacific Conference and the work of the South Pacific Commission. However, the scope of the SPC is limited, as the island leaders have themselves come to recognise. They have made it clear that they want a forum in which they can discuss political problems arising out of their newly independent status. For this reason, the Australian Government has welcomed the recent initiative by the island leaders to establish a South Pacific Forum. The inaugural meeting of this Forum was held in Wellington from 5th to 7th August. lt was attended by the President of Nauru, the Prime Ministers of Western Samoa, Tonga and Fiji, and the Premier of the Cook Islands. The meeting was hosted by Sir Keith Holyoake and Australia was represented by my colleague, the Minister for External Territories. As indicated in the communique, the meeting concentrated on matters directly affecting the daily lives of the people of the islands, and devoted particular attention to such matters as trade, shipping, tourism and education. The Island leaders have expressed the hope that Australia and New Zealand will participate in a meeting, to be convened shortly, of senior officials of the 5 island Governments to survey the production potential and marketing prospects for island commodities and to study and report on the possibility of establishing an economic union for the area. The meeting will also examine existing barriers to interisland trade, and the feasibility of establishing a regional bulk ordering scheme, together with the treatment for island products entering Australia. It was hoped that there would be more frequent trade missions between the islands and Australia and New Zealand. The meeting agreed that Australia should be invited to host the next Forum. The Australian Government has already stated that it will be pleased to do so. The problems of the South Pacific are real and urgent. It would be presumptuous of us to imagine that Australia singlehanded can overcome them. But in consultation and close co-operation with New Zealand we have an opportunity to contribute to the needs of the South Pacific community, at a critical stage of their political and economic development. In this task we shall, of course, be governed by the wishes of the island peoples themselves.

page 168

EAST PAKISTAN

A problem of great magnitude in terms of human suffering has arisen from the massive movement of refugees from East Pakistan into the .neighbouring provinces of India. The situation in East Pakistan is an internal problem which can best be solved by the Pakistan Government itself. This is essentially, in the words of the United Nations, a matter of domestic jurisdiction’. The Australian Government deplores a situation in which refugees numbering more than half the population of Australia are moved by fear to flee from their homes to another country. There is nothing to be gained by discussing how these conditions came about. They exist. This should be enough to move the conscience of humanity.

The Australian Government has already contributed relief aid for the refugees to the value of $lm and the Indian Government has commended this assistance as timely and effective. In addition voluntary agencies have given generously. But the Government’s concern for the plight of the refugees has not ceased with these contributions. Through the Indian Government and the United Nations we have kept a close watch on the continuing emergency needs of the refugees. Consequently we have now decided to offer the Indian Government a contribution of rice worth $500,000 under the Food Aid Convention. This will bring the Government’s total offers of assistance, to date, to SI. 5m. India nevertheless faces the crushing burden of coping with the needs of some 7 million homeless people, and although a few have returned to East Pakistan there is still a substantial net inflow into India. As the Prime Minister has said, it is our hope that a solution for this continuing problem can be found on the basis of President Yahya Khan’s undertaking to return civil power to the elected representatives of the people, thereby helping to restore conditions of stability and confidence in which the refugees would be encouraged to return. We note that the President has lately taken certain steps in this direction.

The Australian Government has expressed through personal messages from the Prime Minister to the President of Pakistan our anxieties in this matter. We have noted with concern that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, whose party, the Awami League, captured a clear majority at the recent elections, has been brought to trial for treason. This action by the Government of Pakistan has caused wide international concern and the Prime Minister has expressed to President Yahya Khan his hope that magnanimity and compassion will be exercised. In addition to the problem of the refugees, we cannot ignore the prospect of widespread hunger, and possibly famine in East Pakistan before the year has ended. This threatens to be on such a scale that a massive relief effort will be needed. Such an effort is well beyond the capacity of Australia to mount, but at Pakistan’s request the United Nations is now considering action to restore normal distribution facilities in East Pakistan. We hope that the larger and wealthier nations of the world will give this their strong support. Honourable senators may rest assured that, at the appropriate time, Australia will play its part as it has done in the past.

Finally, the problems created by the refugee movement and the refugee presence in the border areas have aggravated tensions between India and Pakistan. Proposals by the Secretary-General of the United Nations for international action to relieve these tensions have not been taken up. Thus far, both sides have observed restraint and it is our hope that counsels of moderation will continue to prevail. The Australian Government has been and remains in close touch with the governments of India and Pakistan and with other interested governments. We shall continue to watch the situation closely and carefully.

page 169

CONCLUSION

The problems facing us are many and complex. This means there will be opportunities for constructive policy initiatives. As the Prime Minister said recently:

We recognise that we cannot order the world to our own specifications. Others bigger than we have much more capacity to do so. Our influence can best be exercised in concert with our friends great and small.

We shall continue to use that influence as we have done in the past, basing our actions always upon a careful and realistic appraisal of the interests of Australia and of the international community of today.

I move:

Debate (on motion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.

page 169

HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL FEES AND BENEFITS

Ministerial Statement

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate in Hansard, on behalf of the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson), the following statement relating to hospital and medical fees and benefits:

HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL FEES AND BENEFITS

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT BY SENATOR THE HON. SIR KENNETH ANDERSON MINISTER FOR HEALTH

(A Supplementary Statement to that made by Senator the Hon. Ivor J. Greenwood, 7 May 1971) 19 August 1971.

Mr President

In July 1970 the National Health Act was amended to give effect to a number of changes foreshadowed on 4 March of that year, when the then Minister for Health informed the Parliament of the Government’s decision to implement its new health benefits plan. This decision was influenced to a very large degree by the recommendations of the Commonwealth Committee of Enquiry that had been established under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Nimmo to inquire into all aspects of voluntary health insurance. The amendments to the Act incorporated the major recommendations of the Committee relating to medical benefits and the administration of the voluntary health insurance organisations.

Honourable Senators will recall that a detailed statement on medical fees and benefits was made in this Chamber by my predecessor, Senator Greenwood, on 7 May last.

The purpose of this statement is to inform honourable senators of recent measures that the Government has taken, particularly in the field of hospital insurance, in pursuance of its policy of ensuring that contributors to health funds receive comprehensive coverage for reasonable rates of contribution.

The Nimmo Committee recommendations relating to hospitals are in two complementary groups - those which required for their implementation action by State Governments, and those which, being directed at hospital benefits, could be implemented in the context of overall changes in the Government’s health benefits plan, lt was seen by, the Government as essential that there be consultation and co-operation between the States and the Commonwealth to achieve the purpose of the Nimmo recommendations, namely, a closer relationship between public hospital fees and hospital benefit rebates. This co-operation and consultation has taken place to a large degree and has resulted in significant improvements in the position of the contributor in relation to hospital charges.

Recommendations 5 and 6 of the Nimmo Report were directed at ensuring stability of fee charging in State public hospitals (including the introduction of a single comprehensive fee covering all hospital charges), combined with a level of hospital benefits which would enable contributors to undergo all forms of hospital treatment without suffering financial hardship from treatment costs, lt is to this end that the efforts of the Government have been directed in recent months.

The Government has also given effect to two other main recommendations of the Nimmo Committee relating to hospital insurance. These are that the hospital insurance scheme be rationalised by confining benefit tables to the level of hospital fees in force in each state - public, intermediate and private wards; and that benefits not be paid in excess of hospital accounts. The principles involved in these recommendations have now been implemented in each State, with the exception of Queensland.

page 170

POSITION IN THE STATES

South Australia

Western Australia

Tasmania

Queensland

New South Wales

Victoria

  1. In Victoria, as a result of the co-operation of the State Government and its Health Minister a significant step forward in hospital insurance cover has been made for insured intermediate and private ward patients.
  2. As from 1st August only three benefit tables to cover public, intermediate and private ward charges have been available for hospital insurance which enable contributors to obtain comprehensive coverage against hospital charges. With these three tables, patients in Victoria do not now have to meet the separate charges which have been made for extras such as theatre fees and prostheses: the cost of these services is included in a figure of $2 a day which public hospitals will add to their intermediate and private ward fees. The total of these fees wilt be covered by insurance.
  3. It should be noted that public hospitals’ finances will not be adversely, affected by this arrangement. The amount of $2 a day for intermediate and private patients approximates the amounts previously charged to such patients for extras.
  4. The highest hospital benefit table operating in Victoria prior to 1st August was $17.60 which assisted patients to meet the cost of intermediate and private ward fees in public hospitals of $13.50 and $18.00 and such extras as they incurred. The family contribution rate for such benefit was $1.30. Under the system operating from 1st August a family contribution rate of $1.30 provides comprehensive cover for intermediate ward of $23.00 per day including extras. A family contribution rate of $1.75 provides comprehensive cover for private ward of $30 per day including extras.
  5. In the case of the major Victorian funds the contribution rates for hospital insurance for public, intermediate and private ward coverage have been set respectively at 80 cents, $1.30 and $1.75 instead of the 93 cents, $1.50 and $2.00 proposed by the funds. As with New South Wales, actuarial studies have shown that funds will be able to maintain an adequate level of reserves of hospital insurance by operating at the lower rates. The reserves held by, the four largest organisations at 30th June 1971, totalled approximately $22.5m in the case of their hospital funds and the annual hospital insurance contribution income of these organisations in 1971-72 is estimated to be $48. lm. It has been estimated that under the new rates hospital fund reserves of these organisations will fall by approximately $2m in the next 12 months.

page 172

PRIVATE HOSPITALS

page 172

PORTABILITY OF INSURANCE

page 172

MEDICAL INSURANCE

page 172

COMMON FEE OBSERVANCE

These figures confirm that the great majority of doctors are observing the most common fee. Such adherence is of vital importance to the working of the medical benefits scheme. The Government will continue to keep the level of observance under close review.

page 172

CONSULTATIVE PROCEDURES - MEDICAL FEES

page 173

SUBSIDISED HEALTH INSURANCE

page 173

CONCLUSION

August 1971

page 173

DISCOVERY OF FORMAL BUSINESS

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - Is notice of motion No. 5, Business of the Senate, formal or informal?

Senator Murphy - Formal

page 173

STANDING COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND THE ARTS

Motion (by Senator Murphy) proposed:

That there be referred to the Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts, the following matter - All aspects of television and broadcasting, including Australian content of television programmes.

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 173

DISCOVERY OF FORMAL BUSINESS

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Is notice of motion No. 6, Business of the Senate, formal or informal?

Senator DAVIDSON:

– Not formal.

page 173

PLACING OF BUSINESS

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Is it desired to alter or re-arrange the order of business?

Motion (by Senator Wood) agreed to:

That notice of motion No. 4, Business of the Senate, be postponed until Thursday, 26th August 1971.

Motion (by Senator Cavanagh) agreed to:

That notice of motion No. 3, Business of the Senate, be postponed until the next day of sitting.

page 173

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY EVIDENCE ORDINANCE

No. 4 of 1971

Motion to Disallow Ordinance

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I move:

In moving this motion I draw the attention of the Senate to the thirty-sixth report of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances which was presented in this chamber last evening. In view of the fact that there are a number of new senators in this chamber it is only right that the functions of this Committee should be known. Firstly, this is a standing committee of the Senate. Since the Committee was established in 1932, the principle has been followed that the functions of the Committee are to scrutinise regulations and ordinances to ascertain (a) that they are in accordance with the statute, (b) that they do not trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties, (c) that they do not unduly make the rights and liberties of citizens dependent upon administrative rather than judicial decisions, and (d) that they are concerned with administrative detail and do not amount to substantive legislation which should be a matter for parliamentary enactment.

This Committee processes the various regulations and ordinances which are made from time to time, and gives to those regulations and ordinances a very close scrutiny, particularly in relation to those 4 aspects of the Committee’s work.

In this instance the Committee felt that this was an ordinance of very great importance and having wide effects, and that it should be brought in by way of legislation and not by way of regulation. The Committee takes the view that a matter as important as this one should be brought before the Parliament in the form of legislation so that parliamentarians will have an opportunity to scrutinise it closely and debate it. The Committee is of the opinion that this matter should be seen in the light of public debate in the Parliament. A consequence of it being debated in the Parliament would be that the parliamentarians would better understand its relevance and importance.

The report of the Committee points out that this Ordinance enacts a comprehensive code of the law of evidence and replaces various New South Wales statutes and other laws previously in force in the Australian Capital Territory, lt was pointed out in the report that the law of evidence is perhaps the most important branch of the law. Because this Ordinance introduces some very important changes to the law of evidence in the Australian Capital Territory - some of the provisions are entirely new to Australia - it is felt that it is some thing that requires close examination. One aspect which has been pointed out in the report is that section 42 of the Ordinance provides for the admissibility of computer studies as evidence. Whilst this system is apparently operating in Britain it is new to Australia and does not have any counterpart in the various State laws of this country.

The Committee is concerned that so important a matter as the law should be changed, and in some respects radically changed, by means of delegated legislation rather than by substantive legislation which is openly debated in the Parliament. The Committee in the preparation of its report was not concerned about the rights or wrongs of the Ordinance. That, of course, is a different matter altogether. The Ordinance may be a very good one; it may be desirable. But that was not the point al issue insofar as the Committee was concerned. The Committee was concerned only about the propriety of introducing matters of great importance by means of subordinate legislation. 1 wish to stress the point that the Committee believes that the Parliament is really of paramount importance in this country and that, in consequence, anything of a very important and far-reaching nature should be considered by the Parliament in debate. It is for the reasons I have outlined that 1 have, as Chairman of the Committee, moved that the Ordinance be disallowed. It may be a very easy matter for Commonwealth departments, the Public Service or the Executive to do things by regulation, but an aspect which has to be considered is that as the Parliament is of paramount importance in this country, it should consider and debate the proposals contained in this Ordinance.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– As a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I support the remarks of Senator Wood and appeal to the Senate to uphold the Committee’s decision on the important matter of changing the law of evidence by means of substantive legislation instead of delegated legislation. The opinion has been expressed to the Committee that this Ordinance involves possibly one of the most important judicial fields. The question of what constitutes a crime and whether a person is guilty or innocent is of very little value if there are no proper laws of evidence.

Although the Evidence Ordinance replaces a very old New South Wales Act and brings in new rules of evidence the Committee did not go into the merits of the changes. It considered however that as important changes were being made they should be discussed by the Parliament. The Committee has been considering for some time the difficult problems surrounding the enforcement of law in the Australian Capital Territory. The laws in the Territory have been made mostly by regulation. It has always been questionable whether this method of introducing legislation is not a back door method. It results in very few people knowing what the law is until they are either in breach of it or involved in it in some way. It is obvious that the Commonwealth Parliament cannot burden itself with consideration of all local government measures that are necessary in the Australian Capital Territory and that a line must be drawn somewhere between what should be done by legislative action and what should be done by regulation. But the Committee has not been able to draw that line. Paragraph 6 of the report of the Committee that was presented to the Senate last night states:

The Committee is not here concerned with the merits or demerits of the provisions of the Ordinance, tint wilh the propriety of introducing matters of great importance by means of subordinate legislation.

Paragraph 10 states:

It is not clear to the Committee what criteria are used to determine whether changes in Territory law should be by Ordinance or by substantive legislation, but it is clear that the Evidence Ordinance 1971 is a case for the latter.

Clearly the Committee considers that this is a matter that properly should be discussed by the Parliament. The Parliament is entitled to hear the views of the Government on it and if a Bill were to be presented such views would be stated in a second reading speech. The Parliament is also entitled to make a minute examination of the legislation, which is what happens at the Committee stage of a Bill. The introducing of an Ordinance can be done without prior Parliamentary consideration.

The Committee was told that there was some justification for introducing important changes to the law of evidence in the

Territory by way of an Ordinance and not substantive legislation. It was told that the Ordinance, which will replace a New South Wales Act that has been operating within the Australian Capital Territory, is the product of some of the greatest legal authorities in the land. I believe that a committee was set up under Mr Justice Fox of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court to study this important question and that it comprised eminent legal men who have made a study of the law of evidence in the Australian Capital Territory. Therefore it would not be for me to say that the Ordinance is unacceptable.

I turn now to the admissibility of computer studies as evidence. The Committee was advised by the Attorney-General’s Department that the only nation in which computer studies are permitted as evidence is Great Britain and that this was a recent introduction. In view of the wider use of computers it is not through that it would be wise to exclude computer studies as evidence in Australian courts. The point is that as we may be setting a standard for the introduction of similar amendments to the Evidence Acts of all States which possibly will follow the lead of this Parliament, this matter is worthy of consideration by the whole Senate so that those who wish to condemn the idea may do so. The use of computer studies or computer results as evidence needs the consideration of the Parliament. There are many matters relating to permitted evidence included in this Ordinance which are not included in the legislation of one or more of the States, the justification being that they are included in the law of New South Wales or in the law of Western Australia. It is obvious that scissors and paste have been used in drawing up this Ordinance. Whether the Ordinance should be allowed is a question requiring full debate in this Senate.

I deal now with the aspect of a compellable witness. When a defendant elects to give evidence at his own trial he becomes a compellable witness and may be required to answer questions that may incriminate him. This is the case in some States, but is it the right procedure? Another matter of concern is the right or duty of a spouse to give evidence against a defendant. This brings in the whole question of marriage relationships. How far may we be interfering in this aspect? Some States have adopted the principle of making a spouse a compellable witness while other States have adopted it but with certain safeguards. In certain charges a spouse can give evidence against a defendant.

There are many peculiar things that a witness is not permitted to state. A witness cannot say that he would not believe another person on his oath. This is referred to in clause 56 of the Ordinance. Apparently this is the case in New South Wales. The legal men in the Senate should explain all these matters to us and justify the implementation of these provisions. The Committee cannot get that justification when matters are included in an Ordinance. The justification given to the Committee might satisfy it but the Committee could not say that it would satisfy the Senate.

There is also the matter of dying declarations, documentary evidence and oral statements in the case of a person who dies after making the statement or who is out of Australia or who, for some other reason, cannot attend court. Again we have to consider the extent to which these things should be permitted as evidence. Under the British system of justice it is far better for 9 guilty men to be found not guilty than for one innocent man to be found guilty. Therefore we must be very careful in’ deciding what evidence can be brought against a person. Clause 68 of this Ordinance refers to the admissibility of confessions and admissions. Perhaps I should refer specifically to clause 68. Under it confessions and admissions may be evidence even if gained by force, threat or promise. The clause states: (1.) Subject to the next succeeding sub-section, a confession or admission made by a person charged in a criminal proceeding is not admissible in evidence against that person unless it was made voluntarily by that person. (2.) A confession or admission tendered in evidence against the person charged in a criminal proceeding shall not be rejected only on the ground that a promise, threat or other inducement (not being the exercise of violence, force or other form of compulsion) has been held out to or exercised upon the person making the confession or admission, if the judge is satisfied that the means by which the confession or admission was obtained were not in fact likely to cause an untrue admission of guilt to be made.

Clause 69 provides:

Subject to the next succeeding section, a person charged in a criminal proceeding, if he gives evidence in the proceeding, may be asked, and is bound to answer, a question notwithstanding that the answer to the question may tend to incriminate him in relation to the offence to which the proceeding relates.

Senator Byrne:

– That is if he goes into the box.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Yes, but the whole point-

Senator Byrne:

– Are you proceeding on the basis that that person was not going into the box but in any case would have to answer interrogation? It is only if he elects to give evidence.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– That is so. Here again we see that because this provision is included in certain Acts of certain parliaments that apparently is the reason for its introduction here. I do not want to cross swords with Senator Byrne over this question. 1 acknowledge his capability to argue legal matters. I do not have that capability. These essentially are legal questions. The point is that for the first time these innovations are to be introduced in the Australian Capital Territory. We want these innovations considered by means of the introduction of substantive legislation. If we fail in this then the whole purpose of the Committee must fail on this one criterion above. From time to time the Committee has prevented the introduction of legislation through the back door and has ensured that there has been full discussion and debate. I assure Senator Byrne that on no account do I say that the clause I read represents an incorrect procedure. I simply do not know. On no account did the Committee consider whether it was incorrect. It said that the matter should be opened up for full discussion and debate so that the important ingredients at a person’s trial are the result of parliamentary decision and not Executive decision by means of regulation. Therefore I hope that the Ordinance is disallowed.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– A great many regulations and ordinances are submitted from time to time to the Regulations and Ordinances Committee for consideration. Only rarely, in comparison with the large number of matters brought before the Committee, does it present reports of the nature of the report before the Senate at the moment. I am sure that the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood), a former member of the Committee, would be well aware that when the Committee considers these matters it does not do so on a partisan basis. Members of the Committee conscientiously try to carry out the terms of reference of the Committee and to protect the rights of Parliament so far as delegated legislation, regulations and ordinances, are concerned.

The majority of members of the Committee felt and, speaking for myself, felt strongly, that this matter should be the subject of principal legislation and not ordinance. There can be no question that the Commonwealth Government has power under the Constitution to legislate by way of ordinance insofar as a law of evidence for the Australian Capital Territory is concerned. There is no constitutional requirement for the Commonwealth Government to submit this matter to the Houses of Parliament by way of a Bill. However, on quite a number of occasions in the past when the Commonwealth has proposed a new law or a change in law applicable to the Australian Capital Territory and when it has had in mind using precisely the same means of enactment, that is, by ordinance, the Government has decided that, because the matter was of some significance, it should be dealt with by legislation. I notice the Attorney-General looking somewhat puzzled, but 1 think he will find that this is the case. I am afraid I cannot refer to instances at the moment. It is my understanding that matters which could have been dealt with by way of ordinance for the Australian Capital Territory have been dealt with by legislation passing through both Houses of Parliament. I feel quite confident that that is the case.

