29th Parliament · 1st Session
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.
page 2467
- Mr President, I inform the Senate that the Minister for Health, Dr Everingham, who left Australia on 16 November to lead the Australian delegation to the Fourth Commonwealth Medical Conference in Sri Lanka, will be returning on 2 December. In his absence the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, Dr Cass, will act as Minister for Health.
page 2467
– I present the following petition from 1 3 citizens of South Australia:
To the President and members of the Senate:
The petition of the undersigned residents of the State of South Australia respectfully showeth the divorce laws of Australia are out of touch with the needs and wishes of most of our people. They are too complicated, too expensive and humiliating to those citizens whose marriages have broken down.
Your petitioners pray that the Senate will speedily pass the Family Law Bill with its provisions for irretrievable breakdown based on one year of separation as the only ground for divorce.
Petition received.
-I present the following petition from 369 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate iti Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
The Red Kangaroo, largest marsupial in the world, has through shooting for commerce become extinct or rare in many areas where it was once prolific. All scientific evidence points to this decimation of numbers, which is clear evidence that State Governments are unable to control commercial shooting within their boundaries.
The people of Australia do not wish to subsidize the kangaroo industry, through taxation, in paying for the control measures which it calls for. We find the industry repugnant, unnecessary, and benefits but a few people in this country, whereas live kangaroos in their natural habitat, through their value as tourist attractions are economically far more profitable to our economy and to us aesthetically.
We your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that you will:
1 ) Maintain the ban on the export of products made from kangaroos.
Encourage State Governments to have any necessary culling of wild animals carried out by their own fauna officers.
Establish large sanctuaries in the habitat of the Red and other species of kangaroo. This would benefit all wildlife in those areas.
Provide for scientific research into populations of kangaroos and other wildlife.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
– 1 present the following petition from 280 Australian Government employees:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned Australian Government employees respectfully showeth:
That under the provisions of the existing superannuation scheme for Australian Government employees:
Contribution rates are excessively high especially for older members, and hence the preclusion of most contributors from the full pension theoretically available.
Cost of administration are needlessly high because of the complexity of the scheme.
Female contributors are discriminated against.
Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, will take the most urgent steps to ensure:
The introduction of the Treasurer’s proposals for a new superannuation scheme for Australian Government employees presented in March 1974.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
– I present the following petition from 1662 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable the President and the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth:
That, we, the undersigned, are not opposed to the simplification of divorce proceedings, but have serious objections to the Family Law Bill 1974;
That, the concept of marriage contained in section 26 subsection 2 is of marriage as a transitory, and temporary union dissolvable by the simple passing of a period of twelve months separation;
That, such a concept of marriage will destroy the contractual nature of marriage, undermine the total commitment of two persons to each other and threaten the integrity of family life, which is the basis of our society;
That, a Bill with such serious implications deserves to be considered as a matter of public importance and be the object of the community debate which it warrants.
Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should vote against the Bill in its present form, allow public consideration of amendments and then vote to so amend the Bill as to strengthen and support marriage and the family in a manner acceptable to the people of Australia.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
-I present 2 petitions, identical in wording and from 54 and 411 citizens of the Commonwealth respectively, in the following terms:
To the Honourable the President and the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth:
That, we, the undersigned, are not opposed to the simplification of divorce proceedings, but have serious objections to the Family Law Bill 1974;
That, the concept of marriage contained in section 26 subsection 2 is of marriage as a transitory, and temporary union dissolvable by the simple passing of a period of twelve months separation;
That, such a concept of marriage will destroy the contractual nature of marriage, undermine the total commitment of two persons to each other and threaten the integrity of family life which is the basis of our society;
That, a Bill with such serious implications deserves to be considered as a matter of public importance and be the object of the community debate which it warrants.
Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should vote against the Bill in its present form, allow public consideration of amendments and then vote to so amend the Bill as to strengthen and support marriage and the family in a manner acceptable to the people of Australia.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petitions received.
– I present the following petition from 95 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable the President and the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth:
That, we, the undersigned, are not opposed to the simplification of divorce proceedings, but have serious objections to the Family Law Bill 1974;
That the concept of marriage contained in section 26 subsection 2 is of marriage as a transitory, and temporary union dissolvable by the simple passing of a period of twelve months separation;
That, such a concept of marriage will destroy the contractual nature of marriage, undermine the total commitment of two persons to each other and threaten the integrity of family life which is the basis of our society;
That, a Bill with such serious implications deserves to be considered as a matter of public importance and be the object of the community debate which it warrants.
Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should vote against the Bill in its present form, allow public consideration of amendments and then vote to so amend the Bill as to strengthen and support marriage and the family in a manner acceptable to the people of Australia.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present 2 petitions, identical in wording and from 22 and 38 citizens of the Commonwealth respectively, in the following terms:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:
That we have read the petitions concerning the Family Law Bill and support the bill as sufficiently protecting the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Family Law Bill be debated and passed as soon as possible.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petitions received.
-I present the following petition from 14 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:
That we are concerned at letters in the press inferring that the Family Law Bill should be delayed. We are opposed to such action on the grounds that there has been ample time to discuss the bill with the community, and we are informed and believe that many submissions have been considered by Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee and the report of that Committee is substantially in accord with the Family Law Bill.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Family Law Bill be debated and passed as soon as possible
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition from 21 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned Citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble Petition respectfully showeth:
That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic, and cruel and so completely at variance with modem thought as to require their immediate repeal.
That there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1974 to Parliament for debate.
That the ground of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage be the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maximum of twelve months separation.
That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family Courts only to be used for enforcement as a last resort.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
page 2469
– I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of a former esteemed colleague, ex-senator Poke. We wish him well and welcome him to the Senate.
page 2469
page 2469
-I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: In view of the written instructions that the Prime Minister has directed to the Prices Justification Tribunal during the past 2 years and now the Government’s action to preclude the Prices Justification Tribunal from considering an application by Ampol for an increase in the price of crude oil, could the Leader of the Government in the Senate advise just how independent is the Prices Justification Tribunal? Is Mr Justice Williams a servant of the Labor Government and its Leader and head of a tribunal which is not capable of acting, or allowed to act, independently?
-The Tribunal, of course, will act according to law and act with the proper independence, impartiality and integrity which one expects. No one, except now 2 members of the Opposition, is prepared to cast doubt upon the integrity, impartiality and independence of those who occupy judicial office in Australia
page 2469
– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration. I refer to the existing favoured nation treatment given to New Zealand as regards free entry by New Zealanders to Australia. Will the Minister have early discussion with his New Zealand counterpart in view of the disturbing reports coming across the Tasman of a change in New Zealand ‘s migration policy towards Australia?
-I have been told by the Minister for Labor and Immigration that he will be in New Zealand next week to attend the
South Pacific Region Labour Conference. He has already arranged to talk to his counterpart in New Zealand about the matter which Senator Mulvihill has raised.
page 2469
– I preface my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate by referring to the fact that the quadrupled price of imported oil is a major factor in high inflation overseas and that Australia, because it is 70 per cent self-sufficient in oil, is virtually free of that crippling economic burden. In view of this I ask: Why is the Government strangling Australia’s oil exploration and production industries? Does the Government recognise that every act of discouragement of our oil industries is a step towards the destruction of our strongest fortress against imported inflation?
– I thought everyone in Australia had come round to recognising the wisdom of the Minister for Minerals and Energy when he acted decisively to see that Australia had control of its own mineral resources, especially oil. Honourable senators will recall that one of the first steps of the Government was to introduce a regulation under the Customs Act under which the export of minerals, including oil, was prohibited without the consent of the Minister for Minerals and Energy. The Minister has used that regulation and has used his other authorities and functions to protect Australia’s resources. I am sure that he will do everything he can to see that Australia is independent, as far as it can be, in its access to oil and that as far as possible oil will be obtained on terms which will be the best for the Australian people, including Australian industry and commence.
I think the Leader of the Country Party in the Senate must recognise that the Minister for Minerals and energy has been far-sighted. He has had to deal with an oil industry which has tentacles all around the world. It is quite apparent that when he does things he is doing them in the interests of Australia and more and more the people of Australia are coming to realise that what he is doing is, in fact, helpful to Australia. I think the honourable senator ought to be applauding the Minister for Minerals and Energy for his actions.
page 2469
-Will the Minister for the Media confirm that new allocations have been made for Channel 5A for television transmission? Is it true that these allocations by the
Australian Broadcasting Control Board will provide a wide range of services for thousands of Australians?
– I know that recently representations were made to the Broadcasting Control Board by one of the amateur operators in Australia who was concerned about the allocation of Channel 5A. Channel 5A operates on the 137 to 144 megahertz frequency and the amateur service operates on the 144 to 148 megahertz frequency. The amateur operators were concerned that with the allocation of Channel 5 A there would be considerable interference to receivers tuned to that Channel as a result of the operations of the amateurs.
I know that some discussion took place recently between the Wireless Institute of Australia on the one hand, and the Broadcasting Control Board and the Australian Post Office on the other. I can tell the honourable senator that as a result of the Government’s decision to accept in principle the recommendations of the independent inquiry into frequency modulation which was conducted earlier this year and which reported to the Government earlier this year, new allocations have been made for Channel 5A. Channel 5A has been allocated for high power television services at Newcastle to replace Channel 5, and also for a new commercial service to be established at Loxton in South Australia. I can also tell the honourable senator that it is planned to use Channel 5A for at least one high power service near Perth and for approximately 12 low power translator installations throughout the rest of Australia.
page 2470
– My question, addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, follows the economic statement of the Prime Minister last week and Mr Clyde Cameron’s statement yesterday. Is it a fact that the Prime Minister made it clear to the Prices Justification Tribunal that it must take it easy on the aspect of company profits? Is the Prime Minister’s attitude to be taken as meaning that the Government will both support and encourage companies which recently have had recommendations from the Prices Justifications Tribunal to appeal to the Prices Justification Tribunal in the expectancy that that body will show a greater appreciation of the need for real profitability and, as a consequence, may recommend higher increases in prices for those applicants?
-I think it would be unwise for the Senate, or the public or the companies to speculate and to start putting some gloss upon what was said by the Prime Minister in his statement.
– He said it.
– I said that the honourable senator should take what has been said and not endeavour to stretch it or put some gloss upon it. The Prime Minister referred to the need for investment and said that this was a proper consideration to be taken into account. The honourable senator now turns this and starts to suggest that we should throw away notions of any kind of price justification and let every company make whatever profits it wishes. Where is the theme of restraint in society that was running through the Opposition? Whenever trade unions make some claim for increased wages the honourable senator complains about what they are doing. Now he seems to take the tack that there should be no restraint whatever in other areas. The Prime Minister made the statement in the context of a tribunal which has been set up to investigate the justification for price increases. His statement must be strictly understood. He said that certain considerations could be relevant to the decision on what was justified. It does not mean that all restraint should be lifted but no doubt that would be the view of many honourable senators opposite who want 2 standards in society. One standard is that there should be restraint by most of the community and the other is that there should be no restraint at all when it comes to high profits.
page 2470
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I draw his attention to a report on page 5 of today ‘s ‘Australian ‘ relating to ineffective suntan oils. As Australia has one of the highest incidence of skin cancer in the world and in view of the alarming statement made yesterday by 3 professors from the Department of Dermatology at Harvard University, will the Minister call for an immediate inquiry into the true situation here in Australia? Will he make public the findings of any such inquiry? Will he consider whether action can be taken under the Trade Practices Act if there has in fact been unethical, untrue, or misleading advertising on the part of some pharmaceutical companies?
– I have seen reports of the statements made by the 3 scientists from Harvard. In fact, I did see one of them being interviewed on television. Certainly what they have said is very alarming and I shall see that this is referred to the Minister for Health for early investigation by his Department. If the result of the inquiries do confirm what has been said by the 3 visiting specialists from Harvard University, then indeed it may well be a matter for action under the Trade Practices Act and no doubt the matter would be referred by the Minister for Health to the Attorney-General for appropriate action.
page 2471
– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it a fact that the Government has belatedly taken up a further recommendation of the Opposition and decided to make a substantial reduction in taxation? Is it not further a fact that had the Opposition’s full economic advice been taken as it was given many months ago the Australian economy would not be in its current state of shock, growing inflation and lack of confidence, with the consequence of distressing and rising unemployment?
-I ask the honourable senator to place the question on notice so that it may be referred to the Treasurer.
page 2471
-I ask a question of the Postmaster-General. The Minister will be aware of the departmental policy requiring all future installations of ships’ radios to be of the single side band type. I ask: Is he aware that the single side band radio is twice the cost of the type of radio currently in use, in other words, about $1,200 as compared with $500 or $600? Is he also aware that there is no need whatsoever to require single side band sets to be installed in those vessels commonly referred to as small ships, that is, yachts, pleasure craft and vessels of that kind? In view of the discouragement to install radios because of the very great cost involved in single side band sets, does the Minister appreciate the reduction in the safety aspect of small ship usage? Will he seek a review of the situation?
-The decision by the Post Office to require the installation of this so-called new equipment is the result of an international agreement. The countries operating in the area have decided to require the installation of this new equipment because it is more selective and it reduces the amount of interference in the frequencies which are necessary for emergency operations. I understand that the new equipment is much more expensive. The purpose of requiring the installation of this equipment is to ensure a greater amount of safety with less interference in the frequencies which are used. As to whether it may be possible to exclude some very small craft from this requirement, I shall have the proposition examined and I will let the honourable senator know the result of my investigations.
page 2471
-My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It refers to statements made by the Prime Minister and other Ministers that Australia cannot do much about inflation because, we are caught up in a world-wide problem. I ask: Is it not a fact that New Zealand’s economy is tied markedly to overseas countries by its necessity to trade in primary products and in a more dependent way than Australia? Will he confirm that the inflation rate in New Zealand is currently running at approximately one third less than Australia ‘s? Is it also a fact that only 0. 1 per cent of the New Zealand work force is unemployed and that registered unemployment is non-existent in Auckland? If so, do not these facts demonstrate that the New Zealand Government can look after its economy notwithstanding world conditions? Is not New Zealand ‘s performance an indictment of the Australian Government’s miserable performance?
– It is noticeable that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in looking for the best example of controlling inflation turns to the New Zealand Labor Government. In that country the policies which are being carried out are substantially the kinds of approaches and represent the basic philosophy of the Australian Government, and they are proving to be successful.
– They are diametrically opposite.
-There are certain differences. There is a population difference between New Zealand and Australia; there are certain differences in trade of which we are aware and there have been changes in the economy in Australia over the last few months. Perhaps there have been changes in New Zealand ‘s economy also. Basically the common sense of the Labor Governments in Australia and in New Zealand will prove to be in the best interests of the people of the 2 countries. I assure the honourable senator that we will be co-operating with the Government of New Zealand. We will be taking steps to ensure that inflation is contained as much as possible in a world which is raging with inflation. We are taking steps to curb unemployment.
– They import our unemployed.
-I hear Senator Carrick and others complaining sometimes that the measures that the Australian Government is taking were advocated by them or their leaders. I say firmly that the Australian Government will take whatever measures it thinks are desirable. If a proposal is made by the Opposition and it is common sense and desirable we will act on it; otherwise we will not do so. We are not the slightest bit interested whether the Opposition claims credit for some proposal. That does not concern us at all. We will do whatever is in the interests of the Australian people, from wherever the suggestion or proposal might have come. But before taking those steps we will consider the situation deeply and do whatever is in the interests of the Australian people. So I suggest that honourable senators opposite might as well cut out the cackling and complaining that some of the things done by the Australian Government in the last few days were advocated by the members of the Opposition.
page 2472
– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Has the Australian Government recently raised with State Governments the question of discrimination by the exclusion of males from those eligible to be trained as school dental therapists or nurses? Have any of the State Governments responded to the Australian Government’s representations? Specifically, is there any indication of the prospects of an alteration of the position in Tasmania so that males will be able to be trained as school dental therapists or nurses?
-The Australian Government has sought the views of all State Governments on this matter and replies have been received from all State Governments except the Government of Western Australia. The Tasmanian Government has put forward the point of view, in which the Australian Government concurs, that however desirable it may be to have women trained as school dental therapists, men should not be precluded from undergoing that training and becoming school dental therapists. In fact we are informed that the Tasmanian Government is considering legislation to amend the existing law relating to this matter so that men may be trained as school dental therapists.
page 2472
-I appreciate Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson ‘s question. I am sorry that such confusion has developed, if it has developed. Certainly my understanding of what the Government is trying to do is that its aim is to see that former prisoners of war have full entitlement to medical and hospital attention. If there is any ambiguity in the circular which has been sent out- obviously there must be for this doubt to have arisen- I shall see that it is corrected by the issuing of a further circular to make perfectly clear what is embodied in the Government’s decision on this matter.
page 2472
– Has the Minister for Agriculture seen reports of the farmers’ meeting, attended by fewer than 100 people, in Melbourne on Sunday afternoon? If so, does such a small response indicate that earlier rallies of farmers in Victoria may have been motivated by the Liberal Party, the Australian Country Party and the League of Rights and were not in fact gatherings of farmers with genuine grievances towards the Australian Government?
- Mr President, I take a point of order. The Standing Orders provide that questions should not ask for an expression of opinion. It seems to me that that is no more than could be offered in response to this question.
- Senator Wriedt is entitled to reply to the question in his own way.
-I did see the result of the meeting called in Melbourne on Sunday, as I think most people did, and I also saw the photographs of empty benches at the Sidney Myer Music Bowl. As has been indicated by the honourable senator’s question, I think this is indicative of the fact that unless the elements referred to in the question can organise themselves sufficiently to drag people to meetings of this nature, obviously there is no spontaneous support for them. I think that the average primary producer in Victoria would have rejected overwhelmingly the concept and the so-called complaints that were to be aired, and to some degree were aired, by the speakers at that gathering. It was a fair indication of just how dissatisfied are the primary producers of Victoria. Obviously they are satisfied with the Government’s policies. If they were not, they certainly would have turned up.
page 2473
– I address this question to the Minister for Agriculture. Is the Minister aware of the great concern among all citrus growers at the delay in renewing the expired sugar agreement under which the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee operates? As SO per cent of the Australian citrus crop is now sold for juicing and as this outlet has a vital stabilising influence on the whole of the citrus market, will the Minister press for the renewal of the agreement as a matter of urgency?
– It has been customary for many years now for the rebate referred to by Senator Laucke to be paid to the fruit industry as a result of an agreement with the sugar industry. The delay this year has been protracted mainly because of the need to renegotiate the CommonwealthQueensland Sugar Agreement, of which the rebate under the FISCC arrangements is a part. Agreement has been reached with the industry. Of course, this is not my responsibility; it is that of Dr Patterson, Minister for Northern Development. I assume that he will make a statement this week indicating that agreement has been reached.
page 2473
-Has the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate been drawn to articles in the ‘Australian Financial Review’ of 18 November 1974 which mention further examples of obstruction of various Australian Government initiatives by State Premiers in Western Australia, Victoria and Queensland. In the interests of the citizens of Australia who have twice given a mandate to the policies of the Australian Labor Party, will the Minister prepare a statement for the House listing the range of measures which are being frustrated by antiLabor State governments.
-Yes, I could, and I think that it would be very helpful to the people of Australia to see how little co-operation and how much frustration there has been on the policies which, after all, are designed to assist the people of Australia. We are all the same people and the governments are there to serve the people of Australia. not to carry on some kind of tugofwar between themselves. I will do as the honourable senator suggests.
page 2473
– My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It refers to a news item today reporting that a South Australian girl has been prevented from contacting the Australian Embassy in Bangkok in connection with what has been described as a police charge. Can the Minister give the Senate any details on the matter? What steps have been taken to ensure that appropriate and adequate protection is being given?
-There is no truth in the report that the girl concerned has been unable to contact representatives of my Department there. Miss Stewart was arrested on 30 September in Bangkok, together with 2 Americans who were also charged with drug offences. Miss Stewart was convicted on 14 November with the possession of heroin and was gaoled for 6 months. The Embassy had contact with her before her trial, arranged for her to be legally represented and has remained in contact with her ever since.
page 2473
– I direct a question to the Attorney-General. I attract his attention to an article in this month’s issue of ‘Choice’ magazine which discusses the safety of children’s floatation toys. Is the Attorney-General aware of the article and the magazine’s claim that children run the risk of being drowned because the toys are being passed off as safety floats? Will he take steps to ensure that parents are made fully aware of the risks involved in using these toys as safety devices and will he take action against the distributors for dangerous misrepresentation?
– I am aware of the article. It is correct, as the honourable senator has said, that many of these devices are not lifesaving devices but merely toys. They are dangerous in that they are made of plastic, which might be easily punctured and cause a child to get into difficulties. It is clear, being toys, that the children using them should at all times be under the supervision of adults. I know that some publicity has been given to this matter in the newspapers. The best advice I can offer is that parents ought to get toys bearing the mark of the Standards Association of Australia.
I have given instructions for a regulation to be prepared under the Trades Practices Act in order to prevent the sale of devices which do not conform with the consumer safety standards. I understand that the regulation may be available for signature today. I hope that it will become operative soon. The process has been initiated by me. Of course, as honourable senators know, this is a matter which has to be dealt with by the Executive Council and I do not wish to intrude in any way upon the functions of the Council or of His Excellency, but I think that, in the public interest, everyone should know what is happening. The implementation of such a regulation will be recommended. I trust that it will come into operation before the holiday period is in full swing. As the honourable senator would know, such a regulation would carry with it under the Act a heavy penalty for contravention.
page 2474
– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. I refer to the representations constantly made by the Australian Council of Social Service, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, the poverty inquiry and the Liberal and Country Parties both during the last election campaign and since for the immediate abolition of the 7-day waiting period for unemployment and sickness benefits. In view of the rising hardship caused to a growing number of unemployed will the Government abolish this requirement in the immediate future?
– I feel that I must ask Senator Missen to put this question on notice.
page 2474
– I direct a question to the Minister for the Media. Has a national television service yet been provided for the people of the Winton area of Queensland? Since December 1972 has there been an appreciable movement in the provision of television services for country people throughout Australia?
– I can tell the honourable senator that an Australian Broadcasting Commission national television service is now available at Winton. Transmission began last Friday. It is part of the seventh stage of television development, involving the establishment of 40 stations in relatively remote parts of Australia. No fewer than 23 of the 40 stations planned are for Queensland. With Winton coming into operation, 1 7 of the 23 Queensland stations are now in service which is, I suggest, a clear demonstration of the Australian Government’s concern for those areas away from the heavily settled urban sections. Senator Milliner asked me, in effect, about the number of stations which have been brought into existence since the Labor Government came into office. In a period of less than 2 years we have brought in 5 national broadcasting stations, 22 national television stations, 3 national television translator stations and 4 commercial television translator stations.
page 2474
– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration, refers to the report in the Melbourne ‘Herald’ of yesterday afternoon that some 50,000 tertiary students may be unable to obtain employment during the Christmas vacation period. The report indicates that unless many of these people are able to obtain employment, and extra funds because of it, they will be unable to continue their studies next year and this will, of necessity, exacerbate the 1975 employment situation. In view of this fact, and taking into account the already critical employment situation generally has the Government any plans which may assist students wishing to take up jobs to obtain such employment?
-Senator Bessell will know, because I have referred to them many times, the various schemes which the Minister for Labor and Immigration has been able to get the Government to endorse to cover these situations. Apart from the magnitude of the education vote, a number of schemes, including the National Employment and Training Scheme, have been designed to give people the opportunity to take a study course where there is no employment available in their particular categories. The honourable senator referred to students who have been able hitherto to get employment in the Christmas period. I am not aware of the number. I have seen the report. I will ask the Minister to indicate the consideration that has been given to providing some avenues for them. As soon as I have the information I will give it to the honourable senator.
page 2474
– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and follows the question asked by Senator Button.
Will the Minister also prepare a list of projects which are being promoted by the States and which are being frustrated by the Austraiian Government, thus damaging the Australian economy? To assist him, I point out that the North West Shelf gas project, the Alwest alumina project and the Yeelirrie uranium prospect in Western Australia can be included in the list.
– No, I do not think that I could do that because there might be some differences of view as to what was being frustrated and what was not. The non-Labor States are very vocal about what they suggest is being prevented by the Federal Government.
– So is Mr Dunstan.
-I generally find Mr Dunstan to be far more reliable than the nonLabor Premiers. The States can look after themselves. I do not think it would be at all satisfactory for me to attempt to take over the function which is theirs of advocacy, whether correct or incorrect, of their own endeavours.
page 2475
– My question is directed to the Postmaster-General. I refer to an article in today’s ‘Australian’ which states that 24.2 per cent of letters going through the Sydney Mail Exchange are affected by delays. Would the Minister advise the Senate whether in fact such a high percentage of letters is affected and the reasons for those delays?
– Apparently the figure that has been cited in the Press report- I have seen it- is a figure which was given at some time in 1973 during the work of the Vernon Commission. The figure does not apply today because the latest of the regular service tests, which was carried out by the Post Office on 4 November, shows that at the present time approximately 92 per cent of the mail is cleared through the Sydney Mail Exchange without delay and a further 8 per cent of mail is delayed by only one delivery.
page 2475
– I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to reports on the discussions between a senior member of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Mr Suslov, and an Australian delegation led by Mr Renouf in which an assurance was given that Russia had no intention of establishing a naval base in the Indian Ocean. Is the Government aware that Russia is reported to have the use of naval facilities at
Vishakhapatham in India, Berbera, Aden and Mauritius; has a number of mooring buoys in the Indian Ocean area to facilitate the servicing of Russian naval vessels; and is also reported to be constructing facilities at Socotra at the entrance to the Red Sea? Are not the assurances given by Mr Suslov worthless as Russia already possesses all the facilities required to operate an increasing naval presence in the Indian Ocean?
-Senator Sim is obviously referring to the fourth round of the official level talks between Australia and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which took place in Canberra on 14 and 15 November. These are talks that Australia has with several countries, not only the USSR. The Soviet delegation was led by Mr Sulsov, the head of the Foreign Ministry’s Second European Department. The talks have become a regular annual feature of consultations between the 2 Governments. Similar consultations take place with other countries, including Great Britain, Canada, India, Japan and Indonesia. The principal topic in the discussions was the preparation for a possible visit by the Prime Minister to the USSR early in 1975. Of course, the discussions also covered a range of other international questions. The Soviet presence in the Indian Ocean to which Senator Sim specifically referred was mentioned. The newspaper reports that Australia accepted Mr Sulsov’s presentation were incorrect. Mr Suslov explained the importance of the Indian Ocean to the USSR, as the only maritime link for most of the year between the USSR’s European and far eastern territories. Mr Renouf explained that Australia was concerned that any escalation of foreign military or naval forces in the Indian Ocean could increase the risk of conflict. He asked that the Soviet Government’s attention again be drawn to the Australian Government’s request for mutual restraint by the 2 super powers, as well as by other leading powers with forces in this region.
page 2475
– Does the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs agree with Mr Charles Perkins that the head of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs should be sacked for racial discrimination in the administration of the Department? Does the Minister agree that there are widespread reports of major problems within the Department and, if so, what steps are being taken to overcome those problems?
-The answer to the first question is no. There are no widespread reports of dissatisfaction in the Department. There is one disgruntled member of the Department who is getting some publicity at the present time. I think what the Press is doing to him is shocking in that they are treating him as they did Andrew Jones in his own destruction. There have been many reports of dissatisfaction in the past- AuditorGeneral’s reports and reports by the Joint Committee on Public Accounts. I think the Department is on the road to overcoming the dissatisfaction. My Department today is operating better than it ever has since I took over the portfolio. The results that it is achieving in aboriginal affairs will show that the Department is making a success of its work.
page 2476
– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it a fact that the New Zealand Government has been able to implement policies to combat inflation and unemployment which have been denied the Australian Government because of the negative and frustrating activities of the Opposition?
-I think that is a fair comment to make and it touches on the question which was asked of me earlier. Senator Brown reminds me of the very significant difference between the positions of the Labor Governments of New Zealand and Australia. The Labor Government in New Zealand has been able to go ahead and implement Labor policies, and implement them successfully to the point where the Deputy Leader Opposition in the Senate is, in effect, congratulating that Government and holding it up as a world example. Here we are with basically the same philosophy and approach to life but as yet we have not been able to achieve the same success, and why? The thing that stands out like a lighthouse is that the Labor Government in New Zealand has been able to implement its policies, and they have been successful. In Australia the Labor Government has been frustrated for the best part of 2 years.
Every move that we make has to be taken in the knowledge that the Opposition here is ready to frustrate us and delay us. The Opposition did that with the Trade Practices Bill. It held up that legislation for the best part of 12 months. It did the same with a number of other measures. This is the big difference between the positions in Australia and New Zealand. I think that the Australian people will come round quickly to realise that they would be a lot better off if the Australian Labor Government were allowed to implement its policies and do the same as the
New Zealand Labor Government has been able to achieve for its own people. That achievement has been recognised by no other than one of the most conservative men in Australia, Senator Greenwood. He holds up the New Zealand Labor Government as an example to the world of what has been achieved in controlling inflation and holding down unemployment.
page 2476
– I ask a question of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I am reminded by Senator Coleman’s first question today about suntan oil of a report that I heard on a commercial radio station in South Australia yesterday to the effect that a number of Australian tourists were arrested and jailed following nude sunbathing in Bali, Indonesia. Has the Minister received a report on this incident from his Department? If so, can he give details to the Senate? In view of the increasing numbers of Australian tourists of all types who visit that area, will the Minister consider establishing a consulate in Bali in order to advise Australian visitors on local customs and also to assist local authorities if such incidents should occur?
-I am sure that if we set up a consulate in Bali there would be plenty of applicants for the job. I am afraid I cannot help the honourable senator any further. I have not received any report. I cannot even give him the bare facts.
page 2476
– I ask a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it not a fact that over many years the Australian Labor Party has been a high tariff party and that it has adopted this policy with the idea of creating work for our people? Is it not a fact that the unemployment problem began in Australia when the Labor Party reversed its established policy of high tariffs by cutting tariffs and allowing cheap goods, such as clothing from Asian countries, to come into this country, thus putting our own people out of work?
– I think the unemployment that we have had in Australia commenced well before the Labor Government got into power. We had instances of it in the great credit squeeze in the early 1960s and later. We had the development of inflation, together with rapidly increasing unemployment, well before the Labor Party got into power. There is no doubt about this. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, which is not caught up in party politics here, indicated that there was increasing inflation in Australia and there was no doubt that there was increasing unemployment. That is one of the reasons the Liberal-Country Party Government was put out of office at the end of 1972. The measures the Australian Government has taken have been directed towards containing inflation. One of those was the cut in tariffs. It is unfortunately true that the benefit of those cuts was not passed on to the Australian people. One reason was that the Government does not have the economic management it should have constitutionally and perhaps legislatively. What has happened- I think the honourable senator is correct to a degree- is that there has been unemployment consequential upon those tariff cuts, but the Government is recognising this and is taking remedial action.
Honourable senators are well aware of the remedial action. I think the country approves of the measures which have been announced. I do not even notice honourable senators opposite complaining about the remedial measures that have been taken. It was the Government’s duty to contain inflation as far as it could and it was the Government’s duty, when its policies started to produce unemployment, to take remedial actions there. I think the country will concede that this Government is honestly doing its best and will be successful if the Opposition ceases to impede it in producing the kind of result that has been achieved in New Zealand. If only we were in the position of New Zealand, without an obstructive Upper House and the Opposition that we have, I think we could all get along a lot better.
page 2477
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade. I refer to a statement reported to have been made by Dr Cairns that relations between Australia and America were now excellent on both sides. I ask: Is it not a fact that Australian-American relations were always excellent until last year when Dr Cairns and other senior Ministers severely criticised the United States Administration? Does this indicate a change of view on the part of Dr Cairns and other senior Ministers towards the United States?
-The implication of the question is, of course, that there has been some deterioration in the relationship between this country and the United States over the past 18 months. I have been in the United States 3 times in that period and the last impression I would get would be any sense of antagonism or frustration in relationships between the 2 countries. Every effort has been made, especially by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to consolidate the relationship which has been established over the years and which, as we all know, is to our mutual benefit. This does not mean any slavish acceptance of everything done by the United States or of United States policies. The fact is that this Government, both by political measures and in trade matters, has maintained an excellent standard of relationship with that country. No one has done more to achieve that relationship than has Dr Cairns.
page 2477
– I address my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and refer to Press Statement No. 370 of the Prime Minister which relates to the Textiles Authority. The Prime Minister referred to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade textiles arrangement which was acceded to earlier this year. As the Prime Minister stated that goods ordered overseas but not cleared for home consumption at the date of announcement of any action recommended by the Government would be subject to the terms of the action, will the Minister advise whether the GATT textiles arrangement provided for cancellation of commercial contracts?
– I would prefer to answer that question after consideration. I will give the answer to the honourable senator and to the Senate as soon as possible.
page 2477
– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, refers to the growing threats to the future survival of the State of Israel arising, amongst other ways, from inflammatory statements by the Palestine Liberation Organisation and other Arab sources that Israel must be destroyed, and also to the increasing financial and military capacity of Middle East areas to mount substantially larger military campaigns. I ask: In the face of these threats, which imperil not only Israel but also potentially the safety, peace and security of all world nations, will the Minister give an outright assurance that Australia gives unqualified support for the continued sovereignty of Israel on secure and viable boundaries, that Australia will take vigorous action within the United Nations to ensure that that body strongly reasserts its wholehearted support for Israeli sovereignty and that Australia is willing, if necessary, to act in association with other nations in a United Nations peacekeeping force to ensure that sovereignty? Finally, is the Minister satisfied that the existing United Nations peace keeping forces in the Middle East could play any role at all in stopping a new outbreak, or alternatively, are they merely border keeping bodies?
-The last question really seeks an opinion, which I do not feel competent to give, about whether the peacekeeping forces could be effective, I think they could be effective under certain circumstances but not if a conflagration got right out of hand. Largely the answer to the thrust of Senator Carrick ‘s question is yes. I have some background notes here that may be of interest. We have to realise that probably a new situation is emerging following the Arab summit conference at Rabat. The Palestine Liberation Organisation has been recognised by the Arab countries as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. This has been even further enhanced by the decision of the United Nations General Assembly to permit the PLO to participate in the General Assembly’s debate on the Palestine issue.
Honourable senators know that the leader of the PLO, Mr Yasser Arafat, addressed the United Nations General Assembly on 13 November. In addressing the United Nations General Assembly on 7 October I said that a peaceful settlement in the Middle East must involve acceptance of the existence of the State of Israel in a permanent and secure condition of life, and equally that the Palestinians should have proper treatment, permanent homes and secure hopes. These remain the views of the Government. The Government continues to support the terms of Security Council Resolution 242 of 22 November 1967 as providing the basis for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East by which every State in the area can live in security. I think I speak for everybody in this place when I say that we are very concerned about the heightening tension in the Middle East at the moment. We hope that this can be dampened down and that we do not have yet another Middle East war.
page 2478
-Would the Minister for Agriculture agree that the inflationary cost situation has hit the Austraiian wheat industry at least as severely as any other industry? Would he agree also that $1.20 per bushel is now an unrealistically low first advance when the world market price of wheat is around $4 per bushel, and that the ratio of $1.20 to $4 compares most unfavourably with the position in many years which saw the ratio at about $1.10 to $1.35? Would the Minister, having a view to these circumstances, the current need to inspire production to meet the demands of a starving world and the liquidity problems confronting producers, undertake as a matter of urgency to press for a $1.80 first payment for the current 1974-75 crop?