The law of evidence is one of the most fundamental branches of the law affecting the lives and liberties of citizens. The manner in which evidence may be taken, the kind of evidence which may be admitted and the weight which may be given to evidence are naturally of prime importance in the conduct of judicial proceedings. Although the law relating to evidence is not part of the substantive law of the country, it is a very important part of the adjectival law of the country. It is very important in the administration of the substantive law. I do not want to discuss the merits of the particular clauses of the Evidence Ordinance, but it proposes a general body of law of evidence for the Australian Capital Territory. Senators Cavanagh and Wood have pointed already to the quite substantial changes proposed to the existing law. There are new provisions relating to the admissibility of evidence obtained from certain computers. There are new proposals as to the rights of spouses in giving evidence. There are other matters which have been mentioned already during the course of the debate. None of the lawyers to whom I have spoken about this Ordinance has made any criticism to me of its contents. I do not wish to criticise any part of it. I have no grounds in my mind at the moment for criticising any part of it, but that is not the purpose of the recommendation which the Committee made.

It is the Committee’s view that if such a substantial change in law as is proposed by the Ordinance is to be brought about, it should be debated by the national Parliament. I think that .if the change in the law of evidence is as big as is proposed by the Ordinance, it is bound to have some effect on the views of the legal profession and on the views of other people who are interested in law reform. If any foreigner wished to learn something about Australian law he would look to the enactments of the national Parliament to ascertain what that law is. What he would ascertain if he were to look to this Parliament would be, among other things, the Evidence Ordinance for the Australian Capital Territory introduced in this way. It may well be that there are no imperfections in the Ordinance. It may well be that there are no improvements which anybody could reasonably suggest or on which he could expect the Senate to support him if he were to suggest such amendments. I for one would not be able to say whether this is the case. I have not given sufficient attention to the ordinance as a whole and in particular to ascertain whether it contains something which, in the light of debate, could not be amended quite radically. With the small amount of consideration which, I think through force of circumstance, has been given to the Ordinance, I doubt whether anybody would be able to say that at present.

On many occasions in the past there have been debates on matters relating to the procedures of the law - not on the substance of the law - and on matters incidental to the substantive law. Quite frequently these matters relating to procedure and to ancillary law rather than to substantive law have been dealt with by the Senate in an impartial way. Not infrequently the Government has accepted amendments. I think that all lawyers who sit on the Government side have at various times in the past voted for the amendments which were before the Senate. It could well be that if the Ordinance were to come before Parliament by way of a Bill such amendments would be made by the Senate. I feel that I can add little to the debate except to say that it would seem obvious to me that the law of evidence is a sufficiently important change in the law to warrant a close and careful examination by the Senate and to warrant an examination in the Committee stage in particular so that if there are any defects which a person believes he detects or any improvements which he believes should be suggested to the Committee, they should be brought forward.

Furthermore, I think that in a matter such as this, which is of great importance, the Ordinance does warrant some explanation to the Senate by the Attorney-General. In saying this I am in no way critical of the Attorney-General or of the Ordinance. What I am saying is that it does seem to me to be a sufficiently important piece of legislation that it should not be dealt with in a delegated way so that there is not only no debate but only a very cursory explanation by the Attorney-General. We have the opportunity, if we have nothing else, to have explained the purpose of the Ordinance and in particular those innovations in the law which are contained in the Ordinance. For that reason I support the motion moved by Senator Wood.

Senator GREENWOOD:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– Senator Wood has moved:

That the Evidence Ordinance 1971 as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 4 of 1971, and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910-1970, be disallowed.

I think it is important to appreciate that what the Senate is being asked to do is to disallow an ordinance which has been acclaimed by the legal people who have had part in its preparation and by the people who have had to live with it in the 5 or so months that it has been in operation. It has not excited disquiet. It has not been criticised. According to what the 3 speakers who preceded me have said, it has not been criticised because of its cotents, allowing for the fact that Senator Cavanagh did indicate that there were some differences between what is in the Ordinance and what is in the comparable legislation in the States.

Senator Wood:

– There is no suggestion of that in the motion.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I note Senator Wood’s interjection. I appreciate that the report of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee indicates that the Committee is not concerned with the merits or demerits of the provisions of the Ordinance. I am proposing to construct a case that the Senate should not regard the fact that the law has been enacted by ordinance and not by legislation as establishing any criterion or precedent which would oblige the Senate to accept the position as consistent with the way in which the Committee has worked in the past. The Committee has been in operation for approximately 40 years and the Seat of Government (Administration) Act has been in existence for some 60 years. Many ordinances have been passed in this Territory, but this is the very first occasion upon which the Committee has exercised a power which it has held for 40 years to recommend to the Senate the disallowance of an ordinance made under an Act which has been the sole source of legislation in the Territory for 60 years.

I think it is the Committee’s action in recommending to the Senate the disallowance of this ordinance which has an exceptional character, not the fact that this Ordinance has been brought in. I. know that in the past few months a very substantial companies ordinance, comparable with the Companies Acts in the States, has been introduced in the Territory. Speaking as a lawyer, I should have thought that there was more of a substantive character about the provisions of a companies ordinance which affects people’s rights and obligations in a tremendous number of ways than in an evidence ordinance which does not affect rights. But this is by way of introduction to a subject which I feel the

Senate should not treat lightly, appreciating as ‘I do the care with which the Regulations and Ordinances Committee has scrutinised, in a way that has won recognition throughout the English-speaking world, the types of delegated legislation which are part and parcel of the way in which our legislation is carried through.

What does this ordinance provide? In the first place it brings together in one uptodate ordinance the provisions relating to evidence and the way in which evidence is to be presented to the courts, provisions which at present are contained in a number of ancient Acts. The law relating to evidence in the Australian Capital Territory before this Ordinance came into force on 29th March was contained in the New South Wales Evidence Act 1898, the Royal Commissioners Evidence Act 1901, the Witnesses Examination Act 1900 and the Crimes Act 1900. And there were of course other pieces of Commonwealth legislation like the Commonwealth Evidence Act, which is not a comprehensive Act, the State and Territorial Laws and Records Recognition Act and the Matrimonial Causes Act which have some application to litigation in the Territory. All I say is that if the Senate should carry the motion for the disallowance of this Ordinance it will restore these ancient laws of New South Wales which still have applicability in the Territory and which it is the purpose of this ordinance to supersede.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– But an Act could be brought in to replace them.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– 1 am sure that we will hear from Senator Turnbull in due course, if he is interested in this. I shall advert in due course to this question of bringing in legislation. All I am concerned to say is that there will be consequences which will not rebound to the credit of this Senate if this Ordinance is disallowed. Additionally, the Ordinance will introduce an up to date set of those parts of the rules of evidence which in the past have been regarded as appropriate, not to the common law but to a statutory enactment. The provisions of the draft Ordinance are based on developments that have occurred in the statutory law relating to evidence in the United Kingdom and in the States of the Commonwealth and, except so far as altered by the proposed

Ordinance, the common law rules of evidence will continue b force.

Senator Devitt:

– I wonder whether the Minister would offer an observation on why it is introduced as an ordinance and not as substantive legislation.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am proposing to explain that in some detail in due course, but having regard to the interjection I mention in passing that Senator Wheeldon said that the Commonwealth had introduced other laws in the Australian Capital Territory by statute rather than by ordinance. I do not say that he is inaccurate, but my researches and the researches of my officers have indicated that only two pieces of legislation applicable in the Australian Capital Territory as a geographical unit have been introduced by statute and not by ordinance. One was the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court legislation, which has been amended from time to time, and the other was a revenue item dealing with stamp duties which was introduced 2 or 3 years ago. They are the only pieces of legislation which have been introduced by statute, yet in the course of a year we have perhaps 25 to 40 pieces of legislation which are introduced not by statute but by ordinance. I shall come to that in due course.

The Ordinance with which we are concerned provides not only for the repeal of the New South Wales Acts which I have mentioned but also makes what are regarded as desirable changes in the substantive law of evidence. There has been a change in the effect of a number of the erstwhile provisions because opportunity has been taken to bring the evidence law of the Australian Capital Territory up to date and, in a sense, to make it a model set of rules of evidence which the States of the Commonwealth may be able to utilise in their own laws of evidence. I am simply asserting - I do not think it will be challenged - that what we have at present is a modern, well prepared and highly regarded set of rules brought together in an ordinance which the Senate is being asked to set aside and to disallow. As I have said, I do not think it is a position which the Senate should easily adopt, unless there are very sound and overwhelming reasons why what is accepted as progressive legislation should not be accepted.

I feel that I should take some time to indicate how this Evidence Ordinance came into being. It was the result of very careful and quite lengthy deliberations over a period of 3 years by a committee. The person who headed that committee was Mr Justice Fox, a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory who has applied himself assiduously, with not inconsiderable talent, to this fairly painstaking job of work. He was assisted by Mr Justice Mason when he was the SolicitorGeneral of the Commonwealth. After he retired from that position his place was taken by Mr D. E. Harding, a senior lecturer in law at the Australian National University who is regarded as an expert in the law of evidence. In addition 2 senior officers of the Attorney-General’s Department, including an officer of the Parliamentary Counsel’s staff, assisted with the preparation of this Ordinance. Moreover, as the Ordinance was in the course of preparation, it was referred to Dr Rupert Cross who is Professor of English Law at Oxford University. I think he is acknowledged without question as being the leading authority today in the English speaking world on the law of evidence. He submitted his comments to the committee. Likewise, Professor P. L. Waller, the Dean of the Faculty of Law at the Monash University, was asked for his comments, which he supplied, and Mr Justice Reynolds, the Chairman of the Law Reform Commission of New South Wales, was asked for his comments.

As I have said, this Ordinance has been hailed by the legal profession and the academics whom I have mentioned as modern and progressive legislation. Listening as I have to what has been said, the substance and merit of this legislation has not been criticised. Therefore, again I would say that the Senate should be cautious before it disallows and throws out legislation of this intrinsic quality. If one considers the reasons which have been advanced by the Regulations and Ordinances Committee and by the speakers who have supported the motion today one finds that the disallowance of this Ordinance is comprehended by what the Committee regards as the importance of the subject matter with which this Ordinance is concerned. For example, the Report of the Committee states:

The law of evidence is perhaps the most important branch of the law, affecting as it does the way in which other branches of the law apply in practice.

I have quoted from the 36th report of the Committee but I think few lawyers would accept the proposition that the law of evidence is perhaps the most important branch of the law. Certainly it is of importance in litigation but there is a tremendous body of law which is never involved in litigation in the courts. I think the Committee is elevating the law of evidence which, after all, does not affect individual rights in the sense that substantive laws affect individual rights, to a position which is not warranted. Lawyers know a standard text book which deals with evidence. It is called ‘Phipson on Evidence*. I shall quote from the 11th edition at page 1 where it states:

As a matter of legal categorisation, or course, evidence is adjectival, and not substantive law. Law is commonly divided into substantive law, which defines rights, duties and liabilities; and adjective law, which defines the procedure, pleading and proof by which the substantive law is applied in practice . . . The province of the law of evidence is therefore twofold, viz., to lay down rules as to what matter is or is not admissible for the purpose of establishing facts in dispute and as to the manner in which such matter may be placed before the court.’

The law of evidence is procedural. It is concerned with the manner in which matter is placed before the courts. I think that to regard it as the most important part of the law is to give it a standing which objectivity does not require. But the Committee proceeds on this basis which I think quite fairly could be categorised as fallacious and then it alleges that so important a matter as the law of evidence should not be changed - in some respects, radically changed - by means of delegated legislation rather than by substantive legislation which is openly debated in Parliament. Therein lies the core of what the Committee is complaining about.

Never in the Committee’s 40 years history has it taken this view with regard to any of the quite substantial matters which have been introduced into the Australian Capital Territory by ordinance. Instead this ordinance relating to evidence is chosen as the vehicle by which an expression of a principle is first applied. I regret the Committee has chosen to do that in this way.

Senator Devitt:

– That the Committee has not done this before would not be an argument against the procedure.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I think that there is a great deal of subjectivity in this. How does one regard the law of evidence? Does one regard it as the Committee does; that is so tremendously important - or does one regard it as being not as important as other law? Do we regard it as a matter which ought to be introduced by substantive legislation or are we prepared to have it regarded as other law is regarded - as capable of being introduced by ordinance? What I have been advancing in these considerations is of some relevance because the Committee is adopting a novel approach on this occasion. When one considers the position of the law and the powers to make laws in the Australian Capital Territory one notes that section 122 of the Constitution gives comprehensive law-making power to the Commonwealth to make laws for the Australian Capital Territory. The Seat of Government (Administration) Act is the legislation under which there is power to make ordinances. Section 12 of this Act provides:

The Governor-General may make Ordinances for the peace, order and good government of the Territory.

That provision in slightly different language has been in the Seat of Government (Administration) Act since 1910. The words which I have quoted were introduced into that Act in October 1970. One might have thought that at that stage the Senate would have addressed itself to the desirability or otherwise of accepting ordinances as the appropriate method of making laws, if the Senate had the concern which it is now asked to exercise in the debate on this ordinance. Apart from Senator Murphy who suggested that there may be cases in which it would be desirable to have the laws in force in the Territory brought into force by legislation rather than by ordinance, there was no canvassing of the general issue which is now raised here today. I would agree with Senator Murphy that there are instances in which the law should be introduced by legislation. I hope that when the researches relating to the criminal code for the Aus tralian Capital Territory have been completed and we have a document which is capable of being introduced as law it will be introduced as legislation. At the present time for what value it is to honourable senators I state that I hope at the same time to be able to have a comprehensive Bill which will cover general evidence provisions of the character which are contained in this ordinance. I do not say that that will be brought in at the time that the criminal code comes into effect because we want to assess the experience of this ordinance and also to derive benefits from the many discussions and researches which are taking place in the States with regard to the reform of the law of evidence.

In this regard I instance that the Law Reform Commission of New South Wales has for some time been giving consideration to an overall revision of the law of evidence. It may be that when that report comes out it will show an advance even on the provisions of the ordinance which is currently before the Senate. If it does then undoubtedly legislation will have to comprehend that which experience has shown to be desirable as an amendment and that which the researches indicate as desirable. Accordingly, without giving any positive undertaking to do that at the time when the criminal code is introduced I hope to be able to introduce a comprehensive Bill incorporating the most desirable and revised evidentiary provisions. But that is in the future, taking advantage, as I have said, of the experience of the researchers and others. When one considers the provisions of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act it appears that the way in which we have introduced laws into the Australian Capital Territory is a reason which has self-evident justification. In 1910 the Australian Capital Territory was a small area, sparsely populated. It was to be the Australian Capital Territory and it became so. There have been and there will continue to be local and special considerations in which it may be supposed that what applies in other capital cities does not have the same validity if it were to apply in Canberra. Of the 17 major capital cities of the world on which I have had some research presented to me, 10 are governed by Federal law. In short, there is no specific body, in the form of a local government body or a state government, which administers the capital. Indeed, if one examines the position in the United States one finds that there is even less representation involved in the government of Washington in the District of Columbia than there is in the Australian Capital Territory.

Senator Wheeldon:

– There is now a mayor of Washington. The situation was changed last year.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I know that Senator Wheeldon has more experience of America than I have; but I am assured that at the present time there is a council appointed by the President which administers Washington under the control of a committee of the Congress and there is no representative of Washington sitting in the national parliament as there is for Canberra in the House of Representatives.

As I have said, the Act was amended in 1970. I raise the point for consideration by the Senate that there was no suggestion then that there should be a complete legislative requirement for the laws of the Australian Capital Territory. In fact, the Parliament passed a law that permitted ordinances to be made in a more comprehensive and far reaching form, because it covered the question of extra-territoriality, than had been the case before that legislation was carried. There was adequate opportunity then for debate, but none was sought. The question is whether this Ordinance ought now to be regarded as required to be made by legislation. I submit that the Senate ought not to regard this Ordinance as requiring substantive legislation in the light of the considerations which have been advanced, namely, that other ordinances have been passed without challenge and they deal with more substantive measures. The Senate ought not to regard this as an occasion to disallow this Ordinance because, as I have indicated, I hope that in due course a comprehensive Bill will be introduced. That will be in connection with the introduction of a body of modern criminal law.

I go so far as to say that there would be positive disadvantages and dislocations if this Ordinance were to be disallowed. In the first place, under the provisions of the Seat of Government Administration Act, if an ordinance is disallowed it is disallowed as from the date upon which the Senate carries the motion for disallowance. Therefore a law of evidence which has been in force since 29th March this year would cease to be in force on 19th August. There are cases currently part heard in which evidence may have been admitted pursuant to the Evidence Ordinance which has been in force since 29th March. I imagine that if the Ordinance were to be disallowed those cases would have to be recommenced, and that would be at the expense of the litigants. I am certain that it would not be regarded as being to the credit of the Senate that that expense had been caused to a number of people who were proceeding in good faith because the Senate would not accept what is acknowledged by everyone to be modern and up to date legislation.

It would be anomalous that some cases had been decided on a law of evidence which prevailed for some 5 months, but after the Senate had disallowed the Ordinance the law of evidence to which the Australian Capital Territory reverted was that contained in Acts of 70 or 80 years ago. It would create dissatisfaction amongst practitioners and indirectly amongst clients. I omitted to say that this Ordinance had been submitted to the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory, which welcomed it and has not suggested to the Senate in any way that it ought to exercise its powers to disallow this Ordinance as the Society has done with regard to other substantive pieces of legislation such as the Legal Practitioners Ordinance which came into force eventually not so long ago.

Senator Wheeldon:

– The Society’s interest would be quite different from that of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, would it not? We are not suggesting that we are taking the type of objection the Law Society would take.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I think I would agree with what Senator Wheeldon says. I mentioned the Law Society only because it is one of the bodies which have an interest in the substance of what is contained in an evidence ordinance and to which this Ordinance was referred. The Society made no objection. I think it is a relevant fact for the Senate to recognise that there was no objection from the legal practitioners who have to live with this

Ordinance. There is the further fact that if this Ordinance were to be disallowed in the hope or expectation that a Bill would be introduced, there would necessarily be some delay before the Bill was introduced.

Senator Murphy:

– Why?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Both Senator Murphy and Senator Milliner, who asked me a question yesterday, are acutely aware of the problems that confront the parliamentary counsel in the drafting of legislation. I know that they lament the situation, and 1 share their lament. But the fact is that we are faced with a situation in which there is a paucity of drafting skills and therefore of the availability of persons to prepare the legislation that is necessary.

Senator Murphy:

– But it has been drafted, has it not?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– It may be said that this Ordinance, which has been drafted for the geographical unit which is the Australian Capital Territory, is one which can simply be put into the shape of a Bill and introduced. But, after all, when legislation is introduced it is the responsibility of the Government, and we as the Government, would have to give consideration to matters which could arise in the course of the passage of the Bill through the Parliament. Amongst those matters would undoubtedly be whether or not this legislation should have a wider application. Should it apply in the hearing of Commonwealth offences by State courts invested with Federal jurisdiction? When those issues are considered, the propriety or otherwise of this Ordinance may not be as clear cut as it is to those who at the present time say simply. ‘Redraft it as a Bill’. These are matters which would have to be considered and they would have to take their time.

After all, there is not only the problem of coping with the lack of draftsmen to prepare suitable measures but also the necessity to put appropriate measures into a legislative programme. We all know that, after the problems that confronted the House of Representatives towards the end of the last session, the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) instituted procedures under which the rush of legislation could be avoided as far as possible. I think it is quite clear that the way in which one avoids that rush is to have a strict pro gramming and that one does not introduce legislation towards the end of the session. 1 think that is a viewpoint to which members of the Opposition in both Houses have subscribed on many occasions. If that be the case, the way in which one arranges the legislation is through programming which takes account of the needs of a legislative session. Therefore Bills, no matter how desirable they are, if they lack real urgency ought not to be introduced in a way that causes a bank-up. Therefore the legislation necessary to give effect to the evidence law of the Australian Capital Territory might not be introduced for some time. These are the practical problems which the Senate would be creating if it were to disallow this Ordinance.

I go further and say that there is a principle involved and a precedent created which could cause tremendous problems for the future. If the Evidence Ordinance is regarded as a substantive piece of legislation, I think almost every ordinance that is promulgated for the Australian Capital Territory could be regarded as having a substantive character and therefore open to disallowance on the basis that it could be introduced by legislation. I would have thought that this would have been a precedent because it would be difficult, although I assure honourable senators that the effort would be made to persuade them otherwise, for the Senate to not treat every ordinance as being of a similar character. If we have some 25 to 40 ordinances for the Australian Capital Territory each year the burden which that places on the legislative programme and on the Parliamentary Counsel is enormous. I do not think this is a decision which the Senate should take, in the light of the knowledge which the Senate has revealed from time to time as to the very real and practical problems which confront the Parliamentary Counsel. If Australian Capital Territory law is to be introduced by way of substantive legislation, it appears to me that the principle has applicability to other places where the Commonwealth enacts laws by way of ordinance. We would have a similar requirement imposed for Norfolk Island, Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and all the other areas for which the Commonwealth has powers to enact legislation by ordinance. These are facts which ought to be regarded as relevant considerations.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You are not honest in that. You are not suggesting that all ordinances come from the Counsel? lt is only particular ones.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– All I shall say in answer to Senator Cavanagh is that if one looks at the report of the Committee, of which he is a member, one finds little assistance to the Senate as to what is and what is not a substantive ordinance. As I have said, I do not believe that the Evidence Ordinance is as important as other ordinances, including the Companies Ordinance, which have been recently put through the Senate. As I have indicated, if this motion is carried we will create a precedent which will involve virtually every ordinance which comes forward. Paragraph 10 of the report is not helpful. It lays down no criteria. It reads:

The Parliament has often been asked to enact important changes in the law of the ACT when it was thought inappropriate to make such changes by ordinance-

I interpolate there to say that it has happened on 2 occasions. The report continues: and in the case of the proposed criminal code for the Territories, this was issued in draft form for public and Parliamentary comment before promulgation.

I have indicated that this is a substantive law which will be coming in in due course by way of legislation. The report continues: lt is not clear to the Committee what criteria are used to determine whether changes in Territory law should be by ordinance or by substantive legislation, but it is clear-

The word ‘is’ is underlined - that the Evidence Ordinance 1971 is a case for the latter.

The Committee has no doubt that this Evidence Ordinance is clearly on one side of the line. If it is as unimportant in terms of substantive matter as I believe it is, then there are a lot of other things which are going to be included. That is why in answer to Senator Cavanagh I said that it will express pretty well all the legislation which is introduced by ordinance.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You put a different degree of importance on it than did the Committee. It puts a higher degree of importance on evidence than you do.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I appreciate that my views are different not as to principle but as to the weight that is to be given to whether or not this ordinance is important and whether its provisions should or should not be introduced by substantive legislation. As I said, I regret that the Committee, with all respect to it, has brought forward this report without, I think, reflection on the problems it would cause and the practical difficulties which are involved.

There is a smaller matter which I would like to mention and which indicates the type of problem involved. Section 36 of the Naval Defence Act provides that the discipline which is in force in the naval forces consists of certain pieces of imperial legislation save where they are modified. In 1968 there was a modification of the legislation so that what was to apply as the disciplinary code of the naval forces was the law which was in force in the ACT. It may be that there will be no problem, if this Ordinance is repealed, in the disciplinary code reverting to the old law which was applicable in this Territory before March of this year. That is one example of the type of problem which would be involved in a disallowance of this Ordinance.

It has been suggested that a number of changes have been made in the Ordinance. I have not understood the debate which has so far transpired as being based upon the fact that these changes are so undesirable that by themselves they ought to disqualify the Ordinance.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That was never said.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am pleased to have the confirmation because I have taken it that way. I know that there are substantial changes. We do have a provision which enables the records of computers to be used in evidence in civil proceedings subject to the discretion of the judge as to the fairness of using them and as to the weight to be given to them. That represents an innovation in this counry applying, as it does, in substance what is part of the law of evidence in the United Kingdom. Similar provisions are about to be introduced in Victoria as a result of the activities of the Chief Justice’s Law Reform Committee. There are other provisions to which reference has been made.

One provision which has not existed in the Australian Capital Territory previously concerns microfilm records being used as evidence. There are a number of other provisions which bring the Australian Capital Territory law in regard to evidence not only up to date but somewhat in advance of comparable laws in the States.

I can only regret that if this resolution were to be carried the Australian Capital Territory would be denied progressive legislation. I would be disappointed if those who have given a tremendous amount of time and effort to the preparation of legislation of which they can fairly be proud should find that the Senate puts it aside. I would be disappointed likewise if the practical problems and the delays which would ensue were necessitated by a decision of this Senate.

I mention those things, unpalatable as they are, to those who have proposed this resolution in all sincerity. But they are the factual consequences and they will be the results. It is being done in pursuance of what is claimed to be a principle - a principle which in its appropriate application has great merit, namely, that there should not be delegated legislation where appropriately matters should be dealt with by parliamentary enactment. But this Parliament, indeed this Committee, has for many years accepted that the appropriate way of enacting laws in the Australian Capital Territory, with the two solitary exceptions that I mentioned is by way of ordinance.

Senator Murphy:

– What was the second one? The first was the Supreme Court ordinance. What was the other one?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– The stamp duties legislation. Until there is a complete change with regard to the way in which the Australian Capital Territory is governed or a complete change which necessitates in effect all legislation relative to the 100 square miles or so which constitute the Australian Capital Territory, occupying the time of the National Parliament I think the Senate would be well advised to adhere to a practice and a form of doing things which has given satisfaction in the past and under which there has been quite substantial progress, as this Evidence Ordinance indicates, in the type of laws which are enacted. I hope that the Senate will not vote for this motion of disallowance.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– The Senate is once again indebted to the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances for bringing in a report which is of great assistance to the Senate in determining its attitude towards a piece of delegated legislation. The report of the Committee is in accord with its customary brevity and clarity. In my view, it discloses sufficient for the Senate to endorse the recommendation of the Committee and to disallow the Evidence Ordinance. There has been some slight criticism of the report of the Committee. The suggestion was made that the Committee was in error in saying that the law of evidence is itself the most important branch of the law affecting, as it does, the ways in which the other branches of the law apply in practice. It is certainly a most important branch of the law. It concerns the way in which the judicial branch of government carries out its affairs, it concerns the rights of the citizen in practice in the courts and it is noteworthy that when the establishment of the important judicial branch in this Territory was being dealt with, the Parliament determined to do that by substantive legislation - direct enactment - and not by way of subordinate legislation. Through the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court was the manner in which the Parliament decided that that should be dealt with. Rightly so, because the enforcement of the rights of the citizen is basic to the Jaw. Without enforcement there can be no real law and there is little doubt that the report of the Committee is correct. Indeed, I do not understand it to be challenged when the Committee says in paragraph 4 of its report:

The ordinance introduces important changes to the law of evidence in the Territory and some of these provisions are new to Australia.

There is no doubt that the legislation, delegated though it be, introduces important changes in the law. It is dealing therefore with matters certainly not of administrative detail but matters of principle and effecting considerable changes in the law. I do not know the full extent of the changes. I have not been told and I do not know what one has to do in these circumstances when one is faced not with an ordinance dealing with an unimportant matter; not with an ordinance which we can safely accept because it is said that it is a copy of State laws not a company ordinance similar to the legislation applying in the States; but a piece of legislation which is effecting extremely important changes in the law.

We have been told about the important people who contributed to the making of this legislation. No doubt some of the changes are valuable. No doubt I and my colleagues would agree with many of them. Perhaps we would not agree with others. Clause 5 of the ordinance provides that the Evidence Act of 1898 and certain other acts cease to be in force in the Territory. I do not know the full effect of that change. There is an important provision which concerns the right of a citizen to make a statement from the dock. Because of experience in these matters there is a provision in the appropriate law which protects a person from being subjected to adverse comment for choosing that course by counsel for the Crown or even by the judge. Perhaps the Attorney-General could indicate to me what has happened to that provision. My impression is that it does not appear in the ordinance in that form. Some people may think that it is a good idea to get rid of such a provision, lt has been a vexed question in the law. Others - and I am one of them - think that it is a very important part of the law which ought to be preserved.

Why should matters such as that be changed? I am citing it, but I am not quite sure how it has been dealt with, or whether it has been dealt with in this ordinance. Why should the law be changed in these important respects without our being told? We are deprived of a right we ought to have as legislators dealing with important matters. If the changes were explained to us in a second reading speech we would be able to debate them. There would be an opportunity for discussion at the Committee stage and we would be able to put our point of view on these important matters which so intimately affect the rights of the citizen in practice. We are deprived of that opportunity.

Senator Greenwood:

– You can ask a question and I can tell you that that particular area, which has not been mentioned before, is not affected by this ordinance.

Senator MURPHY:

– I thank the Minister for giving me that information, but in itself it illustrates the difficulty that arises when we do not know. No procedure is here for us to be able to deal with these matters in the way in which they should be dealt with. If there is a part of the ordinance that I think should be changed, there is nothing effective I can do about it unless I have the particular part disallowed. But disallowance may not be what I want to achieve in respect of that part. I may want it altered, but there is no possibility of doing that in regard to these extremely important matters of principle. That is the reason why in important matters the law ought to be made directly by Parliament.

The intention of the Constitution was that this Parliament should be the legislative body of the country. We say that in respect of the territories where we are simply adopting the laws of the States it would be reasonable enough to do so by ordinance, but the Attorney-General has frankly admitted that considerable changes are made in the law by this ordinance, lt contains provisions which have never appeared anywhere in the law in any State or Territory of Australia before. In those circumstances 1 do not think the Committee was unreasonable in coming here, without reporting to the Senate in this matter, and saying that without an examination of the merits of the legislation it is considered to be clearly of so important a nature that it ought to be dealt with by legislation.

The Minister has given a number of reasons why that ought not to be done. He has said that if it is done it will affect cases that might be in the course of hearing. 1 cannot see that there would be any problem there, any more than arose when the Ordinance was brought in and changed the existing law. No greater problem could occur at any time when the law of evidence or procedure is altered. It is not a substantial argument. His other argument was that there would be difficulties in introducing legislation. Why should there be difficulties? If the law had already been drafted and is in this form, I should imagine that it would be a fairly simple exercise to bring it in by way of statute. To my mind, the argument was not at all impressive.

The suggestion was put that if we did have it in the form of a statute, the Government would have to consider whether it would apply that legislation to other courts of the Commonwealth, and whether it should apply it to other territories. Let them do that at their leisure, if need be. They could bring this in in the form of a statute. If they wanted to extend it, they could introduce an amendment at a subsequent stage when they have made up their minds and could apply it to the other territories or courts. Again that does not seem - I say with respect to the AttorneyGeneral who put the arguments forward - to be an impressive reason why we should refrain from stating that this should be done by way of direct legislation. In another argument the Attorney-General said: ‘We want to see how we get along with this. Let us put it into practice and see how we get on and at some stage in the future when I am introducing laws to deal with crime in the Territory I might bring in legislation to deal with evidence.’ And he said: ‘Mind you, I am not giving any positive undertaking.’

Senator Greenwood:

– That was with regard to the time of bringing it in.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes, that was in regard to the time of bringing it in but he said: ‘I am not giving you any positive undertaking.’ He said also that on that basis we should let go into the law of this land a set of provisions which we have not been able to examine, which contain innovations of considerable importance not seen before in Australia and with no time limit on them. If this was to be experimental why was not a time limit placed on it? Why was it not said: ‘Let it operate to the end of 1971 or 30th June 1972 and let us see how we get on’? If the Minister were to say: ‘We want to have a trial run. Let it be done on a temporary basis and I assure you that when I have made up my mind about it I will bring in some substantive legislation’, one could understand the argument. But once this passes into law that is the end of it. We did not get another chance to have a look at it, and we submit the ordinary course should be followed. I feel confident that the Minister, with his skill, effectiveness and enthusiasm in the new Ministry which he has undertaken, would be well served if he were to get his draftsmen to do what was necessary to take out the words about its being an ordinance and substitute the words ‘a Bill’, and do what is needed to be done. It seems to me that this would mostly be on the first page. He should make the necessary alterations - and I have little doubt that that could be done - and any other consequential amendments. The legislation could be introduced into this chamber, examined and transmitted to the other House. This would be the appropriate way to deal with it.

I understand that the Committee has wanted a line of demarcation drawn. Despite its requests it has not had any indication of a demarcation from the Government. It has had to draw the line itself or say that wherever the line might be it is quite clear that this law is so important that it should be dealt with by legislation. The Committee is a vigilant one and it is one of which we are proud. It has become acknowledged as the best Committee which supervises delegated legislation throughout the English speaking world. It has achieved this because of its close attention to the regulations and ordinances which come before it. It has gained this reputation because of the care and attention it has paid to these matters. It has gained it because of its discretion and reasonableness in dealing with matters.

Here the Committee has made a judgment that the legislation should be disallowed. This Senate directed the Committee to examine the regulations and ordinances according to the criteria which have been referred to by Senator Wood. One of those criteria is that the regulation and ordinance should be concerned with administrative detail and should not amount to substantive legislation which should be a matter for parliamentary enactment. I believe that the Committee has addressed itself properly to this task. I believe it has made a judgment which is correct, and I have not heard anything from the Minister which indicates that the Senate should disagree with the judgment of the Committee. Indeed may I say that I rather suspect that if Senator Greenwood were not in the position of having to defend this ordinance, which was made not by him but by his predecessor, and if he were still on the Committee he would be agreeing with the viewpoint of the Committee. Perhaps it is not fair to say that but I think the Committee’s judgment should be endorsed by the Senate. Apart from the Committee’s view on this matter it is the view which 1 have come firmly to hold. This legislation is so important that it should be a matter for Parliament and not for the Executive.

The Opposition is not approaching this matter in any sense in a party spirit. If the legislation is disallowed it will be disallowed certainly so far as our votes count in the matter not as an exercise to knock over the Government. We are approaching this matter with a consideration of the proper role of Parliament in the making of legislation and the proper role of the Executive, and the extent to which we should allow the Executive Government to make laws. We are prepared to allow the Executive Government to do this in matters of administrative detail. We are prepared to allow it to do this in regard to ordinances which are simply copies of State legislation and where there is no reason to think there is any considerable departure from the established principles. But when we have matters undoubtedly of considerable principle, undoubtedly of important changes in the law which effect the rights of citizens in the enforcement sphere, which concern the judicial branch of government, I think it is fair to say that this should not be left to the Executive. This is a matter which should be handled by the Parliament and, therefore, I indicate that the Opposition will support the motion moved by the Chairman of the Committee.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– This is a type of matter which stimulates some of the most intense, some of the most detailed and yet some of the calmest and most important debate that takes place in this chamber. There are many occasions on which motions for disallowance come before the Senate and in which, as Senator Murphy has said, the debate has been approached on a completely non-political basis. Tn those instances such expertise and such professional skill as can be assembled in this place through various honourable senators is brought to bear in discussions and deliberations on the matter before the Senate. This is such another illustration. I agree that it is an overstatement of the position to speak of the body of the law of evidence as being the most important branch of the law. Nevertheless, one cannot underestimate its significance and its importance and I think it is equally impor tant to say that it does not interfere with rights. After all, rights are affected in a very fundamental way by the applicable laws of evidence going towards their establishment or to their destruction. Therefore, this body of ordinances is of very great importance.

However 1 think the Committee perhaps errs in the first paragraph of its report when it says that this Ordinance makes a comprehensive code of the law of evidence. The law of evidence is in a great part of the body of the common law as well as in such evidentiary provisions as are made in statutes, in this case statutes of New South Wales and some of the Commonwealth. This ordinance is not in that sense a complete codification of the law of evidence. What it is is an assemblage in the form of a single ordinance, as I comprehend it, of provisions which now are scattered through various other bodies of law, State and Federal.

Senator Cavanagh:

– And international, too.

Senator BYRNE:

– That may be so. All I am saying is that it does not purport to he a complete codification of the applicable law of evidence. The Ordinance must be given its place of significance, but that place of significance must not he overstated or exaggerated. I have approached the consideration of this matter in the light of those comments.

The law of evidence is possibly the most frustrating, the most irritating and, to the ordinary lay person, the most incomprehensible branch of the law. Those who have occasion to come in contact with it can never discover why certain evidence cannot be given, why evidence must be given in a certain way and why certain facts that people wish to produce to the court cannot be adduced. The law of evidence must be constantly under review not only because of the developments in society, an increasing degree of sophistication and new methods of communication but also because of the new methods by which evidence can be obtained. A new means has to be devised by which evidence properly attained can be adduced in court and, as part of the evidentiary body, be put before a juriciary or tribunal to assist in its determination. It is important that, of alt the bodies of law, the law of evidence should be the most viable and the least, static.

The fact that an ordinance has been brought forward which not only attempts to collect many of the statutory provisions relating to the taking of evidence in the Australian Capital Territory but also writes in some new principles, including the new principle relating to the use of computers, would indicate that the nature of the law of evidence and its import is appreciated by those who have the responsibility of administering it in this part of Australia, namely, the Australian Capital Territory. It is important that some attempt at least should be made to re-write the law of evidence - to collect, collate and apply it in more modern terms - in areas in which the Commonwealth has jurisdiction, which include the Australian Capital Territory.

Normally 1 would be disturbed if I thought that a substantive right was going to be dealt with by subordinate legislation rather than by statute; but I have taken a different attitude in relation to this mater. 1 have done so afer having discussed the matter with the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood), who indicated to me and to the Senate that there will be introduced into the Australian Capital Territory a new criminal code. That code is at present receiving the consideration of and is to bs compiled in a particular way by the Queensland Bar. There is, of course, a code of criminal law in Queensland; there has been one there virtually since the turn of the century. The Queensland Bar has, to a large measure, been responsible for taking the initiative in the presentation and compilation of a new code. The AttorneyGeneral has said that this code should come forward within the next 12 months. It will, of course, emerge in the form of a statute to operate in the federal Territories, but its effect no doubt will spill over into other areas of law. Perhaps it will become a nationally accepted code of criminal law.

Ancillary to that - in the area of what is called adjectival law - is the law of evidence. It has been said that it would not be inappropriate for the presentation of such a code and its passage through the Parliament to be accompanied by the presentation of a body of procedural law in perhaps both the civil and criminal fields that is complementary to the code. It would provide a comprehensive pattern of substantive criminal law and of evidentiary law if it were duly enacted by statute. In the light of the Attorney-General’s assurance, perhaps the present position should be allowed to continue. The acceptance of this Ordinance, as I have already indicated, will not result in the writing in of so many new principles that we should insist that they be introduced by statute. This Ordinance merely picks up much of the existing law and enacts it in another form and in another way. In view of the anticipated presentation of a criminal law code, it would seem appropriate that perhaps we should pause and allow the present position to continue, having in mind the assurance of the Attorney-General that at an appropriate time this whole body of law might be enacted by statute.

Let us not think that we alone in this part of the world are moving in this field of evidentiary law. This matter is under constant review in the States. Most of the States now have law reform committees looking at their substantive law as well as their auxiliary or adjectival law. New South Wales in particular has a Law Reform Commission looking into this aspect of the matter. That being so, it is quite possible that some of the principles which will be there devised and suggested for passing into State law will be available for inclusion in any code of evidentiary law applicable to the Australian Capital Territory and to other federal Territories. I think it would be regrettable therefore if at this stage we were, as it were, to freeze any statute when the position is completely fluid, particularly as it may be possible for the Commonwealth to command in the Territories under its control all the knowledge and information that the States are assembling and, by co-operation and coordination, perhaps to devise a common code of adjectival law in this field which will have application in not only the federal Territories but also the States law. As the AttorneyGeneral said, it would create a somewhat difficult position if there were to be in State courts vested with federal jurisdiction the application of one code of evidentiary law that is parallel to another body of evidentiary law that is applying in State courts operating within their own jurisdiction and applying their own law. It would be regrettable if that position were allowed to develop and allowed to go uncorrected. It appears to me that, if we were to legislate in this field, the possibility of correction and of alteration would be very much limited or reduced.

Because this Ordinance does purport merely to collate in many respects existing law that is otherwise contained in the statutes, particularly in the statutes of the State of New South Wales; because there is fluidity in the approach to the whole of this question; because of the assurance of the Attorney-General that he is conscious that, even though it is not a body of substantive law, it does to an extent impinge upon the statement of rights that it may quite properly find its place in the statutes; because he has that within his contemplation at the appropriate time; and because of the practical difficulties that may be associated with the destruction of this Ordinance and the resurrection of the multitude of laws otherwise applying, with their confusions and complexities, 1 feel that prudence dictates that this Ordinance be allowed to live. I could say a great deal more. I do think sometimes that the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, of which I have been a member for some years, has developed an oversensitivity to its task and is inclined-

Senator Devitt:

– That is an unfair statement.

Senator BYRNE:

– No, it is not. Committees of this nature can develop an oversensitivity. In other words, as one becomes embroiled in a particular situation one may find that one’s vision is inclined to be narrowed and, quite unknown to one, total objectivity is lost. In those circumstances, I think that the Committee should be aware, on the one hand, that it is operating within the norms of its charter - which it does - and that it has, on the other hand, a recognition of the practicalities of the situation. We must have a nice balance, always in issue, between individual rights and community rights, between the facilities that a government must have at its command if it is to function in the interests of all as against the rights and entitlements of individuals. That balance must be preserved always. Allied with sensitivity to these rights must always go a recognition of the practicalities of the situation and the rights of the community at large. In men tioning this 1 intend no criticism of the Committee. This is merely a note of caution. 1 suggest that the Committee should be alert always to that situation and that it at all times should attempt to preserve its objectivity and cold approach in order to operate strictly within its charter.

Senator Devitt:

– Is the honourable senator suggesting that there has been any lack of objectivity on the part of the Committee?

Senator BYRNE:

– Certainly not conscious lack of objectivity. I am saying that there could be an over-sensitivity. A committee may well put undue emphasis on one side or the other to the exclusion of other considerations unknown to it and not realised by it. I merely raise that as a counsel of caution without attempting to be critical of the Committee. I leave that salutary and, I hope, stimulating thought with members of the Committee who are listening to me.

In the light of those considerations and in the circumstances at this time I think that this Ordinance may well be allowed to proceed on its way and to operate for the great benefits it brings. It has been the consequence of skilled attention, of expert drafting and of close investigation by those who have felt that the laws of evidence as far as possible should be up to date in this part of Australia. I have had the pleasure of meeting the distinguished Professor of Law at Oxford University, Dr Cross, who operated for some time as an exchange professor at the University of Adelaide. It may or may not be known to honourable senators that Dr Cross is totally blind. He is one of the most amazing characters in the field of theoretical and practical law. His contribution in this field has been superb. If his expertise and knowledge have been brought to bear, and if he has been consulted about this Ordinance, I do not think one could have commanded greater skill. Therefore we can accept that this Ordinance is up to date, that it is far in advance, perhaps, of any similar collective body of evidentiary law now available in Australia, and that it may well become the beacon by which other States, other jurisdictions, may well guide their future in this field. If they do that then it is much better to leave the Ordinance as it is at the moment.

As I have said, let the States and jurisdictions draw upon this knowledge while in turn the Commonwealth draws upon the knowledge, opinions and expert attention which other people are giving to the body of evidentiary law in their jurisdictions. In that way ultimately we might witness the emergence of a nationally accepted code, a real code, of the laws of evidence. I rest upon the assurance of the AttorneyGeneral that at the appropriate time, perhaps contemporaneously with or at least not lagging far behind the presentation of a criminal code for the Australian Capital Territory, we might find a code of evidentiary law also presented. In the light of that assurance and in all the circumstances, the Democratic Labor Party supports the Ordinance and resists the motion for its disallowance.