– I thought I answered in considerable detail virtually the same question last week which I think was asked by Senator Young. I pointed out then the liquidity position of the Australian wheat growing industry in comparison to that of years gone by and the much more favourable position in which the Australian wheat grower, across the board, is placed this year than he has ever had in the past. I do not believe a case can be substantiated to suggest that that agreed upon first advance of $1.20 should be increased. One ought to bear in mind, as I pointed out last week, that the industry agreed to that $1.20. Even despite that, the Government this year has indicated months ahead of the normal procedure that it will pay an increase on the first advance of $1.50 next year and that all quotas will be suspended. There is nothing more that a government could reasonably be expected to do to assist that industry or to provide the incentives that are necessary to encourage growers to maximise their plantings in 1975.
page 2478
– In directing my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs I refer him to the speech he made at the United Nations in which he indicated that Australia intended to promote a discussion on principles which would govern political asylum. Has Australia formulated principles which it proposes to place before the United Nations on this subject? If so, will those principles include satisfactory procedures to be adopted in the event of a situation occurring similar to the Ermolenko incident which took place in Australia recently? Will the Minister be making a statement or tabling documents setting out such principles with a view to allowing public discussion on them in Australia?
-The asylum question at the United Nations is not going to be an easy one. We never expected that it would be easy. I think it has been with the legal section or committee of the United Nations since about 1949. This followed the situation in Chile which was a very distressing one. Under the Montevideo and Caracas conventions Latin American countries could take persons seeking asylum and other countries could not. It was a very difficult situation. It seemed to me that this was a time at least to try to have the provision of asylum extended throughout the world. The importance of it is terrific. If we get it extended in some way we do not know how many lives and how much distress we may be able to save in the future. The Ermolenko case is not a good example because there never was a question of political asylum. Never at any stage did he ask for political asylum. Never at any stage did he claim that if he went back to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics his life would be in danger which under our sort of loose provisions is the criterion that we would look for at the moment.
When I was at the United Nations it seemed to me and on the advice of the legal people there and of our own people that the best way to handle it was to have the matter referred to the appropriate committee so we could start work on it. I might say as further background to this that when we announced that we were going to float this at the United Nations there was at first the feeling that we should keep our hands off because there is always the problem where a country will say that this is interfering with the sovereignty and rights of its own people. Others wished us well; others backed us. When I was there I was more pleased than I was when I left Australia because countries were starting to get behind us and were saying that this is worth fighting for and this is something that they would look at. As to what information I can give, I will be only too happy to make available interim reports or anything that I can get as the committee gets under way. I do not expect it to be a very quick decision.
page 2479
– I ask a question of the Postmaster-General. Will the Minister inform the Senate whether it is possible to provide telephone services for people in inland areas of Australia at a cost of about $60 a telephone as stated by the Leader of the Australian Labor Party in Queensland? If this is a practical proposition how soon can a start be made on the installation of telephones in outback areas?
– The honourable senator is relying on a Press statement issued over the name of Mr Tucker who is at present campaigning in the Queensland State election. I have been informed by his office that he is preparing submissions to be made to the Prime Minister which will contain more details than the Press statement did. As to his ideas in respect of this outback telephone proposal, I can only say that the information in the Press statement is not sufficient for me to give any assessment of the proposal. Until I have copies of the submissions and until they are examined by the technical experts, because they involve the adoption of a number of technical requirements, I will not be in a position to make any assessment of the proposals.
page 2479
– In the course of an answer to a question which I gave on 12 November to Senator Brown concerning chiropractic treatment for repatriation patients I referred to an inquiry into chiropractice and said:
At present an inquiry on which the Repatriation Commission is represented is being conducted into this matter.
I am informed that the advice that I gave to the Senate is incorrect. The Repatriation Commission is not represented on the inquiry, but it is making submissions to the inquiry.
page 2479
Senator MURPHY (New South WalesAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Police for the year ended 30 June 1 974.
page 2479
Reports on Items
– I present for the information of honourable senators 2 reports by the Industries Assistance Commission entitled ‘Food Processing Machinery, etc.’ dated 12 June 1974 and ‘Thermoplastic Moulding Compounds ‘ dated 2 August 1 974.
page 2479
Senator WHEELDON (Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation)Pursuant to section 7 (7) of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973-1974 I present the Remuneration Tribunal’s determination of the remuneration to be paid to members of the Interim Committee for the Children’s Commission. Following the Parliament’s disapproval in. July this year of the Remuneration Tribunal’s 1974 review, the rates contained in this determination are in the context of the existing salary structure for statutory officers.
page 2480
– Pursuant to section 8 of the Independent Schools (Loans Guarantee) Act 1969, I present a statement containing particulars of the guarantees that have been given under this Act during the year ended 30 June 1974 and payments made under any guarantee given under this Act.
page 2480
– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report by the Auditor-General on the accounts of the Science and Industry Endowment Fund for the year ended 30 June 1974.
page 2480
– Pursuant to section 17 of the Meat Research Act 1960-1973, I present the eighth annual report of the Australian Meat Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1974. An interim report of the Committee was presented to the Senate on 19 September 1974.
page 2480
– Pursuant to section 32 of the Homes Savings Grant Act 1964-1973 I present the annual report on the administration and operation of that Act for the year ended 30 June 1974.
page 2480
– Pursuant to section 17 (5) of the Australian Shipping Commission Act 1956-1974 I present a direction by the Minister for Transport to the Australian Shipping Commission pursuant to section 17(1) of that Act.
page 2480
Assent to the following Bills reported:
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1974-75
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1974-75
Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Bill 1974
Seamen ‘s Compensation Bill 1 974
Service and Execution of Process Bill 1974
page 2480
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Willesee) read a first time.
– I move:
I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.
-Is leave granted?
– No.
– Leave is not granted.
-Mr President, I point out to honourable senators that where the first person is used it will refer to the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen).
The purpose of this Bill is to authorise payments, in 1974-75, of amounts totalling $56,345,000 to local governing bodies. These payments are in accord with the recommendations of the Grants Commission contained in its First Report on Financial Assistance to Local Government which I tabled in the House on 23 August 1974. The 806 local governing bodies which will benefit from the passing of this Bill comprise 92 per cent of all the bodies which applied for financial assistance. The grants range from $3,000 to $2m for the largest and most populous council in Australia- The Brisbane City Council. The Government’s aim is that the Grants Commission should play the same role in reducing local governing authorities’ inequalities as it has between the States since 1 933.
In accordance with the principles of fiscal equalisation which have been developed by the Grants Commission over many years and which have been incorporated in the relevant legislation, the grants are designed to reduce inequalities between local governing bodies in the provision of ordinary services. The grants will be made to the States for payment to these bodies to supplement their general revenues so as to enable them to provide a standard of service comparable with those provided by councils elsewhere. There will be no conditions attached to the expenditure of the grants. However, these funds should in no way be a substitute for revenues normally raised by councils by long established methods such as rates and charges for services nor should it replace assistance normally provided by State governments.
It is in the nature of the Commission’s task that in any year some local authorities will receive lower grants than their neighbouring councils or shires, and some authorities will not receive any grants. Consequently, because a council receives a grant this year it does not necessarily mean that the same council will receive a grant next year. This is because the Government has asked the Commission to recommend the amount of financial assistance needed to equalise the fiscal requirements of local authorities, either individually or as regional groups. The Government recognises that many councils are faced with financial problems in providing a full range of municipal services of proper standards. The Government believes that these grants will go a long way towards alleviating these deficiencies. The Commission will continue to rely heavily on the cooperation of councils in its work. Its methods require that comprehensive and up-to-date financial and statistical information be submitted by them as a basis for its assessments. There is also the need to have a first-hand appreciation of the problems of councils and, in the course of its second round of public hearings, which have already commenced, commissioners will be making direct inspections in all regions. The nature of the program will also provide the Commission with opportunities to keep the needs of councils under continuing review.
The creation of regional organisations was necessary as it is administratively impracticable for the Commission to handle 900 local councils, shires and municipalities separately. The Government believes that there is great advantage to local government from consultation and planning at the regional level. To meet the need for a greater dissemination of information and discussion on aspects such as the principles and methodology of fiscal equalisation, I have asked my Department to examine the practicability of arranging seminars or lectures.
I turn now to the detail of the Bill. Clauses 4 and 7 are intended to ensure that out of the moneys payable to the States under the Act the States will pay to the local governing bodies the amounts specified for each body in the Schedule to the Act and that the payments of those amounts will be unconditional and will be made without undue delay before 1 July 1975. Clause 5 provides for the situation of a local governing body ceasing to exist before the commencement of the Act or before receiving payment for all or part of the amount specified in the Schedule.
This situation might arise, for example, if the amalgamation of certain local government authorities precedes, as recommended by recent State commissioners of inquiry into local government.
Needless to say, local government will benefit substantially from the implementation of the Commission’s recommendations. The Government is well aware of the financial difficulties being faced by many local governing bodies. It sought through a special Premiers Conference a voice and a vote for local government on the Loan Council and it proceeded with a referendum to enable the Constitution to be amended to. empower the national Parliament to borrow on behalf of local government and grant financial assistance to local government directly. The fact that the Premiers did not accept the proposal for Loan Council representation and that the referendum failed to pass means that the initiative established through the Grants Commission assumes greater importance. The conduct by the Commission of its inquiries has been of benefit to local government in other ways. In particular, a spirit of co-operation is being developed as council representatives meet with the Commission to discuss common problems. This cooperation will lead to the more efficient use of the resources available to local government. Councils are taking a new look at their immediate neighbours and at councils in other parts of the country to assesss and compare the standard of their own municipal services with those of other councils. This wider view will benefit and strengthen local government.
Finally I wish to record the Government’s appreciation of the outstanding contribution made by Sir Leslie Melville during his term as Chairman of the Grants Commission. Sir Leslie, as honourable senators know, retired on 30 September 1974. I believe that the Government’s initiatives in this field constitute a development of the most profound proportions for local government throughout Australia. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator Carrick) adjourned.
page 2481
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Wheeldon) read a first time.
– I move:
I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard.
-Is leave granted?
– No.
– Leave is not granted.
– I am glad that Senator Greenwood so appreciates my elocution. It is unfortunate that all of his colleagues will be detained for just as long as I am while I read it.
– I do not think that it will worry us very much.
– All right. It does not worry me, either. The Aged Persons Hostels Act came into being on 29 September 1972, its purpose being to stimulate the building of additional hostel accommodation for needy aged persons. This legislation is complementary to the Aged Persons Homes Act, and eligible organisations receive entitlements on the basis of 2 beds for every unsubsidised bed they currently operate or one bed for every 2 beds subsidised in the first few years of the Aged Persons Homes Act on a $1 for$1 basis.
The intention of the Aged Persons Hostels Act was that religious, charitable and other voluntary organisations having an entitlement under the formula I have just mentioned would be able to use their entitlement to erect hostels without having to make any contribution to their capital cost. The amount of the grant was specified in the Act as $7,800 per person accommodated plus $250 per person for furnishings. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the Government’s announcement in March 1974, and referred to on a number of occasions since then, that the capital grant payable under the Aged Persons Hostels Act would be increased from $7,800 to $9,000 per person accommodated in a hostel approved under this Act, retrospective to 1 April 1974.
As most honourable senators are aware, increases in maximum subsidy limits can be made administratively under the Aged Persons Homes Act but hitherto this has not been possible under the Aged Persons Hostels Act as the maximum amounts which can be approved in respect of capital expenditure and furnishings are stated in this legislation in specific terms. In order to allow a greater degree of flexibility and to enable changes in the amount of grants to be made more readily in the light of changing costs, it is proposed that the specific amounts detailed be deleted from the Act and provision made for the maximum amount of the grants to be determined by the Minister for Social Security in future. I might add that this problem does not arise in respect of the Aged Persons Homes Act as the latter does not specify maximum amounts of subsidy.
The Government’s intention was to introduce this legislation at a much earlier point in time but it has been delayed by the double dissolution and other very important matters which had to be dealt with during the limited time that the House has been in session since then. The delay of some 6 months in presenting this legislation to Parliament and the rapidly escalating building costs in that time have resulted in some organisations that commenced projects in good faith being now faced with financial problems in meeting their commitments. Many others have deferred action on building urgently needed hostels. The level of construction costs has undoubtedly been a restraint on the development of this program recently. Most honourable senators will be aware of the need for more hostel accommodation for the aged and particularly for hostels in which personal care services can be provided for those who have become frail but who do not need nursing attention. Unfortunately lack of suitable hostel accommodation in the past has resulted in the less acceptable and more expensive nursing beds being utilised for such persons.
Honourable senators will be interested to know that with the concurrence of the Treasurer (Mr Crean), a working party of officers of the Departments of Social Security and Treasury has been looking into questions associated with the maximum subsidy limits such as methods of cushioning the increased building costs of projects approved prior to and since 1 April 1974 and the feasibility of introducing zone loadings in respect of projects in country areas. It is known that many organisations with entitlement under the Aged Persons Hostels Act do not propose to use them. The reasons are varied but mainly are that they are fully extended in administering the accommodation they have already provided or they may have a small entitlement which would be inadequate to enable them to provide a hostel of a size that would be an economic proposition, or they may feel that they have not the necessary expertise to enter this field of care of the aged. In order that these entitlements will not be wasted and to add further stimulus to the legislation, the Bill introduces a provision which will enable an organisation which does not intend to take advantage of its rights, to transfer them in whole or in part to another eligible organisation, subject to the approval of the Director-General of Social Services. The measures in this Bill should enable this 3-year program to more readily achieve its object of encouraging the quick provision of accommodation of the aged of the type most needed. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator Guilfoyle) adjourned.
page 2483
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Wheeldon) read a first time.
I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard.
-Is leave granted?
– No.
– Leave is not granted.
-As Senator Greenwood will doubtless be pleased to learn, this speech will take longer than the previous speech.
– I rise on a point of order. Is it permissible for Senator Wheeldon to comment upon why a senator refused leave? If so, may I explain why?
– I did not hear Senator Wheeldon comment on your disapproving leave. Do you wish to speak further to the point of order?
– Yes. The point of order is this: Is it proper for a senator to comment upon refusal to give leave?
- Senator Wheeldon, were you commenting upon the refusal to give leave?
-I was not commenting on why leave was refused. I was merely stating that Senator Greenwood will be pleased to learn that the longer the day goes on the longer the speeches get, so he will be able to hear more of me.
– Leave is not granted. The Minister will make his second reading speech.
– I rise on the point of order which relates to the right of a Minister to comment on the refusal of leave. I make the point that leave is being refused to the Government because the Government refused leave, on the request of Opposition senators, including myself, last week.
-The Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Crean) in the other place contained a great many items concerned with this country’s welfare services. Several of these are concerned with care of the aged and include an increase in the rate of subsidy payable under the Aged Persons Homes Act from $2 for $ 1 to $4 for $1 as from 1 January 1975, and also for a 25 per cent increase in the rate of Personal Care Subsidy paid in respect of aged residents in hostel-type accommodation. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to one of the items mentioned in the Budget Speech, namely, to increase the rate of subsidy payable under the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act by 5 cents per meal, i.e. from 20 to 25 cents for each meal delivered or 30 cents if the meal includes an approved Vitamin C supplement. This represents an increase of 25 per cent on the basic rate.
One of the most traumatic effects of growing old is for people to find that with increasing frailty they can no longer maintain their independent way of life in the dignity of their own homes. From social, humanitarian and economic viewpoints it is obviously preferable for aged people to remain in ‘their own homes rather than build institutionalised accommodation to house them. This means, of course, that attention has to be given to the provision of a range of domiciliary services upon which the aged person may depend according to his or her particular requirements. As honourable senators will know, the Government meets two-thirds of the States’ expenses in providing home care services for the aged under the States Grants (Home Care) Act. These may include housekeeping, shopping, sitter, linen, and handyman services. I might add here that while many very good services have been developed in some States, the Australian Government is far from satisfied with their rate of growth. The Minister for Social Security intends to examine ways and means by which a greater coverage of these services can be obtained.
As a complement to home care schemes, meals-on-wheels services play an important role in caring for the aged by delivering nutritious meals to the homes of frail elderly persons. The main burden of the work in preparing and delivering meals-on-wheels is undertaken by voluntary helpers who give their time and the use of their vehicles to maintain this service for elderly people who for varying reasons cannot prepare their own meals. I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of the Australian Government to thank all the volunteers throughout Australia for their continuing assistance in supporting this worthwhile service. To fully appreciate the value of a meals-on-wheels service, it is necessary to recognise all the functions involved. Primarily from a purely medical point of view the aged person is supplied with a hot appetising meal which will contain most of the nutrients required for a minimal daily intake. This alone could be the factor which permits the aged person to continue to live in his or her own home. Other allied services which may be made available to the recipients could include shopping, letter writing, and referral of other facilities available through other organisations. But in many cases the social contact with the meals-on-wheels volunteer is equally welcomed by the aged recipient.
It is not that the nutritional aspect has been overlooked. This is a matter which has been of considerable concern to both the Honourable the Minister for Health and the Honourable the Minister for Social Security. In order to ensure that both the meals-on-wheels organisations and the aged persons are aware of the nutritional aspects, the Nutrition Section of the Department of Health has produced two publications. One is entitled ‘Welcome to Meals-on- Wheels’ and explains to the aged person what other items of food they should consume each day to supplement the delivered meal. This publication has been distributed by the Department of Social Security. The second publication is a rather more comprehensive document entitled ‘MealsonWheels Food Guide’ which is designed to provide meals-on-wheels organisers with a valuable guide to planning highly nutritious meals. It is expected that this publication will be distributed by the Department of Social Security later this year.
The Bill provides that the increased rate of subsidy will be payable in respect of all meals delivered on and after 1 July 1974. It is estimated that meals-on-wheels services will deliver more than 5 million meals during 1974-75. On that figure the annual cost of this measure will be $250,000. Mr President, I am confident that all honourable senators will support the increase in subsidy provided in this legislation, and I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator Guilfoyle) adjourned.
page 2484
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Wheeldon) read a first time.
– I move:
Mr President, I seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
-Is leave granted?
– No.
– Leave is not granted.
-The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to a number of measures the Government has decided to take to increase the assistance provided for aged persons homes; also to extend the provisions of the Aged Persons Homes Act to handicapped adults. Under the Aged Persons Homes Act, as honourable senators will be aware, the Australian Government makes grants to non-profit organisations and local governing bodies towards the cost of providing homes for aged persons. When the Act was originally introduced in 1954 the subsidy was on a dollar for dollar basis. In 1957 the rate of subsidy was increased to $2 for $1 and has remained at that level ever since.
As announced by the Treasurer (Mr Crean) in his Budget Speech, the Government has decided that a further increase in the rate of the subsidy is now appropriate. The first of the measures in this Bill, therefore, is to double the present rate of subsidy, from the present $2 for $1 to $4 for $1. At the time the Budget was being prepared the Treasurer indicated that the increased rate of subsidy would not take effect until 1 January 1975. Because it is being found that the advance announcement of this increase in the rate of subsidy is resulting in organisations delaying commencement of building projects, it has been decided that the increase should now take effect from the date of royal assent of this Bill, instead of 1 January as announced earlier. The cost of the increased rate of the subsidy will be $2.5m in 1974-75 or $5m in a full year.
The second measure contained in this Bill, as I previously mentioned, is to extend the provisions of the Aged Persons Homes Act to handicapped adults. Experience has shown that the definition of aged person in the principal Act- namely men aged 65 and over and women aged 60 and over- is somewhat arbitrary and that people in younger aged groups often suffer from handicaps or disabilities which result in them also needing accommodation of the type provided under the Aged Persons Homes Act. Amendments contained in this Bill will enable such accommodation to be provided for handicapped adults in 2 ways: First by subsidising the building of homes specifically for people who are permanently incapacitated for work or permanently blind and, secondly, by permitting such people to be accommodated in aged persons’ homes. As a result of this widening of the scope of the legislation the title of the principal Act is being amended from the Aged Persons Homes Act to the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act. The cost of this measure is expected to be $500,000 in 1 974-75 or $ 1 m in the first full year.
For the information of honourable senators I would like to mention at this point that this legislation will in no way supersede the operation of other legislation under which the Australian Government assists the provision of residential accommodation for disabled persons engaged in sheltered employment or for handicapped children receiving training. I refer, of course, to the Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Act and the Handicapped Children (Assistance) Act respectively. The rates of the subsidies payable under those 2 Acts are, in fact, also to be increased from $2 for $1 to $4 for $1. The Bill now before the House, will, in effect, help to provide accommodation for those disabled people for whom accommodation cannot be provided under the 2 other Acts I have mentioned.
In the Budget Speech the Treasurer also announced that the personal care subsidy payable under Part III of the Aged Persons Homes Act to organisations providing personal care services for the aged in approved hostel accommodation would be increased from $12 to $15 a week. That, Mr President, is the third measure contained in this Bill. Hostels play an important role by providing accommodation for elderly people who, whilst no longer able to look after themselves in independent units, do not need the more expensive, medically-oriented care provided by a nursing home. The purpose of the personal care subsidy is to help bridge the gap between the cost-per-head of maintaining such hostels and the amount that pensioner-residents can afford to pay for such accommodation. When the personal care subsidy was originally introduced in 1969 it was paid on the basis of $5 a week for each resident aged 80 and over. In the 1972 Budget the rate was increased to $10 a week and further increased to $12 a week in the 1973 Budget, when eligibility was also extended to cover hostel residents who had not attained the age of 80 years but who required, and were receiving, the prescribed personal care services.
Personal Care Services are defined as: The provision of meals, assistance with bathing and dressing, the cleaning of rooms, personal laundry and general oversight of medication. The hostels are also required to have a staff member available at all times in case of emergency. During the past year the cost of conducting these hostels has continued to rise. According to information received from the Voluntary Geriatric Association of New South Wales the wages of staff employed in hostels went up by 26 per cent in the first 6 months of 1974. Information from other States indicates that similar increases have occurred. Food costs also rose by about 1 8 per cent.
In order to maintain the effective level of the Personal Care Subsidy this Bill provides for the rate of the subsidy to be increased by 25 per cent- from $12 to $15 a week with effect from the first subsidy ‘pay day’ after the date of royal assent. Needless to say, the Bill provides for personal care subsidy to be paid in respect of disabled persons, for whom accommodation will in future be provided, on the same terms and conditions as aged persons. The cost of this measure will be $800,000 in 1974-75, or $1.4m in a full year.
The fourth measure contained in this Bill relates to the basis upon which grants may be made under the principal Act to local governing bodies. The Act at present provides that moneys which have become available as the result of the borrowing of those moneys or any other moneys by an organisation, or were received by the organisation from the Government of the Commonwealth or of a State or from a Government authority, cannot attract subsidy. Since local governing bodies became eligible organisations in 1967 such bodies have constructed accommodation for only 602 aged persons, compared with approximately 25,000 accommodated by religious, charitable and other eligible organisations during the same period, despite the fact that local governing bodies would appear to be well-situated to enter the aged persons homes field. There is reason to believe that many more local governing bodies would be interested in providing homes for their aged residents if they could use loan funds to attract the Australian Government subsidy. On several occasions since 1967, the Annual Conference of the Australian Council of Local Government Associations has carried resolutions pointing out that Councils normally use loan funds for capital works, that adverse ratepayer reaction could be expected if revenue were used for this purpose and calling on the Government to amend the Aged Persons Homes Act accordingly. Legislation was passed by the Parliament in last year’s Budget session, enabling local government borrowing to attract subsidy under the Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Act and the Handicapped Children (Assistance) Act, which are ‘companion’ Acts to Aged Persons Homes Act. The cost of this measure should not exceed $500,000 in 1974-75, rising to about $ lm in 1975-76.
Finally, Mr President, advantage is being taken of the opportunity provided by this Bill to insert a machinery clause in the principal Act to permit the Director-General of Social Security to delegate his power to approve grants. This will relieve the Director-General of some of the great volume of routine work that has developed since the Act was first introduced in 1954. At present the Director-General has no such power of delegation and as a consequence every grant and every amendment to a grant has to be approved personally by him. In the other place the Minister for Social Security recently announced substantial increases in the maximum subsidy limits payable under the Aged Persons Homes Act and in the maximum grants payable under the Aged Persons Hostels Act. These increases, together with the extension of the Act to handicapped adults, the extension of subsidy to local government borrowings and the 25 per cent increase in the rate of personal care subsidy, represent a major improvement in the assistance being provided by this Government for aged persons homes. These measures, however, are only an interim step pending receipt of the report of a Committee of Inquiry into aged persons housing, which was set up by the Social Welfare Commission about 12 months ago. This Committee’s deliberations have been prolonged because of the enormous volume of evidence it has received, but the Minister for Social Security expects to have its report within the next few weeks and to table it before the Parliament rises for Christmas. In the meantime, the measures contained in this Bill are necessary and desirable to sustain the program we inherited from the previous government. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator Guilfoyle) adjourned.
page 2486
Debate resumed from 13 November on motion by Senator Wriedt:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
– Order! Is the Opposition agreeable to that course?
-Yes, it is. Before I speak on these Bills I should like to say that I am sure the ‘Border Watch’ will treat those remarks of Senator Wheeldon ‘s with considerable interest and fascination. We may look for a full report as years pass. I agree with the proposal of the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) that it would be sensible to debate these 3 Bills together. They necessarily will have to be voted on separately but the area of discussion might well be related to the general line of them all. In the first Bill, the Loans (Australian National Airlines Commission) Bill, we are dealing with a request for parliamentary approval to borrow a sum not exceeding US$1 9m to provide finance for some part of the equipment program of the Australian National Airlines Commission which will have to buy a fifth and sixth Boeing 727 and associated spare parts. It is not specified in the second reading speech of the Minister but by referring to the other speech relating to the Ansett Transport Industries guarantee we find that the Bills relate to the 200 series which is the latest of the 727s available for purchase. The total cost will be US$24.5m. The fifth aircraft is due this month and the sixth in April 1 975.
In my view this legislation comes rather late in the day in that it seeks to provide finance for an aircraft that may be here any day. One wonders why it could not have been organised before this. Good planning would have seen to it. When looking at the particular reference in the second reading speech I found this remark most interesting:
This is the eleventh occasion on which Parliament has been asked to approve overseas borrowings on behalf of TAA. The last occasion was the Loans (Australian National Airlines Commission) Act 1972 which approved borrowings of up to US$34m for the purchase of the first 4 Boeing 727 aircraft.
I was associated with that matter. I think the decision to get the Boeing 727s for both airlines was a very wise and sensible one. The Boeing has proved to be an extremely good and very efficient aircraft for the airline industry as it operates under the 2-airline policy in Australia.
On previous occasions, Mr Minister and honourable colleagues, I think the loan agreements usually accompanied the Bills but that is not the case this time. This is because the borrowing arrangements have not been concluded although the fifth aircraft, as I said, is to be taken up for delivery this month.
– Normally the borrowing is through the Export-Import Bank.
-Normally there is participation by the United States Government through the Export-Import Bank but this source apparently is not available at present. These aircraft were ordered and as part of the general expectation and policy of the Australian Government it was expected that they would be paid for out of the Government’s internal resources without the need for overseas capital. Of course, the Government is not now going to do this. Apparently having reversed ourselves in the overseas borrowing sense, in the first instance we are to look for offers of these funds from overseas sources that have well established connections with the Australian Government. These connections are not stated. Obviously there is one overseas source in the people in New York who have been dealing with Australian government borrowings for very many years. Those people obviously would have some knowledge of this and one would have thought that the matter could have been brought to a conclusion long before this if the entire exercise had been conducted with a full sense of financial propriety.
These Bills are not opposed by the Opposition and will be agreed to but I think one is entitled to mention that this seems to me to be a very untidy financing arrangement for an operation of this kind. One might imagine that one of the reasons for the hurried visit to the United States, to New York, by the Deputy Prime Minister, Dr J. F. Cairns, was to discuss this, amongst other things. Where will the money come from for this exercise in overseas equipment purchases? I trust that Dr Cairns has been successful. Had he been successful it would have been nice to have been told in the second reading speech. Perhaps we might hear a little more later on. I do not think the remark made here earlier in question time to the effect that nobody had been more conducive to good relations with the United States than Dr Cairns is a satisfactorily reliable remark. I would have thought that the utterances of Dr Cairns in the early days of this Government and in his time in Opposition would have been most conducive to the United States regarding us as a banana republic. I hope that that view was passed off by Dr Cairns being in New York and explaining himself a little more fully. If we want access to overseas capital, as appraently is now the case, we are justified in behaving ourselves properly in the area of our relationship with those who may wish to lend it to us and from whom we may seek to borrow. Once the arrangements are made and the money is arranged the Australian Government becomes the prime borrower and, as has been the case in the past, it passes the money on to TAA together with the necessary obligations and qualifications. This is referred to in clause 7 of the Bill and it is not spelled out very accurately or in any detail and we are asked to agree to a measure for which the money has not yet been provided and a loan agreement has not yet been made. This comes under clause 7 of the Bill which is a normal provision as we have had in the past.
One of the reasons we are agreeing to this legislation is that the airline industry is entitled to carry on its equipment program and the Australian people are entitled to travel on the airline system without having to be unduly held up by lack of equipment, but we say to the Government that we regard this as a pretty untidy and slovenly operation. There are no details as to the rate of interest because apparently the money is not yet arranged. There are no details on terms of payments and extra charges. This is one of the things that one would be wanting to worry about a little later on. In effect, in many ways the Opposition Parties would be justified in refusing to pass these Bills, particularly this one, on the basis that they would wait until the loan agreements were ready and the details were fully known. As I have said, we are not going to do that. One would be entitled to take that position but it would be against the public interest because it would delay the equipment and therefore put the travelling public to great inconvenience.
– There is a matter of constitutional propriety involved in this.
-The Bills are subject to final approval by the Loan Council. I listened with great respect to my learned friend, Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, who says by interjection that there is a matter of constitutional propriety involved in this. I think he has a very distinct point. As I have said, we on the Opposition side agree to the passage of the legislation subject to the assurance from the Minister, that I am sure he will be happy to give, that later he will provide details in the form of a letter to me that I can put to the Opposition Parties and which will give the facts on the loan agreement and the facts relating to repayments, the interest rate, who are the lenders and the general composition of the loan program. I do not think there is anything in that suggestion that he should not be able to do or that he ought not to be able to do.
One of the other Bills under discussion seeks to provide a Government guarantee to Ansett Transport Industries Ltd- the other half of the 2-airline policy system operating in this duopoly- on its borrowings from overseas. I assume that the Ansett organisation has made its loan arrangements and that these have been made known to the Government although they are not referred to in the Bill or in the second reading speech. But the amount is the same and it is part of the general policy of equality of treatment for both operators in the airline industry, equality of opportunity and equal quantums of Government assistance and support.
I now turn to the Loans (Qantas Airways Ltd) Bill 1974. Approval is sought from the Parliament to provide a borrowing capacity not above US$9 lm to assist Qantas in purchasing its ninth, tenth and eleventh Boeing 747 aircraft and the associated spare parts at a total cost of US$114,500,000. Delivery of this equipment is due under this Bill as follows: October 1974, May 1975 and November 1975. From that one assumes, therefore, that we are asked to agree to a loan arrangement that has the same sort of problem which exists in respect of the Loans (Australian National Airlines Commission) Bill. If one reads the second reading speech correctly one finds that aircraft no. 9 is already here because the delivery date is October 1974, yet the finance to purchase that aircraft apparently has not yet been arranged. The Qantas annual report, dealing with the matter of 747 aircraft, on page 1 1 says:
Qantas ordered three more Boeing 747B aircraft during the year at a cost of approximately $6 1 .4 million including spares. The first of these was delivered in March 1974. Delivery of the second and third aircraft in May and October 1 974 will increase the Qantas fleet of 747Bs to nine. Qantas plans to buy two more 747Bs for delivery in 1 975.
So when the report was written and approved it was clearly known that the plans were well in hand for the purchase of the ninth, tenth and eleventh 747B with the ninth aircraft due in October 1974- last month. The company did have a satisfactory performance in earlier times. It had a good financial year and that allowed it to finance its seventh aircraft from its own internal sources, and also allowed it to finance its eighth aircraft from its own internal sources. But now we are dealing with a different situation in which once again we find that a loan program is being sought for airline equipment for Qantas but which is really coming in to the Senate after one of the pieces of equipment has arrived, or so it would seem. The financing problem has the same elements of delay, confusion and untidiness as has the TAA borrowing. But there is a difference in this case. In the first case involving the Airlines Commission and TAA there appears to be no Export-Import Bank activity whatsoever. In the case of Qantas there is this interesting observation that the Export-Import Bank is prepared to be involved in the finance of the tenth Boeing 747 to the following extent: thirty per cent of the cost of the tenth or, to put it another way, if the transaction is regarded as being for 3 aircraft, the Export-Import Bank is going to find only 10 percent of the whole purchase program. Specifically it is directed to 30 per cent of the tenth aircraft. There is no reference whatever to finance for the ninth aircraft which, if it is not here now, should have been here in October. There is no evidence of any support program for finance of the eleventh aircraft. There is a statement that an interest rate of 7 per cent will apply to the Export-Import Bank arrangements for the tenth aircraft. That is a very favourable rate. Traditionally it is the sort of rate that has been obtained from the Export-Import Bank for Australian financing of equipment programs for the airline industry.
One is entitled I think to query why it is that the Export-Import Bank is showing such reluctance to finance the TAA program. Apparently it is not involved in the ninth aircraft for Qantas which is now here and it is going to provide 30 per cent of the kitty for the tenth aircraft. Nothing is known about the eleventh aircraft. So we are looking really at an aircraft which is perhaps here, which perhaps is being used and which, so far as one can believe, is not paid for and in respect of which arrangements have not been made to pay for it. Once again there is no loan agreement. The interest rate is stated to be perhaps later on less favourable than 7 per cent although it is not specified. The activity of borrowing, as always, meets the general test of approval. It has to go through the Loan Council.
One might observe in passing that one is rather disturbed at what appears to be the relationship between the Australian Government and Qantas. It is very easy to make a lot of rude remarks about Qantas pilots but, putting that to one side, Qantas has been a very great instrumentality in furthering Australia’s image abroad, in furthering Australian trade and in furthering the Australian arm of general development. It has a significant defence content. If we look at the Qantas capital program, the amount of money provided by the Australian people and the recoupment to the Australian people from the Qantas company in dividends and taxation, we see that it has been a remarkably good investment for the Australian people. Therefore one has some concern at the comment one hears from time to time that the Australian Government is opposed to Qantas, that it does not care if it goes out of business and that it would be happy to see it diminish. I sincerely hope that it is not so. It is a very good airline. It needs Government support. It needs tight and tough management. It has a fluctuating fortune; it always will have. The airline industry is notable for its over and under capacities and its over and under demands. It is a hard business to operate precisely. Looking at the Qantas figures we see problems of profits and problems of losses, but through a great run of years the company has been remarkably successful in a tough competitive international field where most of the time it meets the test of world markets and world prices against overseas competitors which very often are subsidised by governments and helped to a much greater extent than is Qantas and very often given all kinds of favourable treatment.