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– After listening to 4 or 5 very distinguished members of the legal profession one is hesitant as a layman, to enter a debate of this nature. I have listened to their displays of professional skill and expertise in matters relating to the laws of evidence and I enter the debate genuinely as a member of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee - at least I was until yesterday - and one who benefited from 6 years association with it. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to take part in its deliberations and the contributions it has made, and to have shared with members of all parties in the Senate their views and deliberations on particular measures which have come before it. I acknowledge too the enthusiastic leadership of its chairman, Senator Wood.

The 36th report from the Regulations and Ordinances Committee now before the Senate deals with a situation involving a number of unique characteristics. The report refers to the Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 4 of 1971, the Evidence Ordinance 1971. In the report placed before the Senate which is now being debated there is a resolution calling for the disallowance of the Ordinance. Members of the Committee who were present at the last meeting will recall that I reserved my personal position in relation to this report and in relation to the disallowance. As the report states, the Ordinance enacts a comprehensive code for the laws of evidence. It introduces some changes that are important to the laws of evidence in the Australian Capital Territory. The Committee has pointed out that it is not so much concerned with the merits or demerits of the Ordinance but rather with whether these things should be brought into operation by means of subordinate legislation. The Senate is asked to decide whether matters relating to the laws of evidence should be promulgated by ordinance or whether they should be the subject of parliamentary deliberation, debate and enactment.

I want to draw attention to the reference in the Committee’s report to the fact that the Ordinance is the result of long consideration and research. This is the area on which I, as a layman, place particular reliance. The Committee undertook detailed research, received detailed evidence and had a considerable amount of discussion. It sought opinion and counsel. I have read and re-read the evidence and the opinions put before us in the Committee hearings, and by those counsel who advised the Committee from time to time. We were advised on many details relating to this report. We understand that the Ordinance was prepared by a committee of people most eminent and distinguished within their particular spheres. I think the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) confirmed this earlier in this debate.

Here in the Australian Capital Territory a group of most distinguished people, skilled in the fields of law, politics and parliament met under the leadership of Mr Justice Fox. According to my information, the proposals contained in this Ordinance were deliberated not only within the Australian Capital Territory but also were submitted on several occasions to a wide range of interests and authorities outside the Territory; within various societies associated with spheres of law, parliament and politics; within universities and learned circles within the States as well as beyond Australia. Therefore it is important to note that the Ordinance has been prepared by a distinguished and representative committee. It has taken a considerable amount of time in the preparation of the Ordinance.

Secondly, the comments of people outside the Australian Capital Territory were obtained. Therefore all spheres and areas in which residents of the Australian Capital Territory might be affected in any way were examined and re-examined. The Regulations and Ordinances Committee was the beneficiary of this advice. Therefore I do not think it is true to say that things are being brought in or are likely to be brought in by the back door. Not only was all this evidence obtained and discussed; it was submitted to legal bodies for comment. Arrangements were made and opportunities were provided for people not only to examine the matter but also to obtain copies of the proposals as a matter of right and to then have the opportunity to submit comment and even protest. I recall my personal searching inquiry on this matter when the Committee was discussing it with the people who were before it.

Reference has also been made to the fact that legislation by ordinance - and the Committee’s report deals with this - is inherent in the system of government within the Territory and that often the A.C.T. ordinances are the outcome of agreements among the States on uniform legislation. So I mention something of the problem that would arise if the Ordinance were disallowed. We would return to the existing legislation. If the situation were such that this matter was the result of a parliamentary Act, there would arise the problems of turning far too often from ordinances on the one hand to Acts on the other. Therefore it seems to me that the Ordinance, as it is proposed, is most suitable and that any changes made and anything flowing from it, any further regulations and ordinances, would be subject to the searching scrutiny of the Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee.

I return to the committee responsible for the preparation of the Ordinance. It set out to produce the best possible ordinance, having regard to the laws of the States and of British Commonwealth countries. The Evidence Ordinance is an up to date set of rules designed to produce the best possible justice under all circumstances. Earlier laws, which it proposes to replace, were contained in a New South Wales Act of 1898 and in miscellaneous Crimes Acts of about 1900. If the disallowance takes place, the Australian Capital Territory returns to those laws, with all their imperfections because of their age and because they do not apply in today’s situation. The evidence given to the Regulations and Ordinances Committee - and this is how I base my argument in intruding into the debate - was that the proposed Ordinance has been thought out carefully and prepared carefully. It has been examined thoroughly and re-examined. It has been prepared by people who are skilled in their particular spheres. It has been prepared over a considerable period. It has been made available to a wide range of authorities, commentators and opinions. It has been subjected to the widest possible scrutiny. Above all, as an ordinance, it is part of a system that has been successfully inherent in the system of government in the Australian Capital Territory. When speaking to the Committee yesterday I indicated that I reserved my right on this. While I have a wide appreciation of the points which have been put, I support the view that the proposed Ordinance should stand. Therefore I propose to not support the motion for disallowance.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– 1 rise to comment very briefly on one theme which has run through the comments of all speakers who have spoken in favour of maintaining the Ordinance. It was given its fullest expression by the previous speaker, Senator Davidson, but it was referred to also by Senator Byrne and by the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood). I refer to the proposition that in some way it is almost impertinent for Parliament to presume to examine with any closeness a measure which has had the attention of distinguished experts. I do not yield in any respect to any of the speakers in this debate when agreeing that in this Ordinance we have had the assistance of some very distinguished legal men. The names of Mr Justice Fox of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court and Mr Justice Mason of the New South Wales Court of Appeal have been mentioned. From my experience of these men I know that they are very eminent lawyers. But I think it would be a sad day for the Senate and for Parliament generally if legislators were intimidated in any way by the distinguished qualifications of whose who have assisted in the drafting of legislation. Surely this criticism could be levelled against the impertinence of the Senate or the House of Representatives in challenging any matter that came before it.

Presumably the Government of the day, in drafting an Act or ordinance, does call upon skilled minds to assist in the framing of the Act or ordinance. To say that this should in some way inhibit the Parliament is totally to misconceive the function of the Parliament. We do not sit here as a collection of experts. We bring to the consideration of Bills or ordinances that come before us a lay mind. In a sense it could be said that what we bring to the consideration of these measures is the collective folk wisdom and experience of the Community. I would merely suggest that in respect of this Ordinance or in respect of any Bill the fact that it has been framed by distinguished minds is never a good argument against the Parliament considering meticulously or irrelevantly anything that is brought before it. Lawyers especially will know that there is nothing sacrosanct about lawyers which should put them beyond question. It is a familiar spectacle to see the highest legal minds in the land - the judges of the High Court - divided 4 to 3 on matters of the utmost importance to the community - matters on which the layman might imagine that there could be such certainty that the judges would be unanimous. I suggest that when honourable senators are examining this proposition and voting on it they should not be intimidated in any way by the argument put firstly by the Minister, then by Senator Byrne and then by Senator Davidson, that this Ordinance is almost above question because some of the best legal minds have been engaged in preparing it. I suggest that this is a totally irrelevant argument and one which should be overlooked by senators.

There were one or two smaller matters raised by the Minister which I suggest are equally irrelevant. One was the fact that this was the first time in the 40 years of its existence that the Committee has taken the course which it is suggesting now and that that in some way is an argument against taking this proposition seriously. This may indicate nothing more than that the Committee as at present constituted is more conscientious and more watchful than perhaps it has been in the past. Honourable senators should ignore this argument also Nor is it an argument - and this, too, was put by the Minister - that legislative enactments affecting the Australian Capital Territory are ordinarily done by ordinance rather than by statute. The fact that he could find only two instances of the latter course having been taken is, I submit, also beside the point. If it can he done by statute, it should be done by statute. The rarity of such action is quite beside the point. If the Ordinance deals with a matter of such importance that it should receive the consideration of the Parliament by coming before the Parliament as a statute, that should conclude the matter. The other arguments that have been put by the Minister and by the other speakers in favour of maintaining the Ordinance are, I suggest, so many red herrings.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I would like first to mention the principles under which the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances works and has worked for many years. The one that is of particular relevance to the Evidence Ordinance is that the functions of the Committee are to scrutinise regulations and ordinances to ascertain that they are concerned with administrative detail and do not amount to substantive legislation which should be a matter for parliamentary enactment. The proposal to disallow this ordinance is based on this self imposed principle that the Committee has adopted. In reporting on the Evidence Ordinance the Committee stated in its report:

This Ordinance enacts a comprehensive code of the law of evidence, and replaces various New South Wales statutes and other laws previously in force in the Australian Capital Territory.

As I understand the position, when the Australian Capital Territory was established the laws as they stood in New South Wales at that time were applied to the Territory. If they were subsequently amended in New South Wales that alteration did not apply to the Australian Capital Territory. Consequently the ACT has many laws and regulations dating from, I think, 1911. Many of them are still in the same form that they were in at that time and have not been amended. This Parliament is the only legislative body that the people of the Australian Capital Territory have. In effect this Parliament is the government for what might be called a separate State with a population of approximately 100,000 people. I do not believe^ that the national Parliament can be expected to burden itself with all regulations and ordinances which affect the Territory. If the Parliament were to do that an undue proportion of our time would be occupied in considering and discussing these matters. The question is: Where do we draw the line? Which ordinances should be brought into effect by regulation and which by substantive legislation? I understand that the Seat of Government (Administration) Act gives a very wide blanket cover which enables the Government to make regulations for the ACT.

In dealing with this Ordinance the Committee has said in its report that it is not concerned with the merits or demerits of the provisions of the Ordinance. It is my impression that most members of the Committee think it is a very good ordinance which has had much work put into it and which covers a very comprehensive range of subjects. There is no question that under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act the Government has power to make an ordinance. Some of the changes provided by this Ordinance will have a widespread effect. There has been an endeavour in this legislation to update many of the provisions of the law of evidence to enable the use of modern methods such as computers which were probably not in existence when the laws of evidence now applying in the Australian Capital Territory were brought into effect. The Ordinance makes provision for, among other things, the admissibility in evidence of copies made on microfilm. It provides also, as I have said, for the admissibility of documents produced by computers. The Ordinance contains pages of new provisions relating to the admissibility of evidence. The matters referred to are very comprehensive; quite a few of them have been mentioned already.

I come now to what may be described as the grey area - whether these matters should be dealt with by substantive legislation or by this Ordinance. We have been told that today is the last possible day on which the Senate may act in respect of this Ordinance, that if the Senate does not take action today the Ordinance will be automatically disallowed. I have been told that that is the law on the subject and that that is the reason for the debate being brought on today. I have given this matter careful consideration. I have listened to the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Greenwood) who has said that he is willing to look at the whole position in the near future and - I think these were his words - that he would try to draft a consolidated Act to cover the criminal code, the laws of evidence that go with it, court procedure and everything else. 1 think it would be far better to allow the Ordinance to stand and to debate the Bill for a consolidated Act when it comes before the Parliament. That is the position that I take on this issue.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– in reply - In winding up the debate I point out that of the several points that have been introduced in the course of the debate, one matter which has been dealt with in detail relates to the fine contents of this Ordinance. The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances deliberately stated in its report, which was presented to the Senate last night, that it is not concerned with the quality of the contents of the Ordinance.

Senator Marriott:

– Then why throw it out?

Senator Murphy:

– I am not happy about some of it, now that we are having a closer look at it.

Senator WOOD:

– What I mean is that the Senate is not debating whether the contents are good or bad. That does not come within the scope of the debate. Any debate relating to that aspect only leads away from what the Regulations and Ordinances Committee is driving at. The main reason why the Committee has brought this matter forward is that members of the Committee feel that the Ordinance is of a sufficiently substantial nature to be dealt with by way of legislation. All members of the Committee who were present when this Ordinance was first considered felt that it should be dealt with by way of legislation.

Senator Poyser:

– They have changed their minds for some reason.

Senator WOOD:

– That was the considered opinion of Committee members at that time. However, ultimately that became a majority opinion, and now Senator Lawrie has changed his mind on the matter, reducing by one the number of members of that opinion. Senator Byrne praised the Committee but suggested that it might be becoming over-sensitive; in other words, he was suggesting that the Committee might be too particular about the matters that it brings forward. In October I will have been Chairman of this Committee for 18 years, which is an all time record for any Committee of the Australian Parliament. So I would be the only person who would know what trends have developed. Over that period of 18 years the Committee has had some very valuable members. For instance, 3 of the present Ministers were members of the Committee. Senator Wright-

Senator Poyser:

– Was he good or bad?

Senator WOOD:

– He was a very good member and was one of the most valuable members that we have had on the Committee for many years. Senator Greenwood was a member of the Committee for some years. Senator Drake-Brockman served with the Committee for a short time. Among Opposition senators we have had Senator Willesee, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who served for many years, acting as Deputy Chairman. He was particularly valuable to us. A number of others also were members. As a matter of fact the present occupant of the Chair, Senator Prowse, also was a member of the Committee for some time and represented the Australian Country Party on the Committee. Senator Byrne was a very valuable member of the Committee and was a member when it went through what was probably its greatest crisis. I refer to the time when the Committee moved for the disallowance of the import licensing regulations which had a profound effect throughout this Parliament and throughout Australia. Over the years I have seen on that Committee some very valuable members. All the people whom I have mentioned are not palavering. They have all rendered extremely valuable service. I have not seen any trend whereby members of the Committee are becoming over-sensitive or trying to find ways of picking on things in order to make a scene. I have said that before and I say it again.

Senator Gair:

– You are being dogmatic.

Senator WOOD:

– No, I am not being dogmatic. I say that in all truthfulness. Senator Byrne was representing the Australian Labor Party at the time. During the 18 years I have served as member and Chairman of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee I have not seen a member of any political party working on the Committee a political angle. I believe that members have worked on the basis that it is a committee representing this Parliament. They work in the highest parliamentary traditions. I feel confident that when members of the Committee introduce a report recommending to the Senate that something be done or that something be disallowed the fullest consideration has been given to that recommendation. That has been my assessment during my time with the Committee.

I am not a legal man. I am a layman. Sometimes I think it would be better to have a legal man as chairman but as a layman I do my best to interpret what is suggested and what is recommended or decided. From that point I try to be absolutely impartial and fair, at all times keeping in mind what is best from a parliamentary point of view. Briefly I mention the words of the late Senator Pearson when he discussed the Regulation and Ordinances Committee with the late Sir Robert Garran. Sir Robert Garran said to him that in his opinion it was the most important Committee in Parliament. Its duty was to see that Parliament ran the country with legislation, not the Executive with regulations and ordinances. Those words came from the great mind of one of the men who helped to write the Constitution. I have always kept that in mind and I have always tried to apply that principle in the considerations of this Committee. The recommendation that this regulation be disallowed goes forth to honourable senators as a majority recommendation of the Committee.

Question put:

That the motion moved by Senator Wood for the disallowance of Evidence Regulation 1971 bc agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 24

NOES: 23

Majority .1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 196

COMMITTEES

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to inform the Senate that I have received letters from honourable senators requesting discharge from the following Committees:

Standing Orders Committee, Senator Wright Library Committee, Senators Withers and Lawrie

Publications Committee, Senators Maunsell and Young

House Committee, Senators Buttfield, Maunsell and Withers

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:

That Senator Wright be discharged from the Standing Orders Committee; that Senators Withers and Lawrie be discharged from the Library Committee; that Senators Maunsell and Young be discharged from the Publications Committee; and that Senators Maunsell and Withers be discharged from the House Committee.

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) proposed:

That the following senators be appointed to the following Committees:

Standing Orders Committee, Senators Young and Rae

Library Committee, Senators Buttfield and Carrick

Publications Committee, Senators Durack and Withers

House Committee, Senators Guilfoyle, Laucke and Jessop

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I wish to speak briefly to this motion. I was under the impression that appointments were not going to be made, particularly to the Standing Orders Committee, because there is a notice of motion to reconstitute that Committee.

I thought that these nominations in the new Senate were to be held up pending the resolution of that motion. I may have been under a misapprehension. I thought that, as there is a new Senate and it is felt that the Standing Orders Committee should be reconstituted on a different basis, appointments to it were to be held up pending the determination of that principle. But perhaps these are only replacements at this stage.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– (New South Wales - Minister for Health) (5.16) - in reply - Perhaps ‘I should give an explanation. The official Opposition does not make changes at this time. It chooses to do so at a time when there is an election in another place. In the Senate on the Government side we always choose to reexamine our appointments at the time of Senate elections, every 3 years. These appointments are merely replacements for senators who, as you have indicated, Mr President, have left the committees. If this were not done the committees would not be able to sit.

Senator Byrne:

– Will this affect the other matter?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– It has no effect upon that at all.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 196

REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to inform the Senate that I have received letters from Senators Davidson and Lawrie requesting their discharge from attendances on the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:

That Senators Davidson and Lawrie be discharged from attendance on the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate nominating, pursuant to standing order 36a, Senators Durack of Western Australia and Webster of Victoria to be members of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth

Anderson) agreed to:

That Senators Durack and Webster, having been duly nominated in accordance with standing order 36a, be appointed to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.

page 197

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to inform the Senate that I have received a letter from Senator Prowse tendering his resignation from the Joint Committee on Public Works.

Motion . (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:

That Senator Prowse be discharged from attendance on the Joint Committee on Public Works and that, in accordance with the Public Works Committee Act 1969, Senators Cant, Jessop and Webster be appointed members of the Joint Committee on Public Works.

page 197

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to inform the Senate that I have received a letter from Senator Webster requesting his discharge, from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts.

Motion (by Senator Sir . Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:

That Senator Webster be discharged from attendance on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and that, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1966, Senators Guilfoyle and Lawrie be appointed members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts.

page 197

LEGISLATIVE AND GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEES

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate appointing the following senators to the following legislative and general purpose standing committees: Education, Science and the Arts, Senators Carrick and Davidson to replace Senators Sir Magnus Cormack and Prowse; Health and Welfare, Senators Bonner and Jessop to replace Senators Davidson and Webster; and Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade, Senator Prowse to replace Senator Rae.

page 197

FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to inform the Senate that I have received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate appointing Senators Carrick *nd

16261/71-,$- I8J

Hannan to the Joint - Committee on Foreign Affairs to fill vacancies caused by the resignations of Senators Buttfield ind Sir Magnus Cormack.

page 197

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the. Opposition · New South Wales

– by leave - I move:

That ‘Senator Fitzgerald be granted leave ot absence for one month on account of illness.

The Senate will probably be pleased to know that Senator Fitzgerald is recovering and we hope to have him back with us fairly shortly.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 197

PLACING OF BUSINESS

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

(5.23) - Before moving a motion to bring on further business for debate until 5.45 this afternoon, I intimate that as General Business will take precedence of Government Business after 8 o’clock tonight I have it in contemplation to move the necessary motion to enable us to discuss the Standing Orders Committee report which has been tabled and then, if we dispose of that as I hope we will, I will be perfectly happy to come back, although strictly it is not General Business, to the debate on the ministerial statement on Vietnam. I now have to move a motion to enable us to debate that between now and 5.45. I move:

That intervening business 1 be postponed until after consideration of Order of the Day No. 3- resumption of debate on the motion by the Minister for Works, that the Senate take note of the statement on Australian military forces in Vietnam.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– Under General Business there is a motion in my name which stands first on the notice paper.

Senator Murphy:

– I do not think so.

Senator BYRNE:

– Is not that the position?

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– I would not go to the barricades on that I am in the hands of the Senate after 8 o’clock tonight. I suggest that tonight might be a suitable time for us to dispose of the Standing Orders Committee report

Senator BYRNE:

– I think that is quite logical; but perhaps we might have received some intimation of that in view of the fact that, if I am correct, a motion in my name stands first on the notice paper under General Business.

Senator Murphy:

– If you read the notice paper you will find differently.

Senator BYRNE:

– Perhaps Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson will be good enough to explain the position.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Health) (5:25) - in reply - I would not like it to be thought that any discourtesy was being extended to Senator Byrne but it was my clear understanding that tonight we would be dealing with Orders of the Day. As he knows, we alternate between Orders of the Day in one week and General Business in the next week. Therefore it did seem to me that tonight would be an ideal opportunity to deal wim the Standing Orders proposals. They are not political matters; they are our own domestic matters which we have to discuss in a completely non-political way in order to try to get some improvement in our procedures.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 198

FUTURE OF AUSTRALIAN FORCES IN VIETNAM, AND NATIONAL SERVICE

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed (vide page 162), on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– The announcement made by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), which was read to the Senate by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson), indicates that we .are about to close one of the most shameful, tragic and absurd chapters in Australian history. The withdrawal of Australian troops from Vietnam is. something which the members of. the Australian Labor Party, and by now the majority of. the Australian people, have looked forward to with anticipation for many years. This has now come to pass. It has come to pass very late. It has come to pass for 2 reasons. The first is that the aggression of those nations who wished to. impose upon the people of. Vietnam a. form of government and. a group of rulers whom they did not want has been smashed by the heroism and the dedication of the Vietnamese people. The second consideration which has played a part in this withdrawal has been the resistance of many hundreds of thousands of Australian people against the participation of our troops in Vietnam and the resistance of many millions of American people against the continuation of the presence of American troops in Vietnam.

We have received within the past few hours several documents. Included amongst them are a statement on foreign affairs by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) and a statement by the Prime Minister on the future of Australian forces in Vietnam. In the Prime Minister’s statement on the future of the Australian forces in Vietnam are repeated the same old untruths which we have been hearing for the past 6 years - the same weak, implausible explanations for the presence of young Australian conscripts in the unhappy countries of Indo-China.

I should like to refer to some of the oftquoted pseudo-reasons for the presence of our young men in Vietnam because they are referred to again by the Prime Minister in his statement. He takes us back to 1965 and states:

It seemed only a matter of time before Hanoi and the Vietcong-

By ‘Hanoi and the Vietcong’ he means the Vietnamese people - which supported Hanoi’s cause, ‘ would take over the country by main force in defiance of the 1954 Geneva Agreements.