Something else that ought to be taken up in this speech is the way that Qantas is treating exchange gains in its annual accounts. I have some reservations about the way in which these are being treated and I shall refer to them briefly when we resume after the suspension of the sitting. The third Bill dealing with Ansett really relates to the guarantee for that company’s borrowing which I would think has already been established. It deals with other matters such as acceptable noise levels for the 727 Boeing 200 series. It talks about offset procurement, which is a very good activity which began in the life of the previous Government. Having talked to people overseas involved in purchasing from Australia on offset associated equipment arrangements I can assure honourable senators that they are most complimentary of the Australian manufacturers’ performance, standards of work, delivery and price. I hope this will be pursued by the Government as it is a very worthwhile endeavour.
Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.
– Before the suspension of the sitting I had begun to speak about the Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill which is the counterpart measure to cover the loan requirements of Ansett Transport Industries- the other arm in the 2-airline policy with the Australian National Airlines Commission. The same amount of money is involved- US$ 19m- for the purchase of its fifth and sixth Boeing 727-200 series aircraft. As the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) mentioned in his second reading speech, these aircraft have acceptable noise levels. This development has been part of the aircraft manufacturing program for quite a few years now. The initiative for this development was taken by the Australian Government at an International Civil Aviation Organisation conference at Buenos Aires a long time ago when it insisted on manufacturers developing quieter engines. We are beginning to see the results of this initiative in aircraft and in the airports in the capital city areas.
I mentioned earlier the offset procurement program, which is of credit to the Australian airline companies in the light of their overseas purchases. The Minister made some observations about wide bodied jets. We all recognise that the wide bodied jet is likely to come into service in Australia some years from now. It is the logical development of the aircraft series now in use. It would be a highly acceptable aircraft for domestic use in Australia. Newspapers have commentedreliably or otherwise- that the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) has been insisting on making the choice of equipment. If that is a fact, it would perhaps not be wisest thing for him to do. A wide range of equipment is available for this purpose. There is not only the Air Bus, which the Minister seems to favour, but also the Tristar and the DC 10. There is always a possibility that the Boeing Company will emerge with another aircraft in some new development. I imagine that the airline industry is waiting to make its equipment decisions on the latest options and on the cost benefit positions as they emerge. These are only rumours and are adverted to for no other reason than to offer a comment that I have found in my own experience that both operators were extremely competent and were making good equipment decisions. This applies also to Qantas Airways Ltd. I think the Australian public ought to be commending the operators of Trans-Australia Airlines, Ansett Airlines of Australia and Qantas for the equipment decisions they have made in the past. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs made some observations about the position in Western Australia. I will leave that matter to one of my colleagues who will refer to it.
I now wish to refer to the matter I mentioned briefly- the way in which Qantas is treating its exchange gains in its annual accounts. I express my reservations about this pattern that is developing. If one looks at the accounts for last year one will find a declared profit of $11,252,000, more than half of which is the product of gains made in revaluations of exchange. Those gains have been taken off the expenses for the year. This was done in the previous year and on earlier occasions when the amount was quite small. I just express the viewalthough I know that some accountants take a different position- that exchange gains, exchange losses and exchange fluctuations in reserves belong more properly in the reserve in the balance sheet. I do not think it is wise to bring them to account in a current year as a profit item, although it has been done.
These are the movements in the Australian dollar in recent times: On 23 December 1972 we revalued upwards by 7 per cent. On February 14 1973 we did not depreciate with the United States of America, so in effect we appreciated by 1 1 per cent against the U.S. dollar. On 9 September 1973 we revalued by 5 per cent. So in total we lifted ourselves by about 23 per cent against the U.S. dollar in a little over 18 months. Lately the currency of Australia went down in relation to the US dollar when we devalued by 12 per cent on 25 September 1974. One does not know what further developments will take place. If it is good enough to bring to account in the profit and loss account incidental exchange rate gains out of revaluation, the same line of policy will mean that losses flowing out of the exchange rate losses will come to account as additional expenditures. This seems to me to distort the Qantas accounts. I would prefer it in future if the Minister would suggest to the company that it is better to leave exchange rate gains and losses in the balance sheet and to let the operating accounts stand in isolation from such currency changes.
As I mentioned, in the year ended 1974 exchange rate gains amounted to $6,223,000. In 1973 they were $2,572,000 and in 1972 they were $624,000. People argue about this matter with the greatest of probity even in the accounting profession. I am only expressing my personal view that for a company like Qantas- which is liable to have wide fluctuations in its earning capacity, which is a product of international competition, where there is always over capacity in the airline industry and where the demand pattern changes very rapidly- it would be better to treat the operating accounts as operating accounts and to let the exchange system remain quite separate.
As I have said, the Opposition is not opposing the measures which are being debated in a cognate debate. We have made some observations on the rather strange way in which these aircraft have been acquired or contracted for without a program of the loan money being adequately covered or, if it had been covered, not having been explained to us. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some assurance about that matter when he replies.
– I do not wish to make any observations on the very interesting and wise comments made by my colleague, Senator Cotton. As he indicated, the Opposition supports these Bills. But I wish to refer to some of the statements made by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) in his second reading speech dealing with Ansett Airlines of Australia and particularly dealing with the operations of its subsidiary in Western Australia, MacRobertson Miller Airline Services. We have come not to expect too much from the behaviour of some members of the Government. The Minister’s speech on this occasion was surely intemperate and unethical even by the standards which the Minister seems to have set himself. He referred to the fact that the Government is willing to grant certain privileges to Ansett in the form of a guarantee for the loans it seeks to purchase new aircraft. I suggest that that is not a privilege at all. By any standard of fairness, it is a right. It enables Ansett to borrow money at commercial interest rates in the same manner as Trans-Australia Airlines has been doing for many years. The Minister need not try to make a martyr of himself in relation to this matter.
The main attack in his second reading speech was on the application and on the approval of the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) for TAA to enter the Western Australian routes. I have said in the past that I do not oppose the entry of TAA- which I recognise as a first-class airline that deserves the support of all Australiansat the right time, at a time when it is commercially possible for the 2 airlines to operate economically. The Minister for Transport seems to think that he has a monopoly of concern regarding transport. It is quite properly a concern of the Minister, it is quite properly a concern of all governments, but air transport is also quite properly the concern of the Western Australian Government. It might suit his intentions to grant TAA immediate entry to Western Australian routes, but Western Australia is quite correctly concerned about any possibility of overall impairment to the State’s air services as a result of any decision made by the Minister in Canberra. We should get some of our facts straight. The Minister for Transport has attacked Ansett over its evidence to the Royal Commission. It should be clearly understood that the present Western Australian Government made it clear, when in Opposition, that if it were returned to government at the next State election it would appoint a royal commission to ascertain whether the interests of Western Australia would be best served by the introduction of a second service at this stage in Western Australia’s development. The Minister’s intemperate attack upon the Royal Commission was answered by the Royal Commissioner, Sir Reginald Sholl, who is a very distinguished Australian. I think I should place on record what Sir Reginald Sholl said in reply to the Minister’s attack in his second reading speech. Indeed, having adjourned the Royal Commission, he went to the extent of recalling it to reply to the Minister, Mr Jones. Sir Reginald said:
I have just been handed a cutting from the evening newspaper which purports to contain a report of statements by the Federal Transport Minister.
If it is a correct report- often things are distorted in newspaper summaries- I have no hesitation in saying that some of the comments are thoroughly improper.
I particularly have in mind two or three observations which the Minister is reported to have made.
Sir Reginald was referring to the Minister’s second reading speech. He went on to say:
That perhaps is mere comment of a political nature and I have already said on an earlier occasion that I am completely uninfluenced by anything of that kind.
Politicians say things which tribunals, judicial or quasi- judicial, often have to disregard.
He went on to say:
I should have thought that a Minister of experience in public life would know better than to describe in those terms submissions on which a royal commissioner has to make findings.
These are submissions for me to consider. They have not yet been made generally public.
I have to make up my own mind as to whether they are unduly lengthy and as to whether they are reliable or not.
So far as their length is concerned -
It should be remembered that Mr Jones criticised their length-
I have seen nothing in them which indicates to me that they are unduly lengthy, and that applies to the submissions of both parties.
They are, in fact, submissions which I myself directed to be lodged and they comply with the directions that I gave.
As to whether any submission is phoney, that is wholly a matter for the tribunal.
Sir Reginald also said:
It is highly undesirable that in such a place as the national Parliament descriptions of that kind should be applied to arguments or evidence put before a tribunal.
– What was the date of that?
– It was reported in the ‘West Australian’ on 19 October. It was made on 18 October.
– The same things were said by the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) in his second reading speech, as reported in the Senate Hansard.
– I have noted that. When confronted about this matter Mr Jones made the surly reply:
I was elected by the people, which is more than he was.
That is very interesting. Sir Reginald was appointed by a government elected by the people.
The Minister for Transport has claimed that the evidence is phoney. Perhaps what irks Mr Jones is that his views about what is good for Western Australia are not shared by a large number of Western Australians. Certainly the evidence before the Royal Commission indicates, first of all, that there is not a great deal of interest in the inquiry in the northern areas of Western Australia which is served by MacRobertson Miller Airlines. It has been reported that Sir Reginald has expressed disappointment about not receiving more evidence in places like Port Hedland, where only 4 witnesses came forward. There was no submission from the Port Hedland Shire Council in support of Trans-Australia Airlines’ entering the service. Only 4 witnesses came forward in Broome and no evidence was submitted by the Broome Shire Council. That is true of every area he visited. Sir Reginald was, as I have said, somewhat concerned at the lack of interest being shown in this matter.
If the evidence was phoney, if such an act were in the interests of Western Australia and if the people of the north were crying out for TAA’s entry into the service one would have thought that there would have been a great deal of interest shown in and a great deal of evidence given in support of that. Indeed the overwhelming evidence from the people of the north was in support of MacRobertson Miller Airlines continuing as the only operator, at least for the time being. The Minister should be challenged on this matter. Is the evidence given by the airlines as to the projected traffic growth rates phoney? If he believes that it is phoney he should say so. The truth of the matter is that there has been a disappointing increase in the growth rate over the past 12 months. If Mr Jones is concerned about that perhaps he should tell the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) the reason. It is because the tremendous development which took place in the north prior to the advent of Mr Connor has come to a standstill. If the Minister thinks that that evidence is phoney let him say so.
The Minister for Transport referred to the huge savings to the people of Western Australia by the introduction of another airline, but he did not indicate where those huge savings would come from. The evidence does not point to the possibility of huge savings being made. Certainly he referred to the fact that there would be a 2-fare structure, which is very interesting because Mr Jones has put an inquiry in train and had discussions with the airlines about the bringing in of a one fare structure throughout Australia. So if anybody should be accused of being phoney Mr Jones should be accused of being phoney in his second reading speech when he pointed to one of the advantages to the travellers in the north being a 2-fare structure. One wonders whether the first class cabin service provided by MacRobertson Miller Airlines at present would continue with a one fare structure. Before accusing other people of being phoney, perhaps the Minister should examine his own conscience.
The truth of the matter is that the Royal Commissioner will decide these things. He was appointed to decide them. He will decide whether the evidence is phoney. He will decide whether huge savings are or are not to be made and not some bland statement by the Minister for Transport. That will happen despite the flagrant attempt by Mr Jones to influence the Royal Commissioner by adopting stand-over tactics. The Minister and other members of the Ministry have the unfortunate tendency to revert to the use of jackboot methods when they are unable to get their own way. This is a typical example of that. The Minister has immediately turned around and adopted stand-over tactics. Indeed, the allegation about the length and phoniness of submissions is an attack upon the many witnesses who, in good faith, have appeared before the Royal Commission and given evidenceevidence which is concerned about maintaining the very efficient and very good service which is provided in the northern areas of Western Australia. It is interesting to note that when the Royal Commissioner sat in places like Geraldton and Kalgoorlie strong opposition was expressed to the introduction of a second airline. That was expressed because they are not profitable routes for MMA.
– They do not run at a loss, though.
– I suggest to Senator Coleman that the service between north of Geraldton to Carnarvon and Learmonth runs at a loss. They are naturally concerned because if the more profitable routes- the routes to Port Hedland, Derby and Kununurra, which are at present subsidising them- no longer subsidise the other routes the service to those areas would be reduced. That would inevitable because airlines cannot be expected to run indefinitely unprofitable services.
The same consideration applies to the station services in the outlying areas of the Kimberleys. Evidence was given of concern that if MMA’s operations became unprofitable those services would, quite naturally, be the first to suffer. One must remember that the Government’s subsidy to those services has been withdrawn. The people who would suffer most and who, I suggest, matter the most are those living on low density routes. They may not matter very much to the Minister- those areas are probably considered by him to be small hamlets- but they certainly matter to the Western Australian Government and to me, as a representative in this Parliament of Western Australia. I believe that we were justified in regarding the Minister’s intemperate if not arrogant attitude with a good deal of contempt. It is certainly not doing his cause or the cause of TAA in Western Australia any good. I suppose we should be thankful that the Minister’s attitude will not frighten the Western Australian Government nor, as Sir Reginald Sholl has made clear, will it frighten him. I suggest that it would have been proper and more ethical for the Minister to have waited until the royal commissioner’s report was received before making comments such as these which were undoubtedly, as Sir Reginald suggested, aimed to influence the royal commissioner. If anybody doubts the need for a single airline operation I suggest that he study the overwhelming evidence which has been submitted in support of such an operation.
Another matter on which I express concern is the possibility of a loss of jobs by Western Australians particularly at a time, such as this, of high unemployment. I refer to the highly trained pilots, hostesses, engineers and others employed by MacRoberton-Miller Airlines. It is unlikely that they would find jobs with TAA, even if TAA had all the best intentions in the world, which I am sure that it would have. Another point 1 wish to make is that the operation of DC9 aircraft at the moment would be completely uneconomic on the Perth-Darwin route. Over a period of a week the average number of passengers flying Perth-Darwin or Darwin-Perth is 103, which would not fill one DC9. We know that a DC9 could operate at only 75 per cent capacity because of the state of the runways and the airports generally. Now, in these times of great difficulty, the Minister has suddenly found $4m of something to spend to upgrade the airports. I suggest that there is no need to upgrade the airports at the moment. A service is being conducted and maintained. It is an efficient service, and it is providing a first class service to the people of the north. For the Minister to quote figures of first and economy class fares, in view of his statement that he is discussing with the airlines the introduction of a one fare structure, is to say the least a phoney argument. Perhaps he works on the principle that if his actions are phoney everybody else’s actions are phoney as well.
I turn to that part of the Minister’s second reading speech in which quite obviously he is putting pressure on the airlines to introduce prematurely what are known as wide bodied jets. I suggest that at this stage their introduction is highly improper. He bases his argument not on the consideration of commercial or technical grounds, as I would read it, but on political grounds only because the wide bodied jets are somewhat quieter than the present aircraft in service. All of us want to see the introduction of quieter jets, but it is a dangerous precedent for any Minister to adopt to override the commercial and technical judgments of the airlines which, as Senator Cotton, with all his experience of airline operations, said, have always been sound in Australia. We are very fortunate that people of the quality of the people in charge of Ansett, TAA and Qantas have never made a mistake in the introduction of new aircraft. Their judgments have always been sound. Only yesterday in the Financial Review’ there was an article by John Stackhouse in which he suggested that TAA is having very grave second thoughts about the purchase of wide bodied jets in the foreseeable future. I think the suggestion is that TAA was considering cancelling its initial order for these jets because it does not believe that the time to introduce them is right. It realises, as other airlines realise, that the traffic forecasts present a pretty gloomy picture. We could easily have a cutdown in services if these jets were brought into operation too soon.
It would also mean fewer direct flights between capital cities, which are becoming more popular today. They would have to pick up the passengers at intermediate ports. This would reduce the service which the travelling public is receiving. I would regard with grave concern the loss of direct flights from Melbourne to Perth because of the premature introduction of bigger aircraft. I believe that the matter rests with the airlines. They must make their commercial and technical judgments after a proper evaluation of traffic forecasts and of the types of aircraft most suited to their requirements. I believe that the whole history of the airline industry in Australia shows that the airlines do not require prodding or pressure of any sort from a Minister as to when they should bring into operation new types of aircraft. Their commercial and technical judgments must be respected and deserve to be respected, not the views of a Minister who knows nothing whatever about aircraft and who is not capable of making a proper evaluation of the type of aircraft to introduce into Australia or the commercial and technical reasons as to when and why they should be introduced.
The Minister’s policy of trying to pressure TAA and maybe Ansett also could have disastrous effects upon the airline industry of Australia. I suggest that his policy is already having this effect. There are growing numbers of complaints and expressions of concern at the drop in safety standards in our airline operations. I note that according to the ‘Age’ of 16th of this month Mr Garlick, the industrial officer of the Civil Air Operations Officers’ Association, when advocating a civil aviation agency similar to the Federal Aviation Agency in the United States, said that aviation safety standards in Australia were going down hill and the best way to stop this was to establish a new civil aviation body. This statement expresses the concern of those involved at all levels of civil aviation at the action of this Government in abolishing the Department of Civil Aviation, which was a highly efficient organisation, and incorporating it into a great bureaucratic Department of Transport where it is losing its identity. Mr Garlick pointed out that it is quite possible, under the present arrangement, for an operational expert in shipping to be put in charge of air traffic control. As far as I know, the Minister has not challenged that statement. It is also intersting that in hearings before the Royal Commission counsel for the hostesses expressed concern at the safety standards of the north-west airports in Western Australia. He made the point that many TAA hostesses were concerned about poor emergency services at some Australian airports, especially in the north-west. If this be true, then it is a damning indictment of the Minister and his administration.
I mentioned earlier the question of redundancies in Western Australia should this service be introduced too soon before proper traffic growth. Mr Dynon, the legal officer for the Australian Airline Hostesses Association, said that the Association took no stand one way or the other on the desirability of a second air service in the north-west but it was concerned about possible redundancies. There were now 68 air hostesses employed with MacRobertson Miller Airlines but there was no guarantee that TAA would absorb hostesses should they lose their jobs.
I regret having to say these things but they have to be said. If a Minister makes provocative statements like this- provocative unsupported statements- then attention should be drawn to them. My concern is for an efficient air service in Western Australia. I do not wish to see the situation being changed at this stage for ideological reasons merely to satisfy the whim of a Minister. The proper course is for the Minister to await the report of the Royal Commissioner and then to consider the recommendations made in the report.
– It was arranged that a cognate debate should take place on these 3 Bills, two of which are the responsibility of the Treasurer (Mr Crean) who is represented in this place by Senator Wriedt, and one of which is the responsibility of the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) whom I represent. I did not think it would be necessary for me to come into this debate until Senator Sim rose for the purpose of attacking what the Minister for Transport had done. Senator Wriedt will close the debate when he speaks on these Bills but before he does so I wish to say a few words in defence of the Minister for Transport whom I represent here. Senator Sim takes a very peculiar attitude to this Bill and to what the Minister is trying to do. The Minister in his second reading speech condemned I think very severely Ansett Airlines for taking court action which had the effect of stopping Trans-Australian Airlines from operating a competitive service.
– Why should they not?
– Because, as the Minister described it- although I would not- it was a phoney action.
– Why was it a phoney action?
– I will come to that. Whether the action succeeds or not, Ansett must come out the winner because the money it will save by not having competition will pay all the costs involved in the litigation. If the Minister were inspired by anything on this question he was obviously inspired by his predecessor in the Liberal-Country Party Government who took the same attitude.
– I was critical of that too, as the then Minister will recall.
-Yes. As the argument develops it will be seen that the honourable senator would be critical of anything to the detriment of the vested interests of Ansett, regardless of the welfare of the people of the north of Western Australia. He will sacrifice the people of the north of Western Australia as long as there is a profit for Ansett. That is his concern.
At page 477 of Hansard of 29 August 1 972 the then Minister for Civil Aviation, Senator Cotton, in outlining the Government’s proposals on the future of civil aviation, said:
Another major decision arising from the Government’s review is to give additional routes and opportunities to the Government’s own airline, Trans- Australia Airlines, which will be authorised to operate air services between Perth and Darwin in competition with the Ansett subsidiary, MacRobertson Miller Airline Services. These TAA services will be phased in over a 2-year period starting next June -
So the service should have started last June-
And having regard to the state of the traffic on the route from time to time. This arrangement is designed specifically to minimise any disruptive effect on the staffing of MacRobertson Miller’s present operations. Although traffic growth on routes throughout Western Australia has fallen considerably in recent months, due mainly to reduced mining activities in the north west, the Government nevertheless decided that the Perth-Darwin route could no longer be denied the benefits that competitive services have brought on other major trunk routes throughout Australia.
In this case, not to permit the competitive service would be a denial of benefits to the people of the north-west of Western Australia- a denial of benefits to the electors whom the honourable senator represents. He is not concerned with the benefits that may flow to people living in the north west, he is concerned with the profits of Ansett. In his second reading speech the Minister for Transport referred to what the service will mean to the people. We are told today that there are only 103 people who travel weekly from Perth to Darwin and that it would not be a profitable competitive route because people cannot afford at the present time to travel with Ansett which has the one service. As the Minister said, under the present monopoly situation MMA offer only one fare but under the proposed competitive service TAA will offer first and economy class fares, the economy fare being 20 per cent below the current MMA fare. As an example of fare saving, on a return trip from Perth to Port Hedland there would be a saving of $48.20 and on a return trip from Perth to Darwin there would be a saving of $85.40. Anybody using the Ansett service from Perth to Darwin would be paying an additional $85.40 for the return trip. When this is related to the 103 passengers weekly, one can imagine the profits to Ansett when compared with the fares that TAA would charge. The longer the operation by TAA of the competitive service is delayed the greater the profits of Ansett will be.
Here we have a senator who says: ‘It does not matter about the people of the north. We want a monopoly service to operate. The use of jets could necessitate the upgrading of the air strips and at this stage such upgrading is not justified. ‘ Everywhere you go you hear the demand for a decent air strip, yet here is an honourable senator who claims to represent these people but who is not concerned about their air strip and is not concerned about the saving of fares as long as Ansett retains the monopoly. Senator Sim seeks to justify Ansett ‘s action in going to court in order to keep the monopoly. It is doubtful whether Ansett will succeed in this action. But if Ansett is defeated in this action, it can take the matter to a higher court and keep on appealing to get injunctions in order to keep the competition out. The profits that Ansett makes are all right with Senator Sim. I think that Ansett, as a public company, has a responsibility to the travelling public, in the same way as TAA and the Minister have a responsibility to the travelling public, and that it should be playing the game with the people who wish to go to the north of Western Australia by giving them an effective service at reduced rates and not using the judiciary for the purpose of preventing competition from coming into the most lucrative field in which Ansett operates at the present time.
Then the Minister for Transport is criticised for exerting some pressure of a political nature in order to get a particular type of jet introduced onto Australian air routes. He did not do that. The Minister in his second reading speech said:
I expect the Australian airlines to provide the community with the most suitable modern aircraft types.
Who would disagree with that? Is it so strange that the Minister expects the Australian airlines to provide people with the most suitable modern aircraft types? That is all that the Minister wants. Whether Senator Sim would call that a political or an economical consideration, I do not know. The Minister justifies the introduction of wider jets by saying:
They are quieter than the earlier Boeing 727-100 models in use in this country.
The Minister is condemned because he seeks the introduction of a quieter plane. The wider jets are quieter than the present jets in operation in Australia. The Minister also said:
Another favourable consideration is that the greater passenger capacity of wide-bodied aircraft, which will be used on the very high density routes, will enable airline schedules to be reduced, say to a level of once every 2 hours for each airline between Sydney and Melbourne.
Senator Sim is afraid that one service will be taken off the Melbourne to Perth route which he travels.
– Hear, hear!
– Honourable senators can see that it is important to Senator Sim. It does not matter about the electors in the north-west of Western Australia, or about introducing a cheaper service, or about providing greater comfort, or about reducing noise. As long as we can get Senator Sim a jet when he wants it we should sacrifice the nation and the travelling public. That is the purport of Senator Sim’s argument. What does he care about the electors of Western Australia? What does he care about the people of Western Australia? There were 2 things in Senator Sim’s whole advocacy today: Ansett ‘s profits and Senator Sim’s comfort. They are the only things about which he is concerned. The Minister also said in his second reading speech:
Another real benefit of wide bodied aircraft is that they are less demanding on energy and resources. Fuel required per passenger-kilometre on these large aircraft will be less than that on present airline aircraft.
That is a great consideration for Australia. It may also result in reduced fares for people travelling to the north-west of Western Australia. But it may inconvenience Senator Sim. This is an indication of the great statesmen that we have. As the Minister pointed out in his second reading speech, the Australian Government is willing to grant the privilege of an Australian guarantee for a loan to a company which is in competition with the Australian Government company. The Government could neglect Ansett, simply not give a guarantee on behalf of Ansett and run that company out of business. But the Government is doing the right thing. All that the Minister seeks in his second reading speech- and he has been criticised for it- is some reciprocal arrangement from Ansett in order to allow the people of Western Australia to get a cheap and decent service, although it may reduce Ansett ‘s profit and inconvenience Senator Sim.
Senator SIM (Western Australia)- Mr Acting Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) claimed that my only interest -
– Only apparent interest.
– The Minister did not say that. Mr Acting Deputy President, I ask for leave to make a statement.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Marriott)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
– The Minister said that my only interest was in Ansett’s profits. I deny that completely. I made it clear throughout my speech that I was interested in the air services to the north and the interests of people in the north, particularly in areas such as Geraldton, Carnarvon and Learmonth. The Minister’s statements are a complete and utter misrepresentation of my views.
– in reply- The Senate has been debating 3 Bills, all involving financial arrangements for Australia’s 2 domestic airlines and for Qantas Airways Ltd. I believe that the matters to which Senator Sim referred have been adequately dealt with by Senator Cavanagh, except one point which I shall mention very quickly before dealing with the financial aspects. Senator Sim said that the Department of Civil Aviation has been swallowed up in a giant bureaucracy under this Government. It should be recognised that not only is this Government following the pattern that has been set throughout the world of combining all transport arrangements in each country under one Ministry, but also it is also ensuring that this can be done in the most effective way possible in Australia. The Department of Civil Aviation, as it was known, is today working just as effectively under the new arrangements as it was when it was a seperate Department in the days of the previous Government.
I turn now to the points which were raised by Senator Cotton earlier. He referred to the fact that finance from the Export-Import Bank will not be available in respect of aircraft nos 5 and 6 for Trans-Australia Airlines, and No. 9 for Qantas. It is true that the Bank will not be participating in the financial arrangements in respect of these aircraft. The position is that until recently, because of the high level of our international reserves, the Australian Government was avoiding making overseas borrowings for the purchase of new aircraft. I am sure that all honourable senators will remember the debates that have taken place over many years concerning loan arrangements for Qantas aircraft and also Australia’s international reserve position. That policy, I suggest, was a justified policy. However, in more recent months, the Government has decided to revert to the previous practice of financing these arrangements from overseas borrowings. Both TAA and Qantas indicated that they wished to borrow funds for the purchase of the aircraft to which reference has been made, but firm orders for the aircraft had already been placed. Once that has been done the ExportImport Bank would not entertain applications for finance, and that is the reason why, in respect of the 3 aircraft to which Senator Cotton referred, those arrangements will not be entered into with the Export- Import Bank.
Senator Cotton went to to seek further information concerning the more specific details of the financial arrangements. The arrangements being made for finance are as follows: A Swiss loan of approximately 50m Swiss francs- that is, approximately US$1 9m- will be arranged for TAA from the Union Bank of Switzerland at an all-up cost of 9.75 per cent per annum and repayable at the end of 5 years. This loan offer was made only last week, and it is acceptable to the airline. It is very favourable in present market conditions, and it is expected that similar arrangements can be made for Qantas’s requirement in respect of its No. 9 Boeing 747. The Export-Import Bank has agreed to provide 30 per cent of the purchase cost of Qantas aircraft No. 10, which is due for delivery in May next year, at 7 per cent with repayments over 10 years, and the Private Export Funding Corporation will provide another 10 per cent of the purchase cost at an interest rate of 9.5 per cent. Qantas will contribute 20 per cent of the cost from its own resources, and the balance of the funds will be raised on the international capital market at the best terms possible. Similar arrangements are envisaged for aircraft No. 1 1 for Qantas which is due for delivery in November 1975.
Senator Cotton also raised the question of the loss or gain through currency changes. It is a normal commercial judgment by any organisation as to which accounting method it chooses to use. Qantas apparently in its accounting procedures sees fit to use methods about which Senator Cotton felt there might be some room for questioning. Nevertheless, in view of the questions that he raised and which I think require an answer I will undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of the Minister. Naturally, I cannot give an undertaking but I think the Minister will be prepared to seek from Qantas not an explanation but a justification and outline as to why it uses a particular method. I think we are all glad that these 3 Bills will go through the Senate unopposed despite the lively debate that has ensued on them. I am sure that the airline industry will be strengthened by the legislation which is passing through the Senate today.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
The Bill.
Clauses 1 to 6- by leave- taken together and agreed to.
Clause 7
– I am not happy about the way in which these Bills have been presented to the Senate. My unease developed when I heard Senator Cotton address himself to the second reading stage of the debate. He asked for specific information to be made available to the Senate which is being asked to pass these Bills. If there were any sense of parliamentary propriety the matters that were raised by Senator Cotton should have been advanced in the second reading speech. It has been the habit, as most honourable senators know, when these sums of money are asked to be authorised by Parliament, to attach to the Bills a schedule setting forth what Parliament in fact is being asked to do. I refer, for example, to clause 7 which states:
Australia may, on such terms and conditions as the Treasurer determines, for the purpose of the purchase . . .
The clause goes on to outline the aircraft and related spare parts and equipment to be purchased. The clause continues:
Moneys required for the purpose of sub-section (1) are paid out of the Loan Fund, which is appropriated accordingly.
The Senate is being asked to give a mandate to the approval of a matter which, I suggest, does not appear on the surface to be very satisfactory.
The Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) who represents the Treasurer in this place, under probing from Senator Cotton, has indicated that 50 million Swiss francs will be raised at 9.75 per cent. Perhaps that is the best that is available. Why is that not outlined in the Bill? Similar matters always have been outlined when we have been authorising the purchase of aircraft and equipment. There are references to the ExportImport Bank of the United States of America. My recollection is that that bank requires a determination by Parliament that it will guarantee that the loans will be repaid. I should like the Minister to state quite clearly and unequivocally to the Committee why there has been this departure from parliamentary propriety and parliamentary practice, and also why the constitutional responsibilities have been eroded by the executive government when Parliament seeks money.
– Speaking to the matters raised by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, it is not true to say that there has been any departure from the procedures which have been adopted in the past. I indicated to Senator Cotton details of the financial arrangements at the end of the second reading debate. I point out to the Senate that under the previous loan arrangements the Loans (Australian National Airlines Commission) Act of 1972 and the Loans (Qantas Airways Limited) Act of 1972- the procedures followed were exactly the same. The information which is sought was not scheduled to the loan agreements at the time and they are not on this occasion. This is because of difficulties which can arise in negotiations and so it is not practicable to include the information in the Bill.
I refer to the guarantee question raised by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack. I refer him to clause 8, although we are not yet dealing with it, which states:
Any moneys payable by Australia under an agreement made in pursuance of this Act or under a promissory note or other security under such an agreement, including the expenses of borrowing, commitment fees, interest and other charges, are payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is appropriated accordingly.
The same procedure has been adopted in the past in both cases. There has been no departure. The matters in respect of the Export-Import Bank not being involved in the financing of certain aircraft have been explained. The matters referred to by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack are not departures from the practice which has been adopted in the past.
-We are all, I think, most anxious to spend the balance of our life on the Family Law Bill, but I wanted briefly to thank the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) for giving me some additional information on the financing of the Australian National Airlines Commission. The finance now appears to be coming from the Union Bank of Switzerland at 93/4 per cent interest payable over 5 years which, as the Minister says, in current conditions is a reasonable sort of a loan arrangement, not of course as good as one might have achieved from the Export-Import Bank if one had been dealing with the arrangements in a state of continuity. I still feel the details about Qantas Airways Ltd are rather meagre. The Qantas annual report, as I mentioned to the Senate, contained a clear reference that the ninth aircraft was on its way as was the tenth. It would seem to me that, putting the past to one side, enough foreknowledge existed to establish a clear line of financing which could have been explained and tidied up. At the same time one must admit, in fairness, that these things are difficult from time to time but they are made particularly difficult by this Government in its chop and change policy of yes, we will, no, we will not. I imagine that is at the real heart of the problem.
We do not really know yet whether aircraft No. 9 will be financed by the Union Bank or by somebody else. In the case of the tenth aircraft we know that the Export-Import Bank will finance 30 per cent and 10 per cent will be financed by somebody else who will charge a higher rate. We do not know the balance of that. We are still hoping someone will pay for aircraft No. 1 1. Those are the facts of life. Rather than the Senate delay these measures, which it might well do, and ask for information to be produced before the debate is resumed, I ask the Minister to try to see to it that I get from him, through the Department and the Treasury, something more precise and with which my colleagues and I can satisfy ourselves. At the same time I make the general observation that as a body of senators -as I said irrespective of what might or might not have been the case at any other time- we ought to be looking to see a more precise document laid before the Senate for financial arrangements of this kind.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales) (3.15)- I do not wish to delay the Bill either. There is one point, in relation to the reply of the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt), which is not clear in my mind. I note it was stated in the second reading speeches in relation to these Bills that the amount to be provided is included in the Australian Government’s loan program for 1974-75 which was dealt with in June 1974. To my simple mind that suggests, if I am on the right wavelength and am thinking of the right Bill, that the information is available to be given now rather than subsequently, as the Minister indicated in his reply. If I am wrong I will go quietly. It seems to me that a couple of the second reading speeches deal with the same issue. It is inherent in the words used that the amounts already have been resolved and are in the loan program agreed to in June 1 974.
-The question is that clause 7 be agreed to.
– Was I right or not?
– You will have to wait.
Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) (3. 16)- I move:
– All right, do that.
-I have moved accordingly.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales) (3.16)- With great respect, I do not think we should go to the point of postponing this clause. I say that in fairness to the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) and in fairness to the Bill. I do not wish to be difficult in relation to the point made by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack. If the Minister says that he will let me know about this matter in due course I will be happy to leave it at that.
– I will be quite happy to do what Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson suggests. There is some doubt in my mind concerning the question he asked. If he is happy to wait I will get the information for him.
– In consideration of the dialogue between Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson and Senator Wriedt I ask for leave to withdraw my motion.
– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
Clause agreed to.
Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill (on motion by Senator Wriedt) read a third time.
page 2498
Debate resumed from 13 November on motion by Senator Wriedt:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 2499
Debate resumed from 13 November on motion by Senator Gavanagh:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 2499
– I bring up the first report of the Standing Orders Committee for the 1974 Session, dated 14 November 1974, relating to the procedure for the presentation of petitions.
Ordered that the report be printed.
page 2499
Debate resumed from 30 October on motion by Senator Murphy:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Upon which Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson had moved by way of amendment:
Leave out all words after ‘That’, insert ‘this Bill be postponed until the first sitting day of the Senate in 1975, in order that-
full and proper consideration can be given by senators and all other interested persons to the report of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, tabled in the Senate on 15 October, and
full and adequate opportunity be available for all interested persons to consider the details of the Bill and the possible or likely effects of its implementation, if carried.
-We were last debating the motion for the second reading of this BUI, and Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s amendment to the motion for the second reading, on 30 October 1974. On that occasion I spoke briefly of my general attitude to the Bill and the amendment. I said that the reason I wished to speak in the second reading debate as well as in the committee stage was that there was a general aspect I wished to put forward which I thought should be considered generally.
On 30 October Senator Melzer referred to the situation of women in Australian society. She referred to whether this BUI reflected or in fact determined the status of women in Australian society. I suggest to the Senate that for all that many honourable senators have said, women in Australia today are not equal and it is not the province of the Family Law Bill, this Bill being basically a divorce BUI, to determine the status of women. This sort of BUI can only reflect the status of women in Australia today. Australian women are not equal in the sense that many honourable senators argued when they rose to speak to this BUI. The clauses in question so far as this aspect is concerned are those relating to maintenance and property, and to injunctions. I would like to make some general statements on maintenance and property, on how they are defined and reflected in the BUI, and on some amendments to the Bill that I understand are to be moved by the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy).
I said a minute ago that in fact the Family Law BUI can only reflect the situation of women and children in society today. There is an argument advanced that there should be a notion of child maintenance instead of wife maintenance, and in theory I would like to agree with that theory. I certainly believe that parents- a man and a woman who marry and decide to become parents- have a joint responsibility for as long as those children are dependent, whether or not the man and the woman continue to remain in a state of matrimony. If there is a divorce a very serious question has to be considered- how those children are to be maintained. I would like to accept the nice neat theory that there is equal responsibility and that there ought to be equal financial responsibility. But I suggest to the Senate that Australian society, having been what it is for so long and only so recently undergoing change, does not put Australian women generally in the same economic situation as men are. It would be nice to believe that if the man obtained custody of the children the ex-wife would then make the same sort of financial contribution to their upkeep as the ex-husband would in the reverse situation. I suggest that in very few circumstances is this possible. It would be nice if the theory could be carried out that women did not need maintenance and that child maintenance were the only sort of maintenance we needed to consider. But there is a very strong case for saying that this is just not so in Australian society today. I would welcome a time when it may be possible to do this but it is not now possible.
We have to recognise that in Australia in 1974 when we talk about women’s economic and social status we are dealing with conditions which were set 20, 30 or 40 years ago. We are not dealing with conditions which are currently being set for the advancement of women in Australian society nor with conditions as recent as 5 years ago. There are many women in Australian society today who are in a particular social and economic position as a result of very different attitudes which overwhelmingly obtained for a long period of time and indeed until just very recently. The dependent members of our society who have been put in the position of being dependent because of those attitudes- basically the women and children of our society- must be guarded. If the Government- this Government or any future government- brings forward legislation which will genuinely enable women to be more independent, particularly economically, then I shall welcome it. But so long as governments have not taken all the necessary measures to make that possible then we must not, via the Family Law Bill, abandon those individuals who have been brought up to be dependent, who have been expected to be dependent, who have been conditioned to be dependent and who are capable of being nothing but dependent because of all those pressures.
There are a number of clauses in that section of the Bill relating to maintenance and property. The most important one is clause 54. 1 shall make some reference to the amendments which the Attorney-General has foreshadowed that he will move to this and other clauses because I think it is more to the point that we have the opportunity to talk about the actual amendments that will come forward, and thereby to have a debate at the second reading stage on provisions we will be actually debating in Committee. There is a provision in the Bill- I fear it is a grudging onewhich, if Senator Murphy’s amendment is accepted, will mean that in assessing an individual’s contribution we should have to look at the extent to which the party- I am now referring to proposed new paragraph (ga) of clause 54- whose maintenance is under consideration has contributed to the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of the other party. This is a crucial concept. It is one that is not generally recognised in the Australian society. I will go so far as to say that it is not a concept which has been recognised in either House of the Parliament in the past. It is overdue.
It is, of course, a continuing complaint of exhusbands who are paying maintenance that they are paying according to the money that they are earning after the marriage has been dissolved. But there has been very little recognition given to the fact that the overwhelming majority of women who have undertaken what we call home duties, who have occupied the traditional social role of wife, housewife and mother, have had a very large bearing in many cases on their husband’s earning capacity. If the husband had been a widower at an early stage or if the wife had been not prepared to support her husband in many ways then his potential earning capacity would have been reduced. The example is obvious in the case of, say, the professional man or the business man. I think it is probably very obvious to all those married male senators who are present that if they did not have wives prepared to support them strongly and to supplement the job they do here in the Senate and also in their home States then they would not be able to do the same job. There are many people we ourselves know who have been prevented from pursuing a political career at all because their wives were not prepared to undertake the sort of responsibility that goes with being the spouse of a member of Parliament. There are many examples of cases such as this where, through their supportive dependent role, women in our society have enabled the men to reach a higher degree of proficiency and a higher earning capacity. It is very difficult to work out a formula which takes recognition of this fact in the matter of maintenance when the marriage breaks down but in the matter of simple justice to almost half the citizens of our community this must be done.
There is another very crucial area which relates to the matter of property: What is the value of the labours of the woman who follows the traditional role of wife, housewife and mother, in the accumulation of property? Our laws have treated women very badly in this respect. I suggest to the Senate that there will be no real equality for women in Australia until there is some coming to grips with the economic status of this type of woman. The current situation is that a man with a dependent spouse- a wife- can claim, I think, $7 a week as a taxation deduction. It is not, of course, worth $7 cash to him but that is how much he can claim for taxation purposes. Our society officially rates the economic contribution to the family of the wife and mother at home at $7 a week. That is a pitiful amount of money and it in no way approaches the reality of the facts. The woman who stays at home and who contributes to the family and to the economy of the family through what we call home duties occupies an economic role far greater than that which is given official recognition through the laws of our land. Many families have discovered this with the growing number of wives who are going out to work in the situation where both partners work.
Many people feel that in that situation the woman who goes out to work earns money which is sheer cop. It has some effect on the taxation situation of the family but a relatively minor one when we are talking about a deduction that is worth only $7 a week. In fact, all families find that the price to the family in money terms of the mother or the wife going out to work is much higher than it is to keep her at home. Many extra expenses are incurred. Some could be considered as taxation deductions. Others are less tangible and rather more difficult to value. The cost of feeding the family where the wife and mother goes out to work inevitably rises. The cost of clothing that family inevitably rises. There are many other expenses incurred. The cost to the family of the woman working outside the home is very high. We must balance this against the traditional situation of the woman who stays at home and who does not have that separate economic identity.
However, when we are looking at the question of maintenance and property we must devise some means of giving that woman a separate economic identity. The proposed new paragraph (ga) in clause 54 gives us some basis for it and it is probably a move in the right direction. But we must recognise- as against groups such as the Divorce Law Reform Association which want to see the pure theory followed without looking at these sorts of mitigating facts- that until other laws which actually determine the economic and social role of women are changed, this Bill if and when it is passed must reflect those other facts.
There is another factor which is crucial. Again it is one to which Senator Missen made some reference. I refer to the woman marrying, becoming a mother and necessarily, almost inevitably, withdrawing from the work force and the effect that this has on her earning capacity. The general statement can fairly be made that most women between the ages of 25 and 40 withdraw from the work force because they become mothers and they have to care for their children to the stage when they feel the children are old enough or independent enough to look after themselves and where harm will not be done to the families if the women do go out to work. I think it is important that the Senate recognises and that Australian society recognise the very simple fact which is known to anybody who has pursued a career, either man or women. If you lose your earning years from 25 to 40, you lose the years in which the individual is at the maximum of individual drive, in which individuals make the most advance in their careers and thereby get to a situation at age roughly 40 when they can start to enjoy the sort of high income that comes as a result of ambition and hard work. The women or the individuals who withdraw from the work force at age approximately 25 years and attempt to re-enter at 40 can make some progress in their professions but they can never make the sort of progress which compensates for losing those crucial years. In property settlements and maintenance settlement in divorce proceedings this must be taken into account. It is not enough to say that the ex-wife can go out to work as a typist, which was one of the examples Senator Missen gave. It is not enough to say that she was a doctor, that she can go through a short period of retraining, become a doctor again and support herself very well. The fact is that she has made enormous economic sacrifice during the years she has been out of the work force for the sake of the family and she will continue to make an economic sacrifice, whether she wishes to or not, by virtue of having been out of the work force through those years. Those are the facts of working life in Australia and, in justice, they must be considered by the Family Law Court or whichever court considers this Bill or any future Bill.
I mentioned before that there has been a conditioning of women in society. I am not a very old senator, but it is not so long ago, certainly at the time when I finished my primary schooling, that it was almost axiomatic that girls left school at the age of 13 years. That was the age at which most of the girls with whom I went through primary school left school. Very few of us went on to high school and very few indeed went on to tertiary education in those circumstances. The situation has changed rapidly, but the fact is that very many young women in their late twenties and early thirties are now in the position that they left school at the age of 1 3 or 14 years, possibly did a 6 months’ training course in business studies to teach them shorthand and typing, if they were lucky. Many of them went into factories or behind shop counters because those were the jobs that girls did, even in that recent past in Australia. These women are not now fit to go out into the work force and earn anything like a reasonable income.
I have encountered many women, just a little older, who never went to work at all. That was not so prevalent in my time, but it was not very much further back in Australia’s history than that. It would apply to many women now at about the age of 40 years who, when they finished their primary school, did not go to work at all. It was considered quite normal in those days for girls to work in the home and assist their mothers to bring up the rest of the family until such time as they married- the assumption being that all girls married wisely and well, an assumption which has never been borne out by the facts. So we have very many women, and not necessarily even middle aged women, who are in no situation at the moment to go out and start earning anything like a reasonable living income in today’s society. The provision that there be some special maintenance to enable women in that situation to achieve a reasonable degree of job skill which would enable them to live decentlynot just to survive- is a very important one. We must face the situation that previous facts, some of them recent, some of them further back, have left us with a particular social situation. Whilst our society today may not have been responsible for it and may not have that point of view- it is a qualified statement on my part- our society must recognise the fact, must accept the responsibility and must be prepared to pay the cost, if purely in terms of simple justice.
In concluding on this point I want to emphasise another point raised in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs- a matter which, again, was raised by Senator Missen in his speech to the Senate on 29 October 1974. This was the recommendation that there be a further provision inserted in subclause (2) of clause 54 to the effect that any fact or circumstance which in the opinion of the court the justice of the case requires to be taken into account be included in the Bill. Senator Missen made a very good case for it. He pointed out situations where, on the actual wording of the Bill, we could have an unjust case if we looked only at need, that there is need for a flexible provision in this clause which would enable the court to deal in justice and fairness. We must recognise that we are dealing in a complex area of human relations, that every case which comes before a court for a dissolution of marriage will be different, and the court must be given the means to deal with those problems fairly.
I wish to speak very briefly to the subject of clause 90 which relates to injunctions. The Divorce Law Reform Association is making quite a noise about this at the moment. It is strongly opposed to injunctions on the ground, it claims, that this means that a man’s home could be taken from him on the whim of what is almost inevitably, according to DLRA, a neurotic wife. Recently in Australia facts have emerged- facts in the sense that they are facts which now can be counted- relating to the battered wife and battered children in Australia. We have always known that there were battered wives and battered children in Australia, but only recently have enough of these women come forward, had access to groups like Women’s Electoral Lobby and others which have made their mark in this area, for us to start to count just how big a problem this is in Australian society. Previously these women were too ashamed to admit that this was their way of living. Currently most of them are still too ashamed to admit to society that they are in this position. But now that some help is offered to them and some hope is offered to them by outside organisations we are reaching the stage where we can assist. A conservative assessment currently is that approximately 5,000 families in Australia are in a situation where the husband habitually batters the wife and, almost inevitably in those circumstances, the children. In the past, although there has been some provision for the protection of the weaker members of the family, before the courts or the police would act a man would virtually have to break his wife’s leg and all but kill her before anybody would move. We have to recognise now that there are some men in our society who, whether under the influence of alcohol, because they are mentally disturbed, or because they are just plain bullies, do severely mistreat their wives and their children. Some of them mistreat only the wife, but the social effects on the children are absolutely appalling. It is appropriate that there be some sort of safeguard in this Bill for women and children in that situation whereby they can be protected promptly through a court injunction so that they may be given some hope of getting out of this absolutely appalling situation.
I wish to make just one other brief comment on the subject of children. An assertion has been made several times in this debate already, and I believe it will be made several times more before even the second reading debate is over. It is also said frequently outside the House and brought forward as an argument against making the sort of amendment that this sort of Bill proposesthat the breakdown of a marriage has a bad effect on the children. I thought many people knew this, but some of the statements made in the Senate show some ignorance of the situation. I have had quite some experience with adolescent children. I was in the situation of being a resident teacher in a girl’s boarding school for some years and came into very close contact with the sort of problems that children in this age group, and undoubtedly also younger children, face.
There is no doubt at all that a broken home, a home in which divorce has taken place, in which there is only one parent, leads to problems for the children of that family. But I say quite categorically, and I would debate it with anyone, that the problems I have witnessed and that many other people involved with youth have witnessed in that situation are as nothing compared with the sort of problems of the children who live in a desperately unhappy home- the trauma that those children go through when parents are fighting, bickering and endeavouring to tear one another apart, frequently using their children as pawns and the means of doing so.
I agree that there is some sort of correlation between delinquency and broken homes. I would like to see someone do their homework properly and show the degree of correlation between a broken home and an unhappy home. My experience has been overwhelmingly to the effect that the unhappy home has a far more deleterious effect on children than the broken home where there is only one parent.
In conclusion, I repeat something that I said when this debate commenced a couple of weeks ago; I hope that this Bill goes through and I hope that it goes through speedily. I believe that there is a strong need for it in the community. The present situation leads to all manner of injustices and abuse by individuals in the situation where the marriage has already irretrievably broken down. I believe that we must give people a decent way of extracting themselves from the marital contract. We have to provide a just way for determining maintenance and property. Above all else, because it is the key to anybody’s concern with a Bill relating to the family or divorce, we have to give the means for justice and a decent life to the really innocent parties- the children of those broken down marriages.
– The Senate is debating the Family Law Bill 1974. This Bill seeks to repeal and to replace the existing Matrimonial Causes Act. The history of this Bill is that it came into this Senate in August this year and was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. That Committee deliberated, and in October produced a lengthy document. I think that the Committee met 4 times in that period and that some but not all of its members attended all of those meetings.
– Three times.
-I am reminded that it met 3 times. There is a history of some study of divorce law reform since 1971 but that was done by a changing number of the Committee, and certainly the existing Committee which met in
September and October did not have recourse, or did not have time to have recourse, to the volume of evidence that had been brought forward in the preceding years; nor did this Committee seek to obtain by public advertisement at that time the reactions of the public to this Bill. It is not good enough to suggest that some years ago the public was invited to submit evidence. The fact is that much has changed since then and the sensible thing would have been to have referred this specific Bill to the public for reaction. It is said that the Bill comes before this Senate by way of open vote. Certainly all Opposition senators will be free to vote according to their conscience. I have not seen any evidence that Government senators are departing from the lines of the Bill put forward by Senator Murphy. I hope that they will respect the conscience vote as well.
In every society throughout this world the family is the natural and the fundamental unit of that society. Indeed, every society seeks to maintain and to strengthen the family by a wide range of laws laying down the duties and responsibilities of the spouses of that marriage. In every society there is a form of institution of marriage which itself imposes responsibilities. All societies on this earth recognise that marriage creates a profound mental and physical relationship between the spouses, that the continuous interchange and sharing of the libraries of their minds are just as profound and just as enduring as are the emotional and physical experiences of the body. They recognise too that marriage creates, both by the unity of the 2 spouses and by the creation of children, an enduring responsibilitya lifelong responsibility- to the discharge of which it is essential that that marriage should if possible be sustained.
Because there are victims to a marriage- that is, one or more spouses and of course the children- the law intervenes to enforce responsibilities and sanctions and, if possible, to safeguard and protect the victims. It is not for nothing that the existing Marriage Act 1 96 1 expresses in section 69(2) as the secular concept of marriage ‘the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life’. It is not unimportant also that some 87 per cent of marriages, according to the last census figures available, were carried out in a church in a religious ceremony, the parties to the marriage signifying that they vowed that their marriage should be lifelong. Of course there is a secular concept, and that is that in all communities of which I am aware the law makes some provision for the dissolution of the marriage and the protection of families. In England until 1857 this was a matter for the Church. Subsequently in England, and here, laws were evolved and in due course there was brought about a uniform Matrimonial Causes Act.
I want to take as a starting point the statement by the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) in August 1973 when he expressed what he said was his viewpoint of a good divorce law. He said:
I agree with the 2 criteria adopted by the English Commission for a good divorce law. It should buttress, rather than undermine, the stability of marriage and, when a marriage has irretrievably broken down, it should enable the empty legal shell to be destroyed with maximum fairness and minimum bitterness, distress and humiliation.
I should add also that the Attorney and others of the Government in advocating the terms of this Bill have stressed those needs and have also added that there is a need to reduce legal costs. I want to look at this Bill in a moment and to apply 3 tests to it, those tests being: In what ways does it buttress marriage; does it genuinely establish irretrievable breakdown; is it fairer, more dignified, less costly, less degrading and less distressing than now?
In order to approach an examination of such a magnitude we ought to do 4 things. Firstly, we should look at the existing provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act and in doing so ask ourselves which of them are wrong and which of them ought to be changed. Secondly, we should ask ourselves what this Bill purports to do and what are the claims made for it by its advocates. Thirdly, we should ask ourselves what in fact it does. Fourthly, we should look at the existing Act- the Matrimonial Causes Act- and look at this Bill and ask how they compare with divorce legislation in other countries. They are fair tests. An interesting thing is that the Government has not sought to put that kind of approach to us and we have no bench-marks against which to measure what we have before us.
We are confronted with a Bill of this magnitude, to which in October the Senate Committee gave a voluminous report; to which the AttorneyGeneral in very recent days has submitted some 92 amendments- it is true that some of them embody the recommendations of the Senate Committee; to which the Attorney-General has today added some 13 more amendments to the amendments to the amendments and given us a notional consolidation of a Bill, and to which a number of honourable senators of this chamber have tabled some further amendments. Against that background we are asked to proceed to the third reading stage. That is utterly intolerable.
It is true to say that not one honourable senator could possibly have studied all the evidence available to him or her and be in a position to deal with this Bill in the Committee stage. That would be impossible. That, I understand, has been acknowledged. If that is so- the acknowledgement of it has been made- then all honourable senators should join in supporting the amendment moved by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson that there be a deferment of the consideration of this Bill to allow for the fullest discussion. There can be no argument against such a fair proposition. If the Attorney-General had wanted to provide for such a period of discussion he could have had all of this done beforehand and we could have had some months before us to consider the Bill; but that has not been done. Here we are at the final stages of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bill and all fairness, all decency calls for a deferral of further consideration of the Bill. I will vote in support of the amendment moved by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson.
In my judgment this Bill, in itself, has other defects that should be remedied. It is a Bill which was drawn up by lawyers, which has been adjudicated on entirely by lawyers because the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs is, I think, comprised entirely of lawyers, and which, if it becomes law, will then be interpreted by judges and lawyers. Yet -
– That is the case with divorce matters now; they are dealt with solely by lawyers.
-If Senator Wheeldon will pause, perhaps I will be allowed to make my point. Yet the people whom it concerns- the families of this nation- are not lawyers. The problems that concern those families are sociological and economical problems. They are problems for sociologists. They are problems for the social workers of this community, for the churches and for others. I notice that Senator Wheeldon is nodding in full agreement.
– I am not disputing that as of now lawyers deal with these matters.
-Surely. I put forward that a grave defect of the approach to marriage dissolution is one which looks at it as though it has to be something that is a legal device. That, to me, is utterly wrong. What should be done, first of all, is that the non-lawyers should decide what should be the determinations and then the lawyers should be asked to draft the Bills and to carry them out in the courts. The decisions as to what shall constitute marriage, what shall constitute the family and what shall constitute the dissolution of marriage and as to the other clauses are decisions that should be made in a sociological sense and not primarily, or totally in this case, in a legal sense. Therefore I give notice that at an appropriate time I will move that a Senate select committee should be set up to inquire into all methods of maintaining and strengthening the family. It will be an interesting test of the attitudes of honourable senators.
This Bill purports to strengthen the family. It talks of conciliation and it talks of reconciliation. It in fact does that at the death knock. If honourable senators on both sides of the chamber are really sincere about wanting an opportunity to look at marriage, even before it is contracted, and to look at the family in all its affairs in life they will support the setting up of such a select committee. That select committee would be enabled to call upon the whole community- the whole community; not just lawyers- and invite the whole community to come forward with sociological, religious and other ideas to buttress the family. It will be interesting to see whether such a proposition receives the support or otherwise of the Attorney-General, who has said that the first test of a Bill is whether it buttresses rather than undermines the stability of a marriage. Because in my judgment this Bill does not do that- it is in itself a dissolution Bill and not a family law Bill- I propose in due course to move for the setting up of such a select committee. The Senate may then support or otherwise such a concept.
The Bill itself is, of course, wrongly named. Family law in its great bulk is not a Commonwealth matter. Family law in its great bulk is to be found in the great body of State laws. With respect, it is humbug and hypocrisy to give the title ‘Family Law BUT to a Bill which does not seek to mention more than a fraction of the ingredients of family law and which is in itself a marriage dissolution Bill. Lest anyone feels that I am critical of that, I point out that I am critical of it only in terms of the title of the Bill. I have said that I concede the right of society to enact legislation to provide for divorce. If so, let us call it by its proper name; let us call it a divorce law BUI and not a family law BUI. Family law, as I have said, is basically a matter for the States. It covers a whole magnitude of subject matter, as all the lawyers know. This BUI covers a very narrow series of subjects. To the extent that it occasionally mentions such things as counselling and conciliation it does so, surely, at the wrong part of the spectrum of a marriage which is breaking down. I speak as one who has had some little experience in the field of marriage counselling. To me the whole question of the buttressing of a marriage, of counselling, of looking at support for marriage and of preparing people for marriage and helping people during marriage must be one that is looked at quite separately from this BUI.
I have said that there are 4 things that one should do in examining this BUI. What are the existing provisions? As I understand the existing provisions, there are some 14 grounds under the Matrimonial Causes Act, ranging from adultery to desertion, refusal to consummate, cruelty etc., each of which is a test for dissolution. There are 3 bars to dissolution. There is an absolute bar if there can be shown to have been condonation, connivance or collusion; there is a discretionary bar where the petitioners know that adultery, cruelty, desertion or conduct are admitted and examined and there is a temporary bar whereby, except in certain circumstances, no dissolution can be granted under the present Act unless 3 years have passed since the date of the marriage. There are also provisions for judicial separation, restitution of conjugal rights, jactitation and annulment of a voidable marriage. The voidable marriage provision provides that the marriage shall be voided under certain circumstances, including the inability to consummate, proof of the existence of an unsound mind at the time, proof of venereal disease at the time and proof of pregnancy by another person. Those are basically, as I understand them, the grounds today. One has to prove conduct.
The new BUI says in its advocates: ‘We are going to eliminate fault. Fault is a meaningless thing. How can you prove who is at fault in a breaking or broken marriage? It may be that there is no fault. Adultery is not necessarily a fault. It may be the result of a broken marriage; the effect rather than the cause’. The proponents of this BUI say: ‘Fault is in itself something that is virtually incapable of proof and in attempting to prove it you get misery, degradation, loss of dignity, great suffering and great expense. So we will eliminate fault. In doing that we will have much more dignified proceedings and, incidentally, it Will be less costly’. They are the 2 main claims which have been made repeatedly in support of this BUI. I see absolutely no evidence that this would be so. It is one thing to claim that a result wil occur; it is another thing to rest by examination. The real cause of misery, demoralisation, loss of dignity and degradation in a broken marriage is the actual breaking of the marriage- the degeneration of the marriage.
If divorce proceedings were heard in open court, great suffering would occur. In most, if not all, States today divorce proceedings are, I understand, held in closed court. People are saved that loss of dignity. I commend the principle. If that is not the position under this Bill, let us put in provision to ensure that the parties are protected against the Press.
The fact is that by the time people go to lawyers and talk about divorce they are in a state of misery and in a state of loss of dignity. It is not the court which creates these symptoms; it is the breakdown of marriage which creates these symptoms. That is a profoundly important point to understand in the whole dissertation on this Bill.
The strange thing is that the Attorney-General says: ‘We will eliminate fault’ and then he does 2 extraordinary things. In his Bill he says: ‘Two spouses may be living in the same abode, but living separately, over the course of a year. One of those spouses may be behaving badly, and it may be necessary to restrain that spouse’. So the Attorney-General provides, as the State laws do today, that the other spouse- dare I say the innocent spouse- can go to a magistrate or, in this case, a particular inferior court and seek restraint of the so-called guilty spouse on the ground of misconduct. So we can test in the inferior courts- in the year in which one is waiting for a divorce- misconduct, because that is what it is called in those courts. Surely we test fault. Equally it is said: ‘We must not test fault in determining dissolution’. But when we traverse such vital matters as custody, where the children shall go, the court is charged with studying comparative conduct- in fact, studying misconductbecause clearly the court must find whether there was adultery, whether there is continuing adultery, whether there was cruelty or whether there was outrageous conduct.
Let us have none of this nonsense that this Bill has eliminated fault. It has transferred fault. In dissolution proceedings it pretends that it takes no note of fault. In fact it is designed to allow what is called the guilty party on today’s proceedings to take the initiative to get a dissolution unilaterally. Today’s Matrimonial Causes Act outlaws such action. Today a so-called guilty party cannot, except under exceptional circumstances, proceed to get a divorce. The release must come from the other party. Except over a period of years of delay, basically it is not possible for unilateral divorce under such circumstances.
Clause 26 simply states that if it can be established that there has been one year’s separation, even in the same abode, and that there is no likelihood of the parties to the marriage coming together, the court must grant a divorce. Although it says that the ground shall be irretrievable breakdown, that is in fact so. The test of irretrievable breakdown is one year’s separation. So under this Bill the ground is not irretrievable breakdown but one year’s separation. That is the broad picture.
It is said that this Bill will save money, that divorce will be cheaper. If one speeds up the dissolution processes and transfers the conflict to the other causes, all that one does is transfer the litigation and the bitterness to the other causes and stack up the costs in the other causes. In many cases today an arrangement is made in determining the divorce so that all the causes come together. Under this Bill the tendency will be to transfer the bitterness to the other section. Does anyone believe that a spouse who finds himself or herself faced with a dissolution to which he or she is opposed or about which he or she is shocked and distressed and who is not able to do anything about it will not proceed with all the vigour, determination and emotionalism in this world to fight on custody, maintenance and property? Does any one doubt that? Does anyone believe that such a person has gained anything by this Bill? Surely what the Bill does is transfer the fight into an open-ended litigation to which literally there are no upper limits. To me, this seems extraordinary. Where is the ‘no fault’ in this situation? Where is the dignity? Does anyone believe that there will be dignity in the struggle for custody, maintenance or property?
Is there dignity in clause 5 1 which seeks, at a time when women are being moved more and more to full equality within the law and within society, to set back women’s rights in this community by centuries? I hope that all honourable senators have read clause 51. 1 understand that Senator Martin referred to it and criticised it. It states that a needs test is applied to the female spouse, the test being that if the spouse is healthy enough and has no child responsibilities, upon dissolution there is no maintenance and she shall go out and look after herself. What an extraordinary situation. It has been said and said rightly that this Bill, by its actions, changes the very nature and basis of marriage. It does exactly that.
If clause 51 were passed I would advise all young women approaching marriage to so equip themselves professionally before entering marriage and to so keep up by refresher course their professions that they can waterproof themselves against dissolution. They can then contract a marriage and help their husbands to raise their professional and financial status and to make a circle of acquaintances at a particular level in a community. Under clause 5 1 the dissolution can put the female spouse in a situation in which, to maintain herself, she goes into semi-skilled or unskilled occupations and is forced by this intended law to live at a level which she surely does not deserve. Is there to be no recognition at all of the sacrifices of a young mother in helping a struggling young professional man to get on in this world, in bearing his children and helping to raise them, in helping him to widen his status? Is there to be no reward for that at all? What an extraordinary situation in a government which professes to believe in equality for women.
On the tests, this Bill is certainly not a Bill which eliminates fault. It is not a Bill which eliminates or reduces bitterness or hatred or misery. It is not a Bill which necessarily reduces costs. Fundamentally, it is a Bill which discriminates wickedly against women. All I can say is that I commend to every young woman that she get herself a teacher’s college scholarship as quickly as possible because that seems to me to be the likely way to ensure protection, despite the fact that I think the poets will win out in the end and marriage will go on with the same optimism as it has for centuries.
I wonder if I might now look at the next test. That is a simple test: We think the present Act is bad; we are going to change it. Incidentally, why did we not amend it instead of bringing in a new Bill? Why have we not referred back in our arguments to the Act? And we have not. We are going to change it but we are going to do this in a vacuum. We are not going to look at what happens elsewhere in the world. One would have thought that this Senate would have been informed of what has happened in terms of social reform in the major countries of the world which we respect; of what has happened in the development of social law and social patterns; and, alongside that, of why we are taking the steps that we are taking.
I asked the Parliamentary Library to give me some background information for a series of countries. I hope honourable senators will be astounded to know that Australia will be the pacesetter in trendiness in the world, with the exception of Sweden, if this Bill goes through. Australia will have brought in more permissive divorce laws than most other countries, with the exception of Sweden and a few of the States of America and perhaps one or two other countries. Certainly Australia will have gone further along the road to permissive divorce than the countries which we respect. It will be interesting indeed to see whether Government senators go along that road. I am told that in the United Kingdom the Divorce Reform Act of 1969, which was activated in 1971- comparatively recentlyprovides that after the commencement of the Act the sole ground for divorce shall be that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. At least we are on common ground there. However, the court is not entitled to find that a marriage has broken down unless one of five specified facts is established. Some of these facts are similar to the previous grounds for divorce in the United Kingdom. So although the concept of matrimonial fault may no longer exist, the same fact situations are required to be proved.
Divorce law as it functions at this moment in the United Kingdom requires 5 tests. The first test is adultery on the part of the respondent, and requires that the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the respondent. The second test is that the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. This test overlaps some of the previous grounds for divorce such as cruelty, constructive desertion, sodomy, bestiality and some forms of unsoundness of mind. The third test is desertion for a continuous period of 2 years before the presentation of the petition. The parties may during this period resume cohabitation for up to 2 periods not exceeding 6 months in total but such periods are not to be included in calculating the period of desertion. The fourth test is that the parties have lived apart for a continuous period of 2 years before the presentation of the petition and the respondent consents to the divorce. The fifth test is that the parties have lived apart for a continuous period of 5 years immediately preceding the petition.
So we have in England a situation in which 5 tests are applied, as distinct from only 1 test which is provided in this Bill, but in England the periods are much more extensive for establishing breakdown and range from 2 to 5 years. Also, the so-called innocent party has a say in what happens to the marriage and, strangely enough, that might appear to be equitable. So much for the United Kingdom. Australia certainly leads in trendiness ahead of the United Kingdom reforms.
In Canada the Divorce Act 1968 provides that a divorce may be granted on the grounds of (a) adultery by the respondent; (b) sodomy, bestiality, rape or homosexual acts by the respondent; (c) bigamy by the respondent; (d) physical or mental cruelty of such kind as to render physical cohabitation intolerable; (e) the husband and wife living separate and apart because of a permanent breakdown of their marriage caused by: (i) the imprisonment of the respondent for periods of up to 3 years during that period; (ii) the imprisonment of the respondent for not less than 2 years for offences carrying the death penalty or imprisonment for 10 years or more; (hi) addiction to alcohol or narcotics for a period of 3 years preceding the petition, with no hope of rehabilitation; (iv) disappearance of the respondent for a period of 3 years preceding the petition; (v) failure or refusal to consumate the marriage over a period of at least 1 year following the marriage; (vi) separation which has existed for a period of 3 years, unless the petitioner has deserted the respondent, when a period of 5 years separation is required. One could say that Canada, with its quite recent legislation, is trailing far behind Australia’s pacesetting, if pacesetting has any merit in this regard.
In West Germany the Family Law which was published in 1971, provides for a divorce on the application of one or both parties if the marriage has broken down. Such a breakdown occurs when the community life of the spouses has ceased to exist and cannot be restored but is regarded to have occurred if the parties have lived apart for 3 years or, where both parties request the divorce, if the parties have lived apart for 1 year. In cases where extraordinary hardship would be caused to a spouse, no divorce shall be granted. West Germany does not seem to follow the trendiness of this Government’s measures.
Moving on to Denmark, it will be seen that Denmark about keeps pace. According to advice from the Danish Embassy, in Denmark a legal separation order may be obtained on the application of either party which, after a period of 12 months, entitles either party to apply for an automatic order of divorce. Other grounds for divorce which do not require an interim waiting period are adultery, absence, bigamy, insanity, designs on the petitioner’s life or cruelty. In Norway the relevant facts are that a separation order may be granted automatically at the request of both parties or at the request of one party if one of the following facts can be proved: (a) Failure of maintenance of spouse or dependants, neglect of duties or continuous abuse of intoxicants; (b) disagreement or discord between the parties in which it would be unreasonable for them to continue cohabitation having regard to their own well being or that of their children. Twelve months after the granting of a legal separation both parties may apply for a divorce if they have not resumed cohabitation and the divorce will be granted automatically. If one party does not consent to the divorce, 2 years are required after legal separation before a divorce is granted. So in Norway the authorities insist on 2 years. That is just a run round of the kind of society which in our view and thinking might look to our valuesthe Roman law, the Judeo-Christian ethic; the kind of values of home and family which we have grown used to. With the exception of Sweden, this Bill goes far and away ahead in terms of permissive dissolution of marriage, and let there be no mistake about that. Let it also be clear that in these other countries, grounds to determine irretrievable breakdown are laid down and there is a recognition of the rights of the spouse who is opposed to the divorce- a quaint idea which in fact the Government measure rejects.
It has been stated that this Bill comes forward to us because the persons who are expert in divorce law believe that there should be one ground for divorce, and that ground should be irretrievable breakdown. The sales line for this Bill was that the Chief Judge in Divorce in New South Wales, a very respected person, Mr Justice Selby, had allegedly argued for one ground, and that one ground was irretrievable breakdown. It is a great pity that this Senate and the Senate Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs have not sought to put the situation right, because for whatever reason the Committee’s report presented a part of Mr Justice Selby ‘s evidence in such a way that he at least feels that he has been misrepresented. I will read what Mr Justice Selby said in evidence. As honourable senators know, since he gave his evidence he has made it clear that he does not believe in one ground for divorce, that he believes in a number of grounds for divorce, and that he believes he was misrepresented. In evidence before the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, Mr Justice Selby is quoted as saying:
It is a matter again of the philosophy of the thing. I am against, and I realise it may be because I am old and conservative, a divorce by consent. By widening the grounds of divorce you are not going to damage the institution of marriage, I do not think. If marriages break down, it does not damage them to allow them to be dissolved. I know this all sounds rather trite, but to get to the stage of divorce by consent, I think, would be a step I would not like to see. I think it could menace and endanger the institution of marriage.
Sadly, out of that passage one or two sentences were taken out of context, no doubt inadvertently, conveying an entirely wrong meaning. Let the record be right: Mr Justice Selby now says that he believes that there should be a number of grounds, a number of tests for divorce.