This is one of the untruths which have been repeated continually by this Government, namely, that the Vietnamese Government in Hanoi and the National Liberation Front in South Vietnam have been acting in some way in- defiance of the Geneva Agreements. This should not need repetition. If anyone wishes to know whether or not the Vietnamese were acting in defiance of the Geneva Agreements he need do no more than look at the text of the Geneva Agreements. When the Agreements were made in 1954°, the United States, although not a signatory to the Agreements, indicated quite clearly through its then Secretary .of State, Mr Foster Dulles, that k ‘ would support and carry out the terms of the Geneva Agreements.

The Agreements provided quite clearly that there was only one country of Vietnam, that there was only one state of Vietnam. The National Liberation Front, whose armed forces were known as the Vietminh, whose leader was the late Ho Chi Minh, and whose seat of government was in Hanoi, were to be given jurisdiction over the northern sector of Vietnam, and the French, who then were the colonial power in Vietnam, were to be given jurisdiction over the southern part of Vietnam. It was made quite clear in the Agreements that this division was not to be of a .permanent nature, that in no way was it to be construed from the Agreements that there were 2 separate states. There was only one state of Vietnam divided into 2 sectors which were under separate administrations.

The Geneva Agreements went on to say that as early as practicable, and at the latest by the middle of 1936, there should he held free elections throughout the whole of Vietnam to form a government for the one nation of Vietnam. Those elections were never held. The reason why they were not held was not any action taken by the Government in Hanoi, which commanded the support of the overwhelming majority of the Vietnamese people. They were not held because the Americans, who by that time had de facto succeeded the French as the colonial power in South Vietnam, had introduced into that country certain Vietnamese who for the most part had been absent from the land of their birth for very many years and who established a bogus government which they had the audacity to call the Republic of Vietnam. That government refused to carry OUt the terms of the Agreements, and it was only when it became obvious that the United States and the puppets of the United States were not carrying out the terms of the Geneva Agreements that the National Liberation Front in South Vietnam engaged in armed activity in order to see that the people of Vietnam would be able to conduct their own affairs. It was a long struggle which they carried on for decades against the French, then against the Japanese, then against the French again, and then against the Americans.

Australia decided to send troops to Vietnam. We have been given various reasons why a certain select group of young Australians should be conscripted to go to fight and to mutilate and to kill and to be mutilated and killed themselves. We have been given various reasons why this should be done to them and why they should be forced to do these things to others of their fellow men. One of the reasons given was that we were defending a small country against aggression. We are told this by a government whose sensitivity to the plight of small countries suffering from aggression has been clearly indicated by the action it has taken in relation to the situation in Bengal in recent weeks. I think that is an indication of just how strongly it really feels about the suffering of humanity and aggression by armed forces. Of course, the Geneva Agreements give the lie to the claim that we are there in defence of a small independent country. It was a fictitious stooge country created by the American Government.

The second argument, which is probably more honest but at the same time much more contemptible and undesirable, was that we were part of some great American alliance, whose nature is usually unspecified. Sometimes reference was made to the South East Asia Treaty Organisation. Sometimes reference was made to ANZUS. Both of these treaties are clearly not applicable to the situation in South Vietnam, as is indicated by the fact that most of the countries which were members of SEATO were not involved in the war in Vietnam. Two of them - France and Pakistan - are opposed to the American actions in Vietnam.

The ANZUS Treaty, which refers only to aggression against one of the three member countries - Australia, New Zealand and the United States - obviously has nothing to do with the form of government in South Vietnam. I must confess that when I have been in the United States I have not heard an American talk about the Australian alliance. Here, we were continually told about the American alliance. The argument went that if we would send troops to Vietnam because the United States had troops there, somehow or other in days to come the United States Government would remember what we had done for it and at great inconvenience to itself it would get into difficulties, and give American lives and arms and American wealth in order to save Australia from some aggressor because of what we had done in Vietnam. 1 think it should be fairly clear to even the most gullible member of the Liberal Party, even the most rustic member of the Australian Country Party, and even the most obscurantist member of the Australian Democratic Labor Party that such is far from being the case. What has been the record of relations between the United States and Australia ever since we have had troops in Vietnam? When the United States decided to reduce Australian meat imports into that country, did anybody say that that action should not be taken because Australia had 8,000 troops in Vietnam? When the President of the United States decided to go to China to pay court to Chairman Mao in order to salvage the few vestiges of American interests still left in that part of the world following the results of the United States’ absurd foreign policy, did the President give any consideration to the embarrassing situation in which he placed his loyal ally, the Prime Minister of Australia? Did he pay any heed to the situation which existed in Australia at that time after the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) had been to China?

Senator Hannan:

– And sold out everything.

Senator WHEELDON:

– 1 see that Senator Hannan is back again.

Senator Hannan:

– And sold-

Senator WHEELDON:

– Senator Hannan should not get too agitated. He knows what a state it puts him into. I am commiserating with his condition and I do not think he should agitate it by getting so annoyed. I suggest to Senator Hannan that he read the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen). If Senator Hannan is suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition sold out Australia by going to China I suggest that he carefully read the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and ask for assistance on any parts he cannot understand. Here was the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr McMahon) accusing the Leader of the Opposition, with words he has now dropped but which Senator Hannan still remembers, of selling out Australia by going to China. Here was the DLP saying that Mr Whitlam was the Manchurian

Candidate, thereby showing a command of some light literature.

President Nixon, the President of the United States himself, is to go off to China, his arrangements made for him by none other than Dr Kissinger, regarded as probably the most eminent - or, if ‘eminent’ is not the word, the most persuasive and well-informed - adviser to the United States Government. So if the Prime Minister were to continue along his. previous tack he would have no alternative but to describe President Nixon as the Manchurian President, and to say that President Nixon had sold out Australia or had sold out the United States. Of course, the Prime Minister of Australia has put himself in a number of ridiculous situations but even he would find it difficult to redbait President Nixon. Even our Prime Minister would find that a little beyond his talents.

The point I am making in all this is that here was this absurd situation that developed. Did the United States Government pay the slightest heed to the position of its ally, Australia? It paid no heed whatsoever. It consulted no more with the Government of Australia than it consulted wits the governments of Rwanda, Burundi or the Government of the. Soviet Union. The Government of the United States decided that it was in the interests of the United States to talk turkey with the Chinese, and if the Australians did not like it, it was too bad for them. This is what we have been saying ever since this war started. It is absurd nonsense that if we would send 8,000 troops to Vietnam, the United States would come rushing to our support. The United States would come to the support of Australia if it became involved in conflict with another power, if it thought it were in the interests of the United States to do so. The United States would not come to Australia’s assistance if it did not think it was in the interests of the United States to do so. The United States thinks it is in its interests to have an agreement with the Government of China and it will have an agreement with the Government of China, whether it is in the interests of Australia or not.

Within the last few days the floating of the United States dollar has taken place and a 10 per cent surcharge is to be made on imports into the United States. Has the United States Government said: ‘But of course, we have to make one exception to all this - dear little Australia and Mr McMahon. He has fought so hard in Vietnam with us for so many years that the 10 per cent surcharge does not apply to Australia because of what they have done for us in Vietnam?’ Not at all. The 10 per cent surcharge applies to Australia in the same way as it applies to Chile with its Marxist President, to Roumania, Bulgaria, East Germany, Albania and Sweden. There has not been one bit of consideration for Australia. If Ted Hill had been Prime Minister of Australia instead of Billy McMahon, the treatment we have had in respect of the floating of the United States dollar would not have been one whit worse than it is at present under the present Government which has sent young Australians to murder and to be murdered in Vietnam in order to build up these treasures in heaven.It has been said that the United States would make great sacrifices on our behalf because of our young men we have had murdered in Vietnam. What has been the result? Our meat cannot be exported to the United States. The United States Government consults with China without telling us a word about it. The United States has floated its dollar and has imposed a 10 per cent surcharge on our exports to that country. There has not been one word of consideration for Australia.

After all this, is the situation any better? The Prime Minister, in his statement on the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam, tells us of the parlous situation in which we found ourselves back in 1965 before the Liberal Party came to our rescue. What was the situation then? The Prime Minister described certain dreadful things and referred to China, whose aims and policies in the area were causing great concern. He said:

Nor was that al). The independence of Laos and Cambodia were in precarious balance.

Apparently the sending of Australian troops to Vietnam stopped all that. I refer now to another document. I do not know whether it indicates a further split in the Cabinet or that the Ministers do not read each other’s statements. I refer honourable senators to page 3 of the statement made by the Honourable N. H. Bowen, Q.C., M.P. on the matter. In referring to the situation now he said:

But the conflict is still unresolved and North Vietnam has its troops not only in South Vietnam but also Cambodia and Laos.

From the Prime Minister’s statement one would have inferred that all sorts of terrible things were going on in Cambodia and Laos but we would send our troops to Vietnam and the situation in Cambodia and Laos would be saved. Everything would be all right. But what does the Foreign Minister tell us? He tells us that North Vietnamese troops are still in Cambodia and Laos and the situation is still unresolved.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But he is only a new Foreign Minister.

Senator WHEELDON:

- Senator Cavanagh has reminded me that he is only a new Foreign Minister. If I may make an observation, he does not seem to be any different from any of the old ones.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

General Business Taking Precedence of Government Business After 8 p.m.

Motion (by Senator Wright) agreed to:

That intervening business be postponed until after the consideration of Government business, that is, order of the day No. 2 dealing wilh the fourth report of the Standing Orders Committee and the adjourned debate on the motion by the Minister for Health that the Senate take note of the paper on the Australian forces in Vietnam.

page 201

QUESTION

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

Report

In Committee

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– It will be seen that the report of the Standing Orders Committee is divided into 12 items with a number of proposed amendments to the Standing Orders. I suggest that the Committee consider the report item by item.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Prowse:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is it the wish of the Committee to consider the report item by item? There being no objection it is so ordered.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I ask the Committee to address itself to item 1 which willbe found on page 1 of the report and concerns the composition of the Committee as prescribed by standing order 33. I will not take the time in subsequent stages of adopting the procedure of reading the Standing Orders but so that we may key in to the meaning of the process tonight, I will read standing order 33. It provides:

A Standing Orders Committee, to consist of the President and Chairman of Committees and 7 senators . . .

At the present time the 7 senators comprise 4 Government and 3 Opposition senators. Having in mind the present composition of the Senate - 26 Government, 26 Opposition, 5 Australian Democratic Labor Party and 3 independent senators - the Committee considers there should be an opportunity for further representation on the Committee. Accordingly, the following amendment to the Standing Orders is recommended:

Leave out the word ‘seven’ and insert the word eight’.

To promote debate upon that matter I move:

That the amendment to standing order 33 contained in paragraph 2 be agreed to.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I would like to indicate that my Party approaches this matter on a non-party basis. In other words there is a free vote by all Opposition senators on the various items. I have nothing to say on this particular motion.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– The Australian Democratic Labor Party welcomes the proposed alteration to standing order 33. Very correctly the report recites the reasons behind this proposed alteration, that is, the changed complexion of the Senate which up to this time has not been reflected in the composition of the Standing Orders Committee. I draw attention to the fact that there is on the notice paper at page 3096 notice of motion No. 6 which reads:

Senator Byrne To move With a view to the Standing Orders Committee being as representative as possible of the composition of the Senate at any time, the Senate resolves that -

Standing Order 33 be amended by leaving out the words ‘seven Senators’ and inserting in lieu thereof the words ‘such other Senators as may be appointed by the Senate’; and

Senator Gair be appointed -a member of the Standing Orders Committee.

There is little doubt that if the proposal from the Standing Orders Committee is adopted, that is, that the number be increased from 7 to 8, the one who would logically and properly be appointed by resolution of the Senate is Senator Gair. My point is that my proposed amendment was designed to accommodate particularly Senator Gair and the independents. That is why I said: ‘Such other Senators as may be appointed by the Senate’. While I welcome the proposed amendment, what should be done is to adopt the proposal of the Standing Orders Committee at this stage. We would do so in the fond expectation and hope and, we trust, certain anticipation that the additional senator would be representative of the Democratic Labor Party in the person of Senator Gair but that provision for the independents should not be lost sight of. Perhaps at a later stage provision might be made by a motion that the number be increased by one to provide for the independents.

It is not my province to plead for my friends who sit behind me but we must recognise that the Senate is composed today in terms of an electoral system which is based on proportional representation. It would be a contradiction in terms if the electoral system were to provide for a Senate disposed as it is now in numbers and political allegiances, but, due to the Standing Orders, those who came here by virtue of that system were not given an opportunity to participate fully in the deliberation and operations of the Parliament. It is for that reason I proposed the amendment standing in my name on the notice paper. Naturally my first consideration would be that the major non-Government and non-Opposition group should have priority in representation and that this should be by its leader. Hence the specific reference to Senator Gair. Also my motion was put on the notice paper in the light of the anticipated presence of the independents. They may speak for themselves. Even now or at some time provision should be made for their representation,

Senator Poyser:

– Is it not your argument to put them all on?

Senator BYRNE:

– Common sense would dictate what had to be done. After all, 3 senators represent a significant proportion of the Australian electorate and 2 come from the one State. Therefore, they represent a very big proportion of the Tasmanian vote. They are Senator Turnbull and Senator Townley. I do not think it would be proper if they got undue representation on the Standing Orders Committee. Equally 1 do not think it would be proper if they were denied representation. After all, the maximum and minimum representation they could get would be one. We could not do any. better than that. That may in terms of proportion be overrepresentation but this is as good as would be reasonably and practically possible. I do not propose to move any amendment to the recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee at this stage. The recommendation satisfies our Party requirements.

If anybody else would care to move a motion in the terms of my motion on the notice paper that such other senators as the Senate may determine be appointed, the independents may choose to speak to that. That is a matter for them and we would consider “any proposition that came forward. At this stage the Democratic Labor Party feels, as Senator Murphy has stated, that this is a non-party matter. This is a non-party matter in the Democratic Labor Party. Both parties happen fortuitously to see the same way on this issue. We support the recommendation and trust that in the logic of events if this resolution goes through unamended and the number is increased from 7 to 8 it would be the right and entitlement of the Democratic Labor Party to have that additional representative and that such representative should be left to the nomination of our Party. I assure the Senate it would be the leader of our Party as other leaders quite properly are represented, with other senators, on this Committee. The Democratic Labor Party supports the recommendation but I would ask the Senate to keep the other consideration in mind.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– I wish to raise one query. I support the remarks of Senator Byrne. My query is: Why is the composition of the Standing Orders Committee not stated? Does the fact that the proposal provides that the Standing Orders Committee shall consist of the President, the Chairman of Committees and 8 senators mean that an Australian Democratic Labor Party or

Independent senator will be a member of it? Why does it not state that there shall be, for example, 4 Government senators, 3 Opposition senators and 1 Democratic Labor Party or Independent senator on it? There must be a reason why standing order . 33 does not designate the parties that will be represented on the Committee.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The Senate does not recognise parties.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– That is true.

Senator Little:

– It has been an unwritten law that there will be 4 Government senators and 3 Opposition senators.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– But the membership is to be increased to 8 honourable senators. I would like it to be an unwritten law that one of those 8 honourable senators will be a Democratic Labor Party senator or an Independent senator but there is no guarantee that that will be the case.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I intercede again because I have mixed feelings about this matter. I am not opposed to the logic of what has been put forward by Senator Byrne that the Standing Orders Committee should be, in effect, a sample representation of the membership of the Senate. I think that this is something that we will have to face up to with regard to not only this Commiitee but also other Senate committees. It is reasonable as a matter of democracy for the Australian Democratic Labor Party to be represened on this Committee. It is probably also reasonable for the Independent senators to be represented on it, too. However, I do not agree that Senator Byrne’s proposal, which is to keep on adding one, is the way in which to assure fair representation. It is not the end of the matter simply to say that the Committee consists at present of 4 Government and 3 Opposition senators because the President and the Chairman of Committees have to be taken into account. In other words, the Government starts off with a membership of 2. A reasonable approach might even have been to have left the membership as it was and to have said that, in addition to the President and the Chairman of the Committees, the Government should have 2 senators on the Committee, the Opposition should have 3 and the extra 2 members, which were formerly filled by Government senators should be filled by Democratic Labor Party and the Independent senators. If the membership number had been left the same it would have, I think, still given the Government an effective control.

Senator Byrne:

– Actually it would not have.

Senator MURPHY:

– I am sorry, it would not. But should this matter anyway? The Government does not have a majority in the Senate. Senator Byrne wants the Committee to be a sample representation of the Senate. Why should the Government have a majority on every committee? Basically it is wrong. The membership of the committees ought to be a reflection of the position in the Senate itself.

Let us have a look at the proposition that has been put forward for the appointment of 8 senators, apart from the President and the Chairman of Committees, to the Standing Orders Committee. The membership could be made up in in the following way: 3 Government senators; 3 Opposition senators; 1 Democratic Labor Party senator and 1 Independent senator. I do not think it is wise to keep on inflating the size of the Committee. Perhaps this membership proposal could be regarded as a reasonable one. Because of the changes in membership and so on that occur from time to time, I think it would be wise to leave membership unnamed. Let us show a bit of common sense and have the Committee reflect the membership of the the Senate. I think that that would probably be a reasonable approach. I know that we are not deciding that question now, but I think it would be a commonsense approach to the matter. The Government would have a membership of 5 out of the 10 and it would have the right of a casting vote if a vote were taken. Most of the issues which are decided by committees are not decided by the weight of numbers anyway. I suggest that we should not increase the number of members beyond 8 but that we leave it at that number.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I acknowledge the remarks of Senator Turnbull. In reply to his comments I submit that it would be quite inappropriate for the Standing Orders to name the members of the Committee. The Standing Orders simply prescribe the composition of the Committee. If the proposal which is before honourable senators is accepted it will mean that the Committee will consist of the President, the Chairman of Committees and 8 other members appointed by the Senate. We have changes from time to time in the personnel of the Senate. To meet these changes standing order 33 provides at present that 7 senators shall be appointed at the commencement of each sitting. The very existence in the Senate of the Australian Democratic Labor Party and of the 3 Independent senators means that they will have a strong say in determining the representation on the Committee. Membership of the Committee is being increased from 7 to 8. The fact that the party affiliations of the 8 senators will be unspecified means that the Senate will in its wisdom have to appoint the appropriate members at the commencement of each session.

Senator Willesee:

– Other designations may come into it, too.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Yes. May 1 say, too, that the Standing Orders are simply the rules by which we continue to govern ourselves and a senator who is or is not on the Committee may move at any time for an amendment of the Standing Orders in regard to it. Although representation on this Committee may be considered important it is not essential because the final result is determined not by the Standing Orders Committee but by the Committee of the Whole and it is resolved according to the voting strength in the Committee of the Whole. I suggest that the recommendation that the Standing Orders Committee has put up to increase the membership from 7 to 8 senators should be accepted as being sufficient for the moment.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Item 2 (Publications Committee - Standing Order 36)

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I move:

The present wording of standing order 36 is that matters may be referred to the Publications Committee by the Treasurer. The Australian Government Publishing Service has now been transferred from the

Department of the Treasury to the Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. The relevant Minister to refer matters to this Committee therefore is the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. To accommodate this change and future changes it has been proposed that the word Treasurer’ in standing order 36 be omitted and the expression ‘relevant Minister’ inserted in lieu thereof.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Item 3 (Regulations and Ordinances - Standing Orders 36a and 66a)

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I move:

That the recommendations contained in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the report of the Standing Orders Committee be agreed to.

It will be seen from the report that the Standing Orders Committee was asked to consider the situation in regard to the Acts Interpretation Act. Under that Act regulations are required to be tabled within15 sitting days after their making and 15 sitting days are allowed after their tabling for a resolution on the part of the Senate for disallowance. The Committee considered a suggestion that the periods of time allowed for giving notice and the time remaining for considering notices of motion for the disallowance of regulations should be shown on the notice paper or otherwise made known. Delegated legislation is a matter of much importance and a special field in which this Senate has chosen to exert its influence. We had such a matter before us this afternoon. The Committee agreed that the information should be readily available. Honourable senators will notice that on the notice paper this week there is for the first time a notation relating to notice of motion No. 1. That notation states:

Notice given 29th April 1971- Last day for resolving.

That means that this is the last day for resolving that matter. As for notice of motion No. 2, the notation is:

Notice given 30th April 1971- sitting days remain for resolving.

This notation on our daily notice paper is designed to alert the Senate as to the time left for the disallowance of regulations.

In addition it is recommended, in paragraph 6 of the report, that the Senate office prepare a weekly list showing the number of sitting days remaining for the giving of notices of motion for the disallowance of regulations and ordinances which have not yet attracted the attention of the Senate. In this way they may be brought on to the notice paper. Therefore we recommend, firstly, that the Senate office prepare a weekly list of regulations and ordinances showing the number of sitting days remaining during which any senator may move for disallowance and, secondly, that when a notice of disallowance has been given, the notice paper should indicate the number of sitting days remaining within which the motion must be disposed of before the regulation or ordinance will be deemed to have been disallowed.

The first suggestion provides for the weekly list, and upon request to the Senate office any senator can immediately find out the amount of time remaining available to him to move for disallowance if need be.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Item 4 - Motions for adjournment to debate matter of urgency - Standing Order 64.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– For the information of honourable senators recently appointed let me state that this subject has involved us in a good deal of discussion during the past 3 years. It refers to standing order 64. Honourable senators will see that we state succinctly in this report:

The Committee considered a viewpoint expressed recently in the Senate-

According to my recollection, it was initiated by Senator Cant - that the phraseology of Standing Order 64 was unsatisfactory, in that the motion ‘That the Senate at its rising adjourn to any day or hour other than that fixed for the next ordinary meeting of the Senate, for the purpose of debating some matter of urgency’ could be interpreted as meaning that, if carried, the Senate should at the specified time at the next sitting then proceed to debate the matter of urgency. While the Standing Order has never been so interpreted, the Committee believes that the meaning of the Standing Order could be better expressed. Accordingly, the following amendment to Standing Order 64 is recommended:

Leave out ‘A motion without Notice, that the Senate at its rising adjourn to any day or hour other than that fixed for the next ordinary meeting of the Senate, for the purpose of debating some matter of urgency’, insert ‘A matter of urgency may be debated on a motion without Notice,-

That is the point; it may be debated upon a motion without notice - that the Senate at its rising adjourn to any day or hour other than that fixed for. the next ordinary meeting of the Senate.

The standing order would then .continue with the words ‘Such a motion . . .’ Honourable senators will wish to consider that proposition in relation to the whole of this group of propositions included under Item 4, all of which deal with standing order 64. It is my view that we should take together all the recommendations included in Item 4. Do you think that is clear?

Senator Murphy:

– I think we will become confused. I suggest we take them one at a time.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I defer to Senator Murphy’s suggestion that we take them one at a time. Accordingly, in respect of standing order 64, 1 move;

Leave out ‘A motion without Notice that the Senate at its rising adjourn to any day or hour other than that fixed for the next ordinary meeting of the Senate, for the purpose of debating some matter- of urgency’, insert ‘A matter of urgency may be debated on a motion without Notice, that the Senate at its rising adjourn to any day or hour other than that fixed for the next ordinary meeting of the Senate’.

I ask honourable senators to look at standing order 64 so that they will feel assured that they are being well guided by the Committee in altering the initial sentences of the standing order. Honourable senators will realise the ambiguity which arises in the present expression. I will read again the expression we have designed for insertion in substitution. This is what will be introduced if the Committee agrees to the proposition:

A matter of urgency may be debated on a motion without Notice, that the Senate at its rising adjourn to any day or hour other than that fixed for the next ordinary meeting of the Senate.

Honourable senators just have to catch on to the idea of moving a motion, for the adjournment to a different day from that set out in the present sessional order for the purpose of getting in a motion without notice relating to a matter of urgency. I hope I have made clear the intendment of the proposition I have moved.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I would like to move an amendment. I realise that this is a matter of contention but my amendment is directed in a different way. I think that the proposition to adjourn the Senate to a different hour of sitting is an absurd way of registering the view of the Senate on a matter. Yesterday Senator Kane moved a motion relating to trade union organisations. He wanted to get the view of the Senate on that matter and it was, by agreement, brought to a vote. In a sense the honourable senator got what he thought was a decision of the Senate. If we want to do this and. want to do it regularly, why do we not do it directly? What is the good of having the substantial motion stating that we will meet 5 minutes earlier the next day? This motion will clarify the matter. It will clarify the ambiguity that has existed, but I think it will clarify it the wrong way. It will make crystal clear that all that the Senate will be doing is dealing with a motion to adjourn the Senate to meet 5 minutes earlier the next day, and that is that. There will not even be discussion.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– Would the honourable senator consider paragraph 8 also?

Senator MURPHY:

– I think I am probably in error in saying that we need to be dealing with paragraph 8 as well because that is a matter I propose to raise. I suggested that we ought not deal with all the paragraphs in Item 4 at the one time. I suggested that course because of paragraphs 9 and 10. I thank Senator Turnbull. I am trespassing directly on to paragraph 8 but unless 1 do that it will be too late for me. May paragraphs 7 and 8 be taken together for this purpose?

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– I am not leading in this debate. Senator Wright is leading, but I would like to interpose. Your suggestion might be difficult to implement if you intend to move your proposed amendment. If paragraphs 7 and 8 are taken together, that could cause some difficulty because your proposed amendment relates only to paragraph 7.

Senator MURPHY:

– It relates to both. In effect 1 want to delete certain words from Senator Wright’s motion. I want to amend his proposition.

Senator Byrne:

– Paragraph 8 does not contain a substantive alteration. It is only a paragraph of explanatory comment. I think that both paragraphs can be considered together because paragraph 8 does not purport to add anything.

Senator MURPHY:

– In effect I am dealing with what is referred to in paragraph 8, but it arises from the motion. I am saying that we should insert in the Standing Orders what we have been wanting to insert. When we move a motion we are asking for the feeling of the Senate on the matter. We want to register a vote on it. The present position is absurd. The Senate registers its approval of the proposition by saying that it will meet 5 minutes earlier the next day. The same situation will apply if Senator Wright’s motion is agreed to. The substantive matter gets lost. I think we should be entitled to deal with it directly. We should have a vote. We would either win or lose. Most of us want a decision on these matters. In a sense, we are getting a decision, but the record does not show that we have the decision.

Why not amend Senator Wright’s motion? I know that some will disagree. I know the arguments that will be advanced. Some will say that that will mean that a decision has been taken on a matter that has been introduced into the Senate suddenly, that we should not do that and that we should take a decision only after mature consideration. But we want to do this. This is what we have been doing. Why not put down in plain terms exactly what we are doing, for good or for bad? It will cut one way or another. The Standing Orders should be such as will enable us to get the kind of decision we want. It seems to me that we would achieve that purpose if we amended Senator Wright’s motion. He proposes to insert these words:

A matter of urgency may be debated on a motion without Notice . . .

I would seek to delete the rest of the sentence, which reads:

  1. . that the Senate at its rising adjourn to any day or hour other than that fixed for the next ordinary meeting of the Senate.

The words proposed to be inserted would then read:

A matter of urgency, may be debated on a motton without Notice.

We would also need to make a consequential amendment to standing order 64. The following words would have to be deleted: . . and such Motion can be made notwithstanding there be on the Paper a Motion for adjournment to a time other than that of the next ordinary meeting.

I think that that could be dealt with as a consequential matter. I would deal firstly with the main part of my proposed amendment. I also think that we should insert in the Standing Orders - I am not as dogmatic on this - a provision that at the end of the time allotted for the debate the question should be put to a vote so that we do not have to go through the procedure of gagging the debate on all these matters. That is my feeling on the matter. The vote will not be a party vote, but I think we would be better off if we had that provision inserted. We would have to put the question to a vote. That is a separate matter. Before we leave item 4, if the first issue is determined the way I have suggested, 1 think that the following words would have to be added:

At the end of the period, unless otherwise determined, the question upon which the debate proceeded shall be put.

The first proposition is that the Standing Orders should enable us to do what we so obviously want to do. I am not impressed by the arguments about time factors and about the sudden introduction of motions. If we think something urgent should be debated and if the Senate does not want to debate the issue, honourable senators opposite can always move to suspend the Standing Orders and say that we will deal with the issue tomorrow or next week because it is not of major importance. We are operating on certain regular procedures. I think the Standing .Orders should reflect those procedures. The words proposed to be inserted are:

A matter of urgency may be debated on a motion without Notice . . .

At the appropriate time I shall move that the following words, which comprise the rest of the sentence, be deleted:

  1. . that the Senate at its rising adjourn to any day or hour other than that fixed for the next ordinary meeting of the Senate.

There is a consequential amendment which would have to be tidied .up. Certain words would have to be deleted from standing order 64. I do not think 1 need worry about that. The paragraph would then read:

A matter of urgency may be debated on a motion without Notice.

We would then be able to vote on the issue.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– There are 2 points to Senator Murphy’s argument. The first is that when I first become a member of this chamber 9 years ago nobody voted on urgency motions. What we are doing now is applying the gag. This is contrary to our nature.

Senator Byrne:

– There will be an automatic gag.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– Yes. It is only in the last 2 to 3 years that the last speaker on an urgency motion has invariably put the question. That is applying the gag. Most of us resent that. We should make up our minds whether we vote on all issues or on none. I do not think we should have this proposition of the gag being applied. That is the first point. If we decide to vote on each motion, this puts the Government in a spot. It will be in trouble. If the Opposition, the Democratic Labor Party or the Independents, with enough support move an urgency motion, we can introduce business ahead of the Government’s business. To that extent, I think we have to look at the matter from the Government’s point of view. I would like to see Senator Murphy’s proposals implemented, but I think it should be stated formally that either we vote on every urgency motion or we do not vote on any urgency motion. I think we should get that clear.

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

(8.38) - For the purpose of convenience Senator Wright is leading on this matter because the issue with which we are dealing tonight is not a Party issue. He has been called out of the chamber for a few moments. I intercede to put the views that I hold. The first thing I want to say is that this matter arises because, as Senator Cant demonstrated so ably, there was a question as to what standing order 64 meant. There was doubt whether it meant what it was intended to mean - whether it was a vehicle by which a senator is able to raise an issue as a matter of urgency. In the way in which the standing order was drafted, there was a question of interpretation. Did it mean that the Senate had to debate the matter of urgency the next day if the motion were carried the previous day?

The recommendation referred to by Senator Wright preserves the intention of the standing order as it was created, as it has existed and as it was copied from the Mother of Parliaments. It is for the purpose of enabling a matter of urgency to be raised. It is not for the purpose of enabling a definite decision to be taken. It stems from the Standing Orders of other parliaments. Those Standing Orders stated that the matter had to be of urgency, that it had to be of special interest and that it had to be in relation to a member’s constituency. The concept was that, if a member of Parliament wanted to raise some matter of great urgency within his responsibility, he could do so. This has been written into our Standing Orders to protect the rights of individual senators. In discussing this standing order we are in a sense dealing with an issue involving the rights and privileges of a senator. I ask honourable senators to bear in mind that Senator Murphy is suggesting in effect that standing order 64 should embrace a completely new concept. He is saying that we should have a provision which will enable any honourable senator without notice to use standing order 64 for the purpose of bringing a matter before the Senate for debate and decision. That is not the purpose of the standing order.

The Standing Orders as a whole are framed to ensure the responsibility of the Government in leading and governing; they provide that the Government shall have certain rights and privileges. The Standing Orders are written in such a way that, running parallel with those rights and privileges, an individual senator has a right to bring before the Senate a matter that he considers to be of importance. A senator has this right not only under standing order 64 but also under other parts of the Standing Orders which enable him to raise issues in the debate on the adjournment motion.

Senator Cant:

– On the adjournment-

Senator SIR KENNETH ANDERSON:

– If the honourable senator will allow me to develop my argument, he may then make his speech. If he thinks what I am saying is wrong he mav take the call and say so, but I ask him to allow me to develop my own argument. It is important that honourable senators should understand what I am saying. I may be wrong and Senator Cant may be right, but he should first let me have a go. The Standing Orders provide other rights for an individual senator. There is provision that on the first reading of a money Bill a senator may speak on any subject from Australian Antarctica to the next world, if he thinks it is important. That is his right and the Standing Orders have been drafted to provide for that. That provision entitles him to speak at some length. Equally, as I have said, there is a right for an individual senator to speak on the motion for the adjournment. This is another vehicle written into the Standing Orders so that a senator shall have the right to raise an issue.

The great danger of what Senator Murphy is suggesting is that by altering the standing order we will bring in a different concept and provide for an entirely different situation. The right to raise matters of urgency has been a great privilege. I would be the first to concede that the provision was badly worded, and Senator Murphy concedes that we have made the intention of the standing order clearer. My aim is to preserve that intention; otherwise we will destroy something in our parliamentary practice which provides a very important privilege.

To come to the second point, if standing order 64 is amended as proposed by Senator Murphy we might just as well forget about the provision which requires notice of a motion. In that situation who would bother to give notice? The concept of giving notice of a motion for the next day of sitting was deliberately written into the Standing Orders so that matters of great national importance could not be brought on without some warning. A matter of which notice has been given has priority of debate on the next day. Why bother about having that procedure if, under a new standing order 64 as proposed by Senator Murphy, a matter may be brought on as one of urgency, without warning or any notice being given, and a decision reached? It is important to remember that standing order 64 as proposed by Senator Wright - the meaning is clear - is a device put into the Standing Orders to give privileges to individual senators rather than to the

Executive or senators raising matters on behalf of the Government. This privilege has been put into the Standing Orders to enable honourable senators to speak on matters which they consider to be of importance, in the same way as they may raise matters during the adjournment debate or during the debate on the first reading of a money Bill. It would be disastrous for the future existence of standing order 64 if the provision were so emasculated as to make it mean something different and to enable a senator to dispense with the necessity to give notice and to bring on a matter quickly and have a decision reached in that way. For that reason I believe that we should adopt the recommendation proposed, by Senator Wright.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– Senator Murphy has announced that Opposition senators will have a free vote on this matter and that there will not be a Party vote. I understand also that members of the Democratic Labor Party are not bound by any instruction on questions relating to the Standing Orders and that they also will have a free vote. I gather from the remarks made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) that the same situation applies in the Government parties, that there will be a free vote on this question.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– We have it all the time.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I mean that on this occasion they will have the freedom without any threats and with no repercussions. Whilst I have no Party responsibility in voting on this issue, I feel that I do have a responsibility as a member of the Standing Orders Committee when it comes to a decision by the Committee on items which I did not oppose. As I recall the proceedings of the Standing Orders Committee, many amendments were suggested, there were long discussions and differences of opinion, and finally this item was agreed to, with my approval. As I view the standing order at present, it is a vehicle by which senators may, as of urgency, raise matters which they consider to be grievances, and it provides the same opportunity as is provided in the other place on Grievance Day. A matter of urgency is something which is urgent in the minds of 4 senators. It is provided that a motion must be supported by 4 members of the Senate.

If we require a decision apart from the provision of the Standing Orders that notice shall be given so that honourable senators who may not be in attendance at the time will know that the matter is coming on, that matter may be brought on only if a majority of the Senate agree to a suspension of the Standing Orders. A debate can be brought on to discuss any matter, provided that a majority of the Senate supports the suspension. A majority has been clarified as meaning a simple majority of those present at the time. The debate on the adjournment provides an opportunity for a grievance to be ventilated when only one senator feels that there is a grievance. Standing Order 64 provides the opportunity to discuss a matter when 4 senators consider that it is a matter of urgency that should be discussed.

Senator Byrne:

– Five people.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I would query that.

Senator Byrne:

– That is quite obvious. It must be supported by 4 members.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– 1 agree that it must be moved and supported by 4 members. I presume that the mover would support it; I cannot imagine him doing otherwise. But for the sake of this argument, whether it is 4 or 5 people does not matter.

Senator Poyser:

– It must be supported by 4 members.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Even if it is 5 members, only a small number is necessary to permit the discussion of a grievance. We decide on a matter. For the purpose of debating this matter we adjourn to the next day although nobody intends that the matter should be debated the next day. Possibly a time could be fixed when everyone could speak on a subject if it were decided by 4 or 5 honourable senators that the subject was of sufficient importance. A vote need not be taken. As Senator Turnbull said, that was the procedure in the past. But perhaps we obtain satisfaction when, we force a vote and say: We won that.’ That really means nothing. It is only a matter of prestige. But we may advance the argument that the Senate supported us because the motion which we moved was carried. Therefore we have developed the habit of putting a matter to the vote - sometimes by moving the gag - for the purpose of obtaining an expression pf opinion.

This proposed amendment permits the support of a motion being tested by a vote, although the motion has no meaning other than that we start a few minutes earlier the following day. 1 want to say two things about this: Firstly, I think that as a member of the Committee I am under an obligation. Secondly, I am of the opinion that it would be wrong to allow 5 people to interrupt the proceedings of the Senate by bringing on a. matter just for the purpose of discussing it. We may destroy the vehicle which we have for bringing a matter before the Senate if we allow this situation to occur when, in the opinion of 4 or 5 honourable senators, it is thought that a matter is of sufficient urgency to have a discussion.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– 1 rise to support the submissions which were put forward by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson tonight in relation to this matter. I can see some grave dangers in the position as it is presented to the Parliament under the proposed amendment. If the amendment succeeds we are in a situation where this chamber, by virtue of a vote which is compulsory, is asked to decide an issue which, if paragraph No. 10 which we are to debate later is agreed to, the matter will be subject to only 2 hours of debate in this chamber. Honourable senators will be allowed 10 minutes to debate the matter except for the honourable senators who move the motion or reply to the motion. They are given more than 10 minutes. I suggest the position could arise where every day in the week pet hobbies would be pushed. That could happen where 5 honourable senators in this chamber are prepared to support a resolution.

Senator Little:

– It is 4.

Senator POYSER:

– It is the mover and 4 supporters as the honourable senator knows quite well. With 4 people in support of a mover attacks can be made on individuals in the community at a personal level. As of right, the decision can be made and the force of numbers in this chamber could be almost terrifying. I am not thinking so much of the present but rather later, perhaps what may happen in 10 years. I believe that as it stands standing order 64 has been clarified by the Committee. I think that Senator Cant was quite right in raising this matter. Clarification has been reached. If we want something entirely different we are going to carry the amendment which has been proposed by Senator Murphy. But it comes out of a concept of the purpose of this provision and what it was meant to be. As indicated earlier by both Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson and Senator Cavanagh it was to be a vehicle to allow matters of urgency to be presented to this chamber. I disagree with the system which has been adopted of forcing votes by giving only 1 minute’s notice of the gag. In effect it means that if 1 minute’s notice is given and the gag is denied by the Senate there is still no opportunity for any other person to enter the debate. I think that if a gag motion is to be moved it should be moved with sufficient time for at least one more honourable senator to speak. A moment ago Senator Little interjected. I and many others have been in this chamber when Senator McManus has expressed the view quite clearly that under no circumstances would he or his Party ever support the gag. On many occasions they use this view to dodge a vote on vital issues.

Senator Byrne:

– It was not to impede debate. The debate was concluded when we moved the gag.

Senator POYSER:

– No, that is not what the honourable senator said. As I see it the position is that this standing order provides a venue wherein matters can be debated. If we move into a different situation entirely it can be used as a double edged sword by any party which may be either in government or in opposition. I support the proposals which have been submitted by the Committee.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I think the suggestion that some decisions should be reached when these motions are brought before the Senate is a correct one. How ridiculous it is when we come here, these urgency motions are brought on, some honourable senators windbag for 3 hours and we finish up with no decision at all. What is the purpose of bringing these motions before the chamber?

Senator Cavanagh:

– To windbag for 3 hours.

Senator WOOD:

– Yes, but what is the purpose of it? To my way of thinking it is just to talk about the matter. If honourable senators have something which they really think is a mater of urgency, is it not desirable that they should obtain an expression from this Senate chamber indicating that they have some support for whatever it is they have brought forward? What happens to the endless number of urgency motions which come on and are talked out? I think it is generally held in the minds of quite a number of honourable senators that this is just a waste of time. I know that somebody may receive some publicity about what he has said but I believe it will be much more effective if we speak for the purpose of obtaining a decision from this Senate chamber. As far as I am concerned, as the position stands at the moment it is ridiculous. Under the present circumstances, I do not think the people outside this chamber think the matter is nearly as important as the people inside this chamber think it is. I think that to obtain a real effect there should be a decision. Senator Turnbull mentioned that lately decisions have been given. If the Senate has tended that way does that not indicate that that is the sort of thing the Senate wants? I suggest that if we are going to have these urgency motions we should have a decision as to what the Senate thinks about the motions brought before it.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I rise because I believe that what has fallen from Senator Wood to whom we last listened as well as from Senator Murphy proceeds without a consideration of the context of standing order 64. If honourable senators look to the standing order they will find that it is one of the standing orders in chapter IX. Chapter IX deals with what? It does not deal with resolutions or Bills which or operative on substantive matters but with sittings and adjournments of the Senate. If honourable senators go through the Standing Orders they will see that the first 2 or 3 deal with the way in which we constitute ourselves at a sitting. Under standing order 54 if there is no quorum present it is mandatory that we adjourn. If we go to standing order 61 we see that except in certain cases once the Senate is duly constituted it shall only adjourn by its own resolution. Standing order 63 states:

  1. The adjournment of the Senate may be moved at any time by or on behalf of a Minister of the Crown, and on such motion matters irrelevant thereto may be debated.

We go through that form every sitting day. One of the cherished opportunities for every member of the Parliament is to windbag on the adjournment. Nobody expects to go to a resolution on such a debate. It is a debate initiated without notice and on the spur of the moment simply to introduce a subject for consideration by other senators. The standing orders to which I have referred provide for the assembly; they say that if there are not 20 senators present the Senate is required not to sit until the next day; and they go through the procedures to ensure that there will be a quorum the next day. Standing order 61 says that the Senate can only be adjourned by its own resolution. Standing order 63 says that the adjournment may be moved at any time, despite any sessional order, by a Minister of the Crown and that on a motion for the adjournment any senator may debate any matter irrelevant to the question of whether the Senate is to adjourn.

Then we come to standing order 64, which is an exceptional provision to provide for matters of urgency and to give an individual group of not fewer than 5 the right to put a matter before the Senate for attention, not for resolution. It is unbecoming to the dignity and the sense of prudence of this chamber to suggest that it would proceed to a resolution on an urgent matter after a 2-hoar debate commenced without notice. Often we have not been warned, may be duty bound to spend part of the time elsewhere and may not be prepared with the authorities that may be relevant to the debate. It is unbecoming to the prudence that should surround the deliberations of the Senate to suggest that on an urgency motion we would come to a resolution. An urgency motion, however, if supported by 5 senators, is a means whereby many senators can offer an impromptu point of view. They do so by use of the vehicle of a motion to adjourn the Senate to a time other than the ordinary time fixed for the commencement of the sitting the next day.

In previous discussions Senator Cant had called attention to the abiguity of the present standing order, which says:

A motion without Notice, that the Senate at its rising adjourn to any day or hour other than that fixed for the next ordinary meeting of the Senate, for the purpose of debating some matter of urgency, can only be made . . and so forth. Senator Cant. said that that was capable of the construction that when the Senate adjourned, having expressed itself as adjourning for the purpose of debating a matter of urgency, on the resumption of the sitting the next day the Senate was bound to take that matter of urgency into its debate and resolve it. That not being considered the purpose of the standing order by any member of the Standing Orders Committee, we recommend to honourable senators the adoption of a form of words which simply says:

A matter of urgency may be debated on a motion without Notice, that the Senate at its rising adjourn to any day or hour other than that fixed for the next ordinary meeting of the Senate.