Let me just pull together this much of the journey. I have said that in every society the family is the key institution, that every society recognises marriage, that every society makes laws to strengthen marriage, and that the test of our marriage laws or our divorce laws should be how it operates in that context. Does it help to buttress marriage? Does it help to strengthen it? On the other hand, does it help to fragment it? I ask: How does the test shape up to the existing law? What is the existing law? What is wrong with the existing law? What are the purported grounds and claims for this Bill? Is it true that it is a nonfault Bill? Is it true that it would reduce stress and misery? Is it true that it would reduce costs? In fairness, I believe I have shown pretty conclusively that it is likely to do the very reverse.
Then I have taken each of the main countries that are close to us in our way of life and have looked at the evidence of their marriage laws. Out of it has emerged a picture that what we are seeking to do provides for easier grounds for the dissolution of marriage than is the case in almost all of those countries. Against that background we have to judge what should be done. Of course, for my part I will support the amendment which seeks to defer consideration of this Bill, and I hope that every honourable senator will do so. As I have said, when time permits I will move for the setting up of a Senate select committee to inquire into all means of maintaining and strengthening the family so that we can really have an honest look at buttressing the family rather than fragmenting it. This in itself will give all persons, institutions and organisations an opportunity to come forward and give evidence before us. In due time I will invite both Government and Opposition senators to support that course.
I believe that it does no good at all to pretend in legislation. I believe and accept the fact that if a marriage can be proved conclusively to have broken down irretrievably, it should be dissolved as quickly as is possible, with the minimum of bitterness and with the maximum of equity to the rest of the family. I believe- nothing that I have said today is in opposition to this-that there could be presented to this Parliament a Bill to provide for divorce law and, if necessary, divorce law reform. What I have said is that this Bill does none of those things, and none of the things that it purports to do. In my view there ought to be at least some other grounds for dissolution of marriage. In my view, tests must be given for the judges so that they can decide whether a marriage has broken down irretrievably. I believe that the voidable clauses should be reinstated. I believe imperatively that equity should be put into the maintenance clauses. I believe that certainly the period for desertion should be 2 years and not 1 year.
I want to do some very heavy thinking in terms of the Family Law Court. The Family Law Court has about it the same enticing sound and seductive ring that the Family Law Bill has in title, but to give something a title does not give it an effective function. What is this Family Law Court? Does anybody know? We have a mass of suggestions. We have stumbled upon it. We have come at it by a series of amendments, a series of suggestions. It is to be a judicial framework, to sit semi-permanently to decide upon the buttressing and dissolution of marriage. We do not know what it means at all. We are going to fumble along, clause by clause, considering this Family Law Court without being able to make a thorough test of it. The Attorney-General has made a number of retreats, and I am not at all sure exactly where he now stands. As I understood it, his aim was- and I think sub rosa isthat the divorce jurisdiction should be in the jurisdiction of the Federal Superior Court. One can only wonder why anyone should seek to duplicate the judiciary for this purpose when the judiciary, as functioning throughout Australia and its Territories today, is highly efficient and highly regarded. I say emphatically that I can think of nothing more wrong-minded than to set up a superior court in divorce where judges, presumably in their thirties or forties- we will pick them so that they have an understanding of people and marriage- shall sit in that one jurisdiction, never to be moved from it for 30, 40 or even 50 years if we follow the example of Labor appointees to certain very superior courts.
If anyone knows the history of the divorce jurisdictions around Australia they will know that it has been very necessary for governments from time to time to transfer judges from that jurisdiction to other jurisdictions. There are all sorts of reasons, but at the very kindest let me say that it is not infrequent that judges prove temperamentally totally unfitted for the divorce jurisdiction. A very small number of them tend to find an undue interest and, in the odd or unique case, a sort of voyeur interest. Are we to have a situation in which we believe that somebody should sit for 30 or 40 years in such a jurisdiction? This is absolute nonsense, yet this is the kind of thing contained in the Bill. Do we know, indeed, what the Attorney-General means? Is he to have a magistrate ‘s court and a superior court or is he to have a district court and a superior court? Are there to be 2 levels of court, one to hear causes during but not up to the dissolution, and the other to look at dissolution and other causes? What an extraordinary situation. Today throughout Australia we have a great body of human knowledge and human feeling in the minds and the hearts of the judges in each of the State jurisdictions practising in the Federal jurisdiction in matrimonial causes. For some extraordinary reason we want to break this down, and we do not know what we mean.
We think, of course, that it is a good and trendy thing to talk about family law courts. Anyone who has sought to help a couple in a difficult or a failing marriage will know that the last thing to do is to put the couple in any kind of a legal situation. It is like taking from the workshop floor into the industrial court a dispute as soon as it gets to be a dispute.
– Do you favour collective bargaining?
– Yes, I will come to that, Senator Mulvihill. Proper conciliation done well ahead of the breakdown of marriage by good and trained social workers is effective, scientific, collective bargaining. It should be done at a time before conflict and bitterness enter the situation. Indeed we can do that, but do not let us take couples into the courts and drive them into corners with paid lawyers. I read somewhere the other day that poor estates raise no great legal issues. I think one should dwell upon this when one thinks of these kinds of situations. These are situations that should be resolved outside the sphere of legal conflict, outside the sphere where costs are incurred. In my judgment they are not situations in which courts, however well equipped, can function except in ultimate or penultimate resort. To get this situation remedied it must be dealt with in its early stages. Therefore if we are, to use a quaint Australianism, fair dinkum about wanting good family law, wanting conciliation, wanting to restore marriages, wanting to help families, we will clearly have to make a new and vigorous study of all phases of the family and we will have to look to see how we can help the family from its very earliest stages, even from premarriage. We will have to look so that fewer people come to the court, whether a family law court or otherwise.
I have spoken at length. I did so because I believe that although some who follow may disagree with me it is important to state in as factual a form as I can the whole scenario as I see it. I have made it clear that in my view the matter is so profoundly important that it ought to merit a few months delay. There can be no argument, certainly none has been put forward so far, which merits haste. It seems to me that the people of the United Kingdom, Canada, West Germany, Denmark and Norway are not seeking haste with measures far more restrictive than this Bill. Is it not better to pause for a few months, to take stock and then to proceed with this Bill? Because of that I will support Sir Kenneth Anderson’s amendment.
– I rise somewhat late in this debate, when doubtless most of the attitudes and priorities have been thoroughly aired, to support, as briefly and as pertinently as I can, the amendment moved by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson which suggests that this immensely important consideration should be deferred until the autumn session of 1 975. In doing so I am not suggesting that there is no need for change in this immensely important area of human relationships and of social standards. On the contrary I believe that there is such a need but I support the deferral of this ultimate consideration because of the immensity of the task that confronts us as a body of senators and that confronts the whole Australian community. I believe that, in view of the extraordinary number of amendments that confront us and the various interpretations, we need time in order that society itself, the community, may become fully aware of the changes in the mere technicalities of divorce procedures consequent upon this proposed piece of legislation. I believe we need time too for the community and ourselves to become fully aware of the sort of consequences that this legislation, important though it be, would have on the Australian society.
We can surely apply but one main and basic yardstick when we are considering measures as fundamental to society as this. That yardstick must be the evaluation of the legislation in terms of its contribution to the dignity and the security of the family unit in the Australian society. We must surely ask ourselves what this legislation contributes to the betterment of the relationships between men and women in the total Australian community. We must ask ourselves more than that. What does the legislation in fact contribute to the position of children disillusioned by the circumstances of the problems with which this legislation tends to grapple? These are the yardsticks and the problems which, of their own immensity, require that we as individuals and as a community take our time before we decide on the sort of legislation that we believe must be appropriate.
In the course of this quite long debate I have been impressed by a number of things that have been said. For instance, I have been impressed by Senator James McClelland who said at one stage that divorce knows no victors. No one will argue with that conception. Of course, divorce knows no victors. It results in broken dreams, broken families and disillusioned children. So it is a true statement; it is a truism. He further said- and I believe it is significant- that too difficult a divorce law can contribute towards immorality. I believe that of its very nature that statement has a very large measure of truth in it. But no matter how important and how true those phrases may be, and no matter how impressive they may be, in the consideration of this Bill we must not let them override the matter of ultimate importance which relates to the contribution of the legislation to the strength of the marriage contract and to the strength of the position of the family in the Australian society.
It must be the province and objective of legislation which we ultimately approve to firm the position of the family, to preserve the position of the family as basic to our society. We must concern ouselves so far as this legislation is concerned not only with that end which relates to the dissolution of marriage but perhaps far more pertinently to all that period which is the prelude to what hopefully will not become a dissolution. It is in that area of family law that we must view the real importance of the legislation before us.
I was impressed with the contributions made in this debate by a number of the members of the legal profession. I refer to Senator Missen and Senator James McClelland who, among others, contributed a great deal in enunciating the legal attitudes, the legal facts and considerations, of this proposed law. That went a long way, as one would expect them to do because this is thennatural or professional province, in enunciating the actual legal form and its meaning to the remaining members of the Senate and, hopefully, to the community. But during this debate I have been impressed also with the contributions which have evolved this as a human problem. In this area I think primarily of senators such as Senator Baume, Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, Senator Devitt and others who made a great contribution in this debate from the angle of the human problem and human concern.
I would be the first to agree that some form of in-depth change is needed and that the Bill and its proposed amendments, has within it a measure of extremely worthwhile features. But we must be certain- this is the important thingnot to implement legislation which may radically change the conception of the marriage contract, particularly in this Bill where marriage bears no definition. The fact that it bears no definition could have some extremely strange consequences as time goes by. We must not tend to drive the thin edge of a wedge into a situation that may destroy the concept, perhaps unwittingly, of the family unit as being a supreme unit in the Australian society, as indeed it is in many societies around the world, and as it has been for some thousands of years.
If we as a body of senators in this place are honest, the immense content of this Bill is reason enough to hold awhile in order to consider the total implications. I suggest that all we need is a real measure of honesty. Surely we have to say to ourselves as senators that we, at least in the majority of cases, are not totally aware of the full implications of such a vast measure as is before us this afternoon. The Bill before us has increased in physical size since the middle of October by some 33 and 1/3 per cent. It has increased from 41 pages of fine type to about 55 pages of fine type. That in itself is a very considerable area needing added investigation. Just as I believe that honourable senators in this chamber must have time to evaluate thoroughly the total involvement of this legislation, so must the Australian community which has had far less opportunity than we have had to evaluate the immense changes that may follow to a community from the passage of legislation such as this unless it has been totally and thoroughly investigated. I believe that the views of the Senate, and certainly those of the Australian community, have not yet totally crystallised into a strong, complete and logical determination as to the changes that this sort of legislation may well bring about in the Australian community.
The Bill concerns itself with what it describes as family law. Whether or not it is exactly that is perhaps a matter of conjecture. I have no query about the suggestion that there should be family law in our community- I believe there is- and that it is a most important area of law in Australian society. The yardstick in this circumstance must be the promotion of marriage and the family as the basic facets of a free society. I believe, as I said earlier, that much of this Bill has real value but we must be totally sure that we are not implementing legislation, perhaps unwittingly, which has within it the possibility of establishing circumstances and a society of which we have not even dreamed, a society which the great majority of Australians would in no way approve.
In this respect I recall reading recently a report of a speech made by the wife of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). It was reported on 9 February in the Sydney ‘Daily Telegraph’. Mrs Whitlam was reflecting on the year 2001 and the sort of society we would have at that time. That is only 27 years away. Hopefully, most of us will still be here to see it arrive and, perhaps, to see it out. Mrs Whitlam referred to children of that time as being brought up in a kibbutz style situation, as children of the community rather than as members of a family. This is a serious and immense change to the concept which is traditional and basic not only to Australian society but to societies throughout the free world. Further, Mrs Whitlam said, with regard to marriage, that she thought that within a period of about a quarter of a century there would be fewer marriages, that marriage would be less common but would be more secure, and that marriage would be confined more to women who were in their thirties. This also is a somewhat revolutionary concept. Does she imagine perhaps that there will be a decade and a half or approaching that of adulthood which will be a period of experimentation and research? Is this the logical conclusion from this sort of statement?
I bring these things to the notice of the Senate this afternoon only because I believe that they are the sorts of revolutionary changes in attitude to society of which we must be fully aware and which we must ensure gain no place in the sort of legislation that we may pass in this House. In recent times, along with many other members of this Parliament, I have had an opportunity to meet and to mix with a large number of people, men and women of varying religious and political attitudes, and it has become more and more evident to me that in reference to this piece of legislation there is in their minds a determination that they need a full measure of time to examine something which is basic to them, something which must come with a measure of change but something which they are not prepared to admit in its present immense and virtually unresearched form. This appears to me to be very largely the attitude of an immense crosssection of our society. I believe it is essential in all honesty that there must be time for senators and the community alike to examine the extraordinary depth of this sort of legislation and its total and ultimate consequences on the society which we have evolved and in which we live.
The Bill does more than just provide for a change in the law of divorce. It will make, I believe, a fundamental alteration to the very nature of the marriage contract and in doing so it must change the entire pattern of family life in the Australian society and such major issues ought to receive the careful assessment of all the members of our community in the light of the best possible research and evidence. The public, let me say once again, is not prepared and does not feel itself able fully and responsibly to evaluate the enormouse issues that confront us in this legislation. Whilst admitting the value of the work and complimenting the committee of the Senate which investigated this piece of legislation let me draw attention just briefly to the fact that this Committee, because of lack of time, was able to meet only 3 times. The Committee. I understand, examined evidence from only 7 people. Some of those people may indeed have been sponsors of the very Bill; I do not know.
– They were.
-I do not know. Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson says they were.
– The Minister himself was one of them.
-Thank you. This is the sort of evidence on which we are basing our advice: A committee at 3 meetings took evidence from 7 people significantly involved in the very Bill which this Senate is debating. Let me once again draw the attention of this chamber to the fact that we are confronted not only with a 55-page Bill, not only with an immensely important piece of philosophy, but also with 92 amendments, plus 13 other amendments and plus amendments from Senator Laucke and Senator Baume. We are confronted with all those things and we are asked to consider these measures and to get the business done with. I suggest to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, and to the members of this Senate that it would be an act of total irresponsibility to think that we should pass legislation as immense as this which involves a mass of amendments that have to be properly and fully considered in such a short time. It is ridiculous and it is irresponsible. Only last week the Women’s Electoral Lobby in Victoria made further submissions on this very measure. Yet here we are trying desperately to race it through perhaps to serve the purpose of a very small percentage of people in the Australian community who want the Bill virtually at any price so long as it is quickly.
Let me say in conclusion, that I believe the bill is of extreme importance. I believe it is a measure of change that we must grapple with and I am equally strongly convinced that it is a measure of change that we must grapple with over a reasonable period of time so that this Senate itself and the Australian community shall become fully aware of all the consequences for the near future and indeed for the continuing future.
– The Senate is debating a very important measure described as the Family Law Bill. Entry into this debate and participation in it are not easy because the Bill is complex and the measures to which it refers are complex. The Bill deals with an area which has been interpreted in many discussions not only in this Senate but also in the community at large through the legal and related professions. Therefore it becomes a problem of interpretation particularly to people who are not of the legal discipline. But while we are appreciative of the arguments that have been put forward at the legal and academic levels I want to say that it becomes very much the responsibility of all of us, legal, academic or otherwise, who are involved in community affairs and that it becomes the responsibility of anyone who is concerned for the well-being of the community to give it their attention and to do their best to make a considered judgment and contribution. In addition to what I will call the personal and material aspects of this measure there are those aspects which might be described as the moral and spiritual factors which have to be taken into account. Having said that, one must beware that one does not get lost in an over-concentration of piety and areas of self-righteousness and tend to lose all sight of reality.
The Bill sharply challenges us all boldly to examine all the circumstances relating to family life and to recognise that as problems arise they should be examined and, what is more, they should be examined frankly and properly. They should under no circumstances be disguised or overlooked and there should be no pretense that the problems that arise in family life and in family law do not exist. In presenting this Bill the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) said:
The Bill is not presented as my ideal solution to the very difficult problems that arise in this area of human relationships, but is presented as proposals which may be generally accepted now.
He indicated that he was looking for solutions even more compatible with the dignity of the individual. Since the measure has been put down we have had the benefit of a report from the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. We are indebted to the Committee for its study, for its collection of opinions and for the recommendations which it has made. This measure is described as a family law Bill. Family law, as I understand it, is the law which governs the relationships between men and women and parents and children and particularly when that relationship is governed by the institution of marriage. It would be true to say that family law should be more concerned with relationships and their retention than, say, with individual issues which might happen to be in conflict. So I suppose the areas covered by family law legislation could be said to include the establishment of marriage and the dissolution of marriage, the wellbeing and the protection of children and the maintenance of affected persons in this relationship, the arrangements connected with property and all of the legal consequences that are similarly connected with these matters. But the basis and principal theme of our debate revolves, firstly, I would say, around the institution of marriage, the preserving and protection of this institution, this ideal of marriage of the union of one man and one woman voluntarily entered into for their lives. In this simple statement is an extraordinary and diverse network of responsibilities and disciplines which sustain this ideal.
Our society must provide legal processes to protect the material and moral rights which flow from that ideal. I think also our society must provide legal processes to enforce the moral duties which flow from this ideal and from this union. But the network of responsibilities and disciplines to which I have referred affect also other persons in our community mainly, of course, the children of such a union and marriage. But there are other persons who are affected by this network of responsibility. If our discussion is about the institution and preservation of marriage, in the second place the other basic area of debate is the need for legal processes that will take care of a situation if this institution in a given case breaks down. The legal processes require the application of justice, certainty and practicability or, as the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) has said, they should be designed to buttress rather than undermine the stability of marriage, and when the breakdown occurs the processes should take place with the maximum fairness, the minimum bitterness and the minimum distress and humiliation.
While there are of necessity legal processes relating to marriage, other processes and interdependent factors are also involved. In general terms they may be called the personal, moral and spiritual factors. Those factors must be involved in any discussion of marriage in a House of this kind and in a community of this nation. Institutions which are concerned with marriage, whether in the establishment of marriage, in the maintenance of good relations of marriage or in the ceremonial relating to marriage, must also be involved. The Christian Church is an institution which has had a long connection with, a long concern for and a long involvement in all aspects relating to the marriage of one person to another. Anyone making any study of this Family Law Bill and its related areas turns naturally to what any one or any group of Christian churches might say on this matter. For a good description of the factors to which I have been referring I turn to a document of the church which I know best- the Presbyterian Church of Australia- and refer to what is called its subordinate standard. I look at part of chapter XXIV of the Subordinate Standard of the Presbyterian Church of Australia which relates to marriage and divorce, and I quote but a selection of clauses to illustrate my point in this debate. That chapter, which is headed ‘Of Marriage and Divorce’, states:
Marriage is a covenant into which, under the creative will of God, a man and a woman enter for full, life-long and exclusive fellowship.
In the fourth section it states:
It is essential to the relation between husband and wife that both parties enter upon marriage freely and willingly. Men and women may marry when and whom they will, provided that they are sufficiently mature to undertake the commitment … It falls within the responsibility of the civil authorities to order the procedures for the solemnisation of marriage and to place limitation upon the marriage of minors and of persons within certain degrees. . . Before entering upon marriage, a couple should discuss its nature and implications carefully with each other and with those best able to advise them.
Section VI states:
The relation which God gives in marriage may, contrary to His will, be strained or broken. The Church hears and proclaims the Gospel as a call to repentance and reconciliation and a promise of renewal for strained or broken marriages. When there are children in the family, their welfare in all its aspects becomes the prime consideration in any decision regarding the marriage. If strained marriage leads to a husband and wife’s living apart, they may nevertheless in separation continue to recognise and witness to the life-long relation of marriage. During the separation, each should consider how he or she has contributed to the disruption of the relation and, both seeking and offering forgiveness, should try to open the way for a reconcilation … if a person decides that the relation in the marriage has been finally destroyed and that no possibility exists of renewing it, he or she may seek to have the marriage dissolved. A decision of this kind should be made in a spirit of repentance and forgiveness. It is the responsibility of civil authorities to provide an ordered procedure for the dissolution in law of a broken marriage and to ensure that such a dissolution will be effected only after all possibility of reconciliation has been exhausted and after satisfactory arrangements have been made for the welfare of any children in the family.
Finally section X states:
Those who have experienced the breakdown and dissolution of a marriage are free to marry again, but before deciding to do so they should give careful thought as to their fitness to enter upon and sustain another marriage. The church has a special responsibility to speak the Gospel to them with the full force of its judgment, pardon, direction and promise.
This document is being revised at present, but I set out this selection, which is only a selection, because I believe that in looking at this Family Law Bill we should promote the qualities of judgment, pardon, direction and promise, as well as encouraging the spirit of repentance and the virtue of forgiveness. So the Bill before us demands the very closest scrutiny because nothing affects the nation’s life and happiness so much as laws governing marriage and family. Any Bill which brings about changes at this level must be examined carefully.
The areas of the Bill relating to reconciliation, as well as those relating to the dissolution of marriage and maintenance, also need to be further examined. As has been said during this very special and studied debate, there is much agreement that reform of the existing law on divorce is needed. But the measure before us at present has drawn some specific criticisms, mainly in the area of the no fault concept of 12 months separation being the only proof needed of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage which, in turn, becomes the only ground for divorce. There has been some criticism of the custody and maintenance provisions and some criticism of the reconciliation provisions. I think the single ground for divorce being the irretrievable breakdown of marriage must be accepted as a desirable and much needed reform. This is a matter on which there is much discussion, much argument, much exchange of opinion. But the fault grounds as we understand them- of adultery, cruelty, drunkenness and other matters- lead very much to bitterness, humiliation and dishonesty.
One criticism of not retaining the fault ground has come from those people who have expressed a concern about the effect that the fault ground has on the remarriage of divorced persons. There are exceptions to the matter of the remarriage of divorced persons in the case of what is described as the innocent party. I put to the Senate that acceptance of a secular court ‘s finding on who may be the guilty party in a divorce is a subject for argument. Perhaps it is too simple an answer to the complex question of who after all is the main contributor to the breakdown of the marriage.
The 12 months separation as the only proof needed of an irretrievable breakdown is criticised as being much too short a period. In my view it is too short a period. Concern has been expressed that the attitude of society to marriage may change if divorce is made too easy and that the stability of marriage and thus of the family may be seriously undermined. Clause 26 of the
Bill states that the divorce is to be granted if, and only if, the court is satisfied that the parties have separated and thereafter have lived separately and apart for a continuous period of not less than 12 months immediately preceding the date of the commencement of the hearing of the application. It seems to me that there is an area of argument as to how the court may be completely and totally satisfied on this issue. If this clause is followed through it means that the application for divorce could be instituted immediately after the marriage, although the hearing of the divorce does not commence until 12 months later.
The Senate Committee and others have expressed what would seem to be a legitimate concern that once the application is made, attitudes become set and reconciliation becomes more difficult. I wonder whether there is any argument to be made out for a cooling off period in a domestic dispute. The amendment suggested by the Senate Committee, that ‘date of the commencement of the hearing of the application’ be changed to ‘date of the institution of the proceedings’, if it is carried through would seem to provide the necessary period without unduly prolonging a marriage that has completely broken down. I am of the view that the separation period of 12 months is not long enough. I think it should be extended to 2 years so that no divorce is possible until a marriage has lasted that length of time. In the areas of the Bill relating to custody and maintenance provisions the acceptance of a no-fault concept has considerable impact. As I understand it, guilt or innocence is no longer to be taken into account when determining which party to the divorce is most suited to have custody of the child or children under 18 years of age. Honourable senators will be familiar with the procedure that the wishes of the child are to be taken into account, and provision is made for representation under appropriate circumstances. But the maintenance provisions need to be examined carefully. The unwilling party to a divorce- for example, a husband or wife who has simply been deserted by a spouse- seems to me to have no right to maintenance unless he or she has the custody of children under 1 8 years of age or can prove a need. I point out that in our community are some older women who never expected to enter the work force or who have never been trained to enter the work force and who may not reasonably be expected to do so. So the criteria of need in clause 54 are not wide enough to enable the court to exercise fully a direction of this kind.
The reconciliation processes, which have also been the subject of some criticism, seem to me deserving of very close scrutiny because they really ought to be more effective. Reconciliation provisions should be an integral part of a good family law Bill. The Bill does recognise the importance of skilled marriage guidance counselling. I would like the Bill its its first form to go further in ensuring that counselling is available at the very beginning of matrimonial problems, whether or not proceedings have been initiated. I am greatly attracted by the reference in the Standing Committee’s report in relation to the Family Law Bill to the evidence given by Mr Justice Burnett of Adelaide. In his submission he referred to the establishment of a family court. He spoke about the first 12 months of a family court in South Australia. I have taken the opportunity of visiting the family court in South Australia. Some of the judges there are well known to me. I do not suggest that the family court as it exists in South Australia is the kind of court envisaged in the reference of the Standing Committee but on the other hand, in the first 12 months of its operation it has provided a very good pattern of how family courts may proceed.
The surroundings of the family court in Adelaide are particularly attractive and they provide for informality. They provide for reassurance, they provide for comfort and they provide particularly for welfare officers. They provide modern surroundings. A whole range of sympathetic considerations and facilities is provided for the people involved. Every effort is made to get to the bottom of the problem and to display a strong and continuing interest in the cases that come before the court. If the amendment which has been referred to in the Senate Committee ‘s report is passed it will provide a great addition in the form of an appropriate and suitable court.
The Family Law Bill is one of very great importance. In a day when we are entering strongly into discussions upon economics, social welfare, foreign affairs and things of this kind, time spent on discussion of marriage, divorce and family welfare may seem a little out of context for this Parliament. Yet nothing could be more important than for the Senate to reach good conclusions on a matter which has been placed before it and to reach good conclusions relating to the very cornerstone of our society, which is the stability of the home unit. The home may refer to a family, large or small. It may refer to a couple- man and wife- or it may even refer to a unit of life represented by only one person. But in the matter of the Bill the stability of the home unit, represented either by a couple or by a family, is essential. It is to be safeguarded and preserved, for the measure of stability that a home unit enjoys, ensures the stability of the rest of the community. Strangely enough and interestingly enough, that shows up through every phase of our community and national life, whether it be public affairs, social consciousness and responsibility or even in the areas of commerce and business.
However, there are many aspects of home stability, and one of these may be laid at the door of personal and family relationships. If family relationships are sound and known to be sound, the influence they extend will also be sound and beneficial. But too often this is a cliche and we do not know what we mean by what we call a sound relationship. It can imply respect, honour and even admiration. A sound family relationship certainly starts with love and affection but, as the years develop, the situation can change and alter. Two people may develop respect and admiration and yet reach such a situation, even with those characteristics, in which they find living together quite impossible.That, to me, highlights the urgency of the need for a successful marriage.
If we are to talk a great deal about what the community and the State plan to do for people after marriage, someone must do something for people before marriage. That means not just 10 days or 30 days before but years before, even in the school years. Indeed, I sometimes wonder whether, as people get older, we should not make it much harder for marriage to take place. The children of today are magnificently trained for every vocation, every career and every recreation. I think that there must be an accelerated and intensified program of education in studies of marriage, studies of successful home and family life and studies of human relations. All of those should be geared to meet the new and changing needs of our society. They should be devised flexibly so that they can be changed as time and circumstances demand. If that were done it would form a useful and most effective background to the marriage counselling services, which must be extended and which must be constantly and continually researched.
I think that we have then to find a way of communicating to people before marriage that in addition to being husband and wife they also must be friends for, as the years mature and success or disappointment occur or the interests of the family extend, changes in relationship can occur and, as adulthood influences behaviour, this characteristic of friendship between one person and another, in addition to their being husband and wife, will undoubtedly preserve the marriage. If one wants to have a friend, one must learn to be a friend and if one wants to be a friend one has to work hard at it. People who want to make a success of a marriage must work hard at it and must understand that they have to work hard at it. Other factors are involved, of course- for example, the uncertainty of human nature, the effects of ill-health and the unforeseen circumstances. But it is true that, in spite of romance and good intentions, too many of the people who come to the marriage altar can only be described as marriage illiterates. When one considers that we leave the highly difficult adjustment of marriage very largely to chance the marvel is that our divorce rate is so low. So many couples are not really married but simply undivorced and therefore living in a state of purgatory. A happy marriage should not be a product of chance. It should receive the benefit of deliberate, intelligent and constant personal effort and, as I said earlier, hard work.
I come finally in my contribution to this discussion on the Family Law Bill to Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s amendment. It is not without its problems in the elements of personal dilemma. I am anxious that steps be taken to strengthen the institution of marriage and to help with the problems that arise with break downs. But, as I have said and as others have said, I am equally anxious that the community should go into this matter, as far as possible, step by step with the Parliament. While many sections of the community are anxious that the Bill proceed they seem to me to stem from those of our community which, mainly for professional reasons, have had the opportunity of making a detailed and professional study of it. I would like what I call the lay community to examine and discuss the Bill more. It is true that the Bill has been presented before. It is true that a Senate committee has worked on it. It is also true that churches and community organisations have worked on it. But I submit that it has only now come into the public debate area of the Parliament. Evidence of that is the response that has been shown in the Press, in the references that have been made on public platforms, in the letters to newspapers, in the response that has been expressed by way of the increase in the number of letters and telegrams to honourable senators and in the number of petitions which have been presented to the Senate. All of those indicate a variety of views on the Family Law Bill. They also indicate that the community at large is only just beginning to study the measure and the amendments and to take cognisance of the effects that will flow from them. The Bill is supported in principle. I believe that as further examination takes place and as the influence of the amendments is considered there will be a wider public acceptance of the fact that we live in a world of change and that we need measures of change. I submit that if the Family Law BUI is to go onto the statute book it should go on with as wide an acceptance as possible. If it has wide acceptance the measures encompassed within it will be more effective. So, after examining my own feelings and my own position, I believe that we should provide for a postponement of further consideration of the BUI, as Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s amendment suggests, to the first sitting day in 1975. Having said that, I would like to say that if there is to be such a postponement I hope that it will be for no longer than that. Certainly there should not be a further postponement. I realise that there are people who wil be affected by such a delay. Some of them are known to me. But I believe that the price of some delay in any change affecting our society is worth paying. I believe that this debate on the Family Law BUI has been one of the most important exercises undertaken by this chamber. As I said at the beginning, it has not been without its problems and its difficulties. But the Senate has been wise to grapple with the many complex and difficult issues that the BUI presents and, indeed, that the institutions referred to in the BUI present. Therefore, so that the community may have further time to give the BUI some consideration and so that it may be discussed with the Parliament, particularly with the Senate, I support Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s amendment.
– I rise to support the motion for the second reading of the Family Law BUI not because I happen to be a member of a political party or a representative of a political party in this place but because of how in my lifetime I have come to understand human relationships and the need for marriage and divorce to be dealt with in such a way as to remove the areas of unhappiness, frustration and indignity which have been a characteristic of such human relationships in time. I do not think any person would disagree with me when I say that the most important decision 2 individuals make in their lifetime is when they decide to get married. But we have only to look at the general experience to find out that many of those marriages are made in such a way and among such personalities as to create difficulties which lead to some disruption and finally separation.
I think that the Family Law BUI is a humane and important piece of legislation. It is a BUI which should receive the endorsement on a nonpartisan basis of the Senate and subsequently, I would hope, the House of Representatives. I think that it represents the first real examination the Senate has made of the subjects of marriage and divorce since the Matrimonial Causes Act was passed in 1959. That means that 15 years have elapsed since the Parliament has had an opportunity to review the very important legislation which was introduced by Sir Garfield Barwick at that time and which established new principles, new guidelines, new objectives and, for the first dme on a national basis, a uniform divorce law based on the principle of no fault when human relationships reach the point of complete and utter break down.
I believe that this Bill is an inevitable development of the BUI which was introduced upon the initiatives of the Opposition parties when in government some 1 5 years ago. I believe that this Bill is an evolutionary development of that BUI and that it had to happen regardless of the personalities and the reasons that the Senate set about to review the whole problem associated with matrimony in this country.
However one would imagine that the Senate, the parliaments generally and the Australian people are faced with a somewhat different and a somewhat rushed situation- a position in which little thought has been given to the very human problems which face so many in our community -and that in point of fact the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) and those associated with them have been endeavouring to foist upon the Australian people, without adequate discussion and consideration, a new concept in marriage. I put to the Senate that in this respect the Australian Labor Party when it dealt with the matter at a federal conference in 1971, did not set down policy matters for the Party to follow. It determined that a parliamentary committee should be set up to inquire into the growing complaints that the divorce, custody and maintenance laws were operating unjustly and inefficiently. It is interesting to note that in 1971 Senator Murphy was able to persuade the Senate to refer to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs the following matter: The law and administration of divorce, custody and family matters with particular regard to oppressive delays, costs, indignities and other injustices. One must have regard to the fact that the Party which he leads in this place was a minority Party and that there was a very vocal group, the Australian Democratic Labor Party, in this chamber. Despite these objective conditions of difficulties, Senator Murphy was able to prevail upon the Senate to refer the matter to the Standing Committee.
The Senate decided to refer to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs this matter. On 18 March 1972, which is 2V4 years ago, advertisements in the Press throughout Australian invited interested persons and bodies to lodge submissions on this reference to the Senate Committee. Individual invitations were extended to bodies and persons thought to be interested in a review of the Matrimonial Causes Act. On 31 October 1972, an interim report of the Standing Committee recommended to the Government that discretion statements be no longer required. It is common knowledge that subsequently, with the change of government, in January 1973 Senator Murphy sought to introduce certain changes to the Matrimonial Causes Act. We know what happened to them. We know that subsequently a Bill was introduced into the Parliament this year. On 1 April 1974 the Attorney-General announced his proposal to introduce new legislation. The dissolution of Parliament changed that. Therefore, it was not until the first session after the double dissolution that the Family Law Bill was presented to this Parliament for its consideration.
It is interesting to note that it was on the initiative of Senator Murphy that this Bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Currently, recommendations from that Committee are embodied in the Bill. Therefore, I am amazed that in the numerous letters which we are receiving, particularly from the Anglican church, there is the suggestion that Senator Murphy is in all haste and impatience endeavouring to foist this legislation on the Australian people. That is not borne out by the facts. I think it must be said that Senator Murphy, the Standing Committee and, I hope, the Parliament have given due consideration to these matters. I refer to the official records which are before the Senate to endorse those remarks. I refer to the evidence given by Mr Watson to the Standing Committee. He said:
Senator Murphy has throughout insisted that our work upon the Family Law Bill and other reforms reflect the well known criteria set down in England in 1966 which I slightly paraphrase to state-
A good family law should buttress, rather than undermine, the stability of marriage; where a marriage has irretrievably broken down, the legal shell should be destroyed with the maximum fairness, and the minimum bitterness, distress and humiliation.
From my discussions with him, I believe that Senator Murphy would wish to add 3 other criteria- The future of the children of a broken marriage needs consideration by the best possible tribunal assisted by the skills of welfare officers and other counselling staff wherever needed; the financial disputes between the spouses should be resolved as quickly and finally as possible; the whole process should be performed with dignity, relative privacy and with as little expense as possible.
He also said:
This Bill is about family conflicts- not divorce; it therefore deals with the welfare of children, maintenance, property, protection of the marriage and the people involved therein (by injunction if necessary), marriage counselling, on going help in custody and access problems. Hence its true title, a Family Law Bill.
I wonder whether those senators who have spoken in the debate, particularly those who have spoken today, have read the report so ably placed before the Parliament by the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee. Have they taken into consideration the views of that Committee? I do not suggest that every member of that Committee has agreed to underwrite all recommendations that the Committee has made or that they will necessarily support all amendments which will be placed before the Committee of the Whole. I am assured by members of the Standing Committee that Senator Murphy has acceded substantially to the overwhelming majority of recommendations of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee. What did the Committee state? It stated:
The Committee welcomes the Bill . . .
This is not a majority decision, this is the Committee’s findings. I continue:
The Committee welcomes the Bill as a whole and whilst not commenting on the sociological policy background of the Bill, does commend the expressed intention of simplifying and humanising the present law relating to matrimonial causes.
I believe that the purpose of the Bill is to create more equality for married persons, more equality in human relationships and to put man and wife on an equal basis. Surely no member of the Senate or no member of the community believes that in the horrific situation of a breakdown of marriage both partners have equal resources, equal rights and equal opportunities to resolve their differences, leading ultimately if not to a marriage counsellor at least to the courts for a dissolution of the marriage. I believe that the purpose of this Bill is to create a more equal position.
Many groups in the community are prepared to give support to the proposals embodied in the Bill. If one were to believe what has been said by some honourable senators today or if one were to believe the petitions and the letter writing campaign, one would believe that the overwhelming majority of the Australian people was opposed to the tenets of this Bill. Every public opinion poll that has been taken has shown an overwhelming majority of support for the basic principles of the Bill. In one particular case- and I think it was
Senator Missen who referred to this several weeks ago when the matter was being discussed -people were asked precisely whether they supported the Murphy Bill. The figures Senator Missen gave on that occasion confirm the figures I received from the Library- that something like three out of four Australian people support the general principles embodied in this Bill.
In supporting the second reading speech I am not suggesting that I will necessarily vote consistently in support of or against all of the amendments. Clearly, because this is a private member’s Bill, honourable senators will take different attitudes at different stages of the debate, but I think it is important that the Senate should endorse the second reading and enable us to go on to determine the fate of the Bill. Opponents of this Bill have many avenues open to them. Obviously there was a meeting of those who oppose the Bill and the general tactic which was accepted by a wide variety of those people was to suggest that there should be a 6-months delay. That tactic suddenly changed. I do not know whether I have been specially selected, but I have received letters, a number of which I have not even opened, telegrams and petitions suggesting that there should be a delay of 3 months. The letters are available for perusal by honourable senators. They have all been typed on the one typewriter, they have all got the same sort of stamp on them, they were all posted at the same time and over half a dozen of them were written on the same type of paper. I think one therefore has to draw the conclusion that it is a pretty well organised effort.
As I have said, the opponents of the Bill sought a delay of 6 months and then changed their tactic to a delay of 3 months. The Senate finds itself in the absurd position where it is regaled from both sides of the chamber on the same day by a senator presenting a petition supporting the Bill and the same senator presenting a petition opposing the Bill. All honourable senators know that the Senate Standing Committee on Standing Orders has been requested to review the presentation of petitions as a result of the absurd position that has developed in relation to this matter.
Senator Carrick has today suggested that the Bill be referred to a select committee of the Senate. This is another delaying tactic. We know that Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson wants to delay the Bill for 6 months. Obviously he has not caught up with the change in tactics seeking a 3 months delay to which I referred a moment ago. We could even have the Senate adopting the principle of filibustering at the second reading stage or, if that does not succeed, filibustering in the Committee stages. All those subterfuges are within the province of those who want to resort to them in order to defeat the purpose of the Bill and to delay a proper consideration of it. In other words, those who seek to oppose the Bill or to delay it have many avenues available to them.
I do not know whether time will permit me to go into any great detail on the Bill itself but I do want to make some further reference to the opposition to the Bill. The Bill has been subjected to a massive letter writing campaign. As I have said, honourable senators have been bombarded with letters containing the same phraseology and the same point of view. I do not want to create the impression here or anywhere else that I would take away the democratic right of people to lobby their elected representatives. I think it is very good that interest in the Bill should be expressed, but I am sure that most of us would agree that the sort of campaign I am referring to does not move us at all. In fact, it probably goes the other way and hardens one’s attitude because of the infantile tactics that are adopted by some groups of people.
It is interesting that those tactics seem to have been developed largely in the Sydney metropolitan area and in the Anglican Synod area. Most of the letters that I have received in recent weeks have come from ministers of the Church of England, a church that grew out of bigamy but which has been pretty conservative over the years in these matters. Let me say that I have no animosity towards the Church of England because I was an Anglican myself until marriage and I have a close relative who has been a bishop of that church for many years. But I do find it somewhat difficult to understand the inability of ministers of that church to examine the Bill and to draw the conclusions which any right thinking persons can draw if they consider the Bill in an atmosphere which is free of prejudice and bigotry.
It seems to me that when one reads the correspondence one is entitled to draw the conclusion that this has become a politically oriented campaign. I do not take away the right of the churches and associated groups to influence the processes of government. In fact, I welcome this influence, but I think it is regrettable that some groups, particularly those to which I have referred and the inappropriately named Festival of Light, choose to use deception and distortion of the facts to panic well meaning Christians into ink. Their tactic is usually the same. It starts with an over dramatisation of the facts. This is followed by an innuendo that the Bill has some sinister or hidden concepts for the Christian or for the Christian way of life. This hand-up message is then passed from the pulpit by more politically aware persons.
These are the people who told the community that abortion was murder. It is interesting to note that they have done nothing to prevent the fairly reliably estimated 100,000 abortions which are known to take place in Australia every year, but when the Parliament was considering that particular social question, again on a non-party basis, it was bombarded with arguments about the protection of life. Yet nothing is done about it once the Parliament has had an opportunity to dispose of that particular resolution. It seems to me that the same group is behind the intensive campaign to have this Bill deferred.
Without in any way suggesting that honourable senators who have taken that point of view are a party to this campaign, I want them to appreciate that there are people outside the Parliament who seem to have some different motivation to that of honourable senators. The message that is being told from the pulpit and amongst groups of Christians, particularly in the Sydney region, is that the Family Law Bill will basically alter the whole concept of marriage in our society. We know this is not so, and the abundant evidence which was placed before the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs by reputable people, people engaged in this jurisdiction, people who have spent a great portion of their working lives in this area, shows clearly and concisely that this Bill simply changes the concept of divorce. It is as simple as that.
I am appreciative of those honourable senators who have been able to understand the motivation of those who drew up the Bill, of those who have been involved in the public discussion on this Bill, and who therefore understand what the Bill seeks to achieve. There can be no hidden or sinister motives behind the Bill. It will affect only those marriages that fail or are failing. There is sufficient evidence in the Bill- in fact, Senator Murphy has agreed to the great majority of the suggestions that have come from the Senate Committee- to substantiate the fact that its basic objective is to buttress and to save marriage. But where a marriage is finished, the sooner the legal shell is wiped away the better it is for the partners to the marriage and for the community. It will take the shabbiness out of divorce. It will take the great costs out of divorce. It will take the lies, the deceit and the blackmail out of divorce. Surely every member of this Parliament- every member who has had anything to do with public life- will know the tragic circumstances that have faced so many failed marriages and the tactics to which the parties to those marriages have had to resort- the lies, the false advice, the deceitful advice and the blackmail which one partner to the marriage seeks to place upon the other partner in an endeavour to find a way to break the marriage legally.
This Bill seeks only to replace the” outdated divorce laws with more contemporary legislation. After all, is not the role of the Parliament to be constantly updating the laws of the land? It was only in 1857 that the first divorce legislation was considered by the English Parliament which had been functioning for 200 years. Of course, the hysteria at that time played some part in preventing a proper examination being made of the divorce legislation. The same sort of hysteria was synonymous with the Australian legislation which was introduced in 1959 to which honourable senators have already referred in this debate. At that time supporters of the Government of the day were subjected to the same sort of pressure, opposition and disgraceful conduct to which this Government is being subjected at the present time. It even affected the role of the President of the day.
I have already referred to the fact that there can be no suggestion that the Bill is being rushed through the Parliament. In point of fact, the record shows for anyone who is prepared to look at it objectively and fairly that the Senate has had before it for some 3 years an opportunity to make up its mind about contemporary divorce legislation. This Bill has the support of” the vast majority of lawyers, social workers, marriage counsellors, psychiatrists and other groups within the community. I well recall in the various activities in which I was involved as the president of the Sutherland Shire Council for 9 years, calling together local community groups for the purpose of setting up community organisations and counselling organisations, and establishing a social worker within the Council. The experience of every one of those people from all the community groups who came together in the Council of Social Services within the area pf the Sutherland Shire Council was that at some stage they had suggested that there was a need for more updated and modern type legislation to deal with this problem of human relations between 2 human beings.
I am concerned that the Festival of Light organisation, which seems to be the principal core of the opposition to this legislation, is developing into an ultra-conservative political group, using the cloak of the Church and of morality to attract community support. I am sure that there are people at all levels of that movement who do not want that to happen and who do not realise that they are being used by the people in the leadership of the organisation. I will give but one example for honourable senators opposite. At a recent Festival of Light meeting at Miranda in Sydney, which is the area in which I live, one of the group leaders, the Reverend Nile, took great delight in deriving the most positive responses from the audience to his cry: ‘Do you want this man as Premier?’ The man whom he had on the platform was the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party in New South Wales, Mr Willis. If that is not a political overt act, I do not know what is. After all, that denies to Mr Maddison, Mr Lewis and any other member of the Liberal Party in that State equal rights in the ballot for the leadership of the Liberal Party in New South Wales which is to take place in Sydney tomorrow. Mr Willis happened to be present at that meeting and he adopted a certain attitude. That indicates the politicisation that took place at a meeting that we called for the purpose of discussing the Family Law Bill.
Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.
– Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I may have misrepresented the position of Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson. It is true that his amendment takes into account the changed position of those who had previously suggested there should be a 6 months delay. I understand his amendment seeks to delay the Bill until the autumn session in February or March of 1975. 1 had been referring to the degree of opposition that has been whipped up to this Bill. I believe the opposition has become irrational and irresponsible. It does no good to the community or to those who have a reasonable and logical position to express in respect of the far-reaching consequences of the Family Law Bill. It is many years since we have seen the fanatics using the pulpit to bring the Church into politics. It is something which I think the community will regret unless it understands what is happening in respect of these social questions. I sincerely hope that people become aware of the aims of the leaders of this group and ultimately appreciate the undesirability of bringing the Church back into the political arena. I think there is a difference between having a stance on this and other social questions and the endeavours to bring the Church into the direct political arena.
I have said that this Bill does not change the concept of marriage. It simply makes for an easy arrangement in difficult circumstances. The last figures that I have been able to examine show that about 18,000 divorces take place each year. It is interesting to note that under the existing law it is possible for 33 per cent of the people desiring to have a divorce to take action for a divorce at any time. This applies also to those who want to use the grounds of drunkenness and crueltyanother 11 per cent of the people involved. So, 44 per cent of the people are able to get a divorce even within the period of 1 year. Yet we are being led to believe by the campaign that has been waged that we are making divorce easier and that in fact we are about to destroy the family unit and the sanctity of the marriage contract. It is interesting also to note, for those who are endeavouring to bring to the forefront of the debate the problems of young children, that some 33 per cent of all the divorces which take place in this country involve no children at all.
I do not have a great deal more to say beyond pointing out that an increasing number of people are not resorting to church marriages but are being married by civil marriage celebrants or in registry offices. Of course, an increasing number of people are not even resorting at all to the institution of marriage. I do not believe that it is the responsibility of the law to impose upon an ever increasing number of people any responsibilities about maintaining that sort of marriage situation. Surely it is wrong for the law to intrude to any major extent in this sort of relationship. After all, the law is not involved in the formative period of the marriage. There are no guidelines established. People are able to make up their own minds about living together whether legally or illegally. People are able to decide whom they want to marry. The law does not involve itself in that experience at all. There is no apprenticeship and no guidelines for people who decide they want to join themselves together in some relationship. It seems wrong, therefore, that the law should play a particularly heavy role, as it has done hitherto, for those who want to cast aside that legal contract. I do not understand the reasoning of some honourable senators who have spoken in the debate today. I refer in particular to Senator Carrick who said that the Government should be about making laws to make marriage work. Marriage is a human relationship and I do not think any laws, procedures, policies or principles can make a marriage work. The only thing which can make a marriage work is the ability of 2 people to live together.
– Just imagine what the honourable senator would say if it did interfere.
– That is right. If a marriage does break down surely the cleaner and sooner it can be broken the better it is for the community and for those persons concerned. After all it is a personal matter involving the lives of 2 people. I have spoken a great deal about opposition. Having regard to the comments that I made about the Anglican people in Sydney I think I ought to say that the Secretary of the Synod in the diocese of Melbourne has been good enough to forward a resolution of the attitude of the Anglican Church in that big city. I also have a copy of a letter which was sent to all of the newspapers by the Social Responsibility Committee of the Congregational Union of New South Wales. It likewise indicates its support of the general principles of the Bill. I have seen the public statements of a Catholic priest in Adelaide who has been involved in marriage guidance work and who seeks to give support to the principles of the Bill. ‘
I am struck by the words and the views of people like Judge Butnett of South Australia who drew the attention of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs to facts which I had not considered previously. Judge Burnett said:
One of the things that horrified me about the matrimonial causes jurisdiction was the way that people were forced to resort to courts. Many of them who had never been to court before in their lives had no idea what it was about, were taken to some frightening Supreme Court building where they sat in grim old corridors without even private rooms to discuss their problems with counsel.
He went on to mention the innovative methods with which the South Australian Government has been associated. There were many witnesses to the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee from a wide variety of organisations including the Law Council of Australia and groups from Western Australia associated with the legal fraternity. In fact, the whole weight of the evidence of members of the legal fraternity who have been involved in this whole area of human relationships has indicated the need for the legislative processes to catch up with community attitudes.
I commend the Committee. I think it has done a tremendous job to bring to public gaze and public debate the crux of the problem which was first brought to public debate in 1959. Now in 1974 we have a responsibility as a Parliament to update the legislation. I think we must pay tribute to those persons, from Senator Murphy right down to all the members of the Committee, who applied themselves assiduously to this task and who withstood the criticism that has clearly had political motivation, although I do not think party political motivation, because I recall having read that the Liberal Party as well as the Labor Party has adopted a pretty good contemporary attitude towards this whole question of reform of divorce legislation. I commend those who have been involved. I am hopeful that the Senate will, in its judgment, support the second reading of this Bill and in the Committee stage will do nothing that will materially alter the basic structure of the Bill. I am concerned that adoption of the amendment that has been projected by Senator Durack to make the ground for divorce a 2-year irretrievable breakdown of marriage would militate against the success of the whole of the Bill and the purposes and motivation of the Bill itself. The no-fault clause of irretrievable breakdown after 12 months separation ought to be the lynch pin of the legislation. If we alter that time to 2 years we are in a worse position than we were in with the 1959 legislation. I trust that the Senate in its wisdom will reject the amendment which seeks to defer consideration of this matter until next year and will reject the amendment which would change the whole framework of the Bill. I trust that it will adopt the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs.
– I rise to speak in support of the amendment to defer the Family Law Bill 1974 until the autumn sitting. I am pleased that Senator Gietzelt was able to correct the time relationship involved in the amendment and I also would like to reassure him and other honourable senators that the opposition to the Bill is not as vehement or as much like a brick wall as he thinks it is. We seek merely to amend the Bill. I point out that by now this Bill is a grandparent Bill. This is the third time it has been brought into the Senate and each time it has been extensively amended. Now the sins of the grandparents are being visited on the grandchild. The Bill is to be amended another 92 times. I think there are another 13 amendments plus another 2 amendments. As was pointed out this afternoon by Senator Scott, the Bill is much more pot-bellied than it was when it was originally presented. This is a good thing because there are many good features in the Bill.
Honourable senators must remember that the Bill was brought in by a socialist. We are permitted to regard it with suspicion because often socialist legislation is long on promise and short on delivery. I must say it has often been a matter of much wonder to me that 2 young people should be expected to marry and live together for the rest of their lives when they are in the grip of a passion that renders them insane. Honourable senators must confess that love is an insanity, a delightful insanity, and it does exist. It was disquieting to hear earlier in the debate that in the marriage situation men are bad for women but women are good for men. I was relieved to hear it. I suspected it for some time, and we have been taking advantage of it. Perhaps we owe women a debt that has to be settled now.
The affairs of men and women are no simple matter. Indeed, they are the most complex matter in the world to deal with and they are not to be trifled with lightly. They involve the driving force of nature which perpetuates the species. All people, as was pointed out here today, I think, from the most primitive to the most civilised, have evolved the most complicated set of mores and rules with regard to sex, marriage and the procreation of children, and the religions have been quick to exploit these fertile fields. I point out to the Senate that most of the major wars in history have been fought over love between men and women or the want of it. All our famous operas, books, poems and songs are mainly about love so we are considering legislation about no little thing. We are considering legislation relating to a big thing.
We have built up a code of religious, moral and ethical standards surrounding sex, marriage and the upbringing of children. It has developed over many centuries and it is based on security for mothers, particularly during their child bearing period and all the nuances that go with it, and on providing care for the children. No creature in nature is so dependent on its parents as the human baby. If we are to change our standards we want to change them for something better, not something worse. This is why we want to be careful about this Bill. This is why we want further consideration of it by the Senate, by the community at large and by all the people intersted in it. The present Bill purports to represent this consideration but it has sent shivers through many sections of the community, particularly the religious sections.
The advent of the pill and other advanced means of contraception has emancipated our women in a most unprecedented way and it has altered our outlook on the man/woman relationship. In emancipating women it has brought them to a position where they are able to philander in much the same way as men have been able to do always. They have learned this recently, I think to their sorrow, and they are beginning to learn the truth of the old Latin dictum of post coitus homines tristus est, which roughly translated means ‘After intercourse all people are sad’. It has engendered this permissive society in which we now live. We see trial marriages. We see communal living which is aided and abetted by the huge social welfare payments that are passed about now. As a practising doctor I am coming to the conclusion rapidly that in this situation the only real difference between rape and seduction is technique. Until recently our way of life has been support for the free enterprise system, the family unit and individual freedom. These 3 principles are being altered remarkably now. This Government intends to change the free enterprise system to a public enterprise system. This sort of system has been tried all round the world and has failed lamentably.
– Are you advocating gang rape?
– No. Admittedly, before, under the capitalist free enterprise system we all shared blessings, perhaps unequally but they were blessings. Under the new system it looks as though we are all going to share misery equally. The family is being attacked. Particularly it is being attacked by inflation which destroys the means of exchanging the fruits of our labour. Many of the mothers who would ennoble our families are being forced out to work for money. The basic security of the family is now gone. No longer can a father afford to clothe, house and feed a family out of his earnings, so the wife has to help. I blame inflation for a lot of this. But suppose the socialists achieve their goal and socialise the place. This afternoon Senator Scott tried to peep into the future through the eyes of another person who may not have been that inaccurate.
I would like to tell the Senate about family life under the socialist system. In the earlier part of this year I was privileged to pay a fortnight ‘s visit to the People’s Republic of China and during that time there was the Christian festival of Easter. Even though it is a movable feast it was not celebrated in China as there are no churches in that country. There is a little bit of background information that honourable senators should know in order to understand family life in that country. Except for a few racial minorities that exist around the country- there are 42 million people making up those racial minorities but they represent only 6 per cent of the populationall religion in the socialist State is forbidden by law. God is forbidden. Buddha is forbidden and Mohammed is forbidden. Not only is all religion forbidden; it is ridiculed as a device of the capitalist. It is pictured to the people as either hopeless faith or faithless hope. There is a policy in China that the woman is equal to a man. I think that one Government senator was referring this afternoon to this equality that socialists feel is so important. But is she equal to the man? China has this policy, it appeared to me that all that it meant was that the burdens of being a woman were added to by the burdens of being a man and part of the workforce. I would point out that 62 per cent of the work force in China is women because most of the men are in the armies which police the country because being a socialist country it has to be a police state.
– I thought the complaint was that the Army here was too small. I did not realise it was supposed to be too big.
– The Army there polices the country like a police force, senator. In China there is a totally planned economy with directions coming down as edicts from above. Communes, work brigades, and production teams are given their production goals from the hierarchy. If a woman is a member of a production team, which they all are when they are old enough, becomes pregnant then, firstly, that reduces her income, and secondly, it reduces the income of the production team. The psychology there is that the people should try to deny the right of women to become pregnant. I might add that once a woman is 7 months pregnant she is allowed off the night shift, which is something, and when she has the baby she is allowed to feed it but at 56 days she has to wean it and then the child is taken off to a nursery and the mother goes back to work. She is allowed to visit the child on Sunday, which is not our idea of family life. In China families grow apart, particularly as under socialism there is a direction of labour. The father may be sent to one part of the country to work and the mother to another part, so family life is disrupted. On the occasions when a child is allowed home, the child comes home not only for perhaps the joys of whatever family reunion there is but also to criticise the parents to ascertain whether they are backsliding against the Party line. Husbands criticise wives and vice versa, children criticise parents and vice versa and neighbours criticise friends. This is the means of maintaining discipline in the country. This may be very well for the people of China. I would not denigrate them at all. I found them a wonderful people. I enjoyed their company; I hope they enjoyed mine. I do not think that it is the sort of tiling that the people of Australia want, but I think it is the sort of thing that this Government is aiming for. I do not think we will accept it. I wonder whether this Government thinks that it can stop somewhere along the way to socialism. It cannot do that. Once you implement socialist policies it must follow like night follows day that you produce a police state in the nation because you must direct labour.
– Are you talking about the Bill?
– I am talking about family life in a socialist state. In China marriage is easy, as the honourable senator who interjected wants; divorce is easy; abortion is easy. The registry offices there do not even have a ceremony. They do not have wedding celebrations. There are no parties in China. There no holidays in China. I might add as an interpolation that there are trade unions in China but they exist to ensure that production teams meet their production goals. I thought that perhaps some of our trade unions might take a leaf from their book. When a marriage is dissolved in China there is no problem about property settlement simply because there is no private property there- no private cars, no private houses, no private land, no private businesses. So there are no difficulties in that respect. When it comes to the custody of children there is no problem at all because the state looks after them anyway. So China is without problems in the marriage field. I have seen going through this place over the past almost 2 years a whole pattern of legislation that is geared to socialism and the control of the people by the state as exists in China where the interests of the people are in all respects subservient to the state.
- Senator Geenwood did not find that.
– He did not talk about that. I agree with Senator Carrick who said that far more important than this Bill to make divorce easier is that we should introduce a means to help sustain the whole system of marriage. I think premarital and marital advice is important. Young people want instruction in such knotty matters as insurance whether it be health, personal or property, budgeting, taxation banking, existing welfare services, family planning.
– Sex?
– As a matter of fact, if any couples come wanting advice on sex they are probably better advised not to get married because it shows they are not helping each other. They want to know about educational opportunities both for children and adults, and also investment although I think that if this Government keeps going the way it has been much longer they will not need much instruction in investment. I was apprehensive when I heard it promulgated by the chairman of the committee that reviewed this legislation that he foresees the eventual elimination of maintenance and the treatment of maintenance by the Department of Social Security which would finance it in the same way as it finances unemployment and sickness benefits and other disabilities. I see this as an undesirable goal to be aiming for and something along the lines of the vision seen by the lady to whom Senator Scott referred of this afternoon. I cannot see the Australian people accepting a proposition like that.
I have a concern about the transfer of guilt from the divorce proceeding into the settlement proceeding. I agree with Senator Carrick that I think this is just taking things out of one pocket and putting them into another. Things will be just as bitter and just as difficult and will need the same sorts of investigation, evidence and every other thing. Divorce may not be bitter but I think that settlement will be a problem. I do agree with Senator Baume that an additional ground for divorce is warranted- that of intolerable conductparticularly if an urgent separation is required. I am disturbed that 12 months separation should be the sole ground for proof of irretrievable breakdown but I do agree that all the counselling facilities should be settled outside the court.
There are many good things in the Bill which I hope we do not see wasted if it is implemented. I do agree that it will alter our whole outlook on the institution of marriage and family life but I think we must have the courage to face up to that. When I married it was for life and it was a contract for ever. I think that if ever I come back to earth I will have to go looking for my wife again. Senator Missen answers all of this on the grounds that marriage is a popular and a congenial institution and is strong enough to overcome all these disabilities. I am inclined to agree with him. I hope that the people who are in favour of bringing in this Bill willy nilly will see that this next little gap is just a final step to bring about a whole change on our outlook on marriage and divorce because the Bill is a divorce Bill that comes in at the point of break up of marriage. Although the provisions of the Bill have been extended by the 3 lots of amendments on the 3 occasions it has been submitted and debated and now covers a lot more ground, it still can hardly be called a family law Bill. I would not be prepared to argue that but I would want the supporters of the Bill to realise the benefits that can be gained by just a shade more consideration being given to the legislation. You never know, many more good things might show up before it is represented in the autumn session.
-This Bill is without doubt one of the most important pieces of legislation that have come before this Parliament because it deals with the basic structure of our society, that is, the institution of marriage and the family. I have heard it said on many occasions and repeated in this Senate that marriage according to law in Australia is the union of man and woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life and not to be entered into lightly or inadvisedly. On that basis we can accept that marriage is a very serious step for anyone to take. For that reason, as a community or society we cannot take marriage lightly or in any way do anything that will affect the institution of marriage or its stability in our society.
In the first place I must say that I support certain aspects of this Bill which was introduced by Senator Murphy. I do so because there is a need for some change in our divorce laws. But I want to make it perfectly clear as a layman, but one who has been associated with the problems of our community, one who is aware of the tragedy of divorce for many people who have approached me with their problems since I have been in this chamber, that one thing that I want to be sure of is that whilst we make the procedures of divorce perhaps easier in some ways, we do not in any way give the appearance of trying to make it easier for people to marry. That is one thing that we must avoid at all costs. In no way must we give an indication that we are weakening the institution of marriage or discouraging respect for marriage. Nor should we discourage the acceptance of permanency of the institution of marriage.
– How do you make to make marriage easier? It could not be much easier than it is now.
-I shall come to that in a moment. I have said that we must accept divorce in our community. Many people in this world have entered into a marriage contract, firmly convinced and genuinely believing that the marriage would have permanency and happiness, but things have not worked out that way and finally they believe that they have reached the situation in which they are completely incompatible and that the only solution for them ultimately is divorce. So we must accept divorce within our community. Senator Wheeldon interjected a few moments ago so I inform him that I do riot ever want to see marriage accepted in our community as something that could be a short term expediency, something from which one can easily opt out. There should be no situation in which divorce proceedings are regarded as an opt-out clause of the marriage contract. That is something that I do not want to see and I think most people would support me in that.
– You were complaining about marriage being made easier. I was asking how it could be made easier than it is now.
– I would like to see it made more difficult for people to marry. If we were able to make it more difficult for people to marry, if people entering the marriage contract could have a better understanding of the problems associated with marriage and realised that it was not all easy street, it would be of great help to them. It may appear to them when they are in the first flush of marriage that marriage is all easy street, but eventually they reach the rough spots and trials, as probably ail married couples have done on occasions. The main thing is that people should have the opportunity to receive counselling prior to the marriage. That would be of great help to them and probably would prevent many of the divorces that now take place.
I do not propose to deal in detail with many aspects of the Bill because, frankly, I believe that this is a measure to be dealt with in Committee rather than during a second reading debate. Many honourable senators have spoken to the Bill and dealt in depth with so many areas. Tonight I propose to speak about marriage counselling because I feel that this is an area that is not fully covered in the law proposed by Senator Murphy. I make the suggestion because people then would have a greater understanding and realisation of what marriage is all about, instead of entering into it lightly as some people might. I say that not in condemnation of anybody but because so many people have not had the opportunity and advantage of marriage counselling prior to marriage. I have discussed this aspect with many clerics and people associated with family counselling in my State of South Australia. These people agreed with me that this is one area to which greater emphasis could be given. I am very much aware that many clerics of various religions made the point wherever possible of having discussions with people before they marry. They consider there should be discussions and counselling on what they consider could be the problems of marriage or the pitfalls into which other people have fallen during their marriage. I think this is excellent.
I only hope that the Government will make greater opportunity available for people and will give greater encouragement to people to take advantage of marriage counselling before entering into the contract of marriage. In speaking of counselling I am referring to the opportunity which should be available for persons with experience and expertise in this field to give effective marriage counselling to people before they marry. I am certain that if this were done it would be of great assistance in many marriages which otherwise, tragically, would finish on the rocks. Another important period and one which is overlooked in the Bill is the opportunity for any married couple to receive sound marriage counselling at any period of their marriage.
No doubt all honourable senators have seen or experienced the situation where the small problems of married life build up until they become big issues, where abrasions become greater until finally they are so magnified that couples feel the only way out is divorce. During this period deep scars have been inflicted by one married partner on the other. On many occasions that situation could have been avoided if only they could have gone somewhere for sound advice and had pointed out to them various aspects which possibly would overcome in the early stages a situation that tragically finishes up as divorce or separation. One of the tragedies in divorce is the fact that children are often involved. It is bad enough for couples who have no children to become completely incompatible and finally to be divorced, but it is an absolute tragedy when children are involved. These are the ones who suffer throughout. This is one area where I think something could be done by this Bill. Perhaps there could be an amendment to provide for greater opportunity for family counselling by experts. This could well be brought within the concept of the Family Law Bill. I commend the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for its report and for many of the recommendations and comments by the Committee on the proposed legislation.
I was very encouraged to see that in one area of the report the Committee referred to marriage counselling. In paragraph 28 on page 14 of the report the Committee said:
A disadvantage of Part III of the existing Matrimonial Causes Act is that the provisions operate only when the parties have actually instituted proceedings, which in the professional experience of members of the Committee is at a time when the attitudes of the parties to the marriage are most hardened against reconciliation.
On page 15 the report continued:
The Committee emphasises that provisions must be drawn in such a way as to encourage parties whose marriages or family lives are in difficulty to come and take advantage of the marriage counselling facilities of the Family Court at any time -
I emphasise the words ‘ at any time ‘- regardless of whether or not proceedings under the Bill are contemplated or have been initiated.
I think this is one of the most important areas because, whilst this Bill sets out to do many things to streamline the procedures of divorce, not enough emphasis has been placed upon the prevention of divorce.
I hope that amendments will be moved accordingly. If not, I will move an amendment myself because I feel this is an important part of the proposed legislation. I think it is far better to prevent a divorce if at all possible than to come in with a cure at the finish. I appreciate the fact that the legislation contains proposals whereby, right until the last stage, if there is any opportunity to repair the marriage that opportunity must be taken. But I repeat that at this stage it is becoming very late. The parties have suffered the bitterness, the abrasions, the deep scarring and the unhappiness, particularly where children are involved. That is one of the most unfortunate aspects of any unhappy marriage. It is bad enough that the mature couple- the parents- are involved in such a situation but it is a tragedy when children are involved in such an environment when they could have so much more out of their early lives if they had had the benefit of a happy home.
I think many aspects of this Bill are very good. There are many aspects which I question at the present moment and there are many aspects that I am not prepared to support at this stage. I will probably vote against them or, alternatively, support them with some amendment. I will not go into detail now because I will have an opportunity to do so in the Committee stage. One thing that concerns me greatly- I relate this again to the no-fault aspects and the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage- is the period of time before proceedings commence. At present I have a reasonably open mind on this because I appreciate that if the time is made too short- I refer to the comment Senator Wheeldon made to me when I first started speaking- we will not be encouraging permanency in marriage if people can see an easy way out in a short space of time. On the other hand, if we do extend the period of time for too long we will perhaps create unnecessary unhappiness. So I want to hear more in debate before I finally make up my mind regarding the period of time. At this stage I am not committed. The one qualification I make is that I will do all I can to make sure that the institution of marriage remains as one of the pillars of our society.
I support the no-fault aspect of the legislation because I feel that the present Act contains too many aspects involving fault that create much bitterness, hatred, the airing of dirty linen and domestic problems which are dragged through the courts and become public. This is what happens, maybe not in the proceedings but at later stages as a result of those proceedings. More importantly, I support the no-fault aspect because the dragging out publicly of the mire and dirty linen affects young children who are going to school where everybody knows everybody’s business. Unfortunately these children can be badly hurt and embarrassed by the exposure of the traumas and the tragedies of their family life over which they have no control. They are the sufferers.
So I support the aspect of irretrievable breakdown. I am pleased to say that, even though it is an area of controversy, it appears- from what I have gathered from the people who have corresponded with me, from people to whom I have spoken, from welfare workers and so many other people- that the great majority of people support the aspect of irretrievable breakdown. I back this up with a statement by a man whom I consider a very important cleric in Australia. He said:
The concept of ‘the irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ (section 26) was recommended to the British Parliament by the Church of England some years ago. This does away with much of the deviousness and the dishonesty of current divorce proceedings. Who is able- other than God- to determine the measure of guilt in the failure of a marriage? Invariably both parties are to blame. It is the rare case when one party is so irresponsible that they can be clearly labelled as THE guilty party. In the same way many divorces on the grounds of adultery are the result of exceedingly doubtful practices of proof and obtaining evidence. It would be good to have these out of our system.
As I said earlier, I do not intend at this stage to deal with many of the aspects or the mechanics of the Bill. I have risen tonight to point out one area which I feel has not been covered fully in this debate, and that is the area of counselling. Again I refer to the importance of counselling in the pre-marital situation and in the post-marital situation. It should be available from the moment people are married to give them such assistance and guidance as can be given. Counsellors who are experts in their field should be freely available to give guidance. I feel that it is far better to put emphasis on this area, to make sure we do all we can to prevent divorce, than to lay the emphasis mainly upon making the procedures of divorce procedurally easier. Those are the reasons why I have spoken tonight. That is all I wish to say at this stage, but I assure the Senate that I will be having much more to say on certain aspects of the Bill in the Committee stage of the debate.
-I desire to say a few words about the Family Law Bill. In doing so I will not detain the Senate for very long. One of the main things I want to say is that I support the amendment moved by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson. The family is the basis of our society. It has been for a very long time if not right throughout the ages. Although this Parliament has always had the power under the Constitution to make laws with respect to marriage and divorce and all the other things that go with marriage and divorce nearly 60 years elapsed before any government was- I do not know how to put it- game to take on the knotty, thorny problem of making a common law for divorce, marriage and all the other things that go with divorce and marriage for the whole of Australia
I am not going to say that I oppose this Bill completely. I think that some measure of change is necessary. Change has to take place from time to time, but it is possible that not as much change as has been stated in this Bill has to take place on this occasion. One of the matters which has been raised in this respect is the question of whether it should be said that there has been an irretrievable breakdown of a marriage after a separation of one year. It may be that in some cases that period could be too short and in others it could be too long. For example, a person committing adultery could go on and on and nothing could be done about it until the year has expired. Today such a person could apply for a divorce straight away.
The weekend before last, I think it was, there was a ‘Four Corners’ program dealing with this Bill. It showed so-called extras acting out a story. I do not think that they acted out very well the story that they were trying to get across. The Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) took part in the program at particular times. The program also dealt with many other things. In the last few weeks petitions for and against this Bill have been presented in this chamber from all over Australia. I do not know how many of them have been organised. I should imagine that some of them were a spontaneous reaction. No doubt some of them have been organised by both those for the Bill and those against the Bill. Some of the petitioners have told us that they do not want the Bill and some have said that they want it passed as it is.
As has been pointed out already, this is the second or third version that we have had of this Bill. Many amendments have been made to it. I think that it could be likened to the Budget situation in that we have had 3 Budgets recently and we have had 3 different versions of this Bill. I do not know how many more there will be before the Bill is finally passed in some form or another or defeated, whatever the ultimate result will be. After two or three amendments have been made to the Bill we have now had an indication that another 92 amendments are to be moved.
– Ninety-three.
-I thank Senator Cotton for the correction. Many of them are certainly the result of the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs following its examination of this matter. Despite what has been said about the Bill the Attorney-General has not completely adopted those amendments. I have looked through some of them and noticed that words are sought to be changed here and there, which will cause a lot of debate. But the AttorneyGeneral has substantially adopted them, I will say that much. Today we have had an indication from the Attorney-General that another twelve or fourteen amendments will be moved and just a few minutes ago a 2-page document containing about 20 suggested amendments to be moved by certain honourable senators on both sides of the chamber was circulated. What is going to happen before the Bill is finally passed? At the rate at which we are going we could have another thirty or forty amendments presented after another adjournment.
That proves quite conclusively that Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s amendment should be accepted and that we should delay further consideration of this Bill for a matter of about eight or ten weeks- that is all it is going to be- in order to give the people of Australia a chance to look at the new amendments and see what they are about. It is obvious from the number of petitions received that the people are stirred up about this matter. Therefore they and the various authorities should be given a chance to look at the new amendments. As somebody has suggested, we could refer the Bill to a select committee of the Senate and let it have a look at it and make a complete report on it.
We have to have more advice on some of the amendments. Some of them have been brought forward only tonight. Their acceptance would change completely some of the Parts of the Bill. I believe that we should not rush this Bill through the Senate. It has already been referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, as I have said, but many more amendments have since been proposed. I cannot see why an attempt is being made to rush this Bill through this House. I do not believe that there is any possibility of it getting through the other House before Christmas. So why not wait and give it our final consideration early in the New Year. Why not wait until then to see how many amendments we can agree to or otherwise and get it through then? I cannot see a Bill which is supposed to involve a conscience vote being gagged or guillotined through the other place, although I am not sure whether that will not happen. Again I ask: Why the rush?
We have been talking about the ease of marriage. Marriage should be made a bit harder or there should be a bit more pre-marriage conselling and things like that of people who want to get married. We have heard of the Gretna Green marriages in which a chap struck an anvil and that was about all that was necessary in those days. I believe that if we do not watch out we will arrive at a position in this country- this happens in some other countries of the world today- in which a man who desires a divorce has only to go out into the street and say to his wife: ‘I divorce thee. I divorce thee. I divorce thee.’, to be divorced. We do not want that here. We do not want to happen in this country things such as Senator Sheil has described in relation to China where, if the whole system of marriage has broken down completely, the children are taken away and kept in an institution so that the mother can go back to work because she has to do a good deal more than half the work to let the menfolk fight in the services and suchlike. This Bill is supposed to make it easier for custody of children to be obtained, which I do not believe it does, and for the settlement of property. I believe that even that part will be harder. Again I ask: Why the hurry? Let us support Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s amendment and have further consideration of this matter deferred for about 10 weeks.
-In rising to take part in this debate I want to say, first of all, that in my time in the Senate this has been one of the highest classes of debate to which I have been privileged to listen. There has been pathos, there have been cold, hard facts and there has been humour, but the debate has shown that those who have taken part in it have researched the subject before rising in their places and have put into the record some very important facets of opinion in respect to divorce laws. It is all very well to call the Bill a family law Bill, but its commencement and completion is in relation to divorce- the breaking down of marriages. There will be a free vote. Party politics are not supposed to enter into the decision of senators and members in another place when voting on this legislation. I regret the lack of opinion from people on your right, Mr Deputy President. I believe that the Senate would have been better informed if more senators who normally sit on your right and who are conspicuous by their absence at the moment had stated their opinions.
I am glad that the honourable and learned Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) is honouring me with his presence in the chamber. I regret to say that I feel that the original aim of the marriage regulations which were rushed into the Senate was to inspire the country to accept a quick, easy and cheap method of changing marital partners, in other words, to make divorce quick and easy. The Senate wisely rejected those rules, and that gave rise, naturally, to the Bills that we have had over the last 1 8 months. I agree with words spoken by Senator Peter Durack on the first day of the resumption of the second reading debate when he expressed the view that the Bill was the most important one to come before the Parliament. It is a Bill of great importance to our moral life, to our economic life and to the institution of marriage which, after all, is the fundamental basis of our society. If this Bill in anything like the shape in which it has been presented to us on this its third appearance in the Senate becomes law, it cannot help but have a tremendous effect, either for good or for bad- I will not express an opinion on that- on the future situation of many present Australians and on future Australians who will be the products of Australian marriages. It will affect the basis of our human relationships.
Since the legislation which was introduced by the then Attorney-General, Sir Garfield Barwick, and which made divorce easier- the 5 -year plan- the marriage rate, in Australia, not only the number, has risen. Many of us held fears that there would be a great flood of applications, on the passing of that legislation, for divorce. There was a flood in the first few months, but in the following year when Australia had settled down to the Barwick legislation the divorce rate had increased but, I understand, not quite at the rate at which marriages had increased. I must point out that one of the reasons for the increase in the marriage rate was that with more divorces there were more second marriages. That shows that figures do not mean everything.
– Is that bad?
– I am not against second marriages. I believe that it is the moral right of any two people, if one is divorced or if both are divorced, to marry.
– Are not marriages as popular as ever?
– Do you mind if I make my speech? You can speak during the Committee stage. I listened with rapt attention to you, as I always do, because I believe that you speak from the heart, with great clarity and with a lot of learning. On the other hand, on a Bill such as this, I speak as a layman. I do so tonight, for two reasons only. One is that I believe it is the responsibility of every senator, on the most important Bill that we have had before us for many years, to give his or her views, whether they are brief or protracted, on this legislation, not to sit like nervous Nellies and vote the way that the leader does. So I speak, firstly, because I deem it my responsibility as a member of the Australian Parliament to do so and secondly, candidly and blatantly I speak because of my desire to see the second reading of this Bill postponed. In other words, I come out in strong support- I will state my reasons, as a layman- of the amendment moved by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson. If this Bill, even with many of the suggested amendments, becomes law- family law as it is calledfamily life, the family unit, will be greatly altered. For good or for bad will depend on the decision of this Parliament and on nobody else. Parliament will be culpable or praised for the results on family life in Australia in future years. The family unit is our strongest link with happiness, prosperity and development of the Australian population.
This Bill brings to the forefront deep religious beliefs and feelings. The people of religion, the spokesmen for the churches, should be listened to. Their views should not be abjectly obeyed or followed. They have been performing marriage ceremonies at the behest of millions of Australian couples over the years. Marriage is a tradition not in this country alone, not in the Commonwealth of Nations but in a great pan of the world. History has shown that. The marriage feast at Cana gives some proof of that. Secular interests of a variety of types will be affected by, and are interested in, the results of the decision ultimately of this Parliament in respect of the Family Law Bill. Broken marriages are the greatest causes of delinquency in any country. I think it was Archbishop Fulton Sheen of New York who said that there are 3 Ds- delinquent parents, doting parents and drinking parents. They cause by their behavioural patterns what we call ‘delinquent children’. I know this from my experience on the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse. The Committee interviewed 100 or so anonymous drug takers, not all of them addicts, who gave evidence in private without giving their names. A very large proportion of those people put their drug taking down to the fact that their parents had separated or were always arguing or were alcoholics. In other words, delinquent parents make delinquent children. These people became criminals in their search for drugs, and the Senate is perhaps going to be guilty if it is not careful of making marriages more easy to break.
Because I am not a conservative in social legislation I do admit that every 15 to 20 years legislation such as this- we called it ‘matrimonial causes’ earlier, now we call it ‘family law’needs to be amended to change with the mores of the people, and the mores of the people change as the years roll on. But I do not believe that we should legislate to cope with the leaders in the field of changed mores. If we are a responsible parliament we will try to put a curb on the changed mores if those changes are for the worse, as I believe they have been in recent years. Senator Murphy, the learned AttorneyGeneral I have referred to this earlier- introduced marriage regulations into the Senate and to the rescue the Senate came and disallowed them. The mercurial mind got busy and we now have the Family Law Bill. This is the third Bill from the same stable. If anyone had the time and the inclination to study the first Bill and compare it with the regulations and study the third Bill and the 93 amendments, I wonder if they would know whether they came not only from the same stable but from the same stud? I think there would be a query as to the birthright of the third Bill when it is compared with the first Bill.
Not only have we had a Bill introduced 3 times, not only have we had amendments circulated, but we have had a committee of the Senate, comprising some of the most learned and sincere senators in this field of law and social behaviour, which produced a massive interim report. It was said today that the committee produced the report after 3 meetings and after having heard 7 witnesses, most of whom were identified with the introduction of the Bill.
– Could you name a few of them?
– I am not going into a paean of praise for Senator James McClelland again. I wish the honourable senator would keep quiet. If we have any faith in the value of Senate committee reports, the report of this Committee should have been printed and widely distributed at least 3 months ago to the many readers who would have liked to consider it. If we are going to take the attitude that a committee of this Senate should report to the Senate only and the Senate acts blindly on the report without reading and digesting it and without the public expressing a view, then shame on us; let is do away with committees. The report of this Committee was well worthy of being read, even if its views were slanted towards the passing of the measure with some amendments. As several speakers have pointed out, there have been 90-odd amendments proposed, many of them machinery amendments resulting from the original amendment introduced by the mover of the motion for the second reading of the Bill. Does this not show the value of taking time- of delaying? Fancy the Attorney-General’s Bill being passed by the Senate and the Attorney-General then having to run down to the other end of the building and say to his friend the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam): ‘Mr P.M., I have got 92 amendments to that Bill that are going to improve it ‘. The Senate would have been the laughing stock of the nation. Shame on us. The Government Printer, the printing presses in this building and the typists in Parliament House have been working overtime since this Bill was introduced, and I remind honourable senators that the Government tried to gag the second reading debate on this Bill. Since it tried to gag the debate and failed, what have we had? We have had an amendment put forward by Senator Laucke, an amendment put forward by Senator Baume, amendments put forward by Senators Durack and Chaney, and amendments put forward by members of the Senate Committee. These amendments have been distributed tonight. The Attorney-General is getting very toey. He wants to go into Committee and say: ‘I move that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill going through the Committee stages without delay’, so that we can get to the third reading. The Senate must spend 3 or 4 days in the Committee stages, if by any mischance the amendment of Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson is not carried because of the multiplicity and complexity of the amendments.
I say without any hesitation that there is not one senator- and I include the highest legal officer in the land, the Attorney-General- who would understand what would be the result of the Bill if all the Attorney-General’s amendments were passed and some of the amendments of Senators Durack, Baume and Laucke.
– I would understand.
- Senator James McClelland says he would understand. He has a greater understanding of himself than we have of him. Rarely in my 20 years of parliamentary life have I had more unemotional and considered representations from a greater variety of people and from a greater variety of interests than I have had in respect of the Family Law Bill, and I presume this would apply to all other honourable senators. I am not going to refer to those representations in detail because I believe all honourable senators have had them. Perhaps some of the silent nervous Nellies who will not give their views on the Bill so that Hansard may record what they really think put a lot of the representations they received straight into the wastepaper basket. They know how they are going to vote and they are not going to waste their time. They will obey their orders from the top.
– What is the honourable senator nervous about?
– I am not taking orders from anyone. I am considering the amendments and I will consider the views of the Senate put in argument. My main interest at the moment is to get support for the Senate to take a sensible statesmanlike decision, to allow this Bill to stand over until the autumn session. There are changes; there are reasons for these changes. Never have I seen a measure come before the Parliament which has been followed by more ministerial publications, both roneod and printed, than the original legislation on this matter.
– They are improvements.
– Yes. I am glad of that interjection. As far as I can follow those I have had a chance to study, they are improvements. I believe that adjourning this matter for 10 weeks will give us time to consider it. There will be more improvements to the legislation. The Senate and the Australian Parliament will earn a reputation and the people will be grateful to them. There is another important reason why the Senate’s attention should be taken away from considering the Family Law Bill. I quote, firstly, what the Chief Secretary in the Tasmanian Labor Government and the President of the Tasmanian Branch of the Australian Labor Party said on the day following the announcement of the second Budget in a period of 6 weeks. He said he hoped that the Prime Minister and the Australian Government would delay consideration of their welfare and social legislation until they got down to the job of legislating for the economy, the welfare of the economy and in conjunction -
- Mr Acting Deputy President -
– You will only make me take longer if you do this sort of thing.
– A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. In all fairness, could not Senator Marriott endeavour to speak to the subject matter of the Bill? If he must filibuster, at least he ought to address himself to the Bill.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Mulvihill)-Order! I think that Senator Marriott -
– I am not filibustering, Mr Acting Deputy President. I think that that is an unfair slur by the Attorney-General to whom I have tried to be fair. I am doing my best to give the reasons why I sincerely believe that consideration of this Bill in committee should be delayed. Public opinion and parliamentary opinion can be formalised and finalised and we can give our vote in time. I say quite sincerely that one of the reasons why consideration of the Bill should be delayed is, as Senator Everett would know, that the President of the Labor Party in Tasmania, Mr Lowe, has said that he wants us to get on with legislating in order to get the economy out of the wallowing sea of despondency and despair in which it is at the present time. It is expected that inflation will be running at the rate of 30 per cent at the end of this year. It was extraordinary to hear Mr Lowe ‘s statement on the news broadcast tonight because it was followed by the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in which he said: ‘In spite of the serious state of the economy’- he did not say ‘bother the unemployed’ or anything, but it was almost inferred ‘we will press on with our social legislation’. From letters that I have received I realise that there are many people- I will not say coupleswaiting for this legislation to be finalised. But in all fairness to them, I believe they should understand that many more people fear the passing of this legislation in its present form or in a near relationship to its present form.
The main reason why I suggest the legislation should be delayed is that there are many more people in Australia in all walks of life, in all religions and in all secular occupations who want to know more about the real, possible effects of the legislation. They are undecided in their minds. They realise the seriousness to Australia if bad legislation goes on to the statute books. It must be remembered in coming to a decision on this matter that if a parliament were to pass bad legislation on an important social question such as this it is unlikely that the parliament would look at this question for another 10 or 15 years. In other words, to use a phrase of the late and honoured Mr Arthur Calwell: ‘The eggs will be scrambled if this Bill gets royal assent’.
Finally, I say to the Senate that there is too much responsibility on us, with all the amendments that have already been circulated. How will the Parliamentary Counsel possibly keep up with the Committee stage of the Bill and be able to promise us that we have a Bill that will not be a lawyer’s paradise? That will be one of the things that will count with this legislation. If it is badly amended or crudely amended it will be a lawyer’s paradise and the people whom it is supposed to help will find themselves paying heavy legal fees and being subjected to great frustration. This is one of the measures that should be as near perfect and fair as it is in the power of parliamentarians to devise. I plead very sincerely with the Senate to delay the passing of the Bill. Let us delay going into the Committee stage of the Bill until Parliament meets in the autumn session.
-I rise towards the end of the debate on this Bill to express an attitude on the issues before the Senate. I do so conscious of the fact that the Senate is engaging in a vote in which the leaders of both parties in this chamber have indicated that ordinary party disciplines do not apply. It will be a free vote. Therefore, the views that I express are not the views of the shadow Attorney-General or of the Opposition spokesman on matters related to this particular area of matrimonial causes, but simply the views of one senator. I say that for the purpose of those who report these proceedings. What I say is not to be regarded as the view of the Opposition Parties. There will be a free vote and individuals will express their own views on this matter. I say this because I think it is relevant in a debate such as this to indicate what the policy of the Liberal Party, as expressed in its platform, states with regard to matrimonial law, family courts and the family. With regard to the family, the Liberal Party, in the platform which has recently been canvassed by all sections of what is a grass roots organisation throughout Australia, states:
The family is a cohesive force in society and the Liberal Party recognises the necessity for strengthening its influence. Liberals acknowledge the vital contribution of the family in the development of the individual and, if the family is having difficulty fulfilling that task, the community must come to its aid. Recognising the effect of adverse or changing economic circumstances on the performance of this role, the Liberal Party advocates by consultation and co-operation between the Commonwealth and States the following means of assisting the family to meet the stresses and challenges of modern society-
Then there are set out 8 items which represent the ways in which the Liberal Party would seek to assist the family. I ask leave to incorporate those 8 items in Hansard.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-
– With regard to the question of matrimonial law and family courts, this is what the Liberal Party platform states:
The Liberal Party recognises the importance of the family and the value of the personal relationships involved in marriage. Where these personal relationships break down, laws become necessary. Such laws must be just and effective and give due consideration to the needs of all members of the family involved. Our policies will reflect these fundamental beliefs and will seek to-
. Foster community organisations which assist people to prepare for and understand the complexities of married life, and to resolve marital difficulties with a view to maintaining family life.
Establishing, in co-operation with State Governments, uniform family law throughout Australia.
Implement humane and simplified laws and procedures for the dissolution of marriages where they have irretrievably broken down, and for the resolution of all ancillary matters.
Remove, as far as possible, the apportionment of guilt or blame in establishing grounds for divorce.
And in co-operation with the States, which have major responsibilities in these areas:
Establish and develop well staffed family courts to deal with marital disharmony, divorce and all ancillary matters, with primary emphasis on reconciliation and the welfare of children of the marriage.
Reform the law to provide a just basis for the distribution of matrimonial property where disagreement exists.
Remove disabilities imposed on children born outside marriage and establish just entitlements for parties to longstanding family relationships outside marriage.
Provide for legal representation to be available for children where necessary.
I think anybody who reads those 2 significant sections of the Liberal Party’s Federal platform will recognise why, as I recognise, there is a strong case for supporting the second reading of this Bill. I propose to support the second reading of this Bill when that issue is voted on. I emphasise that the philosophy to which the Liberal Party gives expression is a philosophy which can lead to differing modes of implementation and to differing expressions of how those concepts can be realised. What I say may not be what other people would realise and support in the implementation of these measures. But I believe in what I am about to say that there are features of this Bill which I would not like to see brought into the divorce laws of this country.
I indicate at the outset my broad attitude. I support wholeheartedly Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s proposal that this Bill be postponed to enable a better understanding to develop of what is implied in the Bill and what is comprised in the many amendments which have been proposed by its author and by others.
– You would put it off for ever if you had the chance.
– I think the honourable senator is unfair in saying that. I have said many times in his hearing on earlier occasions when I have taken the motion for the resumption of the debate that this legislation provides a constructive basis for development of good and sensible divorce laws in this country. I have said that on numerous occasions in the past. Simply to say that because I support the motion, in which I firmly believe, that this Bill ought to be postponed for a time I would postpone it for ever denies what I have said and I think reflects no credit on Senator Murphy’s own understanding. I believe that the Bill should be postponed so that the consideration in the Committee stage will take place when there has been generally a better appreciation and understanding of what is proposed. Secondly, as I have said, whenever the vote on the second reading takes place I shall support it. Thirdly because I believe that this Bill requires amendment in significant places, and I hope that those amendments will be carried, I shall reserve my ultimate decision on whether I will support the Bill at the third reading stage, that is, after the Bill has passed through the Committee debate.
My fundamental attitude is consistent with the statements which are contained in numerous international covenants and declarations. The family is the fundamental group unit of society. Stated starkly in those terms I think the importance of the family is scarcely recognised. The family, throughout mankind’s history, has been the focal point and the stimulus for the development of succeeding generations. The family of today, styled in the modern day language as the nuclear family, is not the family of yesteryear. We have, with a complex interdependent society, evolved the concept of a smaller family essentially consisting of a mother and father and 2 children. But that is not the family which comprised the living antecedents and the living decendants of an essential family core whether it be matriarchal or patriarchal family of yesteryear We have today a family which, I believe, is the absolutely essential core of our JudeoChristian tradition and I believe that that family ought to be preserved and that as far as legislation is able to sustain the family, legislation should enable that family to provide for those who are part of it all that our society can provide.
Having accepted that view of the family I believe that marriage in our society is fundamental to the family. It is the cornerstone of the modern day family. Weaken respect for marriage, regard it as easily and opportunistically dissolvable, remove the lawful backing for the mutuality of obligations and promote the independence or separateness of the parties to the marriage and their children and I believe that we are threatening the institution of the family and its stabilising influence in our society. There are provisions in this Bill which I think do each of those things. I believe that the Bill weakens respect for the marriage by enabling it to be dissolved on the unilateral act of one party to the marriage after 12 months. I believe that we are weakening the institution of marriage by permitting it, as one party wishes, to be easily dissolved after 12 months. I believe that we are removing the lawful backing for the mutuality of obligation by saying that there is no obligation on one party to a marriage to support the other party.
I think that by stressing the necessity for a divorced wife to go out and earn her own living without being able to look to any support from her spouse who has deserted her we are emphasising a degree of independence and separateness which is not in the interests of the marriage contract. I personally believe that to give to the children separate representation by counsel in any matrimonial or custody litigation is to deny the right which ought to be the right of the mother and father of those children.
I appreciate that views on this subject can differ and that people who would hold as strongly as I hold to the views which I have just expressed would challenge my conclusion that this Bill has the effect which I have ascribed to it. I regret that those differences exist because for my part I hold strongly to the views that I have expressed and I cannot see how there can be a reasonably objective interpretation of the impact of some of these measures other than along the lines which I have expressed. I do not challenge the sincerity with which other views are to be held. All I say for my part is that we will have a totally different society if we undermine the institution of marriage and if we challenge the fabric of the family and put in its place not a concept which has been developed or which is understood by those who I believe are breaking down what we have at present but simply a society in which there are no stabilising elements and in which there are none of those fundamental characteristics which I have always believed to characterise our present society.
I also recognise equally that marriage is subject to the imperfections of human behaviour and human relationships. Whatever be the marriage vows, experience demonstrates that marriage is not indissoluble. When a marriage has irrevocably ended, when neither party is prepared to or capable of recalling the love which established it- in short, when marriage has irretrievably broken down, when marriage is finished so that no one wishes to continue it- then in the interests both of society and of everyone directly concerned, that marriage ought to be able to be terminated. It should be terminated with justice to the parties but with paramount consideration being given to the interests of the children. The children are the persons who derive most benefit from the family unit. The children are the product and the joy of any marriage. They suffer most in the breakdown of a marriage and a family. I believe that those considerations are entirely consistent with what my Party has stressed as its fundamental philosophy in these areas and it is those institutions and concepts which I regard as challenged by significant facets of this Bill.
I have said that I agree with Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s motion for a postponement of consideration of this Bill. I recognise, having regard to the number of persons who have spoken, that effectively what Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson is asking for is a postponement of consideration of the clauses of the Bill. That, as I understand it, is what he intended when he moved his amendment because he knew it would be voted on immediately prior to the vote on the motion for the second reading of the Bill, and if carried it would simply have the effect of deferring not the second reading debate but the Committee debate. That is entirely proper. There has been quite sufficient time, I believe, for a debate on the broad principles of the measure to have taken place and for the broad considerations to have been assimilated by those who are interested in discussing the principles of the Bill, but I believe that the Bill has not been given the consideration which its many ramifications require and that an attempt is being made to pass it through the Senate with improper haste.
We are in the middle of November and are dealing with a Bill that was introduced on 1 August. I have said that I can agree that no substantial reason ought to be advanced for a delay in the second reading of the Bill. But this Bill has 96 clauses. They affect not only the grounds for divorce but also a host of other facets of the marriage relationship; the court structure in quite fundamental ways; provisions relating to the welfare and custody of children in ways which have not been part of our law in the past; provisions relating to maintenance and property which alter long established concepts, and procedures and so on which introduce many new ideas. Where there are these new concepts, these novel approaches and important changes being introduced, there ought to be ample time for consideration of their ramifications.
On the last occasion a substantial divorce matter was introduced into this Parliament a period of 6 months was announced at the outset as the period for which that Bill would be laid on the table of the Parliament for consideration to be given to its import. I regret that no such indication was given on this occasion and that the author of the Bill and, I believe, those who have given intensive consideration to it, consider that they are equipped to deal with the matter and therefore it ought to be proceeded with as quickly as possible. I do not accept that concept because I believe that not everyone in this chamber is equipped to deal with the matter, and there are many people outside who would like to have their views expressed, who would like to submit their views to the Parliament and to feel that the Parliament is taking those views into account before the legislation is considered. We have speed with regard to the passage of this Bill which I regard as discouraging to those who wish to debate the issues and to develop a public awareness of the Bill’s implications. Every honourable senator has been subjected to an intensive letter-writing campaign. Scarcely one senator has not received a considerable number of petitions urging a course one way or the other with regard to this Bill. An increasing number of public statements have been made with regard to the merits of the Bill. I accept what I heard Senator Gietzelt say before the suspension of the sitting for dinner and I have derived from what other honourable senators have said that there is a degree of pressuring in what has taken place. But is pressuring in this context bad? Does it not really reflect the concern which interested groups feel? Are not groups interested in this Bill entitled to press upon members of Parliament their views as to whether it should be passed?
I sought from the Senate office some indication as to the position with regard to the number of petitions received in this sitting of this session of the Parliament since we resumed in September. As I understand it, there have been in support of the Family Law Bill some 99 petitions representing approximately 11,000 signatures, and against the Bill, or seeking a delay of the Bill, there have been 133 petitions with almost 20,000 signatures. The number of petitions and the number of signatures are not significant in that they represent a small proportion of the total population, but they are significant in that they represent an interest in the community which we ought to acknowledge and regard as involved in this measure. It is not just 60 senators, and it is not just 187 members of Parliament who are involved in this measure. Certainly those people are involved but there is a host of people outside the Parliament whose voice ought to be heard and whose voice ought to be encouraged to be heard with regard to this measure. Simply because there are within this chamber some people who feel that they are equipped and ready to deal with this measure they ought not to shut out the views of others who would like to have their voices heard and who believe that their representations are considered in debate.
I want to refer to the chronological sequence of this legislation. The Bill was introduced on 1 August this year. Without debate it was referred on 16 August to a committee. The membership of that committee at that date was not constituted and later that same day the Senate adjourned. I understand that, in accordance with
Senate procedures, at some stage after 16 August the names of the members of that committee were communicated to the President and the Committee- the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs- was formally constituted. That Committee met in the recess when Parliament was not sitting, and after the Senate had resumed on 17 September an interim report was delivered on 24 September. A final report was delivered on 15 October. Fourteen days later, on 29 October, debate in this chamber commenced. It resumed the following day on 30 October and now some 20 days afterwards the debate has resumed on 19 November. It is not unreasonable, I believe, for a parliamentary debate having regard to that timetable. Indeed, if we could have that sort of timetable with most legislation introduced, parliamentarians would not know how well off they really were.
I would have thought that if Parliament were the only area in which consideration had to be given that was a pretty fair timetable. But this is a Bill which involves an issue upon which I suppose every member of this community would have something to contribute. Divorce and family law are a matter upon which everybody has some experience and an issue upon which everybody feels more or less capable of expressing a view which ought to be listened to. If ever Parliament ought to give time for consideration of measures it is on a family law Bill or a divorce Bill such as this. I do not believe that we are giving this time. This is a Bill in which public opinion is interested and is stirred. I do not recall in recent times any Bill which has stimulated 30,000 or more petitions and small though that might be in view of the size of the total electorate I think it is a reflection of the interest which has been generated.
The Bill requires an examination. After it was introduced I understand that many weeks running into months elapsed before adequate supplies of the Bill were available, and that was conceded to me in reply to a question which I asked Senator Douglas McClelland as the Minister in charge of the Australian Government Publishing Service. So far as the public is concerned it was after- well after, as I recall an interview which I held- the end of August before copies of the Bill were available in the government bookshops around the country. The reports of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs ought to be considered and the views ought to be able to be taken into account by those who are interested in the ultimate form which this legislation will take. But those reports were not available generally to the public until the very day that the debate started in this Parliament. In response to a question asked of Senator James McClelland in this place on 24 October he stated that he believed that the final report of the Committee of which he was Chairman would be available in the government bookshops on 29 October and that the interim report would be available some days thereafter, and that, of course, was the day upon which the Senate started the debate on this Bill. As I understand that many of the amendments which Senator Murphy has projected for this Bill derive from a consideration of the Senate Committee’s reports it has not given time to the interested public, which I contend ought to have its voice heard in this matter, to be able to contemplate what might be the substance of what the Committee proposed. I have since confirmed within the last week that both reports, the final report and the interim report, and the Bill are available at least in the government bookshop in Melbourne and I assume that they must now be available in the bookshops throughout the country.
Rightly or wrongly the Committee did not call for submissions or otherwise advertise its work after its reappointment in August. I have adverted to this aspect on an earlier occasion and I do not desire to advert to it again except simply to acknowledge the bald fact that there was no advertising or request for general submissions. I believe that the Committee felt it was doing the proper thing and it was not dealing inadequately with what were its terms of reference when it made the decision not to call for further submissions or to seek by way of advertisement responses from people who might be interested, but I do know- and this is fundamental to my approach- from the interviews I have received that interested people who were concerned to put forward points of view to this Committee were unaware of the Committee’s composition, were unaware that the Committee was meeting and were therefore unaware of its operations generally and the rights which they had to put matters before it with regard to the clauses of this Bill. People may say that those persons were not astute enough to make inquiries, but as far as I personally am concerned I believe them when they say quite genuinely that they were unaware of their rights and of the opportunities which the Committee’s composition afforded to them. Whether or not there was a proper opportunity accorded to people they or a number of them anyway do not believe they were given that proper opportunity.
The report of the Committee is a most valuable document and it represents the only considered examination of the clauses of the original Bill. I think it is virtually compulsory reading for anyone who wants to engage in a considered debate on this matter. I do not accept all of the report but I regard most of it as being tremendously valuable and a constructive commentary on what the original Bill contained. But it is helpful as I see it in most of the areas in respect of which it reports. I think on that view maybe there is an added view as to why other people, if they were given the opportunity to digest it properly, might likewise find that it was of value and in those circumstances a consideration of it would crystallise the areas or the points of objection to the present Bill and avoid many of the broad criticisms which on a number of occasions I felt have been quite unwarranted. But I think that until people have taken the time to examine the Bill and to examine the commentaries upon it they would not realise that many of the apprehensions they feel about the Bill are not sustained by its actual clauses. I feel that our speed in dealing with this is likely to sustain rather than to remove that apprehension.
A further reason why I believe this Bill should be postponed is the situation in which we now find ouselves with the mass of literature which has been placed before us on this measure. I have taken out the material with a view to illustrating the difficulties of anybody who wants to consider what is currently before us. We have, of course, the original Family Law Bill introduced on 1 August. We have with that Family Law Bill a useful explanatory memorandum. We then have, delivered on 24 September, an interim report which represents the first viewpoint of this Committee. We then have on 15 October a second or final report of the Committee. All this represents relevant material. We then have at some later stage- I think it was the end of October or the beginning of Novermber- a document entitled Family Law Bill 1974, Consolidation of Amendments and New Clauses (To be moved by the Attorney-General).’ As other speakers have said, it is a document which contains 92 amendments to the Family Law Bill. Obviously it is an extraordinary document requiring some consideration together with -
– You can do that in the Committee stage, can you not?
– I thought it might have been useful to look at it before we get to the Committee stage so as to know what is likely to come up. I have not finished the account of what we have to look at. With the 92 amendments which were foreshadowed there is a short statement. I understand the statement was circulated and not incorporated in Hansard. I have not checked it in Hansard; I did not see it there. It is entitled ‘Family Law Bill 1974, Statement by the Attorney-General, Senator the Honourable Lionel Murphy, Q.C., on amendments to be moved by him ‘. It represents a general statement of the amendments. Then we have a further document- I think it is the sixth documentheaded ‘Notes on amendments and new clauses to be moved by the Attorney-General’. That was circulated by the Attorney-General and we have some 9 pages of that document which gives some additional but not very complete information as to what these amendments are purporting to achieve. To really understand that you have to go to the report of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, which is a time consuming task as I can assure anyone who wants to undertake it.
Then we had a tremendously useful document headed ‘Showing differences between the Family Law Bill 1 974 as introduced in the Senate on 1 August 1974 and that Bill as it would appear if the amendments to be moved by the AttorneyGeneral were incorporated in it. ‘ Then with asterisks and black type we have the Bill as it would appear if the amendments were moved. I thank the Attorney-General for that document particularly because that is the most constructive of all that he has brought in. Following that we have a document which was circulated last week and which unfortunately is headed ‘Alteration to amendments circulated by the AttorneyGeneral’. Then we have alterations, some 15 in number, to the 92 amendments which already have been circulated to the 96 clauses of the Bill. If it was not a serious matter it would be laughable, but it is not a laughing matter because within the week we are expected to give consideration to the 96 clauses with the 92 amendments with the 15 alterations. Then we are given for our edification- but it is not particularly helpful if one started to go through the earlier documents- a document headed ‘Consolidation of amendments and new clauses’ which brings together the amendments and the alterations and puts them in a comprehensive form which is useful for the debate but renders an awful lot of the work one has done beforehand not terribly constructive.
Then finally we have a useful document headed ‘Revised memorandum showing the differences between the Family Law Bill 1 974 as introduced in the Senate on 1 August 1974 and that Bill as it would appear if the amendments to be moved by the Attorney-General were incorporated in it’. I can only suggest to the AttorneyGeneral that it will not be useful Committee debate when we have that mass of documents before us and no time to digest the information. It will not be useful or helpful for people outside this chamber if they are interested in considering the Bill and want to look through the amendments in the various forms in which they have been put forward to have to go through this mass of documents until finally they find what are the amendments proposed. I do not take account of what seems to be the increasing number of amendments moved by Senators Baume, Laucke, Missen, Chaney, Durack, Sir Kenneth Anderson or members of the Committee, all of which have been appearing on our tables throughout the day.
In a short time when I finish presumably we move into the Committee stage of the Bill and proceed to deal with it. I believe that this is not a fair way to deal with a matter of this import and that it imposes a burden on the Senate. It denies to honourable senators rights which we ought to be prepared to concede that they have. I simply hope, therefore, that we allow time to elapse so that these matters can be considered properly. I stress this point: The more that we allow time to elapse on complicated Bills the more likelihood there is that when the debate actually occurs the areas of difference will have been narrowed and points of contention will have been crystallised. I am quite sure that this will happen in this Bil. It has happened in the three or four months that have elapsed since the Bill was first introduced. Most people who have taken an interest in it can now see areas in which their attention is being focused. I think, given a little more time, those areas in which the attention is being focused would narrow. I do not want to deal with the substantive merits of the Bill and I have not attempted to range over those matters which a host of other senators have discussed.
– You have spoken for long enough but have said nothing.
– I hear Senator Poyser ‘s constant plea that one talks a lot. I thought this was to be a free vote and that he might have allowed the opportunity to people who disagreed with him to express their view on a basis other than Government against Opposition. But I think it is an ingrained view on Senator Poyser’s part that he does not like a point of view different from that to which he adheres being expressed. The only point I make is with regard to one concept which is embodied not in the Bill but in the reports and which I regret that the Attorney-General has taken note of. In the Bill the jurisdiction under this new divorce legislation was to be vested either in the State courts or in a superior court.
– Is that not a Committee stage matter? Do you really have to engage in this kind of waste of time?
– I regret that the Attorney-General says that it is a waste of time. I am expressing a point of view which I think ought to be aired because when we get into the Committee stage at least people will know something of what are the broad issues of difference between various senators. There are a number of views expressed here which I think ought to be looked at. The Bill says that the jurisdiction is to be vested in the State courts, as it always has been in this country, or is to be vested in the superior court. We have not a superior court and until the Parliament establishes a superior court we will not have one. On that basis, under the legislation as it was introduced by Senator Murphy, the supreme courts of the States and the Territories would be the courts in which the jurisdiction would be vested. That, of course, is a view which the Opposition parties have consistently contended for as the appropriate way in which to operate the judicial structure of this country. The Committee recommended in its interim report when talking about amendments which it thought were worth while:
It is not appropriate at this stage to canvass these amendments except one, which it considers should be communicated to the Senate at this stage. The amendment relates to the incorporation in the Bill of provisions to establish a Family Court which, freed of the rigidity and formality of conventional courts, would be able to exercise jurisdiction over the whole range of ‘family’ matters with dignity, informality, expedition and comparative lack of expense. The Committee is of the opinion that the establishment of such a Court is an essential supplement to the change from a concept of ‘fault’ in divorce grounds to one of irretrievable breakdown evidenced by separation and that the ultimate well-being of all involved in ‘family ‘ differences, including children, will be fostered by such a judicial institution.
It is regretted that the Committee did not explain why this sort of court was necessary and, in particular, why it was an essential supplement to the change from a concept of fault in divorce grounds. I say that because I would welcome the concept of family courts- not a family court in the Commonwealth sense but family courts in the State sense in which to the one body one could go with problems and questions prior to marriage, problems which arose during a marriage and any one of the many problems which arise in regard to the dissolution of marriage. But why such a court is an essential supplement to the change from a concept of fault I find difficult to understand. The concept was elaborated in the final report of the Committee when at pages 16 and following reference was made to a family court of Australia. At paragraph 33 the Committee states:
The Committee is firmly of the opinion that this Part requires substantial redrafting to incorporate the creation under the Bill of the Family Court of Australia, a family court of record, being invested with the full jurisdiction of the Commonwealth under section 51 of the Constitution (viz. marriage, divorce and matrimonial causes) and dealing exclusively with family law matters. It is proposed that the new Court exercise not only the remedies in relation to matrimonial causes now exercised in State Supreme Courts and Territory Courts but maintenance, custody and family property jurisdictions presently exercised in a variety of State courts.
I stop there in my reading simply to say that I would have thought that there is considerable doubt as to whether, in regard to that proposed jurisdiction, there is constitutional authority for such a court to be established. I do not know how this problem can be resolved if the Senate is of the opinion that such a court should be established, but I urge the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) to consider the problems with which the Commonwealth Government was faced after the High Court decisions of Knight v. Knight and Kotzis v. Kotzis in 1970, because the result of those High Court decisions was that awards of maintenance and awards of custody made by commissioners of Supreme Courts who had been unconstitutionally invested with a jurisdiction which the High Court declared they did not have, were orders and awards without any valid operation.
If one is to create the sort of risk situation in which at some stage in the future orders and awards which are obtained have no legal force or effect, one is creating hardship and distress in enormous degree. This was the problem with which the Commonwealth was faced 2 or 3 years ago. If in some way this issue as to whether there is constitutional power can be raised for consideration before it is acted upon- supposing that the clauses go through- I think that a lot of the problems in the future can be resolved, because it would be absolutely disastrous to have a family court established as a Commonwealth court of record in which the decisions made by that court were not sustained by the High Court. People who relied upon the decision they had received in that family court would find that they could not rely upon it. It seems to me that if family courts were created by the States that problem would not arise.
I would have thought from a host of considerations that the concept of State family courts is a much better concept than that of a Commonwealth family court. If the concept of a family court is derived from American experience we ought to look at what America has done and in particular, because I see him as an adviser in this chamber at the moment, at that admirable report made some years ago by an officer of the Attorney-General’s Department, Mr Yuill, in which the various family courts and the differences in concept from State to State in the United States were elaborated. We do not have the same constitutional framework as America has but we ought to recognise that there are different types of family court structures. We ought to have one in Australia which is consonant with our constitutional obligations and divisions of power as determined by the High Court.
I refer again to what is contained in paragraph 34 of the final report of the Committee. It is there stated:
The concept of a ‘family court’ is well established in the United States of America, Canada and Japan though there are variations in the proceedings and powers. It generally involves the creation of a special court (or division of a larger court), the assimilation of all family matters into one court, with active pre-divorce and post-divorce counselling not merely to assist reconciliation, but also to provide for the reduction of bitterness and distress and in alleviating ongoing post-divorce problems.
Then the Committee refers to a paper by Mr R. S. Watson Q.C. which I have obtained, and looked at, from the office of the Senate. It seems to me that this concept has not been elaborated in the detail which I would have thought a recommendation of the character which the Committee is making required. I simply say, in final reference to the report, that in paragraph 36 the Committee said:
The Committee is concerned with the effect on the creation of the family court and the appointment of judges of Section 72 of the Commonwealth Constitution, which in general requires judges of the Family Court created by Parliament to be appointed for life.
If, as I read elsewhere in this report, the family court is to be a superior court of record, there is no question of in general judges being appointed for life; it is a matter of law and constitutional requirement that every judge of a Federal Court should be appointed for life. What we would then be faced with would be a family court with I do not know how many extra judges. It could be some 20, 30 or 50 extra judges of the Commonwealth arena all appointed for life, and if ultimately they should be given some powers which are not judicial powers- this is an aesthetic problem which the High Court has dealt with over the years- then we are creating enormous problems in this country.
The report continues:
The Committee does not believe that it is desirable that judges on this Court should adjudicate when of advanced years.
I notice that the report contains various suggestions as to how this might be able to be overcome. For it to be overcome requires some co-operation with State governments. I have adverted to this aspect of the family court structure because the Attorney-General has by and large, as I read his amendments, accepted the recommendations of the Committee. In place of his own initial views he now believes that there should be a Commonwealth family court. I hope that the Senate will not in due course accept that proposal. It is fraught with constitutional problems. Embarrassments upon embarrassments will be caused if constitutionally the situation cannot be sustained and in terms of appointments, structures, staff and court buildings it will add an enormous expense in an area where there is no occasion for those enormous problems to be encountered. I have had it assessed to me that approximately one-quarter or more of the existing work of the supreme courts of the States would have to be vested in this family court under the provisions which are contemplated by Senator Murphy, which would mean that there would be an excess of judges in the State courts with not sufficient work to occupy them full time. Then a new Federal Court structure would have to be created, with all the costs of buildings and staff which it necessarily would involve, which would raise real questions of economy particularly at this stage of the nation ‘s development.
I raise these matters because I hope that they will be given proper consideration in the Committee stage of this debate. As I indicated when I rose, I simply state my attitude. I believe that this Bill provides a constructive base upon which a committee debate can occur, out of which I hope we will obtain better divorce laws for this country. We ought to have a longer time for consideration in the Committee stage of the various matters which have now been raised by the many amendments which have been produced. I shall vote for the amendment, but irrespective of the outcome of that amendment, I will vote for the motion for the second reading.
– The existing law and administration of divorce, custody and other family matters is too humiliating, too complex and too costly. The laws should be changed so that they may be characterised by dignity, simplicity and inexpensiveness. Despite what has been said, the existing law allows for divorce even where a court is not satisfied that a marriage has broken down irretrievably. A broken down marriage should no longer be a prison which can be escaped from only by adultery, cruelty or the like. Despite all that has been said inside and outside this chamber the fact is that, for example, by an isolated act of adultery a divorce can be obtained even where no one asserts that the marriage has broken down irretrievably.
It is a long time since I moved, and the Senate accepted, that there be an inquiry into the law and administration of divorce, custody and other family matters, dealing in particular with the oppressive costs, delays, indignities and other injustices. I think it is some 4 years. It is also a long time since the Family Law Bill was introduced in this chamber. It was introduced on 13 December of last year. There has been ample opportunity for those who are interested in what the state of the law should be to look at the Bill. The political parties have their own experts on the subject. The churches and other bodies which ought to be interested in this subject have had ample opportunity over the last few years, especially over the last year, to examine the measures and to see what they thought ought to be the state of the law. Some of them have done so but others have not. There is criticism if one brings in a Bill and does not accept any changes to it; but there is even more criticism if one listens to some of the suggestions that are made and, as in the case of the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs which examined the clauses of this Bill, if one endeavours to have drafts made incorporating views which seem to be sensible.
May 1 say that the Bill as it stands is substantially the same, as far as its effect on the ordinary person, as it was in December of last year. There have been improvements, that is true, but not really to the matters which are of contention here. I welcome the improvements which have been proposed. I have done my best to put them in a form in which they can be considered, debated and voted on by the Senate. I have no time to deal with the other matters which have been raised. I am aware that there have been subtle, and not so subtle efforts to prevent this Bill from being voted on by the Parliament this year. I regret that many tens of thousands of persons may have to suffer because of the actions of some persons inside and outside of this chamber. As there is so little time available, I think that I should ask the Senate to vote upon Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s proposal and upon the motion for the second reading of the Bill.
Question put:
That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s amendment) be left out:
The Senate divided. (The President- Senator Hon. Justin O ‘Byrne)
AYES: 15
NOES: 41
Majority……. 26
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Question put:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O ‘Byrne)
AYES: 49
NOES: 7
Majority……… 42
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
page 2541
– In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
– Tonight I wish to raise a matter which arises out of a statement made last Thursday night by the Chairman of Committees, Senator Webster. To refresh the memory of honourable senators, I quote what was said prior to his reporting to you, Mr President, on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ). He said:
I wish to state to the Committee that during the proceedings in Committee last evening an adviser to a Minister presented himself in the official advisers’ benches dressed in a manner which I consider inappropriate for his position. 1 take this opportunity to state that whilst 1 am occupying the position of Chairman of Committees advisers to Ministers who occupy the advisers ‘ benches must come dressed in an appropriate manner and with a sense of the dignity of the Senate. I ask that departmental heads take note of my comment.
I rose in my place and said:
I would like to query that, Mr Chairman. On what basis do you rule regarding the type of dress that any person should wear in this chamber? What standing order are you using to give your ruling?
The Chairman replied:
I am ruling in that way because I happen to be in charge of the Committee.
I said:
I am still asking you: What are you now describing as appropriate dress for any person in this chamber?
The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) intervened and said:
May I suggest that we get on with the Bill? If it is desired to question your ruling, Mr Chairman, that ought to be done at some other appropriate time.
I consider that tonight is the first appropriate time available to me. In view of the fact that the Leader of the Government wanted to get the appropriation Bills through, this is the first opportunity of raising the matter.
– Will you read the balance of my comments?
– If you will be patient, I will.
– I doubt it.
– I will read other comments as well. After Senator Murphy made his remarks the Chairman said:
I just wish to state for the benefit of Senator McLaren that the adviser came into the chamber dressed in a polo-neck pullover and jeans, and that if anybody appears on the floor of the Senate in that way while I am in charge of the Committee I will order that he withdraw
The purpose of my rising tonight is to ascertain the standing order under which Senator Webster has authority to order any person to withdraw from the Senate. The matter of the dress of people in the chamber has been raised in this chamber on no fewer than 2 occasions, to my recollection. I refer to a question which was asked in this Parliament on 26 March 1968 by my very esteemed friend, Senator Toohey. He posed this question to the then President, Sir Alister McMullin:
Mr President, my question is directed to you. I refer to an incident which occurred in another place when a member who entered the chamber wearing a safari jacket, which he claimed was suitable attire for the climatic conditions of that day, was required to don a coat. In the absence of any specific standing order to guide me, would you inform me whether on a hot day you would permit the wearing of sleeveless safari jacket with a sports shirt, or are members of the Senate subject to the same outmoded restrictions as those obviously applying in another place?
The President replied:
I am not prepared to suggest that the ruling in the other place was outmoded. If the honourable senator is serious about the question I shall look into the matter and give him an answer at a later date.
On the next day of sitting, 27 March 1968, the President gave this ruling:
Yesterday Senator Toohey asked me a question relating to dress in the Senate. The style of dress in the Senate has been maintained at a most satisfactory level by the practice of leaving the choice of appropriate dress to the good judgment of honourable senators and their sense of the dignity of the House. I am confident that we may rely upon the continued good judgment of honourable senators in this matter.
Then some years went by- I think it was a period of 3 years- before another attempt was made to modernise the dress of senators in this chamber.
– What was the attempt?
– I thought I would hardly need to remind Senator Sir Magnus Cormack of the attempt, but to refresh his memory I say that when I was in Opposition I rose in my place and asked him was there any Standing Order which prevented a senator wearing shorts in the Senate. I will now refer to the outcome of that because, there being no such Standing Order, 3 senators- and I was one of them, accompanied by Senator Poyser and Senator Keeffe- wore shorts into the Senate. Of course, that created a lot of publicity but out of that the President of the day, Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, referred the matter to the Senate House Committee. As a result of that parliamentary paper No. 235 was presented to the Senate on 2 December 1971, and I want to read the text of that paper. It is in 3 clauses and it relates to a report on Senators’ dress in the Senate chamber. The report states:
Magnus Cormack
Chairman
As a result of that parliamentary paper being tabled, the then Leader of the Government, Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, brought forth the House Committee report for debate on 29 February 1972. That is recorded on page 267 of Hansard and I do not intend to read all of the report because I think that honourable senators in this Parliament, particularly the new senators, who wish to bring themselves up to date on what took place will refer to that Senate debate. I spoke in the debate on the report first and I was followed by my colleague, Senator Cavanagh. I will quote a few lines from what he had to say. Senator Cavanagh said:
I feel inclined to enter this debate because I believe that this is one of those questions where party loyalty does not apply and where every member is entitled to vote according to his own belief.
Senator Cavanagh was of the opinion that because the report of the House Committee had been received without any division taking place that should settle for all time that the Senate then had determined the mode of dress to be worn in this chamber. However, the Leader of the Government of the day, Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, did not agree with Senator Cavanagh. At page 271 of Hansard he is reported as having said:
If this report is adopted, I do not think that that passage will mean arbitrarily that no honourable senator, if he so desires, can enter the Senate chamber dressed in shorts. What it says is that he will do so in the face of the opinion of the Senate.
I am basing my statement tonight on the fact that Senator Webster was wrong in his determination that he has the power to ask any person to leave this chamber, however that person may be dressed, whether he be a senator or an adviser to a Minister. It has been clearly stated on 2 occasions, once by the then President, Senator Sir Alister McMullin, and again by the then Leader of the Government, Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, that it is a matter for the Senate to decide and until it is decided by a vote of the Senate I maintain that Senator Webster is entirely out of order.
Further to what has been said, I want to put on record that there is a precedent for members of Parliament wearing snorts into a House of Parliament. This precedent was established in the South Australian Parliament, where members are allowed to wear shorts and open necked shins into the chamber. I want to quote from a report in the Adelaide ‘Advertiser’ of 3 November 1971 which is headed ‘House beats the heat ‘. The report states:
The Speaker (Mr Hurst) entered the Assembly yesterday without his wig -
This is something that has been recognised here-
A concession to the rising temperatures outside the House. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Millhouse) -
At the present time Mr Millhouse is the official leader of the Liberal Movement in the South Australian Parliament-
And Mr Becker (LCP, Hanson) were the first MPs to wear shorts this season. The Premier (Mr Dunstan) wore an openneck safari suit and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hall) a light business suit.
So honourable senators will see that a precedent has been created, and I do not think that anybody would assert that the business of the South Australian Parliament has been impeded by the members of that House being at liberty to dress as they desired, whether it be in shorts and shirt or in a safari suit.
Following on from these events, on 3 1 October 1974, a very short time ago, Senator Gietzelt raised the matter by way of question in this chamber. Under the heading of ‘Facilities for Senators’ he is reported as having asked Senator Murphy:
Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate noted that, in spite of some tedious adjournment debates in the Senate, our evenings have been considerably brightened by our senators of the fairer sex coming into the Senate in the evenings refurbished and elegantly attired?
At the conclusion of Senator Murphy’s answer to that question he said:
May I say that the trend which Senator Gietzelt has noticed ought to be encouraged.
In view of what the Leader of the Government has said, in view of what an ex-President of this Senate has said and in view of what an exLeader of the Government in this Senate has said- that it is up to the decision of individual senators as to what they should wear- I think the time has come when we have to put this to the test. I give notice here that I am prepared to be one of those senators who will test the feeling of the members of this House about whether or not there should be some dress reform in this place. I have done nothing about this matter for 3 years and I am prompted to follow this course because of the action of Senator Webster last Thursday evening when he singled out a member of the Public Service and talked about him in the way that he did. I am informed that that person- I am not going to name him- is a well-qualified academic who is a leading lawyer in one of the Government departments. For him to be spoken about in the terms used by Senator Webster, particularly when he referred to that person as being not suitably attired because he wore a polo necked jumper, I think is going a bit beyond what Senator Webster ought to have done. I am reliably informed that polo-neck shirts or jumpers are part of recognised evening dress these days. Persons who attend high class functions are recognised as being suitably dressed if they appear in a polo-neck jumper.
What concerns me further is the fact that although male senators are under some restriction as to what they are allowed to wear in this chamber, female senators appear to be under no restriction because if I look to my right tonight I can see a newly elected female senator, Senator Coleman, dressed in what I would describe as an open-neck shirt. Yet if I were to come into this chamber dressed like that I would be criticised for doing so. Not being a fashion commentator, I could go one step further and say that Senator Coleman is attired not only in an open-neck shirt but also in a waistcoat. What would some of the more conservative members of the Senate think if a male senator were to enter this chamber dressed like that?
Having made those remarks, I repeat what I said earlier: The time has come when we have to look at the question of introducing some modernisation of dress in this chamber. Many people have come to me and said that one of the worst features of the dress that we have to wear is to have a necktie strung around our necks from half-past 8 in the morning when we come to this place until we leave it sometimes at midnight, and I do not think that is necessary. I am one of those people who believe that we can conduct our business in this place in a most workmanlike manner if we are allowed to wear dress which conforms with the recognised dress outside this chamber and in many places of high dignity. I give notice now that on the first occasion that I feel is opportune I will test the feeling of the Senate by coming into this chamber dressed in a way which I believe is suitable to enable me to carry out my duties in a workmanlike manner.
– On a serious note, I can see nothing undignified about shorts, long socks and a tie.
– Or kilts.
-Or kilts, for that matter. So long as they are not compulsory, Senator Georges does not have to worry. I join Senator McLaren in saying that we should test the feeling of the Senate on the mode of dress.
– I want to support Senator McLaren in what he said because I was one of those terrible senators who came into this place in shorts.
– And you have not worn them since.
– Of course I have not worn them since because of the ultra-conservatism of people like Senator Webster. He would like to see all of us come into this place dressed in a way which he believes is dignified- morning suits with striped pants, block hat, and black shoes. He is in effect saying that this is not the House of the people; that it is his House; that he, as Chairman of Committees, should decide how people should be dressed in this House. I remind Senator Webster that this chamber is a House of the people, not of the persons who are elected to it. I think he should understand that because in his time he has been through a few elections. He has had his successess because like other people, including myself, he has been able to get high enough on the Party ticket to be elected. But this House is the people ‘s House.
If Senator Webster takes this matter to its ultimate conclusion, he will look around the galleries and he will decide that tourists who come here in shorts and open-neck shirts are not to be permitted into the galleries, and he will be following exactly the policy that is followed in many State parliaments where no person is allowed into those buildings unless they are ‘properly dressed’ in accordance with what Senator Webster and conservatives like him may decide. Properly dressed ‘ means a navy-blue suit, black shoes and black socks. I am sorry that Senator Coleman still has not got the tie on. She looked lovely. I am wondering what Senator Webster will say when one of our lovely lady senators comes into the chamber dressed in a mini-skirt. No doubt he will gaze on that with rapture and say: ‘This is too good for the rest of the people. We must ban this from this House. But I will observe what is going on’. How ridiculous is the situation that Senator Webster should sit in judgment on an officer of this Parliament coming into this chamber dressed in a pair of blue jeans.
– He is not an officer of this Parliament.
– He was an adviser to a Minister of this Parliament. I look around this chamber and I see Senator Sir Magnus Cormack dressed in a sky-blue suit. Shame on Senator Sir Magnus Cormack coming into this chamber dressed in a sky-blue suit. It is terrible to think that he has come into this chamber dressed in such a light-coloured suit and has destroyed the dignity of the Senate. If the pants were 2 shades darker they would be blue jeans. Then Senator Webster would say to Senator Sir Magnus Cormack: ‘You have jeans on; you are not allowed in this place’. It is so ridiculous that it is laughable. As Senator McLaren said, this man came into the chamber dressed in a polo-neck shirt or jumper. This is the high standard that is maintained at balls at the Melbourne Club these days. No doubt Senator Webster has not been invited to any of them. Probably he has never been able to pay his membership fees, and this is the reason why no invitations have been issued to him.
– Do you get there, George?
– No. I could not even pay the deposit. I could not pay it off on time payment. These days a shirt with a rolled neck is the height of fashion. But Senator Webster says that because one of the advisers wore a rolled neck shirt, did not have a tie on and wore what he termed as jeans, he had no right to be sitting in this chamber advising a Minister. I think it is the height of impudence for a man- even a Chairman of Committees- to take unto himself the right of deciding who is to enter the people’s House of Parliament. I remind him again that this is the people ‘s House. It is not his House and it is not my House; it is the House of the people. If people cannot enter this chamber dressed in a reasonable manner, the day will come when they will not be able to enter it at all. I am horrified to think that the conservatism of Senator Webster can destroy the right of people to come into this chamber. I think he had a horrible dream that night. He had to say something to make headlines for himself. He did not get them, and he has been angry about it ever since. No doubt he will try to do the same thing in the future.
– I rise to support the male members of this illustrious House who require that their mode of dress in the summer should be more relaxed than it obviously is at this point of time. There is one matter that I should like to straighten out. For those who have not noticed, I have in actual fact entered this chamber in a mini-skirt.
– I thought it was wonderful.
– I am glad that Senator Poyser noticed it. The point I should like to make is that these days businessmen throughout Australia accept shorts, open-neck shirts, long socks and shoes as common dress. We have an extreme climate in this country, or have honourable senators not noticed that? Apart from all those things, it is my own personal opinion that men are much more masculine in shorts, shirts and long socks.
– I rise merely to defend the Chairman of Committees. Mr President, the
Chairman of Committees is your deputy when you are not present. On the occasion which has caused this adjournment debate I understand that the Senate was in Committee. Whether that is so or not, the facts are that you, Sir, are responsible for the conduct, the decorum, the behaviour, the style and the quality of this chamber. When you are not in the chair your Chairman of Committees or your deputy is equally responsible. I am sure that Senator Webster must be defended. Senator McLaren, following upon action taken by his leader in South Australia, Mr Dunstan, who is the world of fashion and the ball of style there, decided that that should be conveyed into this Parliament. Honourable senators will recollect the matter very clearly. The decision was taken that the honourable senator should return to the normal style that is accepted in the Senate until such time as the House Committee had examined the matter and reported back to the Senate. The House Committee examined the matter. I was the Chairman of the Committee. I do not intend to disclose to honourable senators the discussion that took place. All I will say to honourable senators is that the report was a unanimous report and it required that all honourable senators should conform to the accepted dress and pattern that had distinguished the Senate over many years. The matter was subsequently put to the vote and was carried on the voices. Senator Webster was completely within his rights in being obedient to that ruling of the Senate that was accepted and carried on the voices as to the style and quality of dress that was required.
Public servants who come into this place do not have any more privilege by being public servants than has any honourable senator. Public servants must conform to the style and quality which is required of honourable senators in this place. Any public servant who comes in here and attempts to set his own pattern should be thrown out by whoever is in the chair. Public servants must conform to the Senate patterns of behaviour and not their own. Therefore I will say no more about shorts, stockings, bikinis, bathing gowns or whatever it is that Senator McLaren and his colleagues in this place may elect to invest themselves in and appear in the Senate.
– I wish to say a few brief words on this matter because I think the adviser concerned was advising me at the time. We were debating the estimates for the Department of Urban and Regional Development and the adviser was from that Department. The Chairman said to me that he did not think the adviser should come in wearing a roll neck jumper. I told the adviser that the Chairman disapproved of his dress. The adviser said: ‘Oh, does he?’ It was not for me to tell the adviser to get out if anyone wanted him to get out. I saw a conference between the Chairman of Committees and the Clerk of the Senate, and they were peering around the little gateway near the door to find out what the adviser was wearing below. Apparently the discovery was that he was wearing jeans. This did not seem to be affecting anyone but what the adviser was wearing below seemed to offend the dignity of the Chairman of Committees.
Senator McLaren stated that I had spoken on this question on a previous occasion. At no time did I speak disparagingly of those who wanted to wear different dress. On that occasion I tried to trace the history of our mode of dress. I said that our mode of dress always had been determined so that we could distinguish ourselves from the working man, in effect saying that we did not work. That attitude has continued to the present but today there is some similarity in the dress of a senator and of a working man. In an organisation in which all members dress the same the higher gentry are distinguished by the stripes on the arms or the pips on the shoulders. This has been the framework of our dress all along.
The other matter I want to raise is in regard to those who want to wear shorts. If they believe they will look more masculine or more muscular, or if they believe they will be cooler they have full right to wear them. In fact, shorts and clothes sticking to a man in hot climates would burn him up. Two-thirds of the male population of the world wear skirts, not trousers. The idea that tight fitting clothes are cooler is unrealistic. In hot climates something hanging from the shoulder which keeps the sun off is the best idea. It appears that we want to keep this House a house of snobbery with only certain people being allowed in.
On the other occasion I accepted that the House Committee was laying down a code of dress for members of the House of Lords. I did not know that it was extended to cover anyone who may walk into the Senate chamber. I think we are stretching it too far if we make it apply to everybody who enters the chamber. We must be realistic. The man concerned has the mental capacity to be of assistance by advising me, irrespective of whether he has clothes on at all. The main consideration with regard to an adviser is his mental capacity. If the way he dresses offends an individual here, am I to be deprived of the advice he can give me? Is that to happen because his dress does not conform with the ideas of the senator in charge of the chamber at the time? I think we are going too far. Because I do not wish to display my legs I do not own a pair of shorts. Nevertheless, I give my support to those who want to introduce dress reform into the Senate chamber.
– In order to get this matter into perspective I will quote standing order 269 to the Senate. It provides:
Except as provided by these Standing Orders, the same rules as to the conduct of Senators and of debate, procedure, and the general conduct of business shall be observed in Committee as in the Senate itself, the Chairman of Committees being invested with the same authority as the President for the preservation of order; but disorder in a Committee can only be censured by the Senate, on receiving a report.
The report of the House Committee introduced on 2 December 1971 brings the matter into its correct perspective. It stated:
The Committee believes that rules relating to dress in the chamber should not be necessary-
I want to stress that there should not be rules- -and the choice of appropriate clothing should be left to Senators ‘ discretion.
There are rules with regard to clothing for the beach and rules for clothing for the boudoir, not necessarily worn on the beach or in the boudoir. Togs are made for the football ground. In each one of those areas there is appropriate dress. I do not think it behoves the Senate to prescribe the type of clothing to be worn on the beach or elsewhere, in the Senate.
– What is the standard for an adviser?
– In my view an adviser should pay a certain deference to senators and they in their discretion should wear the dress that they believe is appropriate. The House Committee stated that the choice of appropriate clothing should be left to senators’ discretion. Advisers are here by courtesy of senators, whether the Ministers want them or not. They are here by courtesy of the other senators and they should use their discretion in the type of clothing they wear.
– This one did.
– It is a matter for his discretion. If the senator in charge of the chamber at the time felt that the adviser was not discreet enough he was entitled to use his judgment. I would not have made the same judgment. I ask honourable senators to use their discretion and -
– Observe the rules.
– The rules call for the use of discretion and commonsense. That is all I am asking any senator to use. I think that Senator McLaren is quite justified in raising the matter if he feels aggrieved about the decision. On the other hand Senator Webster had the prerogative at the time to draw attention to the standing order which enables him to maintain a certain decorum in the Senate.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 11.10 p.m.
page 2548
The following answers to questions were circulated:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:
– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The names of those organisations and the dates of registration are as follows:
Aboriginal Medical Service- 21 September 1974 (New South Wales)
Ancient Order of Foresters Friendly Society in Queensland- 5 June 1974
Western Region Subsidised Health Benefits Fund (Victoria) 13 August 1974
Ancient Order of Foresters Friendly Society in Queensland- 5 June 1974
The reasons for the Minister’s approval of these registrations are as follows:
This organisation has been operating a medical benefits fund and a hospital benefits fund under the provisions of the National Health Act continuously since 1 July 1953 and 4 July 1967 respectively. However, all medical and hospital benefits organisations registered at 1 July 1970, wishing to continue in the National Health Scheme, were required under the provisions of the National Health Act 1970, to seek re-registration.
This organisation applied for re-registration but was refused by the then responsible Minister. Notwithstanding this refusal, it continued to operate under ‘deemed’ registration provisions of the National Health Act 1970 (section 61 ) pending the hearing of an appeal lodged by the organisation under section 80 of the Act against the Minister’s decision. The appeal was originally expected to be listed for hearing by the Supreme Court of Queensland in March 1971. However, the organisation took no initiating action to have the appeal brought on for hearing. Because of the technical situation that arose from the ‘deemed’ registration which the organisation held, there was doubt as to whether contributors would be adequately protected in the event of either the appeal being dismissed by the Supreme Court or the organisation withdrawing its appeal. For this reason the Minister for Social Security when reviewing the situation decided to restore the organisation’s full registration. This ensured the protection of contributors rights. The appeal that had been lodged by the organisation then lapsed.
These two organisations are registered under the National Health Act as ‘contract’ medical benefits organisations (see section 13 (i) for definition of’contract arrangements’) and as such are reimbursed for one half the salaries paid by the organisation to the doctors employed. Aboriginal Medical Service provides free medical treatment for aboriginal members of the community, given by doctors employed at the Centre. The Minister for Social Security visited the Centre in March 1973 and formed the opinion that it was an excellent project, commendable for successful local initiatives which deserved fostering.
The Western Region Subsidised Health Benefits Fund was set up under the auspices of the Trade Union Clinic and Research Centre Limited, Footscray, Victoria, to provide a comprehensive range of free health services to eligible pensioners and their dependants, who would otherwise normally receive free treatment from participating doctors under the Pensioner Medical Service arrangements.
Initially, representatives of the Trade Union Clinic made application to enter into an agreement with the DirectorGeneral ofSocial Security under the Pensioner Medical Service arrangements. This followed the withdrawal by certain doctors in the Footscray area from the Pension Medical Service, as a result of which the Clinic was treating an increasing number of pensioners without charge.
As aspects of this proposal could not be resolved satisfactorily, the alternative approach of registering the fund as a contract’ organisation in respect of such pensioners was adopted.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:
– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:
– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Appointment of ALP Members to Boards, etc. (Question No. 293)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, upon notice:
– The Acting Minister for the Environment and Conservation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
Aborigines
– On 24 July 1974, Senator Rae asked me the following question, without notice:
Does the Attorney-General agree that one of the important needs in the provision of a just court system for Aborigines is the availability of an adequate number of trained Aboriginal interpreters and the training of both the legal profession and magistrates in an understanding of Aboriginal culture, law and way of life where those legal practitioners or magistrates are involved in trials involving Aborigines? If the Minister does agree, what is he doing to provide for this need in the Northern Territory and so far as he can elsewhere?
At that time, I replied that I thought the statement of principle by the honourable senator was correct. I also indicated that I would look into the matter and inform the honourable senator and the Senate.
I can now inform the honourable senator and the Senate that I have long recognised the need for a greater involvement of Aborigines in the law enforcement processes of both mainland Territories and, in particular, of the Northern Territory.
Honourable senators will recall that in March of this year, the Governor-General, on my recommendation appointed Mr Robert Brown, an Aboriginal, as a Special Magistrate at Jervis
Bay with power to remand persons for trial, to hear bail applications and to issue warrants of search and arrest. Mr Brown has performed a valuable service in relation to these matters and in so doing has reduced to a minimum the need for Stipendiary Magistrates to travel from Canberra to deal with matters at Jervis Bay. Since then on my recommendation Mr Silas Ngulati Roberts, of Maningrida, a member of the Alawa Tribe, has been appointed as a Special Magistrate of the Northern Territory. Mr Roberts will operate in a similar manner to that indicated earlier in relation to Mr Brown.
It is intended that additional appointments of Aborigines as Special Magistrates be made progressively after consideration of the needs of particular areas of the Northern Territory.
I recently approved an extension of Mr Brown’s powers to include the trial of traffic offences and cases involving breaches of the various conservation ordinances. In addition, Mr Brown will shortly be sworn in as a Coroner.
Last May, I had introduced into the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory a Bill for the establishment of a scheme for police cadets. While it is intended that this scheme will be open to all youths between the ages of 16 and 19, its primary aim is to attract Aboriginal youths into the Northern Territory Police Force. By bridging the period between the time a youth usually leaves school and the minimum age for recruitment as a constable, the scheme will, I hope, overcome the present problem of having to attract youths away from an established and at times better paying occupation into the Force. This legislation which was enacted by the Legislative Council at its August session, commenced operation on 23 September, 1 974.
In addition, the Public Service Board has approved a proposal for the employment of 12 Aborigines as police liaison assistants to be attached to 6 of the larger police stations in the Northern Territory. The stations are- Darwin, Alice Springs, Gove, Groote Eylandt, Katherine and Tennant Creek. The object will be to fill these positions with mature persons (both men and women) who have a respected status in the Aboriginal community in these areas where they are stationed. Their duties will be to assist Aborigines who are brought into the police station. While the assistants will not have any police powers they will act as interpreters; they will endeavour to ensure that persons brought into the station understand the charges laid against them and will generally attend to the welfare of Aborigines in police custody. In addition, the assistants will perform work of a clerical nature at the station to which they are attached and as required may act as interpreters in the court. Details of a six week training course have been finalised and recruitment is proceeding with the assistance of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. An announcement of successful applicants will be made in the near future.
I also recognise the need stated by the honourable senator for ‘the training of both the legal profession and magistrates in an understanding of Aboriginal culture, law and way of life where those legal practitioners or magistrates are involved in trials involving Aboriginals’. From time to time, seminars and other courses are held in various parts of Australia which deal with Aboriginal customs and problems associated with Aboriginals and the law. It has been and is my policy to ensure that legal officers of the Department and magistrates stationed in the Northern
Territory participate in such activities. In July, the Chief Magistrate for the Territory, a brother magistrate and two senior officers of the Department attended a seminar on ‘Aboriginals and the law’ conducted by Monash University, Melbourne. More recently, the Northern Territory Police Commissioner and two senior Departmental officers attended a conference on Community Relations in Alice Springs convened by the Australian Frontier Organisation. While I cannot speak for lawyers in the private sector of the profession in the Territory, I have no doubt that they too see the need to understand and appreciate the problems confronting Aborigines appearing before the courts.
The problems I have mentioned are not, of course, confined to the Northern Territory. The honourable senator and the Senate may be assured that I will endeavour to see that the States adopt similar measures to assist Aborigines in their dealings with the law.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 19 November 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1974/19741119_senate_29_s62/>.