If one introduces any idea other than that the motion is a motion for adjournment, one is divorcing oneself completely from the context of Chapter IX, which deals with the various situations in which and purposes for which the Senate may adjourn. In this instance a senator simply moves for an adjournment to a day or hour other than that fixed by the existing order so as to enable those senators - not fewer than 5 in number - who wish us to debate a matter of urgency for 2 or 3 hours to bring it to our attention. Then, if anybody wishes to go to a resolution on the matter he can bring in a Bill and have it listed’ for consideration within the appropriate time; or, if he obtains a suspension of Standing Orders, he can bring the Bill forward fairly speedily. If he does not want to bring in a Bill operative according to a statute, he can move a substantive motion to the effect of the matter of urgency. That motion will come before us on notice, everybody will be prepared to debate it and then the Senate will go to a resolution.

But the purpose of the Committee’s proposal is simply to remove the ambiguity that Senator Cant called to our attention and, in deference to his views, to make the standing order clear and able to bs used as a vehicle for facilitating debate on a matter which at least 5 senators consider to be a matter of urgency. Then, after a debate lasting 2 or 3 hours - 3 hours under the present standing order or 2 hours if the Committee’s recommendation is adopted - the Senate will proceed with its business. If a senator is still obsessed with the idea that the matter should be resolved, he may bring it up in the form of a Bill or a motion the next day or in 2 or 3 days time. Then, everybody ‘ having notice of what the subject matter is and having had an opportunity to inform himself from sources that he is inclined to consult, the Senate may go to a resolution. But the Senate, I hope, will never go to a resolution of a matter of urgency introduced impromptu and without notice, simply for the purpose of debating but not determining the matter.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– 1 wonder whether the position is not still as confused as it was before the amendment to the Standing Orders was brought before this chamber to be dealt with. During Senator Wright’s absence Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson spoke of this matter as the right and privilege of an individual. He called the attention of honourable senators to the right of an individual to rise on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate and speak on any matter on which he wished to speak or any matter that might be disturbing him. Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson directed our attention to standing order 190, which allows a senator to discuss matters both relevant and irrelevant on the first reading of a money Bill.

But then he went on to say that standing order 64 gave an individual the right to raise a matter of urgency. He listed shortly the history of the standing order from the mother of parliaments. He said that in the mother of parliaments originally, when a matter occurred in the constituency of a member or affected the electors that member represented, a matter of urgency could be raised by him as an individual. Our standing order 64 has never said that. It gives no rights at all to the individual. An individual senator who wants to raise a matter of urgency, even under the proposed amendment, must be able to con vince 4 other senators that the matter is of such urgency that it should be brought on. So, it has never been the. individual right of any senator. I think Senator Wright set the record straight there.

The situation is so confused that we have 2 Ministers - Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and Senator Wright, who is in charge of this debate tonight - expressing opposite views. I believe that the view put forward by Senator Wright is the correct one, namely, that it is not an individual right. It is the right of an individual to bring something forward provided he can get 4 other senators to agree with him that the matter he wants to discuss is of such urgency that it should be brought on impromptu.

Senator Wright:

– And that is the individual’s right, if supported.

Senator CANT:

– You cannot leave out the word ‘if. It has been said that if the amendment proposed by Senator Murphy was agreed to by the Senate it would be possible for people to come here and make personal attacks upon other honourable senators or members of the public. Perhaps it is true that urgency motions could be brought on and personal attacks could be made on individuals, whether they be senators or members of the public. I have been in the Senate now for 12 years and I have not seen that practice adopted in this chamber. I have not reached the stage where I think that this Senate would agree that that sort of thing should continue. I think that any honourable senator who attempted to do this sort of thing would bc quickly called to order. I would hope that he would be, in any case. So to put that argument as an objection to the amendment moved by Senator Murphy does not cut any ice with me.

It has been mentioned that on occasions the Australian Democratic Labor Party has expressed itself as being opposed to the moving of the gag even when only one or two minutes are left to debate the issue. One must ask oneself why the DLP would do this. It has had an about-face, because in recent. times it has supported the moving of the gag. One must ask oneself why. the DLP has had this change of front. Obviously when the DLP was opposing the gag it was opposing it on the basis that the proposal was being put and carried on the substantive motion and it did not want the substantive motion either carried or defeated. It wanted the matter to be talked out. But when it comes to its turn, when it brings something forward on which it wants the approval of the Senate on a substantive motion, as was the case last night, it moves the gag and carries it. I will bet anything you like that the propaganda of the DLP will be saying: ‘This is the resolution that was carried by the Senate’:

Senator GAIR:

– Why not?

Senator CANT:

– Why not? Why be dishonest about it? Why not agree to have a vote on the substantive motion? In practice that is what you are doing. Come out and be a little bit honest for once and agree that you moved a motion last night to get a certain result. I could go back in history and produce other occasions, too. The record books of the Senate will show that the DLP did not get that result, but the propaganda which will be put in the public’s mind will show that it did get a result.

Senator Gair:

– I can understand you being hurt, Harry.

Senator CANT:

– I am not the slightest bit hurt. I am just asking you to be honest. There is a time to be honest and there is a time not to be honest. You should front up to the practices that you have been adopting. All I say to the DLP is that if it wants to do this sort of thing it should come out in the open and do it and let other people have the opportunity of doing it as well.

Senator Little:

– You have done that when you could get the numbers. We gave you the numbers to do it on one night.

Senator CANT:

– We appreciated that. We have not objected to that. You did that only because to defeat it or let it go without a vote would have been a black mark on your book. We all come into this place and we all play politics; so it is no good fooling about with it. But if the DLP wants to be honest with this sort of thing it will agree that the vote should be taken on a substantive motion and- not on a ridiculous proposal that we adjourn to some hour on the next day, some hour on the following Tuesday or some hour on the following Monday. For that reason I support the amendment moved by Senator Murphy.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– 1 think we should take another look at this question because, firstly, the moment one starts to think about this and listen to the arguments that have been put forward tonight one finds oneself becoming bedevilled with other standing orders that one has to face up to. Senator Wright was very vehement about what ought to be done. He made out a good argument in support of his case by saying that when you do not give notice the Government, which has extra responsibility in the House, has not the opportunity to consult departments in order to come up with the answers and it could be forced into a vote on which it could easily be defeated and so fall into conflict with the other House, and that type of thing. Let us assume for one moment that Senator Wright - this is not meant to be a pun - is right. If so, his proposal ought to be written into the Standing Orders, and all this business about adjourning to another day should be cut out. What Senator Wright has argued ought to be written into the Standing Orders.

That would not be difficult, because it is already written into the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives. In the House of Representatives the matter to be discussed is called a matter of public importance. It is the same thing; in fact, in the Caucus room it is referred to as an urgency motion. A member may propose to the Speaker that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, and that is all he has to do. The matter is then discussed. If somebody wanted to move that the question be put there would be no question to put. There is merely a matter under discussion. That is what Senator Wright is saying. I believe that he would agree with provision for that procedure being written into the Standing Orders of the Senate, but it is not written into our Standing Orders. The position was much worse before Senator Turnbull came into this chamber. There was a. coalition Government in office and an Opposition which consisted of only one Party. Very obviously the Government had the numbers and if the Opposition moved the gag it was not carried.

It is only since we have had a fragmentation of this position in the Senate that the situation has arisen where the people who hold the balance of power, namely the Democratic Labor Party, have been able to say whether or not they want the gag to be applied. On rare occasions they have voted with us to apply the gag, but on most occasions they have voted with the Government. If we want to have the situation about which Senator Wright has been speaking, we have to amend the standing order completely by adopting something like the procedure in the House of Representatives. Sometimes people in. this Parliament think they are here forever and that this will be the situation forever. It will .not be. We are writing standing orders that I hope we do not have to go over again after the next election or at some other time. Matters such as those we are considering should go to the vote on every occasion or should not go to the vote on any occasion. We should not be placed in the situation where, because of the whim of some people, a vote is taken on one occasion and a vote is not taken on another occasion.

Senator Little:

– What rubbish! It is not at the whim of some people, lt is the decision of the Senate. If you have not got the numbers the motion is not passed. What are you talking about?

Senator WILLESEE:

- Senator . Little used the word ‘rubbish’. I think it is a reflection on himself because no man talks more rubbish than he does. What is rubbish? Of course it is the whim of some people. Of course it is the decision of some people.

Senator Little:

– It is for the Senate to make the decision.

Senator WILLESEE:

– The honourable senator is the last person who ought to try to talk on a statesmanlike level, because he plays politics at a lower level than most other people. If the honourable senator does not mind, I want to try to put this on a fairly high plane. It should be remembered that we are trying to write something permanently into the standing order. This would be all right if we could stop at this point and say: ‘All right. Let us do what Senator Wright says and let us write this in so that decisions cannot be taken at just any time. This protects the Government and carries out all those things to which Senator Wright referred’.

Senator Wright:

– If it is convenient, would you read again the terms of the standing order to which you referred?

Senator WILLESEE:

– The heading is Matter of Public Importance’. Standing order 107 states, in part, in referring to a member, and not a Minister:

A member may propose lo the Speaker that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion.

Therefore there is no question that it has to be submitted to the House for discussion. If the Speaker approves, it goes forward. If you take it to that point, you can say that everything is all right. It is fine and dandy. You can say: ‘We can stop here, it protects the situation that Senator Wright wants.’ As I said at the outset, if you turn to the other sections of the Standing Orders you will see that this could be subverted by moving that the Standing Orders be suspended. So that this would make this thing completely redundant.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But you must have a majority.

Senator WILLESEE:

– But you must have a majority to put the gag. You have the same situation so that you get nowhere by carrying Senator Wright’s suggestion through to the point that I suggested. If you still have a situation where the numbers can carry the suspension of Standing Orders, the Government, which we are try. ing to protect in this situation, is put immediately into the same position. It looks to me, Mr Chairman, as if this thing has not been looked at on a sufficiently broad basis. I think the amendment will clear up the situation referred to by Senator Cant but it puts in this very cumbersome sort of procedure in respect of a motion for the adjournment of the House. The motion is generally that the House meet 5 minutes earlier. I do not know why it is 5 minutes and not 1 minute. I do not even know why it is earlier. I would prefer that we meet 5 minutes later. It does not make a lot of sense to me. If we went along with Senator Wright we would still get nowhere because of the suspension of Standing Orders. In other countries a multiplicity of parties under a proportional system of representation has brought tremendous instability into government. A prize example is France, which had 24 governments in 20 years.

Members of the minor parties can say that it will not happen to us. I will accept that for the moment. The point is that we will not be here forever. Other people will replace us, and perhaps even other parties. We do not know what the situation will be. It comes back to Senator Turnbull’s point that it has been a multiplicity of parties that has brought the matter to a head. I think it has to be examined again in the light of what Senator Wright has said, and also to make sure that we bear in mind these other things. Whatever we do, if we hamstrung this to the point that it was useless, it would not matter because we could move suspension of the Standing Orders.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– I support the proposed amendment. I think it is reasonable and sensible. The only thing wrong with the old standing order was that it did not leave clear what would be debated when we returned at the hour fixed by the motion for adjournment. I think the proposed amendment satisfactorily clears up that position. I disagree with none of the . other procedures under the old standing order. I have found in my parliamentary experience, both here and in Victoria, that the standing orders of the Parliaments of this country all have a very distinctive role to play and a distinctive meaning. The procedures they set out to create are usually very wise. I do not see anything wrong with this procedure because, when all is said and done, as Senator Wright correctly pointed out to Senator Wood, this is a talking shop. If we decided that we have to be always efficient and talk only about the things that matter, in somebody’s estimation, and not talk about anything unnecessarily, thereby getting our business through efficiently, we would lose the whole atmosphere of a democratic Parliament. This procedure has obviously been sought to be used in the manner in which it has been used and not, as Senator Cant and others have tried to show, by the Australian Democratic Labor Party alone.

I wish to refresh the memories of some honourable senators as to occasions when motions of urgency have been moved. I select a period about 12 months ago. On 13th May 1970 Senator Mulvihill moved the adjournment of the debate in order to discuss a matter of urgency. The matter was the protection of kangaroos. On that occasion the gag was- not applied at all. The Senate in its wisdom decided, apparently unanimously,” that the motion for adjournment should be carried without a vote being taken. Apparently, the debate exhausted itself before the time allotted for it had expired.

On 5th June 1970, only about a month later, Senator Bishop moved an urgency motion to discuss the failure of the Government to promote the design and construction of Australian aircraft, and so. on. The motion for adjournment was .passed on a division, after Senator Bishop’s suggestion that the question bc put to a vote. Senator Bishop then found it necessary in the last minutes of the debate to move that the question be put so that the Senate could decide whether the motion for the adjournment should be carried. I presume from the fact that the vote was carried that the DLP supported the Labor Party.

On 19th August 1970 Senator O’Byrne moved an urgency motion on behalf of the Labor Party, referring to the need for reconstruction of the rural economy along certain lines. The motion for adjournment was negatived, so that the motion for adjournment again on that occasion went to a division. Senator Wilkinson moved the closure of the debate on that occasion so that a vote could be taken. It was not the action of the DLP on that occasion either. It was the action of the Australian LaborParty, I remind Senator Cant. So that that occurred on 2 occasions out of 3 in less than–

Senator Cant:

– But that was before a Senate election when you were not game.

Senator LITTLE:

– It was because it was just before a Senate election that these matters were brought before the Senate and the closure of the debate was moved in order to get a decision. On 3rd September 1970 Senator Murphy moved an urgency motion which related to an attack on freedom in Australia involving the Government’s refusal to allow Dick Gregory to enter this country. The motion for adjournment on that occasion was defeated again and the gag was applied through the action of Senator Murphy himself. He moved for the closure of the , debate.

Standing Orders Committee

On 28th October Senator Murphy again moved an urgency motion to discuss the refusal of the Government to take effective action to protect the public from unjustified price increases. On that occasion Senator Devitt had the privilege on behalf of the Labor Party of moving the gag in the interests, as Senator Cant has so aptly reminded us, of propaganda in the election campaign that followed that speech on an urgency motion. Is there anything wrong with the Senate’s debating matters in this matter and getting decisions? I think the amendment put forward is quite reasonable. I do not think it will disrupt the functions of this House as would happen if the proposal of Senator Murphy were accepted. This is a very serious matter. I am certain that it would not be used by Senator Murphy or any of his Party who have acted sincerely, but time passes and Parliaments change. If the Standing Orders are changed, an Opposition with less pure intent than the present one would be able completely to disrupt the capacity of the Government to govern. I am quite certain that that is not what Senator Murphy desires. I think the amendment proposed by Senator Wright would remove ambiguity as to the adjournment and senators would know perfectly well when they came back next time that the question discussed for the purposes of the adjournment would be finished with and there would not be an adjournment to another day to discuss that particular question. That was the doubt that arose. I think the amendment proposed by the Committee will remove that doubt and I support the proposition.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Prowse:

– I wish to point out now, to obviate any confusion that may be in the minds of honourable senators as to the procedure in these cases, that whatever action is taken consequent upon the moving of the amendment it will be first necessary to deal with the amendment in 2 parts. What ever we do, we must move for the leaving out of certain words. I think it may clarify the proceedings from that point if we first decide whether we leave out the words that are proposed to be left out. Unless there are further speakers to that point I propose to put the question that we leave out the words proposed to be left out.

Standing Orders Committee 2 1 7

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– Before that motion is moved, may I throw a cat amongst the Democratic Labor Party pigeons? I think that one of the reasons why the proposition has been brought before us is to save the time of the Senate because there has been some feeling that there have been too many urgency motions. This is borne out by the proposition which has been brought forward for a shortening of time.

Senator Little:

– It is a very wrong principle to try to save time in the Parliament.

Senator GEORGES:

– This is the point I am trying to make. The true motive behind every one of these procedures and steps we are taking tonight is to shorten the time for urgency debates, perhaps to shorten the. number of such debates and to shorten the speaking time of honourable senators during those debates. Recently there has been evidence of the use of urgency debates for a political motive by the Australian Democratic Labor Party to embarrass the Opposition. Because, by some freak of election, the Democratic Labor Party numbers have been raised to five. It has been possible for members of that Party to move for urgency debates at frequent intervals. I wish to raise here the matter of support for an urgency debate. At present, one honourable senator stands in this place and seeks the support of 4 honourable senators. I want to know whether this number was the number required when the Senate was composed of fewer senators. It may be necessary, in order to resolve some of these matters, to alter the number required to support a motion for an urgency debate from 1 honourable senator supported by 4 to 1 honourable senator supported by 9. This may be necessary to prevent these debates being misused by a small group. I atn serious about this because we have a situation where a very small party, which does not even need to call a caucus meeting because it could hold a caucus meeting within a telephone box, can bring urgency motion after urgency motion into this chamber with the support of 4 senators.

Senator Marriott:

– You are a democrat.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I think, Senator Georges, you are straying a little wide of the matter before the Chair. 19 August 1971

Senator GEORGES:

– I am anticipating an amendment which may resolve the matter before us. I point out to Senator Marriott, who questions whether I am a democrat, that if the Democratic Labor Party senators were to face up to their responsibilities and philosophies they would join the coalition parties and take part in their caucus room discussions. There then would not be the necessity to interrupt the procedures of this place.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I must ask you, Senator Georges, to bring your remarks back to the subject which we are discussing.

Senator GEORGES:

– May I ask the

Minister who is guiding this debate to indicate to me at what stage the number was increased to the 5 required to support a motion for an urgency debate? If it was at a time when the numbers in the Senate were fewer, perhaps we should consider tonight increasing the numbers required to support these motions.

Senator Wright:

– I think it was in the original Standing Orders, but it is immaterial to this part of the debate.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– I think there is some confusion about the proposition which has been advanced. Some answers have been given which are really not sufficient. Senator Wright suggested tha; we look at standing order 64 under ‘Sittings and Adjournment of the Senate’. That does not appear to me to be of any great significance. It would be simple enough to make the change I am suggesting. Standing order 64 could be brought under ‘Chapter X Routine of Business’. All we have to do is put the heading ‘Chapter X Routine of Business’ before standing order 64. There is no problem in that. It is a simple matter of rearrangement. It is no answer of substance to say where the different chapter heeadings are put. The proposition which is being advanced at the moment, is not one to deal with the gag. It is not one which says that there is an automatic vote. I indicated I would put that proposition later, and I think it will come under 2 items further along so do riot let us get confused over whether there should be an automatic vote. The question of the gag has nothing to do with it.

The proposition is simply this: What should we debate when we bring a matter of urgency into the Senate? Should we debate the matter of urgency and put it to a vote on the real proposition, or do we have the nonsense that we debate whether we adjourn the House until 5 minutes to 11 or some other time the next morning? This is absurd. The other day after the discussion of an important matter affecting the trade union organisations the question actually put by the Chair was this:

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 10.55 a.m.

Would it not have been more sensible to deal with the reality rather than the myth and nonsense and to put the proposition advanced by Senator Kane? He either wins or loses, but at least let us discuss that proposition. The question whether it will be put may depend on the vote of the Senate. If we want to decide that it should be put automatically, then do it. But let us discuss, as intelligent persons, the real proposition that is brought forward and not this nonsense. Parliaments have to change to come into accord with modern standards. People outside will not suffer this nonsense we go on with: I know there are people here who love the old procedures because they were followed 200 years ago in England when they had a battle to get fictional procedures in because it was difficult to get a debate in any other way. There are a lot of old fictional things in England, absurd things. They had fictional actions in ejectment brought under fictional names like Richard Roe and John Doe. We should not have to go on with that kind Of rubbish to effect changes.

We are in a Parliament we want to make modern. A lot has been said about disrupting the Government and people coming in here and defaming others. That can be done now. We can have a debate on a matter of urgency on any day. That is not being altered. We come in here and debate the question. Why not put it in simple terms that we come in here and debate the matter of urgency. That is all that is suggested instead of this ridiculous procedure of the Senate at its rising adjourning until 5 minutes earlier the next day. Why do we go on with this kind of childish nonsense? What happens when we have to go outside and explain to the people the course that was followed?

Let us take, as an example, the proposal that was put forward yesterday by Senator Kane. If anybody outside were to ask him what happened to the proposition he put forward he would have to say: Tt is true that I only got through the Senate a prop?osition that it adjourn till 5 minutes to 11 today, but it really means that it agreed with what I put up about trade union organisations’. But that proposition was never put to the Senate at all. Would it not be much more sensible to discard the idiotic proposition that the Senate adjourn till a time that is 5 minutes or half an hour earlier than usual? This is really a childish procedure to follow in this modern day and age. The matter of urgency is the proposition that should be debated.

We will come later to the question of whether there should be an automatic vote or whether the position should be left exactly as it is at present in regard to the Senate deciding whether a vote should be taken. Let us deal with that issue separately. But I should think that everyone would be of the view that a straightforward approach ought to be taken. Let us debate the reality of the issue. Senator Negus may want to raise the issue of probate duty or some other honourable senator may wish to raise another issue. Surely an honourable senator ought to be entitled to have an issue on which he seeks the opinion of the Senate raised in a straightforward and direct manner. He should not have to move a fictional motion to the effect that the Senate shall adjourn till 5 minutes earlier than usual the next day. That is childish. I think we ought to abandon this practice. Nothing has convinced me that we ought- to continue to proceed with this fictional and ridiculous procedure. Any motion that is moved by an honourable senator should be in plain and direct terms. That is what the public expects of us and that is what we ought to do.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I propose to put the. first part of the ‘ proposition to the Committee. The question is:

That the words . proposed to be left out. be left put.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The motion now before the Chair is: ‘That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted’.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I think that this matter has been amply discussed. The justification for the proposal which has been put forward by the Standing Orders Committee lies in paragraph 8 of its report. It seems to me to be a very rational explanation of the matter. To adopt any alternative procedure would raise very complicated matters which may be impossible of resolution and could have very fundamental and far-reaching effect on the Standing Orders. Standing order 64 seems to me, to use the term used by the Minister for Works (Senator Wright)* merely a vehicle. As he said, at the end of a day’s sitting matters that are relevant or irrelevant may be discussed on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate. The standing order we are debating is really a further adjournment provision at the beginning of the day, again providing a vehicle for discussion. Just as the motion in the evening for the adjournment of the Senate operates as a vehicle for all matters to be discussed, standing order 64 provides a vehicle for the discussion of a particular matter specified in a notice of motion duly delivered.

It would seem to me that, if there is an objection to this procedure, there should be equally an objection to any speeches on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate in the evening. I am sure that no honourable senator in this place would want to abandon or destroy his right to address himself to the daily motion for the adjournment of the Senate and, in particular, to speak on any matter that may occur to him as to be warranting presentation to the Senate. I think that the urgency motion procedure is merely another way for the Senate to be given an opportunity to discuss a particular, matter.

I do cross swords here with Senator Wood. With respect to him, I do think that there has been a total misconception on his part of the function and nature of the Senate itself and of the Senate as a part of the legislature. After all, the function of this place is not merely to pass statutes or resolutions; it is a forum in which the opinion of the people may find expression through their elected representatives. That is the function of this place. What does one see when one looks at any Senate notice paper, particularly the orders of the day? One sees a list of matters which have at some time or another come before the Senate in a manner quite apart from any resolution or statute. For example, the report of the Joint Committee of the Australian Capital Territory on the Milk Industry is a matter that is listed for debate on the motion that the Senate take note of the report. No substantive resolution is involved. There is merely the very formal resolution that the matter be noted, the purposes being to facilitate discussion of the report.

It is a part of the functions of this place that a report of that nature is brought to the attention of the legislature and debated if anybody wishes to debate it. Another item in the business paper relates to the immigration and settlement of Maltese citizens. Here the motion is to take note of a ministerial statement. These are devices for the Executive Government to present aspects or segments of Government administration to the Parliament for its scrutiny and, if it wishes, debate. No substantive resolution is involved. Nothing is done which would bind the Executive.

The system by which we are able to speak on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate at night is in consonance with the area of responsibility and duties of this chamber. An urgency motion is in the same way a vehicle which is availed of so that matters of particular importance can be raised.

It is interesting to note that there is a variation between the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives and the Standing Orders of the Senate in this regard. The Standing Orders of the House of Representatives leave it to the discretion of the presiding officer as to whether a matter shall be debated; certainly as to what priority shall be accorded to matters of public importance which are presented for debate. That discretion does not lie in this place in the presiding officer. It lies particularly and peculiarly within the discretion of 5 honourable senators who pre sent themselves standing in the Senate and say to us as a subjective judgment: This is a matter of urgency’. That is one of the fundamental differences between an urgency motion in this place and a matter of public importance raised for discussion in the other place. So a significant group of people can initiate a debate in this forum in consonance with that area of duty and responsibility of this place on a matter that it thinks warrants the attention of this chamber.

The vehicle that is provided in this place is traditional and effective and it does not bind anybody by a specific resolution or determination. If it did it would fall into a completely different area of operations. If we were to lose the opportunity for this type of debate we would be abandoning one of the most valuable procedures available to the Senate at the present time, that is, the right to bring into this place for discussion some matter on which the opinions of all can be expressed without necessarily committing anyone to any definitive resolution. If it is felt that a definitive resolution is required forms are provided by which a vote can be achieved. However, in the absence of such a resolution, the other function is fulfilled - I think efficiently and effectively - by the means which are now provided. For those reasons and subject to the alteration which has been proposed, I would say that the present procedure is good, but with the variation it will be better. For that reason the Australian Democratic Labor Party supports the proposition of the Standing Orders Committee.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I have heard a lot of talk tonight about this matter and some attempt has been made to compare the motion for the adjournment of the Senate with a motion to deal with a matter of urgency. I have been a senator since 1949, and one develops a sense about the type of thing brought up by honourable senators at opportunities provided for them. Never could anybody convince me that the subjects brought forward for debate as matters of urgency are comparable with those brought up in debates on the motion for the adjournment. A senator has only to stand in order to speak on the motion for the adjournment. Every senator has that automatic right. But in the case of a debate on a matter of urgency, a senator has to stand and get 4 others to support him. The type of matter dealt with on the 2 occasions I have mentioned are of different character.

I cannot see any reason why an honourable senator cannot have a decision made in this chamber on an urgency motion. In fact decisions have been made. Take the case that has been mentioned in this debate, namely, the matter of urgency brought forward by Senator Kane. What happened? We started 5 minutes earlier today. This was so impressive that I looked at the bells and asked myself why they were being rung 5 minutes early. That is how much that procedure registers on one. The Senate carried that resolution so we started 5 minutes earlier today. If Senator Kane’s motion had been put to a vote in such a way as to determine whether the Senate approved the matter he had raised it would have been more effective, would have been more important and would have achieved some purpose. I have always thought that the way urgency motions are trotted out in this chamber is a joke. What happens? Nothing. Senator Byrne has just said that honourable senators have the opportunity to debate. They do not have the opportunity to debate. Let me cite an instance. The Senate had before it at one time an urgency motion relating to the Great Barrier Reef. As a Queenslander and a supporter of the Government I wanted to speak on that subject and was not able to do so. Not one Queenslander spoke in that debate.

Senator Sim:

– Why was that?

Senator WOOD:

– Because the Whip had listed speakers from South Australia, Tasmania and everywhere else. That is a fact. I know something of the Reef, having helped start the tourist industry there, and I wanted to speak on that subject but could not do so.

Senator Wright:

– Do you want a decision in such a debate?

Senator WOOD:

– The point is that if there is a debate there is no sense in just talking about the subject and not making a decision. If honourable senators want to take part in a debate and cannot get onto the list of speakers, they should have the opportunity to register their opinion by vote. I agree with Senator Murphy that we are back in the days of the old ladies, the lords, the sirs and all that tripe and nonsense. Let us adopt a modern outlook so far as Parliament is concerned and be effective in our debating. I believe that a decision reached on a matter of urgency brought before the Senate will be of much more importance than the silly way we carry on here talking but doing nothing about it.

Question put -

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

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator Prowse)

AYES: 14

NOES: 32

Majority 18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– I would ask the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) to consider whether it would be possible to insert a clause providing that no vote shall be taken on a matter of urgency. As Senator Cavanagh pointed out, the application of the gag has become a political thing. If a Party thinks it has the numbers, it applies the gag. That never happened before. A lot of us do not like the gag being applied. We are not being consistent about the application of the gag.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I indicate to Senator Turnbull that I will request the President to refer that matter to the Standing Orders Committee and to move on it this session if the Committee so recommends. As the original motion was carried, a rather insubstantial matter has to be corrected. Consequential to the amendment to standing order 64, as contained in paragraph 7, I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Paragraph 8. Vote on subject matter.

Senator WRIGHT (Tasmania - Minister for Works).(10.3>- I move:

The paragraph has been debated already. I would hope that we would agree on it. -Question resolved in the affirmative.

Paragraph 9. Notice.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– As honourable senators who have their Standing Orders before them will observe, at present standing order 64 imposes no limit on how far in advance notice of an urgency motion may be given. The Standing Orders Committee considered this matter and thought that there should be a limitation in order to have a real regard to the urgent nature of a motion. Accordingly, the following amendment is recommended:

Insert the words underlined: ‘The senator so moving must make in writing, and hand in to the President before the time fixed for the meeting of the Senate, and not more than 24 hours before that time, a statement of the matter of urgency.’

Standing order 64 (1) reads:

A motion without notice. . . . The senator so moving must make in writing, and hand in to the President before the time fixed for the meeting of the Senate, a statement of the matter of urgency.

I move:

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– When we consider the amendment it is a matter of considering what ls the nature of an urgency motion and what principles or canons should apply to its form, its time of presentation, the mode of its debate and ultimate deliberation and decision. At present standing order 64 enables a notice in relation to a matter of urgency to be given. It does not specify any time limit within which it may be given. It does not circumscribe the mover by imposing a period before the actual moving with which he must comply. The proposal is that the notice of motion of urgency shall be given not more than 24 hours before the time fixed for the meeting of the Senate. I do not find it possible to support this proposition. A motion of urgency is totally subjective in this chamber, as against the provision in the House of Representatives Standing Orders where a similar matter is raised under the title of a matter of public importance. Standing order 107 of the House of Representatives states: - A Member may propose to the Speaker that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion. The Member proposing the matter shall present to the Speaker at least one hour before the time fixed for the meeting of the House a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed; and if the Speaker determines that it is in order, he shall read it to the House. The proposed discussion must be supported by eight Members, including the proposer, rising in their places as indicating approval. The Speaker shall then call upon the Member who had proposed the matter to speak. . . .

In the event of more than one matter being presented for the same day, priority shall be given to the matter which, in the opinion of the Speaker, is the most urgent and important, and no other proposed matter shall be read to the House that day.

Our standing order is different in that, as I said when addressing myself to an earlier proposition, it is left to the discretion of a senator as to whether in his opinion a matter is of an urgent character and as to whether he proposes to bring it before the Senate. It is not left to an individual member indiscriminately and arbitrarily to force his will upon the Senate and thus interrupt the business of the Senate by proposing a proposition and compelling the Senate to debate it for the period allotted in the Standing Orders. There must be a fairly substantial body of support. That is not necessarily support for the proposition in the urgency motion. That body of support has to be satisfied that the matter is, by its nature, urgent. Four senators additional to the mover standing in their places and supporting the motion of urgency are required.

Senator Georges:

– In a chamber of 60, do you call that substantial support?

Senator BYRNE:

– Within the concept of the Standing Orders, that is considered a substantial body of support. I have sitting behind me 3 independent senators who represent a very substantial section of the community. They are not in a position to raise a matter of urgency, under the present Standing Orders, unless they get support. They may have a matter which in their subjective opinion - not in Senator Georges’ opinion - is a matter of urgency. The test which the Senate imposes is whether they can obtain the support of enough senators so that the matter can be debated. It is not limited to those who have a common presentation, whether it is a Party or a non-Party affiliation. It is quite possible that on an issue these 3 senators may see a matter the same way. Nobody who is a member of a political party may see it their way. For example, they may think that an independent member should have certain rights and privileges electorally or otherwise. As a member of a Party, Senator Georges would not agree. I may not agree. On that issue they see a community of intention and desire. They cannot have an urgency motion debated because they have not the minimum numbers required under the Standing Orders. When Senator Georges says that 5 members are not a substantial body he wants to deprive them of the possibility of being able to do that. The concept of the Standing Orders postulates democratic principles much more widely than those espoused by Senator Georges. ] am not prepared to limit the number required to support an urgency motion as suggested by the honourable senator. I would not do it to disentitle 3 senators or, for that matter, members of the Democratic Labor Party of that right. For years the Democratic Labor Party had 2 members, -subsequently 3 and subsequently 4. At no stage during that time were its members able, by themselves and unsupported, to -move an urgency motion although there may well have been a matter which, in their subjective opinion, warranted urgent attention. It was only with the advent of Senator Kane that we had the minimum number required under the Standing Orders and that our opinion was able to be presented to the Senate for deliberation. The concept pf the Standing Orders is that it shall lie within the judgment of a sena tor, provided he gets this body of support, to determine whether the matter he brings forward is of such a nature as to attract the attenion, discussion and deliberation of the Senate.

Senator Georges:

– That is not on for discussion.

Senator BYRNE:

– I am coming back to the subject, senator, if you will just be patient. That being so, that it lies within the determination of members as a matter of subjective judgment-, then the question as to the point of time at which it becomes urgent also lies within the judgment of the person who elects to move it and the group which supports it. It lies particularly within the disposition of the person who elects to present his notice to the President and to move the motion. Under the Standing Orders at present such a notice may be given when the Senate is in session or out of session. If an honourable senator elects at some stage to discover a matter of urgency and it is then perhaps 2 months before the Senate will meet, what he does is a very logical, normal and desirable thing. Acting in the way in which a parliamentarian should operate, he draws to the attention of the nation the fact that here is a matter which in his opinion is of very great urgency and he brings it to the notice of the Parliament in the only way that he can, even though the Parliament is not then in session. He states that when the Parliament assembles he will attempt to see that the matter is debated in the forum of debate, the national Parliament. That is a very logical thing to do and an extremely democratic thing to do. It lies and must continue to lie within his personal disposition as to whether he considers it to be a matter of urgency.

I know the rather cynical proposition has been put forward that if a matter is urgent on 1st January it cannot be urgent on, say, 14th March when the Senate may re-assemble; but it appears to me that the proposition may well be stated in reverse. A matter may well attract a greater degree of urgency rather than a diminishing degree of urgency with the passage of time. As an example, I remind honourable senators of what the Democratic Labor Party did in relation to age pensions. When the national wage case .decision was handed. down in November 1970. the Democratic Labor Party immediately assessed what the consequences would be. The wage increase indicated first of all, a drastic erosion of the value of money and that that would have a disastrous effect on the recipients of social welfare and, secondly, that once the effect of that wage increase started to operate there would be a further grave deterioration in the income and purchasing power of the pension. We immediately sent to the President a notice of urgency saying that as soon as the Parliament met we wanted the matter debated and that we would attempt to have it debated. That was our judgment of the urgency at that time. But as week followed week, that motion gained increasing and accelerated urgency from day to day, firstly, as the erosion of the value of money started to become more rapid and, secondly, as the effect of the national wage case started to manifest itself. When the Parliament met that matter had become not a matter of urgency but a matter of grave and compelling urgency.

Senator Willesee:

– You would not have lost anything if you had given notice the day before the Senate met.

Senator BYRNE:

– Surely it is a function of a member of Parliament, although the Parliament is not sitting - and it cannot sit all the time - to say to the nation at large at the first opportunity that it is a matter of grave national importance-

Senator Willesee:

– I did not say that. I said that you would not have lost anything if you had given notice the day before the Senate met.

Senator BYRNE:

– And to register his opinion with the Parliament. If the Parliament had been sitting at that time we would have given notice to the President immediately. But the Parliament was not sitting. We did the only thing that could have been done. I say to Senator Willesee: It is not merely the discussion of the matter that is to be achieved; it is equally important to register the necessity for the Parliament to discuss the matter. This is the only way in which it can be done.

Senator Georges:

– You are loading the notice paper.

Senator BYRNE:

– We are not loading the notice paper, although it does give us a priority. It could well be that a matter of very grave urgency, where notice was not given, could be crowded out by something which in the subjective judgment of others was more urgent. After all, it is a fair conclusion that honourable senators coming to this place are men of judgment and some experience and that when they make a definitive judgment that a matter is of some urgency their judgment can be accepted and relied on, and that when the matter comes before the Senate it will be regarded as an urgent matter and be discussed as such. I know that honourable senators may find it somewhat inconvenient that notices of an urgent character have been presented by the Democratic Labor Party on a number of occasions, but I am sure that no-one can dispute that not one of those notices could be considered as of other than an urgent nature.

Let us consider the 3 resolutions that have been presented to the Parliament by the Democratic Labor Party during the last session. One related to pensions in terms of the national wage decision. Is there any honourable senator sitting to my right who would dispute that that was a matter of the gravest urgency? Is there any honourable senator sitting on my right who would say that we were not entitled to bring that matter to the notice of the national Parliament through the President at the earliest opportunity after the national wage decision had been handed down, although the Parliament was not in session? Is there any honourable senator who would be prepared to stand up and challenge us on that?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes.

Senator BYRNE:

– I am staggered. If Senator Cavanagh thinks that, he should go before the pensioner associations in Australia and say that he does not agree with the Democratic Labor Party doing its best, the Parliament being out of session, to present this matter through the President to the Parliament at the earliest opportunity. Let the honourable senator go before the pensioners and tell them that. I challenge him to go around Australia saying that. The second proposition that we brought forward was one relating to child endowment. Does anybody deny that that was a matter of urgency?

Senator Cavanagh:

– It was only for the purpose of making political capital.

Senator BYRNE:

– The purpose we had in mind in raising that urgency motion again was to direct, as early as possible. the notice and attention of Parliament 1 this gravely wanting field of social welfare. The third proposition related to superannuitants, particularly the Commonwealth Public Service superannuitants. It is significant, and we are gratified, that our judgment has been accepted and at least has been responded to by the Government in the recent Budget. We do not claim necessarily all the credit for that - not at all - but we do say that undoubtedly the concern which was shown by the Democratic Labor Party in its early, prompt and urgent presentation to the Senate of notice pf motions which were carried by the Senate on 3 occasions and opposed by the Australian Labor Party on 2 occasions, if my recollection is correct, must definitely have had an effect on the Government as showing an expression of opinion on the part of the people as conveyed through a resolution of the Senate. I am staggered that the alleged democrats on my right, whom I have heard plead in this place-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– 1 should like to say a few words on the proposed amendment. Although it will be said that standing order 64 has contained these words for some time, I believe that the amendment which is proposed should be referred back to the Standing Orders Committee so that a few points may be cleared up. The standing order states:

The Senator so moving must make in writing, and hand in to the President before the time fixed for the meeting …

If 1 happened to meet the President in Melbourne, Brisbane or somewhere else on a Monday afternoon, I presume that under this standing order 1 would be quite in order in handing to him notice of an urgency motion. This matter is not made clear. It has always been assumed that notice had to be given here in Parliament House, Canberra. It is not clear whether notice could be given elsewhere, although those words have been in the standing order for quite a long time. I suggest too that if an honourable senator confers with some other honourable senators by telephone on a Monday or a Tuesday before > we meet there should be no legal impediment to his sending an urgent telegram to the President’s office whether it be in Melbourne, here or wherever it may be for the time being. In standing order 64 there is no mention of a telegram but it states that the motion must be made in writing. I suggest that that matter should be cleared up. There are a few things along those lines which should be looked at. I leave out the matter of the addition of the words ‘24 hours’. I do not think that that is a good thing. As has been pointed out, I think that notice of an urgency motion could be given tonight when we finish and everything could be in order for it to be dealt with next Tuesday. I see no objection to that. I think that 24 hours notice is a little short. There should be a limit of a week or something like that. At the present moment this amendment is not good. It is not clear. To take the legal interpretation, if the President were away on holidays it would be physically impossible to hand the notice of an urgency motion to him. But that is what the words in paragraph 9 mean. I think the amendment should provide that the notice may be handed to the President, or his Deputy, or that it be handed into his office or posted to his office. That point should be cleared up. I believe that this matter should be referred back to the Standing Orders Committee and brought up to date and that the wording should be tidied up.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Prowse:

Senator Lawrie, are you moving that as an amendment?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Yes, I am moving that.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I ask the honour:able senator to put his amendment in writing.

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

– I straight out oppose the amendment along the lines put forward by Senator Byrne. I believe that the longer notice an honourable senator has that an urgency motion is to come before the Senate the better it is for the Parliament, the nation and every honourable senator. I rise to be consistent because my criticism in the past, particular of members of the present Opposition, has been that’ they have not, in my belief, been fair enough to enable good debate on matters of urgency because they have not informed the Government on some occasions until after lunch on the day on which the motion is to be debated. Therefore we have not had the time to inform ourselves on the subject. We are not all experts on all subjects. I believe that the better informed we are the more useful are the debates. If during a recess or at any time a group of honourable senators feel that on a given day they want to debate an urgency motion and they tell the President and the public the better it is for all concerned. But if we were unwise enough to accept this amendment and place a limit of 24 hours on the presentation of the motion we would see an inglorious rush of honourable senators lining up outside the. President’s office to be first with notice of an urgency motion. The President has the right to choose which is the matter of greatest urgency but I believe that in 9 cases out of 10 tradition would say that it is the first cab off the rank. I believe that this practice would be unhealthy and harmful. I suggest that there be an amendment which would provide that the statement of a matter of urgency be handed to the President’s office not less than 6 hours before the time fixed for the meeting of the Senate. In other words if the Senate is meeting at 3 o’clock in the afternoon 6 hours before that time is zero hour to give notice of an urgency motion. I would agree with that proposition but I oppose the amendment as it is stated in this suggested draft.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– I have a small point to raise. Both Senator Townley and I are a little perturbed about this matter. Senator Townley does not want to break his maidenhead so he has requested me to ask this question. Could we have a ruling on how many honourable senators have to stand up in their places in support of an urgency motion? There seems to be some discrepancy.

Senator Willesee:

– It is 4 senators plus the mover.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– It is not. Standing order 64 states:

Such motion must be supported by 4 senator* rising in their places. . . .

It does not say that such mover must be supported.

Senator Murphy:

– Is not the mover to support it?

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– Obviously the mover is supporting the motion. I would like a ruling.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Prowse:

– I hardly think that is relevant to this amendment.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– In deference to the last speaker I point out that Standing order 64 reads:

Such motion must be supported by 4 senators rising in their places as indicating their approval thereof.

Those words ‘supported’ and ‘approval’ are not appropriate to include the mover who initiates and submits the motion. That is the interpretation which has been given to that. sentence all this time. It has not been the subject of serious debate in our actual practice. 1 rise in the hope that we can obtain a vote on this matter before half past 10 if the Senate is so minded without compressing the debate at all. I indicate that I am persuaded by what has fallen from Senator Byrne and my colleagues Senator Marriott and Senator Lawrie that this matter requires reconsideration. As to the additional amendment to be moved by Senator Lawrie I indicate that I would take the same course as I did with Senator Turnbull. I undertake that I shall bring the matter to the attention of the President for submission to the Standing Orders Committee for its consideration of a new amendment. I think that this amendment requires further consideration. I invite the Senate to negative this amendment.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– In view of the Minister’s remarks I do not propose to proceed with my amendment.

Question put:

That amendment (2) contained in paragraph 9 of the Report be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator Prowse)

AYES: 21

NOES: 25

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Consideration interrupted.

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

Thai the Chairman do now leave the Chair and report to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative. (The Chairman having reported accordingly)

page 227

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.35 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 19 August 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1971/19710819_senate_27_s49/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant