Senate
29 May 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1975

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1991

PETITIONS

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 302 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.

That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and the losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.

That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1 974.

That no reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) have been given by the Government.

That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful.

That the insurance industry is already faced with

the effects of inflation,

increased taxation on life assurance offices,

the effects of recent natural disasters,

other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.

That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Senator CARRICK:

-I would like the petition to be read but as it exceeds 250 words in length I ask that leave be given for the petition to be read by the Clerk.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted.

Petition received and read.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

Senator CARRICK:

– I present the following petition from 62 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

An AGIO will have an unfair advantage over private enterprise.

Shrink the flow of funds to the private sector.

Increase the bureaucracy.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 705 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable, the President and Members of the Senate assembled: We the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully refer to the Bill concerning the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office.

We are not necessarily against the formation of such an organisation.

We do however, feel that the Bill could be rushed through Parliament without sufficient deliberation.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Bill be referred to a Senate Select Committee or Public Enquiry Committee. In this way submissions from interested parties can be called for.

Recommendations from this Committee would then reflect the true wishes of the Australian electorate.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– I present 3 petitions from 13, 25 and 77 citizens of Tasmania identical in wording to a petition presented by Senator Carrick this day, in the following terms:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth:

1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.

That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.

That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.

That no reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) have been given by the Government.

That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 lire assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful.

That the insurance industry is already faced with

the effects of inflation,

increased taxation on life assurance offices,

the effects of recent natural disasters,

other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuatoin.

That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received and first petition read.

The Clerk:

– The following peititions have been lodged for presentation:

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other damages resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1 974.
  4. That no reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) have been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful.

  6. That the insurance industry is already faced with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your peititioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Martin, Senator Sheil (2 petitions), Senator Scott, Senator Mulvihill, Senator James McClelland, Senator Drury, Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson (18 petitions), Senator Everett (3 petitions), Senator Cavanagh, Senator Sim and Senator Davidson.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Cause the loss of jobs and future prospects of employees and agents of the private insurance industry throughout Australia.
  2. Compete unfairly with private insurers.
  3. Require large taxation subsidies for a lengthy period.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament Assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non -commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.

  6. That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. b ) increased taxation in life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Missen.

Petition received.

page 1993

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1993

QUESTION

SOUTH VIETNAMESE STUDENTS

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I ask whether it is a fact that private students from South Vietnam are permitted to apply for permanent residence in Australia? Secondly is it a fact that sponsored students from Vietnam are not permitted to apply for permanent residence? If the answer to the second question is yes, why are they not permitted to apply for permanent residence?

Senator WILLESEE:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

-At the moment they are here on temporary residence. I will have to check on the 2 categories. I have a prepared answer that may be of interest to the honourable senator. The question of permanent residence is essentially a matter for my colleague the Minister for Labor and Immigration, with whom I can check this matter. All Vietnamese and Combodian students and former diplomats in Australia are assured of being able to stay in Australia for the time being through the extension of their temporary residence status. However, if any of them wish to remain here beyond the date of expiry of their present temporary entry permits the Australian Government will be happy to consider applications for further stay in the light of the circumstances at that time. That would seem to suggest that both categories could apply for permanent residence. However, I will check with the Department of Labor and Immigration and let the honourable senator know.

page 1993

QUESTION

RADIO STATION 3ZZ, MELBOURNE

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

-Has the Minister for the Media seen reports that the President of the Greek-Australian Liberals Association was refused membership of the Greek Committee on programming for the new access station 3ZZ in Melbourne? Does this mean that the Government is using this station as a propaganda unit among migrant groups? Does it also mean that the Australian Broadcasting Commission determined that the Greek Committee on programming be a leftist organisation?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I did see the report to which the honourable senator refers and I did make some inquiries of the Australian Broadcasting Commission about the matter. Incidentally, might I say at the outset that this morning the ABC apparently reported me as having said in the Senate yesterday that I had now established a propaganda machine within my Department.

Senator Guilfoyle:

– Yes, you did say that, senator.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I did not say that. I think the honourable senator will find if she reads the Hansard report that I said that I had not yet seen any propoganda machine within my Department. Having made inquiries of the ABC I am now told that there was an error in the typed matter that was given to the news reader and the word ‘now’ should have read not’. I did see the report to which Senator Poyser referred. I sought some information from the ABC which informed me that it does not believe that the Greek Committee on programming for 3ZZ can be accurately described as a leftist organisation. The Committee itself passed a resolution that there should not be representatives of political organisations on the Committee. As of now there are 18 organisations represented on the Committee including the Church, boy scouts, regional groups and the Greek Orthodox community. The Commission advises me that it is true that an application by a Mr Kouris, President of the Greek Australian Liberals Association, to join the Committee was rejected in line with the resolution of the Committee previously mentioned. Mr Kouris has since been invited to participate in the Committee as the representative of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Mentone and an invitation was forwarded to him to attend the next meeting of the Committee on 1 9 June. I understand that the invitation was forwarded to him yesterday.

It has also been widely reported that the Greek program on 3ZZ last week contained a bitter personal attack on the Greek ConsulGeneral. I am told by the ABC that this is not true. I understand there was some criticism of the Greek Consul. The program referred to the fact that the Greek Consulate was open fewer hours a day than the Italian Consulate was. As the Greek community in Melbourne is so large, the case apparently was put that the hours should be extended. The ABC does not consider this to be a bitter personal attack, but indeed fair comment. The Commission has further told me that after the program more than 100 calls of commendation were received by 3ZZ and there were no calls against the program. The case for the extended -

Senator Wright:

– I take a point of order. This is obviously a contrived answer and the question was not without notice.

The PRESIDENT:

– That is a matter of opinion. The Minister has been asked -

Senator Wright:

– It is pretty obvious to anyone that -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The Minister was asked a question which sought information and he is giving the information.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The case for the extended consulate hours obviously struck a chord as far as the Greek community was concerned.

page 1994

QUESTION

ALLEGED SEIZURE OF DOCUMENTS

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. Are reports correct that officers of the Trade Practices Commission, aided by the Commonwealth Police, raided a businessman’s home and business premises and seized documents last weekend? Is not such action contrary to the Trade Practices Act which gives no power to seize documents and gives no authority whatsoever to the police? If so, are not raids of this character and the seizure of documents typical of the notorious dictatorships of this world? Is the Government now accepting that in this country a person’s property and privacy may be invaded to discover evidence with which to convict him? In view of the fact that citizens appear to have no redress to the courts against invasions of this character, will the Minister table in the Senate the documents under which this invasion of privacy took place?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not know why Senator Greenwood needs an answer from me about whether such an alleged raid took place since everything else he said was based on the assumption that it did take place. However, I can understand his familiar concern with democratic practices, so I will get an answer from the Attorney-General and let the honourable senator have it as soon as possible.

page 1994

QUESTION

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of reports that a number of prominent members of the Moscow group of

Amnesty International have been arrested for anti-Soviet activities? Will the Minister inform the Senate of the accuracy of these reports and of the present position of those who were detained? Has the Australian Government taken up the matter with the Soviet Government?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– As far as can be ascertained, 4 members of the Soviet chapter of Amnesty International have been questioned or detained recently. Only one is still under detention. There is some doubt about the status of the Soviet chapter under Soviet law. As far we know, permission has not been sought from or given by the Soviet authorities for the establishment of an Amnesty International chapter in the Soviet Union. It would seem, therefore, that the chapter has no official recognition under Soviet law. The Soviet Union regards matters such as these as falling within its domestic jurisdiction. The Australian Government has, however, made known to the Soviet authorities on a number of occasions the concern felt in Australia about human rights issues in the U.S.S.R. In the light of representations which have been made, the Department of Foreign Affairs has drawn to the attention of the Soviet Embassy in Canberra the concern that has been expressed in Australia at the reports about arrests of members of the Amnesty International chapter in the U.S.S.R.

page 1994

QUESTION

VIP FLIGHT

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Can the Minister for Defence explain why the flying hour costs of operating VIP aircraft, based on figures which he supplied to me yesterday in reply to a question on notice, have increased only marginally since 1972? Is he aware that the per hour cost of flying a BAC 1 1 1 has gone up by only $25, a HS748 by $21 and a Mystere by $12? Has the VIP fleet in some way been insulated against the spiralling inflation which has affected every other section of the community? As rations, airport handling charges and crew pay are not included in flying hour costs, can the Minister explain the composition of cost elements used in assessing VIP flying hour costs?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The chances are that Senator Drake-Brockman is using some of the figures with which he was familiar when he was Minister for Air. I am told that the method of costing for the various types of VIP aircraft, having been established in 1968 by the Treasury, has not been changed. As far as I am aware, unless there is -

Senator Wright:

– Too much use is made of the VIP flight.

Senator BISHOP:

– I am trying to answer a question about VIP aircraft. Honourable senators opposite should not be grumbling about this because, as everyone knows, the previous Government established the criteria for the use of VIP aircraft. We have used them but if honourable senators opposite look at the answers given previously to Senator DrakeBrockman, they will see that the use is not much greater now than it was during the currency of the previous Government. Senator DrakeBrockman has asked whether the figures are correct. I am told that the method of costing has not been changed. It was set down in 1968 by the Treasury. I will check whether there has been a misprint. The question on notice by Senator Drake-Brockman, question No. 510, which was not read to the Senate, was:

What is the present per-hour cost of flying each type of aircraft in the VIP fleet.

The answer which was given to Senator DrakeBrockman yesterday states:

The present per-hour cost of flying each type of aircraft in the VIP fleet is as follows:

BAC 1-11 $675.88.

According to Senator Drake-Brockman ‘s figures, that is an increase of 3.82 per cent. The present per-hour cost of flying the Mystere is shown as $379.57. According to Senator DrakeBrockman ‘s figures that represents not an increase, but a slight decrease. The present per; hour cost of flying the HS748 is shown as $178.35. According to Senator DrakeBrockman ‘s figures, that is an increase of about 7 per cent. I will get the figures - (Senator Wright interjecting) -

Senator BISHOP:

-Would Senator Wright mind being quiet while I am trying to answer a question?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It is the prerogative of the Presiding Officer to maintain silence.

Senator BISHOP:

-I will have the matter further checked for the honourable senator’s information.

page 1995

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
Minister for Labour and Immigration · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Has the Minister for Manufacturing Industry seen Press reports about dissatisfaction with the Government’s proposed plan for the motor industry in Australia? In particular, has he seen reports that during a visit to Japan early this month senior government officials were frustrated in their endeavours and returned with no firm commitments?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Yes, I saw a story on the front page of today’s ‘Australian Financial Review’ which contained the implications to which the honourable senator has adverted. It is true that a team from my Department visited Japan a couple of weeks ago, but the implication of the story that the team was disappointed is simply not true. This was one of a _ series of discussions with the Nissan and Toyota * companies about their prospective entry into an 85 per cent manufacturing plan in Australia. This is an important and complex matter involving millions of dollars of investment, and the Government has no intention of stampeding the Japanese companies. The discussions were constructive and I confidently expect the details of these companies’ proposals to achieve 85 per cent local content to be finalised in the near future. The achievement of higher Australian content levels by these major manufacturers is of great importance to the Australian component industry.

page 1995

QUESTION

CLOSURE OF MEATWORKS

Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture. Is it a fact that because of continuing industrial troubles, four Victorian meatworks are to close down? Is it also a fact that these works together constitute 25 per cent of Victoria’s export meat capacity? Does the company concerned owe the Australian Industry Development Corporation $5. 7m and the Victorian Government $3.8m? Flowing out of those questions, can the Minister inform the Senate what plans his Government has to overcome this problem?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · TASMANIA · ALP

– It would be quite incorrect to suggest that all meatworks establishments in Victoria are closing down. It is quite true that one organisation, the Co-operative Farmers and Graziers Direct Meat Supply Ltd, has given notice to many of its employees. I understand that about 1300 or 1500 employees are involved. It would be partially correct to say that the problems being experienced by that company are of an industrial nature, but that is not wholly correct. Everybody knows what the position of the meat industry has been during the last 1 2 months or so. The co-operative involved, CF and G, has certainly not escaped the consequences of that downturn in the meat industry.

It is also true that CF and G was assisted by the Australian Industries Development Corporation to take over the old Victorian Inland Meat Authority Works at Ballarat. If the AIDC had not been prepared to accommodate CF and G at the time, I understand that those works would have closed down because the Victorian Government was not prepared to assist the farmers’ cooperative as the Australian Government assisted it. That transaction took place approximately 12 to 18 months ago. It was the stepping in by the Australian Government that enabled CF and G to operate in conjunction with AIDC the old VIMA works, as they are termed, at Ballarat. I do not know the extent of the indebtedness of CF and G to the Victorian Government. There is certainly an equity holding by AIDC at present. I do not anticipate that the present closure means a permanent and total closure. The works are obviously in a severe loss situation at present, but that does not mean that they will not be able to come back into a profitable position later on this year. I am hoping- I am sure everybody hopes- that it will do so. I would suggest that to write this off purely as an industrial matter would not be correct. However, at the same time it is apparent that there has not been the co-operation that one would have hoped for between management and the union involved. It is my understanding that the general manager of the CF and G has endeavoured to co-operate as much as possible. I believe there has been a very large degree of breakdown between the union involved and the management. However, with the passage of time one would hope that these matters would be rectified.

page 1996

QUESTION

GARNISHEE PROCEEDINGS IN AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I refer the Minister representing the Attorney-General to Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 7 of 1966 with respect to the amount of wages that may be attached under garnishee proceedings whereby if a judgment of a court of the Territory is enforced a male debtor may be left with only $23 a week and a female debtor with only $15.25 a week. I ask the Minister: Will he take the necessary steps to ensure that this outdated Ordinance is either amended or completely abolished?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable senator mentioned to me as we were coming into the chamber this morning that he was going to ask me this question. He showed me the Ordinance in question which on its face would appear to support what he says, that is, that a man may be left with as little as $23 a week and a woman with as little as $15.25 a week under the garnishee proceedings of this Ordinance which was made in 1966. It is quite obvious- I think honourable senators opposite would agree- that $23 bought a little bit more in 1966 than it does today. If this is still the law- as

I say, I have not had a chance to check it- it obviously cries out for amendment. So I will draw it to the attention of the Attorney-General with a view to having it amended, if it has not been amended.

Senator Wright:

– What is the name of the Ordinance?

Senator JAMES McCLELLANDAttachment of Wages Limitation Ordinance 1966.

page 1996

QUESTION

CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I refer to the question I asked the Minister for Foreign Affairsyesterday about the reports of support by China for national communist parties aiming to overthrow the governments of Burma, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. When was the Minister first aware of these reports? Did he first learn of the reports from newspapers or from his Department? Has he yet completed his check of the reports? Can he advise the Senate of the Government’s attitude to China’s action? What action will be taken by the Government?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I think I read the reports in the newspapers, but I am not quite sure. I did take up Senator Chaney’s question yesterday and I have some information on it today. The Chinese Communist Party has recently issued statements marking the 55th anniversary of the Communist Party of Indonesia on 22 May and the 45th anniversary of the Malayan Communist Party on 30 April. There were broadcasts over Radio Peking. The Press has reported that the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Mr Malik, has reacted strongly to the messages to the Indonesian Communist Party. We are not aware of any public reaction by the Malaysian Government. As to what Australia should do about it, I do not think Australia can be in the business of reacting instantly to everything that is going on between other countries in our region. I might have personal opinions in relation to such matters but I just do not think it is wise to make a public statement. The statements were made by the Communist Party of China and not by the Chinese Government, and I do not think we ought to be over-reacting to them. If it comes to doing something about Australia, that is a different matter.

Senator Greenwood:

– Are we not concerned about what happens to countries other than Australia? That is what you are saying.

Senator WILLESEE:

-We get the usual paranoid interjection from Senator Greenwood that we are not concerned about any other country but Australia. It is not a question of not being concerned. I have said many times that because of the situation in which we find ourselves in this area we should be as helpful as we can but not meddlesome, and that comment still stands. I do not think it is the job of Australia to jump in and react instantly to everything the Press says or to every comment that some country makes about another country. I just do not think that that is the future for Australia.

page 1997

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

-The Minister for Agriculture will recall Opposition members in the House of Representatives forecasting on Tuesday great gloom and depressed prices on the wool market because of the delay in announcing the floor price for 1975-76. Can the Minister indicate what is the position on the wool market at the present time?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-Yes, it is true that members in the House of Representatives, especially the Leader of the Liberal Party and the Leader of the National Country Party, said that the results in the wool market would be disastrous following the decision of the Government. Of course, events have not proved that to be so. The market yesterday proved to be almost as strong as it was the week before. The Australian Wool Corporation was required to buy in only 8 per cent of the offering in Melbourne and 9 per cent in Sydney, and the price came back by only 3 per cent. I am quite sure that the predictions of our friends and the people I have mentioned, who certainly would have hoped that a disastrous decline would take place, have not been fulfilled. It only demonstrates once again the strength of the decision taken by the Government to maintain the floor price.

page 1997

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for the Media following upon previous questions, including those asked last week, on the cost of Government advertising. Does the Minister now have any information on the costs in all areas of government advertising, including advertising in relation to such matters as Medibank, legal aid, and the proposed ‘How to live with inflation’ advertisements?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable senator asks me for quite detailed information on government expenditure on advertising. I am sure that he will be aware that the advertising undertaken by my Department covers a great multiplicity of matters, and at the moment my officers are compuing the information he seeks. Speaking off the cuff, I think about $ 1 lm is expended by the Government each year on advertising, and that takes into account the calling of applications for positions and things of that nature. As to the specific matters to which the honourable senator refers, my Department advises me that it is estimated from accounts submitted by the Government’s official charging advertising agencies that advertising for Medibank arranged up to 30 April this year will involve expenditure of $639,043 and advertising for the Australian Legal Aid Office prior to 30 April will involve expenditure of about $223,7 1 7.

page 1997

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL EDUCATION

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– Can the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs advise the approximate growth rate of the number of young Aborigines staying on at secondary school through the provision of Aboriginal secondary grants by the Australian Government?

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The number of Aborigines who have stayed on at school has increased over recent years at the rate of, I think, about 10 per cent each year. A total of 10 669 grants were made available last year for Aborigines for continuing education, compared with 2379 grants in 1970.

page 1997

QUESTION

CONSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Senator WRIGHT:

-Will the Minister representing the Attorney-General inform the Senate when we can expect an announcement of the appointment of the judicial committee to inquire into breach of constitutional qualifications by members of Parliament which the Senate more than 5 weeks ago resolved would be established?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Yes. Cabinet resolved at its last meeting to set up the committee referred to by the honourable senator. It will consist of 3 judges. The Government at present is attempting to obtain the requisite judges.

page 1997

QUESTION

OVERSEAS SCHOOL TEACHERS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration. I ask him: How long will the Minister tolerate the agent provocateur role being pursued by the New South Wales Minister for Education, Mr Willis, in creating a surplus of school teachers in New South Wales and thereby placing United States nationals in the role of professional cannon fodder? In discussions with the State Minister, and if necessary the American authorities, will he indicate to them that the plight of the American teachers is akin to that of ethnic groups who were similarly exploited in the Pennsylvanian coalfields in the 1880s?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-Senator Mulvihill, as we know, has raised this question consistently. I have told him what I can from Mr Cameron’s point of view. Mr Cameron is endeavouring to do something about it. I will undertake to ask him whether he can inform Senator Mulvihill soon on what is being done about the issue.

page 1998

QUESTION

VIETNAMESE REFUGEES

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I refer the Minister for

Foreign Affairs to reports in today’s Press concerning a mission leaving for Hong Kong to determine the number of Vietnamese refugees eligible to enter Australia. Is this mission visiting Hong Kong at the request or suggestion of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees? Will the mission make inquiries regarding the whereabouts of ships reported to be making their way to Australia? If not, can the Minister give the Senate any later information concerning these people?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-A team left, I think, yesterday morning for Hong Kong to do a survey of the refugees there. The team is going there specifically to carry out the checks. We could easily get its members to inquire about the ships and to see whether they can pick up any information there. I do not have any later information on the ships. So far as I know they have not been picked up by any surveillance operations. That is not to say that the ships are not here because they could have been missed. I will check up on the matter and if I have any later information I will let Senator Davidson know.

page 1998

QUESTION

FREEDOM FROM HUNGER APPEAL

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs noted that the AustcareFreedom from Hunger joint organisation will make an Australia-wide appeal for funds this coming Sunday? Will the Minister explain the Government’s policy in relation to aid for the needy overseas and the place of private initiatives in this sphere?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I do not think I should try to embark on answering that question off the cuff. I think I should get a written answer in order to try to put both questions in their proper perspective.

page 1998

QUESTION

NEW RADIO STATIONS

Senator CARRICK:

– I address my question to the Minister for the Media. Is it a fact that the

Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts in its recent third progress report on television and broadcasting made a unanimous recommendation that licences should be granted to public broadcasting bodies, including community access and ethnic activities, only after a full public inquiry by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and after a recommendation from that Board? Further, is it a fact that the Senate Standing Committee recommended unanimously that all such broadcasting bodies should come under the supervision of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board on identical terms to those applying to commercial stations? Has the Minister rejected outright those unanimous recommendations? Is it not a dangerous propaganda precedent for Ministers to grant licences without recommendation by the existing statutory authority, the Australian Broadcasting Control Board?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am very much aware of the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science, and the Arts in relation to the 2 matters to which Senator Carrick refers. Indeed those 2 recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee are practically completely in accord with the policy of the Government of which I am a member. My departmental officers are now in the course of preparing for me Cabinet submissions which, if accepted by Cabinet, would mean that legislation amending the Broadcasting and Television Act would be brought into this Parliament to provide for public hearings in respect of all licences of this nature to be made the subject of supervision by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. I assume that in the last section of the honourable senator’s remarks there is some innuendo, if not a direct reference, concerning the establishment by the Government of the 2 ethnic broadcasting stations, one in Sydney and one in Melbourne. As I said yesterday and repeat today, these are stations licensed under the Wireless Telegraphy Act only for an experimental period of 13 weeks and at the end of that 13-week period they will be expected to submit a report to the Government.

Senator Carrick:

– They would come under your Cabinet recommendation in future and be licensed only after recommendation by the Board?

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLAND:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I would think that if my recommendation is accepted and adhered to by Cabinet all stations, be they public, commercial or otherwise, would have to be licensed after a public hearing. Meanwhile the 2 stations to which the honourable senator refers have been licensed, as I have said, for a trial period on an experimental basis- I emphasise that it is on an experimental basis- for 1 3 weeks, at the end of which period they will submit a report to the Government. During the time that they are on the air they are subject to the technical and program standards of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.

page 1999

QUESTION

NEW SOUTH WALES PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. ls he aware of the claims made by the New South Wales Premier, Mr Lewis, that the big growth in the New South Wales Public Service was solely attributed to Commonwealth grants to that State? Is it true that the increased financial support to the States by the Australian Government was conditional on an increase in the State Public Service? Does not the New South Wales Premier’s statement indicate an inconsistency and, as well, a contradictory position of the New South Wales Liberal Government, which is constantly asking the Australian Government for more funds and then blaming the Australian Government for the inevitable increase in the State Public Service?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It is true that there is a contradiction in the statement made by the New South Wales Premier because I recall that he’ said an alarming situation would develop- I think those were the words he used- if Australian Government funds to New South Wales were cut. If this is the position in New South Wales, I do not know in what manner the claim can continue to go on that the Government should cut spending because we are never told where spending should be cut. But in Mr Lewis’ case in particular, he has made a clear public statement to the effect that there must not be any cut in spending in New South Wales by the Australian Government.

page 1999

QUESTION

STATEMENT BY DR J. F. CAIRNS

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Does the Government accept any responsibility for statements concerning foreign policy by senior Australian Ministers when they travel overseas? What authority did Dr Cairns have from the Government for the statement attributed to him in New Delhi which I am sure the Minister has seen? Does that statement represent the views of the Government? If not, will the Government repudiate the statement by Dr Cairns and take steps to ensure that the Australian Government is not embarrassed by such statements in the future? If the

Government does agree with the statement of Dr Cairns, how does the Government reconcile that statement with the statement made by the Prime Minister in the United States?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I think the question whether what one Minister says becomes government policy has been raised as long as 1 have been in this Parliament. No, it does not. I think we will always get Ministers and members of Parliament giving their opinions on all sorts of things, whether foreign policy, trade, taxation or any of the other issues that the Press blows up from time to time. Official statements on foreign policy would come from either the Prime Minister of Australia or the Foreign Minister.

page 1999

QUESTION

OVERSEAS TEACHERS

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration following the nonanswer given to Senator Mulvihill with regard to teachers in New South Wales. I ask: Is the Minister aware that the New South Wales Minister for Education feels a responsibility to fill vacancies for teachers in all schools in New South Wales? Is the Minister further aware that if teachers already living in Australia are not prepared to accept appointments where there are vacancies instead of demanding appointments in schools to suit their personal convenience the New South Wales Minister must recruit teachers to fill vacancies rejected by Australian teachers? Is the reason that the Minister for Labor and Immigration has not yet provided an answer to Senator Mulvihill that he has intruded into an area of State responsibility which was completely misunderstood by him before he made rash public statements?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-I do not think this is a reasonable question. The honourable senator asks me what another Minister thinks. I do not know what he thinks. This matter was raised in a previous question. Labour problems, even though they may be partly covered by State situations, are obviously the concern of the Australian Government. The honourable senator knows that frequently we raise the question of unemployment and employment in the States. I think this is a matter about which the honourable senator is correct in asking me. Why should we be bringing people to the country when we have qualified people here already? I am not the Minister responsible, in which case I should not attempt to answer the question. That is the prerogative of the Minister concerned. I certainly will get the information sought by Senator

Mulvihill and draw Mr Cameron’s attention to Senator Guilfoyle ‘s observations.

page 2000

QUESTION

ORION AIRCRAFT

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

-I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. It follows a question that I asked him some short while ago concerning the Government’s proposal to replace the long range reconnaissance aircraft. I understand that the Minister for Defence has announced that the Government is selecting the new version of the Orion aircraft. I ask: In the contract for the purchase of these aircraft have arrangements been made or agreements entered into for offset work on the aircraft to be carried out by the Australian industry?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-Mr Barnard yesterday announced that he had signed an agreement. There is a requirement for offset work with every purchase of overseas equipment. The Lockheed company has tendered proposals for Australian industry participation. That was an important part of the evaluation of the 2 aircraft. In addition the Labor Government has secured agreement from the United States Government that if industry were unable to provide up to 25 per cent of the value of contract of work to Australian industry, the Department of Defence would use its offices to raise Australian industry participation to this level.

page 2000

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOAN

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask a question of the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the abortive $2,000m Middle East petrodollar deal which was initiated by the Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr Connor. Can the Minister say whether the Monte Carlo Finance Company and the Globe Finance Company were involved with discussions in respect to this deal? Can the Minister say where these companies are based and what are the names and addresses of the principals of these companies? If he cannot provide the latter information will he give me some information at a later time?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– Believe it or not I cannot supply that information. I shall refer the question to the appropriate Minister and see whether he can.

page 2000

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN LEGAL AID OFFICE

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

-Will the Minister representing the Attorney-General assure the Senate that the proposed legislation concerning the statutory establishment of the Australian Legal Aid Office and the commission to coordinate legal aid activities throughout Australia will be introduced or made available before the end of this session so that it will be available throughout the recess for scrutiny by and consultation with all persons and bodies involved in this area?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am not aware what stage the preparation of this legislation has reached. I certainly agree with the honourable senator that it is desirable that the legal profession and all concerned with the future activities of the Australian Legal Aid Office should have ample time to consider this legislation and I will therefore convey his request to the Attorney-General and suggest that it be complied with.

page 2000

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator BESSELL:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture and relates to an answer which he gave to a question asked by Senator Primmer. In view of the predictable reaction of wool buyers at sales held yesterday when prices dropped by a reported 8c a kilogram, can the Minister achieve any meaningful stabilisation of auction prices by announcing unequivocally that there is no likelihood of any alteration to the reserve price, at least during the 1975-76 wool selling season?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I cannot understand why members of the Opposition continue this campaign to create lack of confidence in the wool industry. It is a deliberate campaign to try to upset the stability that has been achieved. All the Opposition is doing is trying to throw a cloak of confusion over the minds of people overseas. It is a deliberate campaign for a cheap political point in Australia. I have issued a clear statement indicating the Government’s support for the floor price scheme of not less that 250c a kilogram for the whole of the season but, despite that statement which it was my responsibility to issue, we still have these efforts to create confusion in the minds of buyers overseas. I do not think, with great respect to Senator Bessell- it surprises me that he should involve himself in the issue- that he is doing a service to either the wool industry or Australia.

page 2000

QUESTION

INCOME TAX

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Acting Treasurer: Has the Cabinet or Caucus decided whether pay as you earn income tax will revert to the old rate after 30 June? If the present cuts are not carried into the second half of the year, will wage earners on $ 1 50 a week pay an extra $6 income tax?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I am not able to indicate anything in respect of matters concerning the forthcoming Budget, as I have said before. This is purely a matter for the Acting Treasurer. I will refer the question to him and if he feels disposed to answer it I shall provide the honourable senator with that answer.

page 2001

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister will not announce unequivocally that Government expenditure will be reduced, will he state which fresh items of expenditure are currently under consideration or have been recently reviewed by the Expenditure Review Committee? Or has the Prime Minister now totally abandoned the concept of open government?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It is barely a serious question because I am quite sure that the honourable senator is aware that despite the fact that this Government has been much more open than its predecessors and much more prone to allow the Australian public access to information which it was denied prior to 1972, there are certain matters which must remain within the confidence of the Government, and those include the drafting of the Budget and associated matters. With respect, I would not even refer the question to the Prime Minister. I do not believe it would be proper to do so.

page 2001

QUESTION

ADVERTISEMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT

Senator STEELE HALL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for the Media. I refer again to my previous question concerning the intention of the Department of Environment to place advertisments of up to 2 minutes duration with commercial radio stations. I ask whether any pressure will be placed on private stations to accept the commercials if they refuse to do so in the first instance on the basis that they do not suit their programming.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I can assure the honourable senator that no pressure will be used by me or any officer of my Department. In elaboration of the answer to the supplementary question that the honourable senator directed to me, I think the day before yesterday, I can tell him that I have obtained further information from the Australian Broadcasting Control Board on this matter. The Board has advised me that it amended paragraph 42 of its Broadcast Program Standards by circular letter to stations two months ago. That paragraph of the

Standards now reads that, as a general rule, brackets of advertisements should not be more than 90 seconds. However, when there is not less than 6 minutes of program between the brackets of advertisements the bracket can be 2 minutes or 120 seconds. When designing the advertisements to which the honourable senator has referred, my Department contacted the Federation of Australian Commercial Broadcasters, which indicated that it would not obstruct the 2- minute advertisements but would leave it to the individual member stations to decide whether to run the advertisements. I can assure the honourable senator that all these advertisements, including the 2-minute ones, are being treated by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and the radio stations exactly as any other advertisement would be.

page 2001

QUESTION

MEANS TEST ON PENSIONS

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. I remind the Minister that, in reply to a question I asked a week or so ago, he said that the Government will honour its promise to remove the means test on pensions during the life of the present Parliament. I now ask him: What will be the situation for females between the ages of 60 and 65 years? Will the means test on pensions for them be removed or will they have to continue in employment until they are 65 years old before the means test is removed?

Senator WHEELDON:
Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am not altogether clear on what the honourable senator is asking me when he talks about people having to continue in employment. We have honoured our promises with regard to social security. I thought the complaint of the honourable senator and the people in the Party he has recently joined was that the Government was engaging in too much public expenditure. However, I now note that he is putting forward the proposition that we are not spending enough. We will honour our promise and we will deal with all of these matters when we come to discuss the Budget, but I certainly do not intend to discuss the Budget now.

Senator Wright:

– I take a point of order. I submit that that is not an answer to the question. The Senate is being turned into a farce if the Minister avoids the answer and substitutes entirely propaganda. The question was whether women between the ages of 60 and 65 years -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Is the honourable senator’s point of order that the Minister’s reply was not an answer?

Senator Wright:

– Yes, but I remind you that the specific question was whether women between the ages of 60 and 65 years would become entitled to the pension free of means test,

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I cannot allow this discussion on a point of order. My ruling on the point of order is that Senator Townley has asked for information of the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. The Minister proceeded to give an answer and the honourable senator has taken a point of order, which I rule against. It is not out of order for the Minister to answer the question. Another point I make is that references to the Senate becoming a farce are a reflection on the Chair. I will be the judge of the conduct of the Senate. I call the Minister.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I have nothing to add to my answer except to say that if Senator Wright thinks that he is interrogating me in the Sandy Bay police court, he is making a mistake.

Senator TOWNLEY:

– I ask a supplementary question. I do not think the Minister has either quite understood the question or answered it in a sensible way. Will the means test be removed from females between the ages of 60 and 65 years?

Senator WHEELDON:

– This is a matter of Government policy but, if the honourable senator is concerned about it, he may put his question on notice.

page 2002

QUESTION

ASSISTANCE TO PRIMARY INDUSTRY

Senator McLAREN:

– I address my question to the Minister for Agriculture. In view of the repeated calls by members of the National Country Party of Australia for drastic cuts to be made in Government expenditure, can the Minister say whether he has received any specific proposals from the National Country Party leaders as to where cuts should be made in Government assistance to primary industry?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-The answer to the question is no, and I do not expect to get them.

page 2002

MIMILI CATTLE STATION

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

-Mr President, on

Tuesday last Senator Jessop asked me about the loss of cattle and the malfunctioning of bores at Everard Park in South Australia. At the time I gave him what information I could, and I now have further details. I am informed that the manager of Everard Park was dismissed in November 1974 and a new manager, Mr Bob MacLelland, did not take office until 31 December 1974.I believe the station did experience trouble with its bores from November 1974 through to January 1975. During the period between the previous manager’s dismissal and the appointment of Mr MacLelland, no maintenance was carried out. I might add that, in addition, a portion of Everard Park was burnt out by bush fires, thus cattle were forced to move from the burnt out areas and this caused extreme loading on other bores. I am assured that the situation has now been rectified. At present 23 of the existing 25 bores are operative. The 2 remaining bores are at present being repaired. Everard Park has never carried more than approximately 3300 head of cattle and only 12 died from fire and lack of water during the bush fires. At present there are 303 1 head of cattle on the station. This figure is based on a stock count in June 1974 and allows for the 12 deaths mentioned and 5 per cent loss due to natural causes which is the average figure in such situations. Some 62 1 cattle had been sold. There were 400 calves. Thus the June 1974 mustering figure was 3317. Ten Aborigines are at present employed at Everard Park.

Senator JESSOP:

- Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Jessop.

Senator JESSOP:

– I refer to the fact that no maintenance was carried out during the period between the previous manager’s dismissal and the appointment of a new manager. Can the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs tell me why no maintenance was carried out?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The station is run by the Aboriginal community. There was some disagreement at the time of the dismissal of the previous manager, and without a manager the Aborigines did not attend to the bores’. The appointment urgently of a new manager rectified the situation. We do not want a repetition of what took place in the past. I would say that the lack of maintenance was due purely to neglect by station staff at that time.

Senator Georges:

– And inexperience.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Possibly because of inexperience the staff did not attend to the bores.

page 2002

STATES GRANTS (SECONDARY SCHOOLS LIBRARIES) ACT

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Pursuant to Section 6 of the States Grants (Secondary Schools Libraries) Act 1971I present a statement of payments made in 1974 relating to the Act.

page 2003

CONFERENCE OF ASIAN LABOUR MINISTERS

Senator BISHOP (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral) For the information of Honourable Senators I present the communique of the Fifth Conference of Asian Labour Ministers held in Melbourne from 8 to 1 1 April 1975.

page 2003

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORTS

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

-In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-1974, 1 present the reports relating to the following proposed works:

  1. 1 ) Australian Government Centre at Parramatta, New South Wales;
  2. Road Safety and Standards Authority Facilities at Albury/Wodonga;
  3. Edgecliff Telephone Exchange, Sydney, N.S.W.

page 2003

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE NORTHEN TERRITORY

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-I bring up the report from the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory on Constitutional Development in the Northern Territory, together with the minutes of evidence.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator McLAREN:

– I seek leave to make a short statement relating to the report.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted.

Senator McLAREN:

– In its original report tabled in the Parliament on 26 November 1974 the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory made a number of recommendations designed to grant a degree of self-government to residents of the Northern Territory. On 13 February 1975 the Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) wrote to the Chairman requesting the Committee be reconvened to report on whether, in view of the devastation of Darwin caused by cyclone Tracy, the Committee saw a need to vary any of the recommendations in its original report. After hearing evidence in Darwin for 2 days and in Canberra for one day, the Committee concluded that it should not vary any of its recommendations. The Committee, however, recognised that there could be delays in the transfer of functions to a Northern Territory executive because of administrative problems arising from cyclone Tracy.

When I tabled the original report in the Senate I stressed the need for consultation, co-operation and co-ordination between the national and Territory executives. I warned that without consultation, co-operation and co-ordination the success of the transfer of executive responsibility would be extremely doubtful. Cyclone Tracy and evidence received during the second inquiry emphasised the need to implement the consultative machinery recommended by the Committee in its original report: Namely, that one Australian Government Minister have the executive responsibility for all State-type functions retained by the Australian Government; that the administration be vested in one Australian Government department; and that a committee, comprising the Minister for the Northern Territory and ministers of the Territory executive, be established to co-ordinate and consult on major issues. The Committee now recommends that these measures be implemented as soon as possible.

page 2003

QUESTION

CUSTOMS (PROHIBITED EXPORTS) REGULATIONS

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

- Mr President, I ask for leave to make a brief statement concerning notice of motion No. 1 , Business of the Senate, standing in my name.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted.

Senator DEVITT:

- Mr President, these regulations prohibit, amongst other things, the export of items which have an association with the exploration of Australia, except with ministerial permission. The intention of the regulations was to prevent such things as maps and compasses used by the early explorers, and contemporary records, being sent abroad. It appeared to the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, however, that the regulations were so expressed that they could apply to exploration without limit as to period, so that, for example, a person who conducted a survey of a little known part of the country could be prevented from sending abroad an account of his journey.

When this difficulty was drawn to the attention of the Department of the Special Minister of State, which was the initiating department of the provision, the Department stated that the regulations were not intended to have the effect suggested, but that it was not likely that there would be any difficulty. The Committee did not consider this response satisfactory, and gave this notice of motion to remind the Department of its responsibility to ensure that its regulations are properly framed.

The Minister for Police and Customs (Mr Enderby) has now agreed to amend the regulations to make their meaning clearer. In view of this undertaking, I withdraw Business of the Senate, notice of motion No. 1 , standing in my name.

page 2004

NATIONAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to clear any legal obstacles to the appointment of the Commissioner of the National Capital Development Commission, Mr A. J. W. Powell, as Chairman of the Darwin Reconstruction Commission. The Government’s decision to appoint Mr Powell to the office was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) on 12 March this year. The position of Chairman of the Darwin Reconstruction Commission is a part time office for which remuneration may be determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. The terms of section 8(2) (a) of the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957-73 do not permit the Commissioner or Associate Commissioner to engage in paid employment outside the duties of his office without a real threat of disqualification from office. This is so whether or not remuneration is paid in respect of the additional duties.

This Bill amends the National Capital Development Commission Act to remove any doubt concerning Mr Powell’s appointment. It also makes the way clear for the Associate Commissioners to assist Mr Powell with the Darwin Reconstruction Commission. The Bill also includes a number of formal amendments relating to such matters as audit, remuneration and allowances. This updates these provisions in the Act and brings them into line with similar clauses in other legislation. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Carrick) adjourned.

page 2004

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The following Bills were returned from the House of Representatives without amendment:

Postal Services Bill 1975.

Telecommunications Bill 1975.

Postal and Telecommunications Commissions (Transitional Provisions) Bill 1975.

page 2004

LOANS (AUSTRALIAN SHIPPING COMMISSION) BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 May on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– This is a Bill to authorise the raising of money for the purchase of 2 bulk ore carriers for the Australian National Line. The Opposition does not oppose the measure, nor does it seek to amend it. But there are certain areas of the second reading speech and the Bill about which I wish to make a few queries. I am hoping that the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) will be able to answer those queries in his reply. The second reading speech does not specify whether the 2 vessels concerned, one for delivery in July 1976 and one for delivery in May 1977, are of the same tonnage or what the tonnage is. It would be useful for the Senate to know this. I ask that question because there is a general tendency around the world for bulk ore carriers to be getting larger and larger. Australia is expending quite a sum of money on certain of its ports to make them capable of accommodating much larger draught vessels and the cost of transporting bulk cargo around the world, in which we as a nation are engaged by way of the ANL, has to have a lot of regard to the size of the carrier, and it is becoming -

Senator Mulvihill:

– Marine jumbos.

Senator COTTON:

-That is quite true. I am indebted to Senator Mulvihill for the observation. It becomes very much more apparent as time goes on that the cost of transporting bulk cargo depends on the size of the carrier. I hope that we will not engage in the bottom end of the market by having carriers that are too small really to compete with the nations that have much larger bulk ore carriers. Perhaps we might get an answer to that question, if we can.

I would like to know also whether the costs that have been indicated are fixed costs under fixed contracts. The word ‘estimated’ is used. We are raising money here finally to take delivery in July 1976 and May 1977 and it is not stated whether these are fixed costs or whether later an extra sum of money will have to be found. The amount of the loan is expressed in United States dollars. When one reads the Bill one gets the clear view that we will be taking an exchange risk if there is any movement in the United States dollar position. I would like an answer to that query.

I note from the second reading speech that the borrowing arrangements have not been finalised. This is not an unusual situation but it is apparently impossible to be at all precise in the Bill as to what might be the interest rate. The second reading speech simply states:

It is expected that the loans will have a maturity of between seven and 10 years. Offers will be sought for these funds from overseas sources____

There is no indication of the interest rates that will be payable or that will be acceptable to the Australian Government. If that information can be offered I think it would aid the process of the Senate informing itself.

I note from the final paragraph of the second reading speech that the terms and conditions of the loans are subject to approval by the Australian Loan Council, that the amount to be borrowed is in the current Loan Council program, and if it is not borrowed in the current year it will be carried forward into the next loan program. I would like an explanation from the Treasury officers as to whether it is normal, if that is the case, to provide- as clause 10 of the Bill states:

The National Debt Sinking Fund Act 1966-1967 does not apply in relation to moneys borrowed under an agreement made in pursuance of this Act.

If it was part of the Australian Loan Council program and it is an overseas loan, I wonder what is the reasoning for clause 10 to exclude this operation from the National Debt Sinking Fund Act. I imagine it may be because it is a loan raised on behalf of a statutory body and the proceeds will be passed through to that body. If it is possible, I would value a slight reference to that in the Minister’s reply.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– The size of the vessels initially will be 120 000 tonnes dead weight. It is quite correct, as Senator Cotton has pointed out, that it would be inadvisable presumably on the part of the Australian National Line to be building ships of smaller tonnage as we all know that such ships are becoming progressively bigger. Australian facilities now allow for the building of ships of a maximum of approximately 80 000 tonnes. No Australian shipyard would be able to build ships of the size of these particular vessels.

The other matter raised by Senator Cotton concerned the exchange risks.

Senator Cotton:

– I referred to the cost position. Are they fixed costs or estimated costs?

Senator WRIEDT:

-I will come to that matter in a moment. The third matter raised by Senator Cotton concerns exchange risks. The exchange risk will be taken by the Australian National Line. I understand that a proportion of the total amount to be raised may well be borrowed in currencies other than United States dollars. Clause 5, which relates to this matter, defines the means by which any amounts borrowed in such currencies can be converted into United States dollars. Currency changes, as I have indicated, will be borne by the Australian National Line. The majority of significant currencies are now floating at market determined exchange rates, either independently or in currency blocs against other currencies. As a result the United States dollar equivalent of these currencies needs to be expressed for practical reasons in terms of the prevailing market rates of exchange. These rates of exchange are available to the Reserve Bank of Australia on a day to day basis in the course of its normal foreign exchange business.

Senator Cotton:

– The exchange risk is for ANL?

Senator WRIEDT:

-That is right, yes. Senator Cotton made reference to the possibility of cost escalation. I understand that they are expressed in a fixed Swedish currency, the krone. If Senator Cotton would prefer it, I could get a more definitive answer which I am afraid is not specifically available at the moment.

Senator Cotton:

– It would be all right with me if you could just write to me. Is it a fixed contract price or does it contain escalation?

Senator WRIEDT:

– As I understand it, it is a fixed contract price. Apparently that information would need to come from the ANL itself. There was another matter which Senator Cotton raised.

Senator Cotton:

– Interest rates.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Senator Cotton asked whether the National Debt Sinking Fund Act is to apply. My understanding is that as the funds for the full repayment of the loans will be provided by the ANL there is no need for the Australian Government to make sinking fund contributions in respect of the borrowings, and the Bill accordingly provides that the National Debt Sinking Fund Act shall not apply.

Senator Cotton:

– Can the Minister give any indication of the interest rate for borrowings?

Senator WRIEDT:

– I am not sure whether we have that information. I understand that the rate is expected to be about 9 per cent and some of the funds will be provided from the United States loan now being negotiated in New York.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– I shall be extremely brief. I am indebted to the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) for his replies to the matters I raised. I would be grateful if he would ask the officers to read the Hansard record and let me have in writing, if they can, further answers to some of the points which, understandably, could not be answered precisely at this time.

Senator Wriedt:

– I will certainly provide that information.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2006

FAMILY LAW BILL 1974

In Committee

Consideration of House of Representatives amendments.

Clause 4.

House of Representatives amendment No. I -

In paragraph (d) of the definition ‘welfare officer’ after children’ insert ‘, being an organization that has been approved by the Attorney-General’.

Clause 41.

House of Representatives amendment No. 2-

In sub-clause (3), omit ‘sub-section (1)’, substitute subsection (2)’.

Clause 50.

House of Representatives amendment No. 3-

In sub-clause ( 1 ), omit ‘up to the date of the commencement of the hearing of the application’, substitute ‘up to the date of the filing of the application ‘.

Clause 75.

House of Representatives Amendment No. 4-

In sub-clause (2), after paragraph (k) insert the following paragraph: (ka) the need to protect the position of a woman who wishes only to continue her role as a wife and mother; ‘.

Clause 76.

House of Representatives Amendment No. 5-

In sub-clause (2), omit ‘sub-sections (3) and (4)’, substitute ‘ su b-section ( 3 ) ‘.

Clause 100.

House of Representatives Amendment No. 6-

At the beginning of sub-clause (2) insert ‘In proceedings under this Act,’.

Clause 104.

House of Representatives Amendment No. 7-

In sub-clause (10), omit ‘before, on or after the commencing date’, substitute ‘before or after the commencement of this Act’.

Clause 106.

The regulations may make provision for and in relation to the manner in which decrees made under this Act may be enforced including provision for conferring jurisdiction on courts of the Territories or investing State courts with federal jurisdiction.

House of Representatives’ amendment No. 8-

Omit the clause, substitute the following clause: 106. The regulations may make provision for and in relation to the enforcement of decrees made under this Act including-

provision for conferring jurisdiction on courts of the Territories or investing State courts with federal jurisdiction; and

in the case of a decree being a maintenance order under Part VIII- provision for an officer of a court exercising jurisdiction under this Act or an authority or person specified in the regulations, in his discretion, to take proceedings on behalf of the person entitled to moneys payable under that order for the purpose of enforcing payment of those moneys. ‘.

Clause 107.

House of Representatives’ amendment No. 9-

In sub-clause (3), omit ‘sub-section 114 (3)’, substitute sub-section 1 14(4)’.

Clause 114.

House of Representatives’ amendment No. 10-

In sub-clause (4) (d), omit ‘this’, substitute ‘the’.

Clause 121.

House of Representatives’ amendment No. 11-

In sub-clause (6), omit all the words after’regulations’.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Marriott:
TASMANIA

– Message No. 275 from the House of Representatives and the schedule of the amendments made by the House of Representatives have been circulated to all honourable senators.

Motion (by Senator James McClelland) proposed:

That the amendments made by the House of Representatives be agreed to.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-Mr Temporary Chairman, are we taking the amendments as a whole or one by one? I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 3, 8 and 1 1.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Is it the wish of the Committee that we take amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Amendment No. 3.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I think the Committee should consider this amendment. The House of Representatives proposes this amendment to clause 50 of the Bill. It involves cognate consideration of clause 48 in the form in which it was amended by the Senate. I was overseas at the time this legislation went through and I hope the Committee will permit me to explain my opposition to amendment No. 3. I am of the opinion that it is quite wrong in principle that clause 48 should give either party to a marriage the right to sue for divorce after one year’s separation irrespective of the conduct of either party. This would allow a party to the marriage, whatever be his or her misconduct, to take advantage of that misconduct to destroy what clause 43 of the Bill requires the court to preserve and protect, as one of its paramount duties, namely, the institution of marriage. I will explain in a minute my resistance to the amendment made to clause 50.

I want to be permitted to preface my remarks by saying that the woman in the contract of marriage is the person who carries the seeds of intercourse and the person who has the responsibility for young babies. Therefore she is severely handicapped if divorce follows soon after childbirth or marriage. I think her position is not protected in any proper way by a provision that gives a right, irrespective of conduct, to the court unilaterally to dissolve the marriage. Furthermore, on the reverse basis, for women in that condition, subject to the viciousness of cruelty, drunkenness, misbehaviour physically, perversion or any of those things, to have to wait for 12 months after a separation before getting a sufficient remedy is a very great injustice. For a woman in practical circumstances to be denied the right to immediate divorce in the case of a husband’s unfaithfulness, where it is not practicable for her to undertake separation, is a rank injustice.

Coming to clause 50, honourable senators will recall that when the matter was before the Senate previously it was pointed out that the proper time covering the 12-month separation was the 12 months up to the filing of the petition. It had been penned so that a person could file a petition and, if 1 1 months elapsed between the petition and the hearing, that could count as part of the 12-month separation. But wisely the Senate altered that position and required a continuous period of separation of not less than 12 months immediately preceding the date of filing the application. However, when the House of Representatives made a similar amendment simply upon a literal comparison of the expressions in clause 50, 1 submit that it forgot or did not fully consider that it was dealing with the converse situation. Clause 48 deals with the question of the requisite separation but clause 50 deals with the odd possibility that is embraced there of the single occasion of cohabitation not exceeding 3 months, and for that to be a situation that is permissible and operative only between the date of commencement of the separation and the filing of the petition is absurd.

A separation may commence on 1 February, the parties come together on 1 July for 2 months cohabitation, and they separate again. If they go on and the 2 periods of separation before the date of filing add up to 12 months a divorce can be obtained. But if this period of cohabitation is put only in the period between the commencement of separation and the filing it does not deny the success of a petition where there has been another period of cohabitation between filing and the hearing. The idea that that is included in this circumstance, where the continuous period of separation referred to in clause 48 can be interrupted by one occasion of cohabitation not exceeding 3 months, is odd enough but it has been passed. As the Bill left this House the period of cohabitation that was provided for by clause 50 was one that was permitted between the commencement of separation and the hearing. That is quite right but if it is altered so as to be permitted in clause 50 for a period only between commencement of separation and filing, the Bill does not touch the fact where there has been a second period of cohabitation, irrespective of the length of it, between the period of filing and the period of the hearing.

I have adverted to the fact that the court is required, for what it means, to be satisfied that there is not a reasonable likelihood of cohabitation being resumed, but of course there could be a period of cohabitation between filing and the hearing, a second period of cohabitation between commencement of separation and hearing, whereas clause 50 provides strongly only for one. But if this clause is amended as the House of

Representatives has returned it to us there can be 2 periods of cohabitation between commencement of separation and the hearing, one where the Senate permitted it as the Bill went from here to the House of Representatives- between commencement of separation and filing, which is permitted- but then there could be another period that is not provided for at all between filing and hearing unless this expression is altered back to what it was before the House of Representatives amendment. I therefore oppose the amendment.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I am of the opinion that all these amendments are insignificantin most cases actually desirable amendmentsand that none in any case ought to be adopted so as to delay the implementation of this legislation. So far as this amendment is concerned I have listened to Senator Wright’s argument. The plain fact of the matter is that this was a supplementary alteration which neither the Senate Committee nor the Senate noted, and which was overlooked. The House of Representatives has now made this amendment because it is obviously consistent with clause 48, which has been much debated- that the Senate’s original recommendation that what should be taken into account was the establishment of the 12-month separation up to the date of the filing of proceedings and that it should not be a matter of just proving it up to the date of hearing. That provision was inserted by clause 48 on the Senate Committee’s recommendation and we should logically have followed it through to provide for the position where there are breaks in the period of separation provided for in clause 50. All the House of Representatives is doing is to provide consistency where there was some inconsistency before.

Concerning the point that Senator Wright makes that a period of resumption of cohabition can occur after the filing and up to the date of hearing, I agree that is so. It is no doubt going to be possible for Courts to deal with that matter. It will come before the court because the court has to be satisfied under clause 48 (3) that there is not a reasonable likelihood of cohabition being resumed. If in fact there is a resumption of cohabition in that latter period, obviously that has weight when this question is considered and will be taken into account by the court. But as for this being a matter in which the inconsistency should be retained, I say it should not be retained and that we should agree here with the House of Representatives amendment and with other amendments to ensure that the Bill comes into force.

Senator Wood:

– What about the aspect referred to of a woman having a baby?

Senator MISSEN:

-That is not affected. That aspect is certainly considered and dealt with in the Bill because clause 1 14, with provision for injunctions and orders, is designed to cover the hardship that a woman may suffer during the period before a divorce. It is not a divorce she wants; it is those other remedies in that period, and that has long since been covered in the Bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I regret to say that, as I understood Senator Missen’s submission, he completely misunderstood the position as I put it. Clause 48. quite properly was amended so as to consider separation between the date of commencement of the separation and the date of filing of the petition. It would be an absurd position if the pendency of assent between filing and hearing could be taken into account as part of the 12 months separation. But that is not the subject matter of clause 50 which refers to cohabitation interrupting separation. It is absurd, if the legislature truly intended there to be one interruption by cohabitation of not more than 3 months’ duration, not to apply that to the whole period from commencement of separation up to the hearing. The principle is that cohabitation after the commencement of separation during the 12 months before filing and then up to the hearing is to be interrupted only by one period of cohabitation not exceeding 3 months.

Unless we maintain clause 50 as it was before it was amended there is no provision that prevents a second period of cohabitation during the period of separation up to the hearing. The whole point is that clause 50 is dealing with cohabitation interrupting the separation and the 2 periods to which that is relevant are not the same. The period of separation quite properly was amended here to be the commencement of separation to filing of the petition. Clause 50 was allowed to remain as it was printed before the House of Representatives amended it quite properly so as to provide for and overlook a trial period of cohabitation not exceeding 3 months which should be related to the period between commencement of separation and the hearing, not the period only between the commencement of separation and the filing.

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Senator Wright, as he has said himself, is at something of a disadvantage in this debate seeing that he was not here when the Bill was originally debated in the Senate. It is just not true to say that what appears in clause 50 and what is sought to be amended by the message which has come from the House of Representatives was left in deliberately. Senator Missen, Senator Chaney, Senator Durack, Senator Everett, Senator Button and I gave lengthy consideration to the clauses of this Bill in the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I assure Senator Wright that the words that are now sought to be amended remained in clause 50 entirely by oversight. I am glad by the way that Senator Wright was abroad when this Bill was originally debated or perhaps we would still be debating it.

The Bill is quite inconsistent if we leave in clause 50 a different terminal point for deciding the 12 months separation to that which appears in clause 48. There is no logical basis whatsoever for having a different terminal point in the case where there has been an interruption of the separation and when there has been an uninterrupted separation. Clause 50 directs itself to the question of resumption of cohabitation by parties which might raise a presumption that they are to be reconciled. As Senator Missen clearly points out this eventually is taken into account in sub-clause (3) of clause 48 which states that the court will look at an application in the light of resumption of cohabitation and will decide whether the resumption of cohabitation did create some resumption of reconciliation. To say that because parties have come together again for 3 months there should then be a different yardstick for determining the period of separation is, to me, absurd and illogical. For that reason I suggest that Senator Wright’s objection should be overruled by the Committee.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I shall make one further endeavour. This will be my final one. We have now got to the stage where the Committee, after examination of this Bill, bases its argument on an oversight. That is the degree of confidence which should begin for the consideration of Senator James McClelland ‘s rejoinder to me. Let me ask Senator James McClelland, with that patience and equanimity of thought for which he is undistinguished, to read clause 50 now if he did not read the clause in the Committee. I will take the time of this Committee to read it now. It states:

  1. ( 1 ) For the purposes of proceedings for a decree of dissolution of marriage, where, after the parties to the marriage separated, they resumed cohabitation on one occasion but, within a period of 3 months after the resumption of cohabitation, they again separated and thereafter lived separately and apart up to the date of the commencement of the hearing of the application, the periods of living separately and apart before and after the period of cohabitation may be aggregated as if they were one continuous period, but the period of cohabitation shall not be deemed to be part of the period of living separately and apart.
Senator Missen:

– This is the law now, Senator.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I know the judges have been straining to facilitate divorce and certain groups of judges have been eagerly awaiting judicial appointment to this Family Court.

Senator Missen:

– It is a Commonwealth statute.

Senator WRIGHT:

-I do not wish to be interrupted. If members of the Committee, which now relies upon the House of Representatives to correct its oversight, had listened to me read this clause and then allowed themselves to take a little thought they would have seen the absurdity of the present amendment of the House of Representatives.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You do not understand the clause.

Senator WRIGHT:

– These interruptions make it necessary for me to read the clause again.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You clearly do not understand the clause.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Coming from the honourable senator that is insulting. Clause 50 reads:

  1. 1 ) For the purposes of proceedings for a decree of dissolution of marriage, where, after the parties to the marriage separated, they resumed cohabitation on one occasion but, within a period of 3 months after the resumption of cohabitation, they again separated and thereafter lived separately and apart up to the date of the commencement of the hearing of the application, the periods of living separately and apart before and after the period of cohabitation may be aggregated as if they were one continuous period, but the period of cohabitation shall not be deemed to be part of the period of living separately and apart.

That means if a separation commences on 1 January 1965, if there is 2 months’ cohabitation in July and August and separation continues to the next April, under the Act the 2 months cohabitation does not interrupt the 12 months separation because you can add the 6 months before cohabitation to the 6 months after and you have an uninterrupted period, according to the strange view of clause 50, of 12 months separation. The whole point is that, although a 12-months separation is required as the ground of divorce, we would be permitting one period of 3-months cohabitation not to interrupt that separation. It would remain a period of continuous separation notwithstanding one interruption with a period of cohabitation. We should require not merely the 12 months separation but also that that 12 months separation from the commencement to the filing, and right up to the hearing, should be only one period of separation of not less than 12 months. That is how the Bill was printed when it went from here to the House of Representatives and that is all we should permit; nothing more.

On the basis that the Bill comes back from the House of Representatives, after the suit is instituted the parties can live together, that is, have a second period of cohabitation which may be a trial period and may be discontinued before the judge gives his verdict- but it may not. If we were to allow this amendment made by the House of Representatives to prevail we would allow a second period of cohabitation between the filing and the hearing to interrupt the continuous separation that is required by clause 48 to be from the commencement of separation to the hearing and we would allow the cohabitation between the filing and the hearing to be ignored. I hope that the Committee will apply its own independent judgment to the proposition and reject the amendment of the House of Representatives.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

– I have listened very carefully to Senator Wright’s comments on this clause and I accept the reading of the clause as he has given it, that is, that the amendment as carried in the House of Representatives would permit a second period of cohabitation subsequent to the commencement of proceedings. Between the commencement of proceedings and the hearing one could have a second period of cohabitation and still the ground for divorce would exist. That is a point which, I confess, I had not considered. I am not embarrassed by Senator Wright’s strictures on the Committee because I accept the interjection made by the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) that perhaps we all make mistakes, or something to that effect. No Bill which leaves this Parliament is perfect, nor has every point of interpretation been considered. The question which really arises for the consideration of this Committee is whether as a matter of policy it is a bad thing for the situation which Senator Wright outlined to be permitted under the law. That is the point which has exercised my mind during this debate. It has taken Senator Wright a number of attempts to get his point understood by members of the Committee.

My final view on the matter- perhaps if there is further argument it may be my penultimate view- is that there is no reason why the amendment carried by the House of Representatives should not be accepted. My reason for this view simply is that if the parties continue cohabitation up to the time of hearing- a somewhat odd possibility but one which I accept could occurand if that situation were known to the court, under clause 48 (3) the decree of dissution would not be made.

Senator Wright:
Senator CHANEY:

– It is no good enator Wright making noises which suggestat the court will be misled because I am afraidhere is no law we can make which will guarantee that the court will not be misled or that falseevidence will not be put before it. Senator Wright mentioned in his first address the position a party to the marriage who has been put out,abused or treated shamefully by this procedure, seems to me that if cohabitation was resumed between the commencement of proceedings andthe hearing of the petition and if one party- letus say the innocent wife- has been abused by the husband’s resumption of cohabitation,his leaving her again and carrying on with proceedings, if she is of a mind to withstand the divorce she is in a position to argue with greater force than she would otherwise be able to that shedeserves the protection of sub-clause (3) of clause 48.

When we look at the position other parties in real terms there is no problem forpersons caused by the amendment which was carried by the House of Representatives. I do not agree with the original decision of the Senate on precise grounds and some membersof the Committee will recall that I believed thata longer period of separation was desirable.However, I accept completely the principle ofclause 50, that is, that one ought not to discourage attempts at reconciliation. Therefore the provisions of clause 50 are unexceptionable. With respect to the difficulty and danger pointed out by Senator Wright, I believe it is a theoretical difficulty. I do not believe that in practical terns it will be significant and, as a matter of policy, it does not offend me that, the 12 month period having started, there might be somef inal attempt to bring the parties together. Since I am not offended by this policy, I am disposed in the absence of being convinced bysubsequent argument to support the House ofRepresenatives amendment.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I am grateful for Senator Chaney’s intervention and I wish to respond to it. The first pint he rased was whether the resumption of cohabitationis known to the court. What an amazingworld we live in! The greatest weight of argument in favour of this new-fangled divorce- a disgrace, I believe, to our civilisation and destructive of theinstitution of marriage- and the greatest argument against the present system that this Bill proposes to amend is that the present system leadsto perjury.

Even the days when one risked refusal of dissolute if there was any connivance or condo.nation undisclosed to the court, there still was perju. Yet Senator Chaney ‘s argument in the first place is that if the parties got together as soon i the petition was filed on the ground that they hi lived separately or apart for 12 months, went bed together and slept together up to the hearing and if it was not known to the court, clause ) would have no application. That is the first cas

The sond case that Senator Chaney put to us is that ihe court is aware of it probably it will invoke si-clause (3) and refuse a decree for dissolution cause it is satisfied that there is a likelihood of cohabitation being resumed. If the period of paration of 12 months is made up of 2 periods f 6 months separation despite one period of! months when they were living together, clause 50 simply says that the periods of separtion shall be aggregated and that the period of cogitation shall not be deemed to be part of the p,iod of living separately and apart. What nonsense the idea of an immaterial period of cohabitation after filing and before hearing makes of section 50 wherein the legislature specifically allowed one period, and one period only, of cohabitation and now quite blandly it is suggested to mt by my learned friend and esteemed colleague that the parties need not worry about that second period of cohabitation because the court will consider that there is a reasonable likelyhood of cohabitation being resumed on a permanent basis. It all depends on the circumstnace. It may be a fortnight’s holiday on the Gold Coast; it may be a fortnight und:r the matrimonial roof, it may be in all kinds of circumstances that the second period of cohabitation takes place, but it might not give rise n the mid of the court to a reasonable inference that dere is any likelihood of cohabitation being resumed in the sense of clause 48 (3 ‘, the meaning of which, we agree, is that there s a reasonable likelihood of cohabitation being resumed m a permanent basis. So if section 51 had an; meaning when it was passed through this chamber or through another chamer logic imperatively gives it the meaning that we must allow one period of cohabitation, and one period aone, between the date of com.mencement of separation and the hearing. In default of anyone bing able to demonstrate that that is the requirement of section 50 if we make this amendment, . ask the Committee to reject the House if Representatives amendment.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales) (12.4)- To come into this Committee debate in the presence of our legal eagles is perhaps a trap for young players. When the Bill was debated here I referred to the meetings of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs dealing with this Bill. Putting it mildly, I was completely frank about my view- it was only an individual view, because we all take an individual attitude to the Bill- that the considerations of the Committee were inadequate and infrequent, but I was confronted all the time with the attitude: ‘Look, I am only a lay person. The lawyers have looked at this, and that is the answer’. It is strange now, coming at this time when the Bill has gone to the other place and been returned to us, that the Minister who was the Chairman of the Committee, and another member of the Committee, have admitted that they made a mistake.

Having said that, I now want to come to the question of cohabitation. I was opposed to the one year separation, which I think it is provided could happen in one house. However, I am bound to say that if the preservation of marriage is the essence of the test we put on it- I hope that every senator puts that test on it because in the true analysis and in the ultimate we want the preservation of marriage- it seems to me that if there is cohabitation more than once it may well be that the subsequent cohabitation may save the marriage. If I am wrong in my interpretation of what has happened this morning, will some lawyer please tell me? If there is a chance for a marriage to be preserved once the law has said that it will be on the basis of a one-year separation, and if one cohabitation is acceptable as an effort to preserve the marriage and, as one honourable senator said, the issue of the marriage, then I could live with the proposition that there should be subsequent cohabitation.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– I have listened with deep interest to the debate on this proposed amendment. The Committee knows my general feelings in respect of this whole legislation. I feel deeply that every encouragement and assistance should be given to a rapprochement between the parties to a marriage. If there is any possibility of a marriage lasting, then nothing should be done which would in any way inhibit that possibility. Clause 48 (3) provides:

A decree of dissolution of marriage shall not be made if the court is satisfied that there is a reasonable likelihood of cohabitation being resumed.

That in itself is a stricture on that which can be seen by some in clause 50 to be undesirable. I will support the proposed amendment.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I think Senator Wright is to be complimented on investigating this matter and bringing forward the point he has made. As one who is in favour of the Bill, 1 want to say that 1 am disturbed to know that our Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee comprised of legal men mostly, I understand, should come to the chamber today and admit that this particularly important aspect was not noticed. This is a very serious admission and probably takes the confidence away from one who, as a layman, has been resting upon the advice of our legal members in this chamber. I listened to Senator Wright, and I think it is rather odd that these cohabitations are permissible. I have my own views on the matter of the dissolution of marriage but I am beginning to wonder whether, by the time the appeal comes to the court, and if the parties are still cohabitating there really is any validity in the appeal.

Senator Missen:

– This has been the law since 1965.

Senator WOOD:

-What the House of Representatives sent back?

Senator Missen:

– No, the 3 months.

Senator WOOD:

– Apparently the House of Representatives has sent back to us an amendment which goes beyond what the Senate desired at the time. I think that, under those circumstances we should reject the House of Representatives amendment. Apparently it was sent from the Senate in a much tidier and better form than that in which it has come back to us. The other aspect about which I am concerned particularly from the woman’s point of view -

Senator Georges:

– Are you voting against the amendment?

Senator WOOD:

– The House of Representatives amendment, yes.

Senator Georges:

– Will you explain yourself.

Senator WOOD:

– In listening to Senator Wright I was convinced that he had a point. I believe in keeping my mind open to argument and if someone brings forward something I listen to it. The Minister admitted that the Committee let something go through without noticing it, and Senator Chaney said the same thing. It is apparent that there is logic and justification in Senator Wright’s argument. Senator Missen, who also takes a great interest in this type of legislation, has admitted that the amendment which has come back to the Senate is beyond what went to the House of Representatives.

Senator Missen:

– Not beyond. It reaches it.

Senator WOOD:

– Yes. I feel that what was originally decided in the Senate apparently is better and, under those circumstances, I think that Senator Wright should be supported in throwing out the amendment from the House of Representatives. The other aspect I was about to get on to is from the woman’s point of view, which is of particular interest to me from the humanitarian angle, and thinking of not every women being one of those liberated people who can earn $lm whenever they feel like it, or so they say. There are many wives in our community who, under the circumstances Senator Wright mentioned, are very deserving of every consideration. I am disturbed by Senator Wright’s remarks that in letting the legislation go through he believes that insufficient consideration has been given to the welfare of a woman such as one who is about to have a baby or who has just had a baby.

This is one of the questions which I asked various members of the profession before voting on it previously. Senator Wright is a distinguished person who throughout the years has shown honesty of purpose in deliberations in this chamber, and knowing the examination he gives to these matters, and the knowledge he brings to them, I am disturbed that he feels that a general principle like that has been, to a very great extent, relegated and overlooked. However, the effect of this amendment that has come to this place from the House of Representatives is such that after hearing Senator Wright I think it should be rejected, and I will vote accordingly.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I rise only in deference to what fell from Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson. I can understand his desire to prefer marriage as against divorce, but I would put it to him that one can completely fail in that objective. Clause 50 permits cohabitation on one occasion for a period not exceeding 3 months. If Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s argument were correct we would permit cohabitation on 12 occasions, each of a month. So one day’s separation would then be a ground for divorce.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– The court would need to have regard to that.

Senator WRIGHT:

-I know.

Senator Chaney:

– The 3 months is not part of the 12-month period.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Quite so. I stand corrected. You are quite right. I will withdraw my argument in deference to Senator Chaney ‘s observations. The point still remains that on Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s argument, say, in the last 3 years there would be numerous cases of cohabitation all of which would perhaps induce the idea that the marriage could be preserved.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– If a person decided not to go on because of a subsequent cohabitation there would be no divorce case.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Quite so, and that is why to give any real meaning to the 12 months continuous separation the legislation provides for only one interruption, and that not exceeding a period of 3 months. Under the Bill as it has been passed, if there are 2 interruptions each of a fortnight separated by a period of 4 months that prevents the separation from being continuous and therefore the parties would have to start again. If we were to adopt Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s submission we would introduce into the Bill provisions allowing for several cohabitations and would make the 12 months absolutely continuous from the last cohabitation when the parties found the marriage had finally broken down. What I am asking for here in opposing the amendment received from the House of Representatives is to deny the period of cohabitation between the date of filing for a divorce and the date of the hearing.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales) ( 12.12)- I think it is regrettablenobody regrets it more than I- that Senator Wright was not here when this Bill was debated because he was on government business overseas. I want to make that perfectly clear because, as I said earlier, all the lay people in this place were confronted with the legal arguments which were put forward. In answer to what Senator Wright has just said, I and others were opposed to the 12 months separation. We were opposed to it but, with great respect, the Parliament has dealt with that. We now have a Bill which has been passed by the Senate. We are now considering amendments to certain clauses. One could accuse me of inconsistency if I were to try again to debate all the clauses covering the main thrust of the Bill. The attitude that I take is that we are now confronted with an amendment from the other place which deals with an added opportunity for cohabitation.

This is now in the BUI, a Bill which has been passed by the Senate. In that situation there is a new circumstance on which I can say that I could accept that proposition because it seems to me there is a possible opportunity with additional cohabitation that a marriage may be saved. I will not shift from that view for any person. We all believe in our hearts that we do not want to have divorce, but the law says you have to have it on certain conditions. If it is now discovered in this BUI that there could be a possible opportunity for additional cohabitation, and the Parliament accepts that as a proposition, I think in the broad sweep of the Bill as we are confronted with it we should agree to this amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Marriott:

– The question is: That amendment No. 3 be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye; those against say no. I think the ayes have it.

Senator Wright:

– The noes have it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I cannot call for a division when there is only one request. The ayes have it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 4 to 7- by leave- taken together.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I just want to make a small point in regard to amendment No. 4 because this has been the subject of considerable telegramming and messages to a number of honourable senators, lt has been thought by many that it would make some dramatic change in the conditions whereby matters are to be taken into account when maintenance is considered under clause 75. In my opinion, the clause certainly has some awkwardness of understanding because it is difficult to understand how one can take into account the conditions of a wife in determining maintenance after the divorce. While that Will probably cause some judges some puzzling, on the other hand, what this clause does in effect is to provide for the consideration of the position of a woman who wants to remain a wife and mother without resuming work, something that on the question of maintenance the court has to consider. It takes out of the clause what the Senate put into the Bill, clause 75 (2) (n), which provided that any fact or circumstance which on the justice of the case required to be considered was the final consideration under this clause.

In effect it has taken these considerations and enumerated them with about a dozen or 14 other matters. Of course, there is the contrary position of a husband who may have reasons why justice would not require a court to make an order and that can be considered at the same time. So I think that in reality it ought to be said that this change Will have very little effect in practice. It was desired by the House of Representatives and I consider it is not desirable to oppose it.

Amendments agreed to.

Amendment No. 8.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I desire to make a comment upon this amendment. Paragraph (b) of the amendment reads:

  1. in the case of a decree being a maintenance order under Part VIII- provision for an officer of a court exercising jurisdiction under this Act or an authority or person specified in the regulations, in his discretion, to take proceedings on behalf of the person entitled to moneys payable under that order for the purpose of enforcing payment of those moneys.

In our community there is a very undesirable progression whereby the States have been taking over the responsibility for maintenance properly payable by deserting husbands. To illustrate the enormity of the inroads made upon public expense in relief of these derelict husbands I point out that in 1968 the Commonwealth Treasury paid to deserted wives $ 14.9m; in 1969 the figure rose to $ 18.1m; in 1970 $22.4m; in 1971 $25.8m; in 1972 $3 1.6m; in 1973 $42.5m: and in 1974 the amount paid by the State for deserted wives was $56. 6m. I point out that under this amendment an officer may in his discretion take proceedings for the recovery of such payments. If it were the beginning of an agressive policy by which the money paid from the Treasury was recovered from the man responsible, well and good. It does not mean that, and I have no confidence that it will. It means that the Treasury will shoulder to an increasing measure the burden of paying maintenance to deserted wives. I have no confidence that the amendment, as penned, will mean that the Treasury will recover this money. I take it that the system is for the state to go one step further into business, namely, the business of paying out maintenance and recovering it. That will be a dreadfully sorry business for the Treasury.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 9 and 10- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Amendment No. 1 1.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-In a few moments I shall move an amendment to the amendment of the House of Representatives to clause 121 (6). The House of Representatives asks us to delete certain words from that subclause (6). To consider the content of the clause it is necessary to remind ourselves that the existing divorce law, the Matrimonial Causes Act, imposed limitations upon the degree to which divorce proceedings could be published. Section 123 of the 1959-66 Act provided: a person shall not, in relation to any proceedings under this Act, print or publish, or cause to be printed or published, any account of evidence in the proceedings, or any other account or particulars of the proceedings other than-

  1. the names, addresses and occupations of the parties and witnesses, and the name or names of the member or members of the court and of the counsel and solicitors;
  2. a concise statement of the nature and grounds of the proceedings and of the charges, defences and counter-charges in support of which evidence has been given;
  3. submissions on any points of law arising in the course of the proceedings, and the decision of the court on those points; or
  4. the judgment of the court and observations made by the court in giving judgment.

As far as I know, that provision was a repetition of what had been found to be the proper experience in the English legislation since 1926 and what is the current English provision.

Clause 121 of this legislation prohibits any publication of any statement or report that proceedings have been instituted or any account of evidence or any other account or particulars of any such proceedings. That is to say, the publication of the fact of the decree, the reasons given for it by the judge and the judge’s decision is prohibited. Before any limitation was placed upon the publication of divorce proceedings in England the House of Lords had to consider an attempt made by the court in 1 9 1 3 to prevent the publication of proceedings. There was a very strong statement made in the unanimous decision of the House of Lords. I refer in particular to the statement of Lord Shaw of Dunfermline in 1913 Appeal Cases at page 476. He said that the order of” the court in that case prohibiting publication of proceedings was a matter not merely concerning the parties. He said: . . but those decisions, in my humble judgment, or rather- for it is in nearly all the instances only so- these expressions of opinion by the way, have signified not alone an encroachment upon and suppression of private right, but the gradual invasion and undermining of constitutional security. This result, which is declared by the courts below to have been legitimately reached under a free constitution, is exactly the same result which would have been achieved under, and have accorded with, the genius and practice of despotism.

What has happened is a usurpation- a usurpation which could not have been allowed even as a prerogative of the Crown, and most certainly must be denied to the judges of the land. To remit the maintenance of constitutional right to the region of judicial discretion is to shift the foundations of freedom from the rock to the sand.

It is needless to quote authority on this topic from legal, philosophical or historical writers. It moves Bentham over and over again. ‘In the darkness of secrecy, sinister interest and evil in every shape have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate. Where there is no publicity there is no justice.’ ‘Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself while trying under trial.’ ‘The security of securities is publicity.’ But amongst historians the grave and enlightened verdict of Hallam, in which he ranks the publicity of judicial proceedings even higher than the rights of Parliament as a guarantee of public security, is not likely to be forgotten. ‘Civil liberty in this kingdom has two direct guarantees; the open administration of justice according to known laws truly interpreted, and fair constructions of evidence; and the right of Parliament, without let or interruption, to inquire into, and obtain redress of, public grievances. Of these, the first is by far the most indispensable.’

We have had an illustration of that during this week in relation to persons in high places. There has been revealed the still untrammelled right of the public Press to a divorce case in Sydney which had benefit for an ex-Chief Justice and which concerned the marriage of a judge. It appears that this hearing took place out of normal court hours.

Senator Missen:

– I take a point of order. This amendment is of the most striking unimportance. It relates only to the deletion of the words ‘and “judgment of the court” includes a report made to a court by such an officer’ which were in the interpretations. The words ‘judgment of the court’ do not appear anywhere in clause 121 now. Therefore the particular requirement of that interpretation does not apply any longer, and this consequential amendment is sought. It appears that Senator Wright is talking about something altogether different. I rely upon standing order 4 1 9 which provides:

No Senator shall digress from the subject matter of any question under discussion; nor anticipate the discussion on any subject which appears on the Notice Paper.

It is perfectly clear that a reference to someone’s divorce can have no relationship to whether this unnecessary definition needs to stay in the clause. That is the only matter before the Committee at this stage.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I speak in support of the point of order raised by Senator Missen. I fear that if this point is not upheld we are about to hear Senator Wright descend to a level below which even he has not descended in this place before. He is irrelevant, he is out of order and he is scraping the bottom of the barrel. I ask you, Mr Temporary Chairman, to uphold this point of order.

Senator Wright:

- Mr Temporary Chairman, on the point of order, we are dealing with an amendment to clause 121(6) that has been proposed to us by the House of Representatives. It is only stupid people who would consider that amendment without knowing what clause 121 provides. It is only people who go on a committee and do not notice the full significance of these things who would advance the proposition that we have just heard. What I have said up to date has been aimed at establishing the fundamental importance of giving publicity to judicial proceedings. I ask honourable senators to note that this clause, for the first time, completely and absolutely prohibits any reference whatever to judicial proceedings. In order to show that I am not referring to considerations of antiquity and to remind the Committee of what Lord Shaw said about judges certainly not being permitted to invade this constitutional right, I shall refer to what Lord Shaw said: He said:

What has happened is a usurpation- a usurpation which could not have been allowed as a prerogative of the Crown and most certainly must be denied to the judges of the land.

I have given an illustration. We have had public debate about the misuse of the limited provision in the Matrimonial Causes Act. My point is that I am being completely relevant to the basis upon which I am submitting an amendment to the House of Representatives amendment that is before us. Mr Temporary Chairman, I submit that what I have said has been completely in order, and that I am now in order in going ahead and circulating an amendment that I wish the Committee to consider. It will have the effect of negativing the House of Representatives amendment. I propose, Mr Temporary Chairman, to debate my amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator (Senator Marriott:
TASMANIA

– Order!

Senator Wood:

- Mr Temporary Chairman -

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Senator Wood, please resume your seat.

Senator Wood:

– I am on the point of order.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I am addressing a question to Senator Wright. I wish to know from Senator Wright, who had the call from the Chair, whether he is continuing to speak to the point of order, or is reverting to the debate. I ask Senator Wright that question.

Senator Wright:

– I paused, having finished my submission on the point of order.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I was just about to rise to give a ruling. Senator Wood, do you wish to talk on the point of order?

Senator Wood:

– Yes. Speaking to the point of order, I am one who has been in favour of the proposition not to give details of divorces to the public. I listened to the arguments that Senator

Wright was putting before the chamber. I believed that he was making a contribution in relation to what he felt about the elimination of publicity in divorce matters. Whilst the debate that has ensued may be a touchy matter to some people, I believed that Senator Wright was quite within his rights regarding this question.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I was giving consideration to calling Senator Wright to order just a few moments before Senator Missen rose to take his point of order. I have considered the arguments for and against the point of order, and I believe that in accordance with practice and tradition the point of order should be upheld. Senator Wright, you may continue to address the Committee on amendment No. 1 1 .

Senator WRIGHT:

– Yes, Mr Temporary Chairman. I am so grateful that the Committee has in mind the considerations that I have already submitted. I will circulate my amendment, if the attendants will be good enough to do so. It relates to clause 121(6), which reads:

In this section, ‘court’ includes an officer of a court investigating a matter in accordance with the regulations and judgment of the court’ includes a report made to a court by such an officer.

Amendment No. 1 1 from the House of Representatives reads:

Clause 1 2 1 , omit all the words after ‘ regulations ‘.

To the motion that amendment No. 1 1 be agreed to, I move:

The House of Representatives amendment would then read:

Clause 12 1, omit all the words.

That means that for the moment clause 121 would fall out of the Bill. That follows strictly as an amendment to the House of Representatives amendment. Having regard to the high constitutional principles involved here, I submit that this Committee ought not to trespass again upon the constitutional right which is, as the House of Lords pertinently reminded us, the fundamental guarantee of freedom that judicial proceedings in some measure should be the subject of publicity. Nobody is contending that there should be published all the sordid details and details of personal events that are given in evidence. But to the extent to which the section in the Matrimonial Causes Act permits, the names of the parties, the date of hearing, the ground of divorce and particularly the judgment of the court, as to whether relief is refused or granted, and any proper reasons which are uttered in court by the judge should be published. Those protagonists who wish to have secrecy in divorce now relegate it to a closed court, affidavit evidence and a prohibition against publicity.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Wright, I have considered the amendment which you have had circulated and on which you are addressing the Committee. I believe that the effect of your amendment is really to leave out the whole of clause 121.I suggest that there is a doubt as to whether that result is relevant to the amendment from the House of Representatives that we are discussing. I should like you to address the Committee on that point.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Yes, Mr Temporary Chairman. I note that standing order 224 states:

No Amendment shall be proposed to an Amendment of the House of Representatives that is not relevant thereto . . .

How can it be said that my amendment is not relevant, when it does not propose a single word? It seeks only the omission of a selection of words in the House of Representatives amendment. Mr Temporary Chairman, it is impossible textually to deny that it is relevant, and the substance depends upon the Committee’s opinion as to the propriety of the proposition. I can say this to you, Mr Temporary Chairman, because you would know that I intend no offence at all: Unless you are to usurp my senatorial right of freedom to propose an amendment and to speak to it- I remind you that Lord Shaw said that the judges below had usurped an important constitutional right- you surely will not rule that an amendment which does not introduce a single word but seeks the omission of words that the House of Representatives has used in its amendment is not relevant. When the House of Representatives proposes to us 13 words and I say ‘delete ten of them’, that is directly relevant to the amendment.

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If Senator Wright is to uphold the line of reasoning, as I suppose he would call it, that he has now given to us he would have to assert the right to move for the deletion of any clause in the Bill on which the other place has suggested an amendment. He could presumably move, and claim relevance under standing order No. 224, for example, for the deletion of clause 50. If this is the limit to which his logic takes him I think there is really no need to debate the matter at all. The matter is self-evidently absurd. Mr Temporary Chairman, you have put to Senator Wright the irrelevance of his proposed amendment to the amendment which we are discussing and I think there is no point in delaying the consideration of this matter any further. He is clearly out of order and his proposed amendment is irrelevant to the amendment which we are considering.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-With respect to Senator James McClelland, I think it is still necessary to make it clear beyond doubt that the amendment which has come to us from the House of Representatives is an amendment to delete 13 words that are surplusage and are being deleted because they do not relate to something that is any longer in the Bill. That is the only amendment. It is not an amendment from the House of Representatives that deals with the policy of clause 121 at all. That matter has been debated here and in the House of Representatives. This is an attempt by Senator Wright to redebate the policy of that section. I submit that all that is before the Chair is the words which are surplusage and the question of whether they are or are not surplusage. They cannot be brought into an attack on the whole clause.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I think this is the first time that I have intruded into the debate on this Bill. May I put a simple point of view as a simple senator? Mr Temporary Chairman, if you rule against Senator Wright on the grounds of irrelevancy and your ruling is sustained by others who sit in the chair which you now occupy and the one behind you the debates in this place will cease forthwith, because if relevancy is to be interpreted so narrowly as that no senator in this place would be capable of making a speech on anything. I remember that when ex-Senator Gair was here he used to complain continually about tedious repetition and irrelevancy.

Senator Georges:

– He was guilty of it himself.

Senator WITHERS:

-Maybe he was. I am saying that we are all guilty of it. Let us not fool each, other. If a Minister’s remarks are not relevant in answering a question does anybody take a point of order? Mr Temporary Chairman, I put to you as a senator, not trying to nitpick my way through the Standing Orders or worrying about what words mean, that this place is a place for debate and discussion where people ought to be able to put views within the broadest possible interpretation of the Standing Orders. If we are to get to the situation in which people want the Standing Orders to be narrowly interpreted, let us have it that way. But the Senate will be the sufferer for it and so will the whole of the Parliament.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Marriott:

– Clause 121, as printed, had been agreed to by both Houses of Parliament and the House of Representatives has sent here its amendment No. 1 1, as has been pointed out in the debate on this matter, to delete certain words. My understanding and the advice given to me is that the result of Senator Wright’s proposed amendment would be to delete the whole of clause 121, which was passed by the Senate, was sent to the House of Representatives and was passed by that House with a minor amendment. Therefore, I feel that on those grounds I cannot accept Senator Wright’s proposed amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Resolutions reported; report adopted.

page 2018

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION BILL 1975

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 28 May.

Clause 1 7.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

- Mr Temporary Chairman, when the Senate adjourned yesterday it was considering clause 17 and the Opposition had indicated that it proposed to oppose clause 17. I think all I desire to say in response to what the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) said last night is that the particular example that he gave did not really meet the point which was taken by the Opposition. To use the Minister’s example, if a barman commits an act which is unlawful because it is an act of discrimination, he must face the consequences which this legislation imposes. Simply because he commits that act is no reason to call upon his employer or principal to face a charge. The Opposition’s view is that the onus of proof should be as it always has been. If there is evidence of an unlawful act by an authorising, participation or some conniving by the employer or principal with what the barman has done, the principal or employer has to meet that charge. That is as it should be. If the barman is doing something because he has been told to do it, then unquestionably he will tell those who are inquiring that that is his reason for doing it, and that immediately constitutes evidence, material, upon which the case can be made against the employer. That is as it should be done. The Opposition will oppose clause 17.

Question put:

That the clause stand as printed.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator J. E. Marriott)

AYES: 27

NOES: 28

Majority……. 1

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the negative.

Clause negatived.

Clause 18.

A reference in this Part to the doing of an act by reason of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of a person includes a reference to the doing of an act for two or more reasons that includes the first-mentioned reason, whether or not that reason is the dominant reason for the doing of the act.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I propose to move amendments on behalf of the Opposition to clause 18. Clause 18 reads:

A reference in this Parliament to the doing of an act by reason of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of a person includes a reference to the doing of an act for two or more reasons that include the first-mentioned reason, whether or not that reason is the dominant reason for the doing of the act.

That means that if there are a number of reasons for the doing of an act, each contributing to the reason that an act has been done or the reason that there has been a failure to do something which ought to have been done, and if one of those reasons happens to be the fact that you object to a person’s race, colour or national or ethnic origin, then that is sufficient to render responsible the person who did the act or committed the omission. That can work enormous hardship. It can create an injustice. However, a person should not be able to escape the consequences of his unlawful activity simply by being able to point to another reason and saying that that is sufficient to exculpate. We believe, however, that the dominant reason for the doing of an act should be the criterion whereby one determines whether the motivation or the reason for doing the act is unlawful. I use an example to illustrate the point. If a person is a credit risk and it is known from his background that he has a record of debts, that may be a reason for not letting a house to him or for denying credit to him. That is one of the reasons.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But what if his race may be a credit risk?

Senator GREENWOOD:

-To take up Senator Cavanagh ‘s interjection, if there is also an objection possibly that people of a particular race are reputed to be credit risks, then that creates another reason.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator GREEN WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

-Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was indicating that there can be 2 reasons why an act alleged to be an act of racial discrimination has occurred. One could be because a person was in effect racially discriminating and the other could be because he regarded the provision of a service or the granting of accommodation as a credit risk which he was not prepared to undertake. Under the clause as it stands it is immaterial that the reason of race, colour, nationality or ethnic origin is not the dominant reason. It is sufficient if it is a reason. We believe it is incumbent upon anybody who wants to take to court a person alleged to have committed a wrong to allege that the racial reason, if I can put it that way, was the dominant reason and not simply to say that it was one reason. The Opposition therefore seeks to amend the clause inthe manner circulated. I move:

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have some sympathy with the thinking behind Senator Greenwood’s amendment but I would like to foreshadow that the Government proposes words which are in the nature of a compromise. They are as circulated and in effect they amount to substituting for the words ‘whether or not that reason is the dominant reason for the doing of the act’ the words ‘if that reason is a substantial reason for the doing of the act’. This may seem to be a rather hair splitting proposition and we do not feel very strongly about having this clause amended in the way that Senator Greenwood suggests. However, I would commend to him that the caveats that he places upon the manner in which this clause might work would be satisfied by adopting the words I suggest.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– It is very difficult when dealing with what is in a person’s mind to determine what is a reason. Mostly the reason will be the motivating factors that occur to that person. There always will be other factors of a long standing nature such as prejudice, misunderstanding or a lack of knowledge. There may be many other things that go to make up the reasons which finally decide why something is done. I think the wording in the present Bill is far too dangerous. To require a reason but one which need not be in any way a dominant reason is too strong a requirement altogether. I have some sympathy for the Government’s proposition that it should be a substantial reason but I suppose it could be said also that in that case there is a danger. There may be a number of substantial reasons but they are far from being dominant.

I think there is good cause at this stage for the legislation to require it to be the dominant reason. If it is found that people get around this by subterfuge and the Act does not work as well, this would be a matter for reconsideration. I think it is wise to see whether the Opposition’s amendment, which is the least restrictive of liberty, would be the cause in which it is done and I support the Opposition’s amendment.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

– I also would like to indicate that I support the Opposition’s amendment rather than the compromise. I agree that it is a compromise that the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) put forward. I support the Opposition’s amendment on the basis that I think it represents a counsel of prudence when we are moving into fresh ground as far as most of Australia is concerned, excepting South Australia. I think it is undesirable that the proof required should be as light as is required in the Bill at the moment. I sympathise with the Minister’s comments because I think prosecutions in this area are going to be difficult if our formula is adopted. The difficulty I have with the compromise suggested by the Government is that I think even there you could get people with a mixture of motives. Forgetting the difficulty of proof, there could be people who have a series of reasons for not wishing to let premises to a particular person.

They may have a quite genuine economic reason such as something to do with the person’s individual credit rating or with that individual ‘s record in a prior letting. Perhaps the person might also take a view based on racial discrimination. It might be that the racial discrimination is a quite substantial element but not necessarily the dominant element. In South Australia when legislation of a similar sort was introduced the South Australian Government was even more cautious. I refer to the South Australian Prohibition of Discrimination Act which put an extremely heavy onus on the complainant. I understand that that Act required a complainant to show that the discrimination occurred by reason only of race, country of origin or colour of the skin. To require proof that the discrimination occurred as a result of those reasons only is to cast a very heavy onus indeed on any complainant.

I was interested to read a paper on this Act which was presented at the Centre for Research into Aboriginal Affairs at Monash University. A seminar was held there from 12 to 16 July last year and Andrew Collett, Executive Secretary of the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, presented a paper in which he referred to a number of cases of complaints brought under the South Australian Act. It is interesting to note that in what he referred to as the Southern Cross Hotel case, a case of Fingleton v. Max Flannagan and others, the magistrate said, in commenting on the difficulty of the South Australian provision:

This state of mind is exlusory in the sense that another, contemporaneously held, competing reason for the refusal precludes a conviction. This is so even if the objectionable reason is dominant.

The magistrate, in dealing with that problem, took the concept of dominance as being something worthy of consideration. Although that passage was not known to me at the time this amendment was formulated I think it is as satisfactory a solution as we are likely to get at this stage, anyway. I would add that review of the operation of the clause in due course may show that some change is warranted. I think it is reasonable as a starting point.

If that is considered a wishy-washy point to make, I would refer to the sort of statistics quoted by Senator Rae in the second reading debate and to the statistics of the English Race Relations Commission which indicate that in that country, at least, a large number of cases are brought which are found not to be based on racial discrimination. As Senator Rae pointed out to the Senate, only in one area was there a percentage even as high as 30 per cent. The point to be remembered is that even though our amendments propose to limit access to the courts in terms of requiring conciliation first, in no case will it be impossible for a complainant to get a case before the court because if he is not satisfied by conciliation he can always commence proceedings. I think the likelihood is that there will be quite a substantial number of cases brought which are not well founded. I think it would be an unfortunate commencement to this area of law in Australia if defendants were put in an unduly onerous position. Hence I would counsel caution and urge the Committee to support the Opposition’s amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19 agreed to.

Clause 20.

The functions of the Commissioner are-

  1. to inquire into alleged infringements of Part II, and endeavour to effect a settlement of the matters alleged to constitute those infringements, in accordance with section 2 1 ;
  2. where the Commissioner is unable so to effect a settlement of a matter, to institute a proceeding in a court in accordance with sub-section 25 (1) in relation to the matter;
Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I move:

The Commissioner has very wide powers under this Bill. The Opposition believes that those powers do not sit easily with the rule of law. They are powers that can be greatly abused by threatening or qualifying a person’s rights at law. The Commissioner is given a statutory power to settle matters out of court with the option of then proceeding with court action if the defendant does not settle, in effect, on the terms that the Commissioner feels are appropriate. We believe that this is a denial of justice; it is rule by threat and intimidation. Reiterating the point that was made in the second reading debate, we believe that the man who is to be the Commissioner of Community Relations, Mr Grassby, has shown by conduct and action that there will arise in the minds of some who could well be affected by this legislation the feeling that he has an antagonism to them which would lead them to believe that they could not get a fair go from him. It is therefore all the more important that the powers that are given to the Commissioner are powers that do sit easily with people’s rights at law. It is etirely appropriate that there should not powers that could be used in a way that mig amount to satisfying a private vengeance.

The Commissioner has two types of fuction One is to promote an understanding and acceptance of the various programs and need for avoidance of racial discrimination. It might k described as the educational function, an broadly that is unexceptional. Certainly the 0[ position does nothing whatever to qualify th Bill’s provisions in that regard. The second fun( tion is to inquire into alleged unlawful acts and ti endeavour to effect a settlement ‘of the matter alleged to constitute those infringements’. If thi Commissioner is unable to settle the matters, he is entitled to institute proceedings in a court. We believe that this function is wholly objectionable The Commissioner is empowered to inquire upon a complaint being made to him or where without any complaint being made to him it appears that an unlawful act has occurred. He has a discretion as to whether or not he will inquire into an act. One of the grounds upon which the discretion exists is where a period of more than 12 months has elapsed since the act was committed. Another ground of discretion is where the Commissioner is of the opinion that the matter was trivial. There is a third groundwhere he is of the opinion that the aggrieved person does not desire the inquiry to be made or continued. In cases where a complaint has been made to the Commissioner he does not have to proceed with the inquiry into the complaint if he is of the view that the complaint was frivolous or vexatious or that some other remedy is readily available to the complainant.

For the purposes of this inquiry the Commissioner has a number of coercive powers. He has the power, for example, to compel the parties to come before him, so that at the compulsory conference the settlement may be endeavoured to be worked out. That is a power of enormous import- the power to compel people to present themselves and answer questions- and in that environment the Commissioner may endeavour to reach a settlement. It is the one coercive power that the Opposition in its scheme of amendments proposes to allow to the Commissioner because we think it is desirable that if the processes of conciliation can be engaged in there is the hope that out of that discussion an amicable resolution can be arrived at without recourse to court proceedings. But we do not believe there should be any compulsory power to require people to answer questions and produce documents, and there should not be any threat or intimidation implicit in a Commissioner’s power, if there is no settlement of the matter, for him to be able to sa y: ‘All right, I am going to take you to court’. That to us is one of the very real problems that these powers of the Commissioner involve.

The conference that he summons may be pr esided over by the Commissioner himself or by one of his officers or employees, and any person hose presence the Commissioner thinks will be helpful may be directed to attend upon a penalty for failing to do so. Of course the Commissioner’s p ower to summon a person is not limited to the p erson who has made the complaint or to the p erson against whom the complaint is made. It is power that can be used to summon anybody who the Commissioner thinks may be able to help. There is another broad area of coercive lowers in clause 23 under which questions can be answered before a judge and a person can be compelled to appear before the judge to answer whatever questions the Commissioner seeks to put to him. That is the subject of a further approach or initiative by the Opposition. I have mentioned these matters because they provide a background to the particular amendment now being moved. We seek to eliminate from clause 20 the paragraph that gives to the Commissioner the power to institute a proceeding in a court in accordance with subsection 25 ( 1 ) in relation to a matter.

To put it shortly, we seek to remove the provision because we do not believe the Commissioner ought to have that power. He could come before a conference and say to the person against whom the complaint is made: ‘I believe that justice requires that you should pay to the complainant a sum of $ 1 , 000 or $2,000 ‘ or ‘ You should educate his children at a school’ or something of that character. The type of settlement that he may feel appropriate is in his own discretion. If the person against whom the complaint is directed objects to what the Commissioner is proposing he should do, he is faced with the challenge from the Commissioner saying: ‘If you do not do that I will take you before the court and even if you should have a reduction in the type of recompense that you must make or of the amends that you must make there will still be some costs you will have to bear’. That sort of power of intimidation in an atmosphere of compulsion which attends the exercise of the Commissioner’s powers is we believe a denial of right. In this area of racial discrimination, where we are making a start in this country with regard to a comprehensive law of this character, we believe it is tremendously important to tread carefully and not in an over-zealous pursuit of enforcement powers to create the possibility of a backlash that would do more harm in the long run than good.

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I suggest with respect that Senator Greenwood would do justice to this Bill by forgetting about Mr Grassby. After all, the Bill has to be considered on its merits. There is no mention of Mr Grassby in the Bill. The provisions of the Bill are either good or bad in their own right We agree that the prime function of the Commissioner should be to act as a conciliator, but with respect we suggest that he also needs the powers which we seek to confer on him by this sub-clause for the simple reason that he will frequently be dealing with aggrieved persons who are intimidated by the notion of taking a matter to law. The people are often illiterate or underprivileged and would feel, if it came to taking a matter to law, that they were at a disadvantage and that they should not take it as far as that when, as a matter of public policy, it might be desirable that the matter be taken to law.

There is nothing sinister in our intention in including this sub-clause in clause 20. After all, comparable legislation in other countries confers a similar power. The Race Relations Board in Great Britain has the power to institute litigation in the way we are suggesting. The counterpart of that Board, that is the Commissioner for Race Relations, should have similar power. I suggest that Senator Greenwood is a little overborne by his fear of the sinister qualities of Mr Grassby, qualities of course, which nobody who knows Mr Grassby could ever suspect him of having. This is the only reason why we want the Commissioner to have that power. There will be many cases which should be litigated and which will not be litigated if the power is not given to somebody of the prestige of the Commissioner to launch proceedings which otherwise would not be brought.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

-In my view the sub-clause ought to be deleted, notwithstanding that Senator James McClelland, Senator Greenwood or even I might be the Commissioner. I do not believe that the Opposition’s amendment is based on any person who might be appointed to that office. I would say, however, that perhaps the difficulties that will be faced by the Commissioner may be exacerbated if a person who is well known as a politician is appointed to a post which is very sensitive. I make that comment in passing and not because of any particular influence such a possibility may have on the Opposition or on me with respect to this sub-clause.

I think it is the clear view of the Opposition that it is quite undesirable to combine the bludgeon of legal proceedings with the conciliation function. If in the long term it is found that to ensure the more consistent application of the Act some official body is required to provide assistance for potential plaintiffs, I would hope that the Opposition’s attitude might well be to accept that proposition, but to require that the litigating functions be vested in some person other than the conciliator. There is already a two-headed situation in the Bill. We have the Race Relations Commissioner who has certain functions and then later in the Bill there is provision for a Commissioner for Community Relations. It may well be that in the course of time there will be some exchange of function between those people and perhaps one of them might be given some active role in the conduct of litigation. I believe that with the extensive provisions that are available in the community for legal aid it will not be difficult when conciliation breaks down for an aggrieved party to be directed to another community agency which will be able to provide advice and assistance. I do not believe plaintiffs will be left unassisted when conciliation is tried and fails.

I think that for the good of this legislation and for the good of the Commissioner it is very important that this Opposition amendment be carried and that the Commissioner’s role be very clearly seen as one where he tries to bring people together, tries to promote understanding and where he develops, conducts and fosters research and so on, as provided in the sub-clause. Again, I think there is force in the comment of the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) that overseas experience has shown that some assistance is required. I do not rule out the possibility that that may be found to be the case here. I think for the moment the legal aid agencies can fill that role and that we would be better to proceed in the way the Opposition has suggested.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 1 agreed to.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 (Taking of evidence by prescribed authority).

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-The Opposition proposes to oppose and vote against clause 23. Clause 23 provides for a prescribed authority- that is, a judge of either the Superior Court or a judge of the Industrial Court. The prescribed authority, at the Commissioner’s request, may require a person to appear before a judge to give evidence or produce documents relating to an inquiry by the Commissioner. The Commissioner may interrogate the person before the judge, and the judge has control of the proceedings before him. The answers or the documents given at such hearings are not to be admissible against a person except where there are false or misleading answers given or inadequate protection of documents. The Opposition believes that this provision ought not to remain in the Bill. It is a provision of a character which has been appearing in numerous other Bills and it is a provision to which exception has been taken by the Opposition.

I think this raises one of the very real difficulties which a liberal society has to face. We have generally developed a system in this country under which people are innocent of a wrongdoing of a character which the law visits with penalties until it is proved that a person is guilty. The general rule is that a person is not obliged to say anything or to answer a question as a result of which he may incriminate himself and, as it were under duress and out of his own mouth, convict himself. It is a principle of almost hallowed antiquity and it is, I think, the earnest desire of people concerned with liberties in our society to protect that principle. There are occasions- and our law has recognised themwhere people may be required to answer questions or to produce material which is involved in the prosecution of wrong-doing. I certainly do not cavil at circumstances where in cases of apparent wrong-doing a person may be compelled to give information which is quite clearly in the national interest. There are areas in which in the investigation of why, for example, enormous company failures have occurred it is proper thai someone should be able to ask the questions in order to find from the answers why thousands of people may have lost fortunes in a company collapse. That is a power which is given to company inspectors. If people are not prepared to answer those questions it is reasonable that they should be fined or even imprisoned. In court cases the power of a party to summon a witness before the court requires that witness to answer the questions which the court thinks are proper in that litigation. If the person does not answer the questions he could be dealt with for contempt of court. That is a situation which I think is entirely proper.

To what extent should legislation empower commissioners, Ministers and officials to summon before them for the purpose of producing documents, giving information or answering questions, individuals whom that particular bureaucrat or official would like to have before him? For example, it has been generally accepted that in the Income Tax Assessment Act in respect of the protection of the revenue, to ensure that everyone fairly pays what he has to pay, this power is vested in the Income Tax Commissioner but I wonder whether it has any justification in areas beyond that. I do not say fundamentally that it has none, but I think we should be tremendously careful before we put these powers into legislation. This Senate removed similar powers from a Bill called the Law Reform Commission Bill because it did not seem to be appropriate legislation in which these powers should appear. I think it is appropriate that each piece of legislation be examined. The Minister will recall that I asked him a question this morning about how powers of this character had been exercised under the Trade Practices Act. He indicated that he would ascertain from the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) the precise circumstances in which those powers were exercised.

Should these powers be exercised under this legislation? The clause enables the Commissioner to require a person to attend, to answer questions, to produce documents and to keep appearing day by day until excused. In this context I take the view, and it is the attitude which the Opposition is expressing, that it is an objectionable intrusion upon individual rights and denies a person a privacy to which he ought to be entitled. It should never be forgotten that coercive powers of this character are given to a Commissioner when the powers possessed by the police forces of this country in the investigation of serious crime are not as extensive. No police officer is entitled to require a person to answer questions or to produce documents, and when that situation prevails it is generally accepted that there is added justification for being cautious in giving wide powers to statutory officers or to members of the bureaucracy. It is no protection that a person is required to attend before a prescribed authority even if the authority be a judge. I acknowledge that in this Bill the concept of a prescribed authority being the person before whom one is to appear, is a variation from the general power which appears in so many other pieces of legislation containing provisions of this character which the Government has introduced. A judge cannot prevent questions being asked. He has no power to grant legal representation to the person attending and he cannot prevent the answers being used as evidence against other persons.

In those circumstances, looking at the general powers which the Commissioner has and accepting the broad approach which the Opposition proposes to reduce the powers of the Commissioner so that he is essentially a conciliator and an educator, as Senator Chaney indicated, we believe that this clause should not be in the Bill and we shall therefore oppose it.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I agree with what Senator Greenwood has said in regard to this clause but there are one or two other matters I want to add in supporting the Opposition ‘s proposal that this provision should not be in the Bill at this stage. If after examination over the years we find that some other method is required, I hope it will not require this type of inquisition. This is, of course, a fishing expedition because it is not confined to the calling of a person who is alleged to have committed some offence. It refers to any person. A person can be called to give evidence on the various matters which the Commissioner sees fit and thinks might be useful. This includes any person whom he thinks is capable of giving evidence or producing documents in relation to any matter. Therefore, the power is extremely wide.

Apart from that, it also attacks the basis of professional privilege. So far as I can see, questions would be asked of a person- it might be a doctor, the doctor of the person against whom claims are made- and that person, so far as I can see, is not entitled to refuse to answer on the basis of professional privilege. This could apply to medical men, to lawyers and so on. The only exclusion found in sub-clause 9 is that the person is not excused from answering a question or producing a document in pursuance to this section on the ground that the answer to the question or the document may tend to incriminate him. The onus is turned around. By this means answers which incriminate are obtained from the person who is to be pursued. I think it is undesirable that there should be this reversal of the onus. On these additional grounds I also support the deletion of the clause.

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Government feels more strongly about this clause than it does about the others we have discussed, and takes the view that the elimination of this clause would have the effect of emasculating the Bill. In his speech in the second reading debate, Senator Greenwood made some play of what he called the ineffectiveness of British legislation dealing with race relations and I must confess that he made his point with some cogency. However, the lesson he should draw from that is that it is the absence of just such a power as this in the British legislation which tends to fetter its power and to make it so ineffective. This power exists in other legislation of this kind. For example, it exists in Canadian legislation and in New Zealand legislation and it has often been said that the real failure of the British Board- I am not suggesting that it is a complete failure but refer only to whatever limitations on success of the British authority exist- is primarily due to the absence of this power to compel people to give evidence or produce documents. It is said that this constitutes some star chamber system or some invasion of privacy or some invasion of the rights that we have become accustomed to under our system of law, but I draw attention to sub-clause 9 which has been lightly glossed over. It provides:

A person is not excused from answering a question or producing a document in pursuance of this section on the ground that the answer to the question or the document may tend to incriminate him, but any such answer or document is not admissable in evidence against him in any proceeding other than a proceeding for an offence against sub-section (8).

So in any subsequent litigation, which, I stress, would be civil litigation which would flow from the operation of this clause, the person involved would not be in any way disadvantaged because of the operation of sub-clause 9.I further point out that a subsequent clause, clause 49, guarantees the provision of legal aid to a person finding himself in the situation to which clause 23 applies. For those reasons I dispute the proposition that there is any great invasion of cherished democratic rights involved in this clause. The Government says that this clause is necessary if the Bill is to have any real effect because, as I have heard it said often about the British legislation, the Board frequently has difficulty in getting answers to letters it writes. The Board investigates a matter, finds that it does not have enough information on a given complaint, it writes to persons whom it considers should be able to give that information to the Board and the letters are ignored. This makes a travesty of the efforts of an authority like this to do something about stamping out racial discrimination.

We are not lost for precedents. They do not have the powers in England, and that is to the cost of the legislation there. They have them in Canada and New Zealand and, of course, in other legislation in this Parliament, legislation introduced by both sides of politics, there is no absence of compulsory evidence gathering powers. Some that come to mind are the Copyright Act sections 167 and 172, the Income Tax Assessment Act sections 263 and 264, the Industries Assistance Commission Act sections 34 and 35, the National Health Act sections 127 to 129, the Prices Justification Act sections 23 to 26, the Public Accounts Committee Act sections 13 to 15, the Royal Commissions Act sections 2 to 5, the Trades Marks Act sections 1 19 to 12 1 and, of course, the Trade Practices Act sections 155 and 160, to which Senator Greenwood adverted in his remarks.

Senator Greenwood:

– The Environment Protection Act also has them, I know.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am at a loss to understand that there is something altogether novel about this clause- that it is something unknown to our law- which derogates from human rights when, as we have seen, the legislature on so many occasions has judged that there be compulsory evidence gathering powers conferred on various authorities and tribunals. I sound this warning that I am very much afraid that this Bill will not have the effect which the Government seeks if this power for compulsory evidence gathering with all of the safeguards that are built around it is deleted from the Bill. On this one matter, I would propose to divide the Senate.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) (2.57)- I intrude in this debate not on the basis of a lawyer but simply as a citizen of this country who has been reared in the traditions and concepts of what are the rights and privileges of the citizen against administrative justice. This is another attempt to impose on the citizenry a response to administrative tribunals armed or clothed with semi-judicial authority. I do not accept from Senator James McClelland the argument that numerous pieces of legislation in the Commonwealth jurisdiction provide for this form of administrative tribunal. I go on to say merely that Parliament has been recreant in allowing some of these Bills to go through and I blame myself for it. One of the curiosities of our history is that we have grown out through an immense struggle amongst the English people in particular from the areas of administrative tribunals of one kind or another. The basic cause of the Civil War was the existence of the Star Chamber, an extra judicial tribunal that attempted to obtain evidence of one sort or another by which the citizenry of England could be prosecuted.

We went through the great religious wars of Europe which are still indelibly burnt into the minds of people, when the canonical laws carried this form of administrative tribunal. I shall not mention the names because I do not want to excite any rancour in the place. I think that those of Scottish descent might be willing to allow me to acknowledge to the Senate that in the time of John Knox in Scotland and for a couple of hundred years afterwards they had people called sniffers-out. I think this is a fairly good description of the clause the Senate seeks to eliminate from the Bill because, in fact, all this is going to do is to clothe a sniffer-out with all the panoply of parliamentary enactment. I suggest that if the clause goes out- and I hope that it will go outthe Government will at least come back with some alternative.

It is the character of quality of every bureaucrat that he wants more power and that is why it has crept into the statutes of this country in past years. I have no doubt that in the future there will be more of this constant cry by administrators for more power. To detract and subtract from their juridical tribunals the methods by which the citizen can have some kind of freedom against the increasing menace of direct Government prosecution, if you like, or interference in the habits of people through so-called administative tribunals is to encourage nothing more or less than those hateful things known as sniffersout that imposed an iron will on Scotland for 200 years. I oppose the clause.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-It is heartening to hear what Senator Sir Magnus Cormack said. His recollection of the practices of the Star Chamber bring to mind that the real offence of the Star Chamber in Stuart England was the fact that the King and those who served the King had the power to haul people before the commissioners, who could exact from anyone who was summoned before them answers that were wanted. It was not so much the fact that torture could be used to extract the answer as the fact that people’s. rights were taken away from them in the sense that the King could require them to appear in the manner in which the Star Chamber permitted. It seems almost incredible that in this day and age we could have provisions in our law that savour of Star Chamber methods, A few amendments were made in the House of Representatives, I am happy to note, which took away some of the more rigorous provisions this Bill originally contained. This provision to which the Opposition is objecting is intrinsically offensive to Libertarian concepts.

Senator Missen:

– And it is in a Bill relating to personal liberties and rights.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am indebted to Senator Missen. It is interesting to reflect that it was also in the Human Rights Bill which for a short time appeared on the notice paper of this chamber. I always felt that it was so inconsistent in such a Bill. The reasonableness of the Minister’s utterances ought not to cloak the enormity of the powers being sought in this context. I have indicated that there can always be particular areas in which powers of this sort may be justified. They are probably acceptable only because there is a very real limit to their usage. If their usage is limited it is probably because there is a sense of the outrage that would develop if they were used extensively.

It is that sort of feeling which was behind the question I asked of the Minister this morning about the use of the powers under the Trades Practices Act to invade a person’s premises and to seize documents. I believe it is tremendously important that when these provisions appear in a Bill we look at them closely. As Senator Sir Magnus Cormack said, we may have been recreant in the past in allowing these provisions to slip through in a lot of legislation. I think that in this particular Bill we are being attentive and I hope that the Senate will not accept this particular provision.

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– As befits a measure as important as this one I think that the debate is being conducted in a mild and temperate tone, but I would suggest that it is rather hyperbolic to use terms such as Star Chamber and even sniffer-out. I would remind Senator Sir Magnus Cormack that the sniffer-out in every case will be a judge of the superior court or of the Australian Industrial Court. No objection seems to be taken from time to time to learned judges being cloaked with all the powers of sniffers-out in various royal commissions that are held, several of which are proceeding now. It is a rather extravagant and loaded term to use just as I suggest that Star Chamber is. What is suggested seriously by Opposition senators? Do they suggest, for example, that conferring the sort of powers about which we are talking on the Income Tax Commissioner turns him into some kind of Star Chamber or makes him some sort of reprehensible snifferout?

If what Senator Greenwood alleges happened in respect of the matter that he raised in question time this morning, when we get to the full facts of that matter and if it turns out to have been the sort of invasion of human rights which he suggested in his question- and I should like to know the full facts before reaching that conclusion- I will be as forthright as he in condemning such practices. I think we are getting altogether too carried away in imputing to this particular clause the powers of a Star Chamber or of a sniffer-out which will in some way or other make people’s lives miserable. I repeat what I said earlier, namely, that if this clause is removed from the Bill I believe that it will not be worthless but will suffer from the disabilities that have been proved to bedevil similar legislation in the United Kingdom. For that reason I appeal to honourable senators to support the maintenance of this clause in the Bill.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I rise only very briefly to make the responding comment that, if the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) regards this clause as being so vital to the functioning of the Bill that without it the Bill possibly will be worthless, that indicates the great importance he places on it. That to my mind suggests that the powers would be extensively used.

Question put:

That the clause stand as printed.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator J. E. Marriott)

AYES: 25

NOES: 29

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause 24 agreed to.

Clause 25.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-The Opposition proposes that clause 25 should be left out and in its place there should be inserted a new clause. Under the scheme of amendments which the Opposition has proposed, the essence of clause 25 remains but it is expressed in different wording to give expression to the omission from the enforcement area of the Commissioner for Community Relations. Clause 25, as it stands, enables the Commissioner to institute proceedings in a court by way of civil action. It also gives to a person aggrieved by any act which he considers to be unlawful the right to institute a proceeding by way of civil action. It also indicates that the court may declare certain persons to be parties to a proceeding and it also permits a stay of proceedings to be granted upon the application of the Commissioner. There is also a provision which indicates that the proceedings are not to be instituted even though the act might otherwise be unlawful where the act occurs in relation to accommodation in a dwelling house or flat which is to be shared accommodation or in relation to employment in a dwelling house or flat.

The objection which the Opposition has to the clause as it now stands is that it gives a function to the Commissioner which the Opposition believes the Commissioner should not have. I instanced reasons why the Commissioner should not have this function when speaking to the amendment to clause 22 and in part to what was said under clause 23. It would follow, I think, fairly inevitably that clause 25 ought to be amended in the way in which we are proposing if we are limiting the Commissioner’s functions in the way the Senate has already agreed to limit them, but it is necessary to put in a substitute clause. What the Opposition proposes is that clause 25 should read:

  1. 1 ) A person aggrieved by an act that he considers to have been unlawful by reason of a provision of Part II may subject to this section institute a proceeding in relation to the act by way of civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction for any one or more of the remedies specified in section 26.

That provision gives to an individual who is aggrieved by an unlawful act the right to seek his remedy by way of proceedings in a civil court. It embodies that right. Sub-clause (2) of the proposed amendment states:

  1. A proceeding may not be instituted under this section in respect of the doing of an act (other than an act that is unlawful by virtue of section 1 6) in relation to-

    1. a) accommodation in a dwelling-house or flat, being accommodation shared or to be shared, in whole or in part, with the person who did the act or a person on whose behalf the act was done or with a relative of either of those persons; or
    2. employment, or an application for employment, in a dwelling-house or flat occupied by the person who did the act or a person on whose behalf the act was done or by a relative of either of those persons.

The proviso in clause 16 relates only to the incitement provision to which we have earlier addressed ourselves. The exception in our proposed amendment embodies an exception in the Bill. Obviously it is designed to meet the case of shared accommodation where a personal choice is obviously being allowed for; likewise with regard to employment in a dwelling house or flat where a person’s choice is being allowed for. We believe that this proposed sub-clause embodies something which is inherent in the earlier clause. Proposed sub-clause (3) reads:

  1. No proceeding shall be instituted unless the person aggrieved has received prior to the institution of such proceeding a certificate signed by the Commission stating that the Commissioner, a Conciliation committee or an officer or employee of the Commissioner has presided over a conference directed by the Commissioner under section 22 ( 1 ) and has endeavoured to settle the matter and that at the date of the certificate the matter has not been settled.

This proposed sub-clause is sought to be inserted by the Opposition because it has no counterpart in the Bill. It gives expression to our idea that the Commissioner shall have the power to summon and preside over a conference at which he endeavours to resolve differences which have arisen. Before a person is entitled to exercise his rights in a court of law, in the manner contemplated by this clause, it is essential that there should have been a conference of the character which I have just mentioned. It will be necessary, to establish satisfactorily that the proceeding is in order, for the Commissioner, a conciliation committee or an officer or employee of the Commission to certify that one of these people has presided over a conference and has endeavoured to settle the matter and that at the date of the certificate the matter has not been settled. The concept may have its novelty, but its purpose is directed towards ensuring that there has been an effort at conciliation before the proceedings have been effected. If the conciliation conference has not satisfactorily resolved the differences the Commissioner shall give a certificate to that effect. It is a prerequisite to action being taken. Proposed sub-clause (4) states:

  1. No evidence shall be given or received and no statement shall be made in any proceeding instituted under this section with respect to anything said or done at a conference directed to be held pursuant to section 22.

That proposed sub-clause is intended to be- I think it is- a comprehensive prohibition upon the proceedings of the conciliation conference being availed of in the court proceedings. I do not think anything could be more inimical to a conciliation conference working out satisfactorily than the apprehension which a person might have that something he said in a genuine effort to work out problems around the table in a conference room could be used against him at some future stage if proceedings were taken. Accordingly, to avoid that apprehension befouling the workings of a conciliation conference, we believe there should be an absolute prohibition upon anything which is said at that conference being able to be used in court proceedings. The hope is that if the conciliation conference is conducted in the spirit of amity and goodwill and with the intent of everybody that genuine differences will be resolved, there will be no need to resort to court proceedings. If a person resorts to court proceedings, that is where the law takes over. People can rely upon their rights and expect those rights to be upheld as they are in a court of law.

They represent the substantive explanations of the amendment which I am about to move on behalf of the Opposition. We seek to delete the clause and to insert our proposed clause in its place. Therefore I move:

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I support the amendment. All I desire to do is to draw attention to the difference between the amendment and the Government’s proposed amendment. It is a little difficult at first to work out the difference. The difference is to be found in clauses (3) and (4) of the Opposition’s amendment. I suggest to the Committee that the Opposition’s amendment is superior. Our proposed sub-clause (3) requires the certificate to be given to the aggrieved person, whereas the Government’s proposed amendment provides that the certificate must be lodged with the court. I think there is little difference in that, but I think it is important that the person should have the certificate before he proceeds to take legal action. I think the Government’s proposal is defective compared with the Opposition’s amendment, because the Government’s proposal is that the certificate must state that a conference has been called, not that it has been presided over. I think it is important that a conference should actually have been held before proceedings are instituted. Moreover, the Opposition’s amendment provides that the certificate must state that the Commissioner, a conciliation committee or an officer or employee of the Commission has presided at the conference and that it has been directed by the Commissioner. The amendment spells out the persons who may preside at a conference, all under the aegis of the Commissioner. I would suggest that overall the proposal in this unusual situation where there is a genuine desire to have a conference which will be effective should be spelt out in the way in which the Opposition’s amendment spells it out.

The Government’s proposed amendment does not include sub-clause (4) of the Opposition’s amendment. I think that is a serious omission. It is important that if full use of the conference is to be made there should not be hanging over it the doubt that any statement which is made can be used against a person. If there is a genuine interest in conciliation, it must be free and open, not with holds barred. My recollection is that in the Family Law Bill we have provided the same general provision that conversations which take place at conferences in the presence of welfare officers should not be used in subsequent legal proceedings. That is highly desirable in that Bill. It is highly desirable in this Bill. For those reasons I suggest the Opposition ‘s amendment is superior.

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I shall deal firstly with the last point raised by Senator Missen. He commented on the fact that we have omitted from our proposed amendment the equivalent of subclause (4) in the Opposition’s amendment. The reason is that a sub-clause with exactly the same effect is to be found in sub-clause (5) of clause

  1. That is the only reason we omitted the subclause to which Senator Missen referred. I would suggest that it is not required. I would seriously suggest to Senator Greenwood that it be omitted from his amendment to clause 25.I wish to make another suggestion to him, and that is to point to a weakness which I believe exists in his proposed sub-clause (3). It existed also, I must confess, in our proposed amendment. It hinges on the use of the words ‘presided over’ in proposed sub-clause (3). The weakness that I see in that formulation is that this procedure could be set at nought by a person who was summoned to a conference not turning up at that conference. That goes to a question which arose in connection with another clause. The whole procedure envisaged in the Opposition’s proposed sub-clause (3) is that a condition precedent to the launching of civil proceedings is that the Commissioner should have presided over a conference and then issued a certificate that he has done so. I suggest that if the word ‘called’ were substituted for ‘presided over’ this would meet all of the requirements which the Opposition seeks to impose.
Senator Greenwood:

– Would you permit me to interrupt to say that the provision in clause 22 still remains which make it an offence, with a penalty of $250, for a person not to attend. Is not that the safeguard?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It may be that the person involved could not be found. He could just disappear, go into smoke.

Senator Chaney:

– It would be pretty hard to sue in those circumstances.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Not permanently. I am not suggesting that he does it permanently, but he could make himself scarce at the time a conference was being called. I cannot see what the Opposition loses by adopting the substitution which I am suggesting. After all, if the Commissioner calls a conference, the purpose of this sub-clause would have been served. The purpose is to give to the parties involved an opportunity to submit to conciliation. As I understand it, that is what the Opposition seeks to achieve by its proposed sub-clause (3). I do not think that aim is eroded in any way by substituting the word ‘ called ‘ for ‘presided over ‘.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I should have thought that there is a willingness on the part of the Opposition to change just one word. The only doubt that I have is the doubt which comes from not having had adequate time to reflect upon what might be some of the consequences. Mr Temporary Chairman, I wonder whether the Minister would agree that this matter be stood over and dealt with at a later stage.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes, certainly.

Further consideration of clause 25 postponed.

Clause 26.

  1. Where any damages are awarded against the defendant in accordance with paragraph ( 1 )(d) in respect of loss suffered by, loss of dignity by, humiliation to, or injury to the feelings of, a person aggrieved by the relevant act-

    1. in the case where that person instituted the proceeding or, if the proceeding was instituted by the Commissioner, that person is a party to the proceedingthe damages are payable by the defendant to that person; or
    2. in any other case- the damages are payable by the defendant to the Commissioner, who shall forthwith pay them to that person.
Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I move:

Sub-clause (2) contains a provision which specifies the type of damages which may be imposed by the court when an action is brought. Of course, it is a damages claim particularly related to the types of unlawful acts which have been specified in the legislation. It is not the normal head of damages which a person would be entitled to claim in court proceedings. Sub-clause (2) reads:

Where any damages are awarded against the defendant in accordance with paragraph ( 1 ) (d)-

I interpolate simply to indicate that the general power to award damages is comprehended in sub-clause ( 1 ) of this clause- in respect of loss suffered by, loss of dignity by, humiliation to, or injury to the feeling of, a person aggrieved by the relevant act-

  1. in the case where that person instituted the proceeding or, if the proceeding was instituted by the Commissioner, that person is a party to the proceedingthe damages are payable by the defendant to that person; or
  2. in any other case- the damages are payable by the defendant to the Commissioner, who shall forthwith pay them to that person.

The necessity for the deletion of this clause in this area is because, by the removal of the power of the Commissioner to sue, any reference to how damages are to be paid- albeit that particular types of damages are specified- becomes irrelevant.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-Mr Temporary Chairman, before the amendment finally goes to a vote, could I have an explanation of the status of paragraph (d) of clause 26(1)? Do I understand the amendment to mean that the whole of clause 26 goes? As I read the amendment, it is proposed to leave out only sub-clause (2). In paragraph (d) (ii) of subclause ( 1 ), reference is made to the sorts of damages which can be awarded. They include loss of dignity by, humiliation to, or injury to the feelings of, a person. I should like some explanation of what is intended by that. As I see it, the amendment to clause 25 throws us right back to Part II, and Part II alone, for the remedial cause of action under the new clause 25 and clause 26 as amended.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

– As I understand the amendment to clause 26, the proposed deletion of sub-clause (2) is simply consequential upon the changes which have already been agreed to by the Committee. The position is that the Commissioner is no longer a party to any legal action. Hence, damages which might be awarded in accordance with clause 26 (1) would simply be payable to the plaintiff in the normal course. It seems to the Opposition that clause 26 (2) is quite unnecessary, in the light of the new form of clause 25.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-I follow what Senator Chaney has said, but I do not follow the cause of action provided in paragraph (d) of clause 26 (1). That provides a remedy. I do not see the cause of action upon which it is based in Part II- loss of dignity and so forth. Could I be enlightened on that?

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

– There is a point with which I thought Senator James McClelland might deal. It is a point which perhaps relates to an amendment which has been successfully put by the Opposition. I understand that clause 25, as it now stands, simply permits a person aggrieved by an act to institute proceedings. The sorts of acts which give rise to an institution of proceedings are those acts which are prohibited under Part II. When proceedings of that type are brought, under clause 26 the court may grant all or any of the remedies therein specified.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-Perhaps it might also be said in answer to the point raised by Senator Wright that clause 26(1) refers to the acts which are declared unlawful by reason of Part II. It relates to all the various provisions in clauses 13, 14, 15 and 16. Where an action arises from the particular causes provided in those clauses, claims for loss of dignity, injury to feelings and so on are claimable in those proceedings. Under clause 26(1) they are linked up with the offences provided in the earlier clauses of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27 (Unlawful acts not offences unless expressly so provided ).

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I should like to draw to the attention of Senator Greenwood that if clauses 28 and 29, against which the Opposition proposes to vote, are deleted, as would appear probable, he should look at whether clause 27 at least in its present form should survive in the Bill. Perhaps the first words ‘Except as expressly provided by this Part’ might be deleted.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I shall be happy if the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) will agree to postpone consideration of this clause. It was looked at and it was felt that after all it is proposed that clause 30 will remain and that is one clause in that Part. It may be that Parliamentary Counsel, under the traditional powers which he has to tidy up legislation in areas such as this, would remove the Part and just leave this as a separate clause. I am sure that the Opposition would be co-operative in these matters and if the Minister feels it prudent to do so I shall propose that this clause be postponed.

Consideration of clause postponed.

Clause 28.

A person shall not, with intent to promote hostility or illwill against, or to bring into contempt or ridicule, persons included in a group of persons in Australia by reason of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the persons included in that group-

  1. publish or distribute written matter;
  2. broadcast words by means of radio or television; or
  3. utter words in any public place, or within the hearing of persons in any public place, or at any meeting to which the public are invited or have access or any section of the public is invited or has access, being written matter that promotes, or words that promote, ideas based on-
  4. the alleged superiority of persons of a particular race, colour or national or ethnic origin over persons of a different race, colour or national or ethnic origin; or
  5. hatred of persons of a particular race, colour or national or ethnic origin.

Penalty: $5,000.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The Opposition opposes this clause. It is probably the particular clause of this Bill in respect of which most senators have received most correspondence relating to the measure. It embodies a prohibition to which attention has already been directed both in the second reading speech and in the debate on clause 7 of the Bill. It is an outright prohibition on the dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred. I share with nobody my detestation of ideas of racial discrimination based upon racial superiority or a discrimination which seeks to evoke a superiority. The sort of thing which dominated Nazi Germany is absolutely abhorrent to me. But I also detest and abhor other political philosophies. I detest, as the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) would know, that sort of political practice and philosophy which seems to be overpowering most of the world’s peoples today. I detest the conformity of the totalitarian state and the crushing of the individual will and the individual spirit which it embodies. I wonder how it is that people can be taken in by the communist ideas or the fascist ideas which have such free rein in this country.

We pride ourselves upon the fact that freedom of expression is one of the great liberal achievements. I hope that the security of the state will always permit us the widest possible freedom of expression. I certainly do not believe that we should start upon the prohibition of the dissemination of ideas, even if the ideas be those of the proper promotion of racial superiority, and hope that thereby we will shut out a particuar argument or a particular idea. I think it was Senator Chaney in the course of the second reading debate who adverted to the fact that academics of some note- I think Doctor Eysenck was the man to whom he referred- have expressed views within the universities which suggest that there are innate or inherent tendencies which suggest superiority of one ethnic group over another. There are writers who have promoted this idea and certainly it represents one of the very difficult problems with which the peoples of southern Africa have had to contend. If we are to endeavour to shut out by prohibition ideas which will stand on their intrinsic value or will fall on their lack of value, I think we are well on the way to controlling thought processes. We will not succeed; no country has ever succeeded in doing that. But we certainly could not claim to be the liberal society which I think we have cause to claim we are at present.

This clause contains a prohibition upon the publishing or distributing of written matter, the broadcasting of words by means of radio or television or the uttering of words in any public place, or within the hearing of persons in any public place, or at any meeting to which the public are invited or have access or to which any section of the public is invited or has access where that written matter promotes or those words promote ideas based on the alleged superiority of persons of a particular race, colour or national or ethnic origin over persons of a different race, colour or national or ethnic origin or hatred of persons of a particular race, colour, or national or ethnic origin. Of course these things are not to be done with the intent to promote hostility or illwill. It may be if any prosecutions were to take place in the courts that the real question would depend on the intent with which the act is done. It may be if one could find a tolerant and truly liberal-minded judge it might be very difficult to sustain prosecutions. But I do not think that is the basis upon which Parliament should accept clauses of this character. I notice that the penalty is $5,000. That is a fairly substantial fine. There is no right to trial by jury. I would have thought that this was a circumstance in which the judgment of a jury may well be warranted having regard to the heaviness of the penalty which might be imposed.

Whatever be those considerations, the basic objection which the Opposition has is that this clause is an infringement of freedom of expression which ought not to be seen in a Bill of this character which is directed towards improving human relations. I cannot believe that one improves human relations by preventing some people from saying what they want to say. I know that in the United Kingdom, I think, legislation restricting free speech has had currency in times of stress, for example in the street riots of the 1930s. My recollection is that it was linked to the propensity of the words which were uttered to provoke a breach of the peace. I think that type of offence is still part of the law in this country under the various summary offences legislation of the States and that, I would think, is some safeguard.

My recollection is that it was either discussed beforehand, or it is proposed in some amendment offered by the Government, that this be the type of clause which ought to appear in this legislation. It would be a compromise but I would hope that we do not need that compromise. I would prefer to see this clause removed entirely and I think that we do better in this area of trying to avoid racial discrimination, of allowing the free interplay of ideas, by hoping that the tolerance which ought to be current in this community to receive and listen to differing viewpoints, no matter how antipathetic they may be to us, will be encouraged and permitted.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

– I rise to support the amendment moved by Senator Greenwood and to oppose the clause. I do so because I think this is an area of difficulty and I would like to add to the explanation which has been given by Senator Greenwood, even at the risk of repetition. I hope that it is accepted by the Committee that the Opposition is opposed to the concept of what is forbidden in clause 28. We are opposed to the publishing of written material which preaches superiority of persons of a particular race and so on and which encourages hatred of people of a particular race. The difficulty which I have with the clause is, notwithstanding the fact that it requires proof of intent to promote hostility, ill-will and so on, that the judgment of a man’s intent is something which has to be made on external factors.

An examination of the second reading debate in the Senate reveals the difficulty which can arise in trying to j udge a man ‘s intent in this field. The speeches of Senator Gietzelt and Senator Laucke, for example, support the proposition that no man who advances an argument which suggests there are racial differences can be actuated by other than ill will. There are passages in those speeches which to me indicate that any proposition putting forward a racial differentiation cannot be based on fact and hence must be activated by malice. I refer the Committee to a passage in Senator Gietzelt ‘s speech, appearing at page 1529 of Hansard:

Any doctrine of superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust, dangerous and without any justification.

The fear that I have is that if one puts up any proposition relating to the question of possible differences between races one is going to find necessarily that the person is actuated by some bad motive because what he is doing is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust, dangerous and without any justification. Later on in his speech Senator Gietzelt said:

No longer will it be possible for misguided racially biased information to be circulated without the threat of sanction.

I am not speaking here about the sort of thing that was adverted to by Senator Coleman in her speech or by Senator Gietzelt in his speech. I am referring again to the matters I raised in my speech during the second reading debate. It appears to me that there is a genuine scientific inquiry arising out of a study of genetics and so on which may at times give rise to distasteful conclusions or distasteful suggestions but which I think should certainly not be suppressed under any circumstances. As I mentioned in my speech, the people who have put forward these propositions have at times been subjected to pretty unruly treatment which indicated that university audiences did not believe them to be conducting their inquiries scientifically but that they were prejudiced. Senator Laucke drew attention in his speech- it is recorded at page 1537 of Hansardto the dangers of scientific racism. He said: . . I should like to draw attention to the far more dangerous form of racism which is prompted today in the name of scientific progress. So-called ‘scientific racism’ is founded upon and finds its justification in evolution and polygenesis. The facts are that the world is one race but the modern attitude of the so-called intelligentsia in many instances is leading to the promotion of the idea that all animosities between people are genetically based.

I do not have before me any passages from the works of Messrs Jensen and Eysenck to quote but I would like to refer briefly to a review of a couple of their books which appeared in the Economist’ of 8 December 1973. There is reference to an essay entitled ‘Can we and should we measure race differences?’ The ‘Economist ‘ went on to say:

That, after all, is where Professor Jensen got himself into political hot water, by arguing both that we can and that we should. Professor Herrnstein of Harvard, while believing that the evidence on differences between white and negro North Americans, which under Jensen’s microscope display an average gap of about 1 5 IQ points, is not conclusive, is absolutely Jensenist in inheritance. He upholds the contention that 80 per cent of the variance in human intelligence is genetically determined.

I do not raise these matters because I wish to open up fields which perhaps some honourable senators find objectionable. The point I am trying to make to the Committee is simply that what to one man might be a genuine inquiry, a matter for intellectual study and perhaps even for publication, might be to another man dreadfully racist and a blot on the community. I believe there are real difficulties in imposing the criminal law in this field. Quite apart from that, of course, is the whole question of the extent to which one can safely, in a country which has the tradition of our own, try to suppress any form of discussion which is not directly related to incitement to crime or something of that sort. The whole tradition of freedom of speech that we have means, I think, that at times we have to live a little dangerously. I believe that the Australian community is capable of discriminating between rubbish and what is genuine and that the sorts of publications and activities which were complained of in the second reading debate do not require this very extreme criminal sanction but, given the rest of the Bill, they will wither away because the community will learn to reject those things universally as against almost universally at present. So I would ask the Committee to support the deletion of clause 28. The position in Australia is nowhere near so serious in this field that we should risk the possibility of a real incursion into freedom of speech.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-There are one or two matters to which I wish to refer specifically in relation to clause 28. 1 have stated in general terms in my speech during the second reading debate my attitude in relation to this matter; it is the same as that expressed by those honourable senators who have already spoken on the general principle. It has to be noted that in this clause there is no statement as to the effect of the words. I think this is a development of the point made by Senator Chaney, but it is worth noting. There is no reference at all in the clause as to what might be the effect of the words and whether that might be important or significant. It merely states that the use of the words by publication or broadcast is the offence.

It is significant that there was some discussion on this clause and clause 29, and I think that reference should be made to it. It appeared in an article written by Mr Gareth Evans who has done a great deal of work on this Bill and who was an adviser on it to the Government. I think it was as a result of his article that one small alteration was made to the Bill, namely, the putting of the intent provision into clause 28. I think that the Government has failed altogether to consider the conclusions to which Mr Evans came in regard to these 2 clauses. In his article he said:

The provisions penalising these offences are entirely separate in character from the anti-discrimination provisions of Part II of the Bill, and are enforced by separate machinery. Their inclusion in the Bill is likely to create, as it has in Britain, an ineradicable impression in the public mind that the whole Bill is concerned with the criminal courts, fines and imprisonment; the crucial element in the whole exercise, the tackling of racial discrimination by informal conciliation, may become de-emphasised; and public sympathy may tend to be directed more towards the discriminator, believed to be likely to receive harsh penalties, than his victim.

I suggest that the Government should have read through the whole of that section of his writings. If it had done so I think it would have concluded that this clause should go from the Bill, not only for the reasons of principle that have been advanced but also because it detracts from the purpose of the Bill and the direction in which the Bill is going.

There is one other matter in regard to this clause. The Government has introduced the idea of intent into this clause and, if I remember rightly, the previous Bill did not contain that provision. Previously it was more of a broad prohibition. In introducing that provision the Government appears to go away from the Convention, because the Convention, as was mentioned last evening, does contain a rather blunt prohibition on allowing the dissemination of ideas. Of course, it contains no restriction in regard to intent. I have maintained that we must read this Convention in the line and in the light of our appropriate means, because we are obliged to use only appropriate means, and we are required under the Convention to preserve the right of freedom of expression of opinion. The Government’s clause does not even accord with the literal words of the Convention. I believe we should not endeavour in any way to include this type of proposition in the Bill.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I think Senator Greenwood said that this clause is the crux of the opposition from the people of Australia who are opposed to this Bill. I recognise what this Bill means so far as freedom of speech and freedom to write are concerned. My colleague Senator Missen said that when I spoke to this Bill earlier I spoke as being of the 19th century, but he was out of date. I am not of the 19th century; I am a 20th century youngster. I was born in the 20th century but I try to look at things in a practical way and to think of what the people of Australia really want, not just what a few academics and a few airy-fairy people want.

The clause before us would restrict people in many ways. It has been said that Australia is a multi-cultural country and so on. There are lots of people who have various views on this matter and it was until only recently that the white Australia policy operated in this country. There were people on the Government side who agreed with that policy. There are still some people who are concerned about the changing of the culture of this country. This type of legislation would stop such people expressing themselves in this regard. There are lots of people who are greatly concerned about the influx of particular types of migrants who might well in the not too distant future completely change the outlook of this country. This has happened in other places already. Despite what people say about Africa the Bantu people have flocked over the borders in thousands because, despite what is said in Australia, they are still better off than they were in their own country. Fortunately we have seas surrounding us and therefore the influx of people depends on our immigration policy.

There are elements in that immigration policy that are of concern to certain Australian people. If this clause is allowed to remain in the Bill, publishing or distributing written material about such matters probably could bring about a serious action against the people responsible. We are a democracy and I believe that people have a right to express themselves if they think that the government of the day, whichever government it is, alters things in a way which is thought to be wrong so far as the developing and increasing of our population are concerned. People should have a perfect right and opportunity to express themselves accordingly. This country is theirs just as much as it is mine and yours, Mr Acting Deputy President.

I turn now to this matter of uttering words in a public place. We have heard talk about people being called poms and wogs and so on. In the minds of some people apparently this can cause a great feeling of racial discrimination. I read where an English lady wrote to one of the Sydney newspapers and said that she treated it as good fun. A lot of people take these things that way but others take them seriously. Some mean them in good fun and some might mean them seriously. We should not allow these things to get out of proportion when considering what is right and wrong in the behaviour of people. There is no question that people often express themselves strongly, particularly if they have drunk too much of a particular type of juice or are upset for some reason. Some people might speak a bit more strongly than they might do otherwise. It is a little bit tough for such people to be called up just because they say something or publish something that somebody regards as being racial discrimination. There is no doubt that people often say things in the heat of the moment. It is amazing what can be done if people say words in a public place in the hearing of another person.

Where do we stop this discrimination business? Do we regard it just as a matter of race and colour? We might have discrimination in politics. We might have discrimination of people. I have sat in the parliamentary dining room for a number of years and there have been certain times, following events in this Parliament when I may not have voted for the government of the day which happened to be formed by the parties I support, when I have noticed that people did not sit at my table. I noticed discrimination also as 1 walked around the chamber. I think Senator Wright also might have received this treatment. Certain people did not talk to him. But we did not take those people to court and ask that they be imprisoned because of political discrimination or anything of that nature. We want to get these things into a proper sense of proportion. It is just utter nonsense if people are to be shot at at law just because they have expressed something about somebody.

From the way people talk one would think that this legislation is aimed against the white people. According to the sugar-coating around this Bill, it relates to racists. However, it is inherent in the minds of a lot of people who draft this legislation that it might be a matter of colour. We know that people of one coloured race often criticise people of another coloured race. For instance, a journalist who happened to be talking to me yesterday said that on one occasion when he was in the Services he and others were being waited on at table by Indian waiters and an American army officer, a Negro, entered. The waiters said that they were not going to serve that so-and-so. That is an example of racial discrimination between people of 2 coloured races.

I can refer to the Aboriginal people who are talked about and featured so much. It is frequently said that a full-blooded Aboriginal looks down upon people who are not full-blooded Aboriginal and speak of them in disparaging terms and suggest certain things. Are we going to prosecute a full-blooded Aboriginal because he criticises people with only partial Aboriginal blood? What are we going to do in that regard? If we are to take these full-blooded Aboriginals before the court, how are we going to let them know that they must not talk in such a way? This is the type of thing that goes on. We have people who parade themselves as being of a certain race when they are not. For instance, Mr Perkins parades around as an Aboriginal and tells it to the world. He has been overseas trying to blot the name of Australia, and he even included the present Government. I do not think he was at all justified in saying what he did. When he returned he said that he deliberately did it to try to insult Australia and put us in a bad light with people overseas. He intends to do this. Mr Perkins parades around as an Aboriginal because of the silly legislation brought in by the LiberalCountry Party Government which I supported, which legislation gave anybody who likes to call himself an Aboriginal the right to do so. The present Government is still maintaining that attitude. Mr Perkins does not have very much Aboriginal blood. What do the full-blooded Aborigines think? Do they accuse this Government or the last Government of being racist for allowing such people to call themselves full-blooded Aborigines? A full-blooded Aborigine might say that it is an insult to the Aboriginal race.

This racial business is a very vexed question and one which is very hard to straighten out. When all is said and done, we have to remember that we are dealing with human beings and it has been said that legislation cannot change the minds of people towards each other. I believe that this clause could well be dumped into the rubbish heap. I must say that I am pleased that the Opposition has moved to eliminate it from the Bill.

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I share some of the apprehensions voiced by some members of the Opposition about the width of the verbiage in the preamble of clause 28. I imagine that it could lead to a limitation of freedom of speech which would be most undesirable. It could even react against Aboriginal people. I am not suggesting that the ambit of this Bill is confined to the elimination of prejudice only against Aboriginal people but I can envisage circumstances in which clause 28 could operate against the interests of Aboriginal people. That is why I would suggest for the consideration of the Opposition the formulation that we have proposed in substitution to the preamble portion of clause 28- to leave out the passage commencing with the words ‘A person shall not’ preceding paragraph (a) and substitute the words ‘A person shall not, with intent to provoke a breach of the peace ‘.

I do not think it is true to say that the notion of guilty intent is altogether unknown to the law. We are all familiar with the old legal doctrine of mens rea and there is nothing necessarily sinister in making the commission of an offence dependent upon a certain intent. But I would like to narrow it to what amounts really to incitement to violence rather than the rather loose formulation that we have in clause 28 at present. I do not feel strongly about the clause but I would like to see it retained, as indeed I would like to see clause 29 retained, but limited in the way I have suggested; that is, that a person shall not do these things with intent to provoke a breach of the peace. I commend that proposal for the consideration of the Opposition.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Marriott:

– Are you moving your amendment?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Yes. I move:

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I indicated earlier that the Opposition would prefer to see this clause removed altogether. I readily concede that what the Minister said would help to make it a less onerous provision than it is at the moment but this is an area where I think the ultimate purposes of the Bill are better served and where the purposes to which the Opposition parties subscribe, namely, to have as wide a liberty of expression as possible, will be aided by objecting to the clause in toto. We will oppose the amendment and oppose the clause.

Amendment negatived.

Clause negatived.

Clause 29 (Inciting Acts of Racial Discrimination)

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The Opposition opposes clause 29 but this is truly a consequential amendment having regard to the insertion earlier of new clause 1 6A. That clause having been inserted, it would be unnecessary to have a criminal provision making incitement an offence. Consequently, I think that the clause must be opposed.

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Just as a formality, we seek to retain the clause for the same general reasons as those I outlined in support of retaining the previous clause. We believe that there should be strong deterrents to incitement to illegality in this field and for that reason we would like the clause retained.

Clause negatived.

Clause 30.

  1. 1 ) A person shall not insult, hinder, obstruct, molest or interfere with the Commissioner, an officer or employee of the Commissioner, a person presiding over a conference referred to in section 22, a prescribed authority referred to in section 23 or any of the members of a conciliation committee in the performance of any functions or the exercise of any powers under this Act.

  2. ) A person shall not-

    1. refuse to employ another person;
    2. dismiss, or threaten to dismiss, another person from his employment;
    3. prejudice, or threaten to prejudice, another person in his employment; or
    4. intimidate or coerce, or impose any pecuniary or other penalty upon, another person, by reason that the other person-
    5. has made, or proposes to make, a complaint to the Commissioner;
    6. has furnished, or proposes to furnish, any information or documents to the Commissioner;
    7. has attended, or proposes to attend, a conference referred to in section 22; or
    8. has appeared, or proposes to appear, before a prescribed authority referred to in section 23 to give evidence or produce documents.

Penalty: $500.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I move:

This again is a consequential amendment. We have now removed clause 23 from the Bill and it follows that this particular expression should also be removed.

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I agree that it is purely consequential and have no opposition to the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I move:

In sub-clause (2), leave out paragraph (h).

This is also consequential. It refers to an offence under clause 23, which of course has been deleted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 31 to 46- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 47.

  1. 1 ) Jurisdiction is conferred on the Superior Court of Australia to hear and determine civil and criminal proceedings instituted in that Court under this Act or removed into that Court under sub-section (4).
  2. Any civil or criminal proceedings instituted in a court (other than the Supreme Court) of a State, or in a court of a Territory, involving a matter arising under this Act may, at any stage of the proceedings before final judgment, be removed into the Superior Court of Australia under an order of the Superior Court of Australia, which may, upon the application of any party or the Attorney-General for sufficient cause shown, be made on such terms as the Superior Court of Australia thinks fit.
  3. When any such order for removal is made, such documents, if any, relating to the proceedings as are filed on record in the court of the State or Territory shall be transmitted to the registry of the Superior Court in the State or Territory concerned or, if there is more than one registry in that State or Territory, to such registry as is directed by the order.
  4. Where any proceedings are removed into the Superior Court of Australia under the provisions of sub-section (4), the Superior Court of Australia shall proceed as if the proceedings had been originally commenced in that Court.
  5. If in any proceedings removed into the Superior Court of Australia under this section it appears to the satisfaction of the Superior Court of Australia at any time after the removal that the proceedings do not really and substantially involve a matter arising under this Act, the Superior Court of Australia shall not proceed any further in the proceedings but shall remit the proceedings to the court from which they were removed and make such order as to costs as is just, and, where an order is so made remitting proceedings, any documents relating to the proceedings shall be returned to the court from which they were received.

  6. If a question of law concerning a matter arising under this Act arises in proceedings instituted in a court (other than the Supreme Court) of a State or in a court of a Territory-

    1. the court shall, if so directed at any stage of the proceedings before final judgment by an order of the Superior Court of Australia (which may, upon the application of any party or of the Attorney-General for sufficient cause shown, be made on such terms as the Superior Court of Australia thinks fit) refer the question to the Superior Court of Australia for the consideration of the Superior Court of Australia; and
    2. where a question is so referred, the Superior Court of Australia has jurisdiction to hear and determine the question.
Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I move:

Leave out sub-clause ( 1 ).

Sub-clause ( 1 ) states:

Jurisdiction is conferred on the Superior Court of Australia to hear and determine civil and criminal proceedings instituted in that Court under this Act or removed into that Court under sub-section (4).

This provision of course and the Opposition’s amendment to have sub-clause ( 1 ) deleted raises the question whether the reference to a Superior Court is to be contained in this Bill. The Opposition’s attitude to a Superior Court has been well established and on 2 occasions in this chamber the Superior Court Bill has been defeated. The Opposition believes that offences under Commonwealth law which may take place anywhere throughout the nation ought to be prosecuted and be capable of being prosecuted in the Supreme Courts of the States and the Territories. It ought not to be a development in Australian law that we have a peculiar system of Federal courts. The Superior Court would be a Federal court and it would lead to a dichotomy that would produce immense difficulties. I think the issues have been canvassed in the Senate before in the debate on the Superior Court Bill and this is not the occasion to repeat them, but in so far as it is sought to confer a jurisdiction to hear and determine civil and criminal proceedings arising under this Bill upon a Superior Court then the Opposition is opposed to it. We see no reason why the civil proceedings and any criminal proceedings that might arise should not be prosecuted in the ordinary courts of the land. That is a course that we believe should be able to be followed and accordingly the Opposition will vote against this sub-clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I move:

Leave out sub-clauses (4) to ( 8).

This amendment follows as a consequence from the earlier amendment. Sub-clauses (4) to (8) provide for the removal into the Superior Court of matters which might have been instituted in other courts. Following upon the decision which the Committee has just made, these sub-clauses consequently would be removed also.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 48 (Exercise of jurisdiction by Australian Industrial Court).

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The Opposition opposes clause 48 because it is a clause which seeks to confer jurisdiction upon the Industrial Court until such time as jurisdiction is able to be exercised by the Superior Court. In those circumstances the Opposition is faced with the same situation. We do not believe that it is appropriate for jurisdiction on these matters to be heard by the Industrial Court. That is indeed a curious court to hear civil and criminal proceedings arising under this Bill. We believe if proceedings are to be taken, they ought to be capable of being taken in the ordinary courts of the land. For that reason we oppose this clause.

Clause negatived.

Clause 49.

  1. 1 ) A person who-

    1. is required to appear at a proceeding before a prescribed authority under section 23;
    2. has instituted, or proposes to institute, a proceeding in a court under sub-section 25 (4) or is, in a proceeding instituted in a court by the Commissioner under sub-section 25 (1 ), joined by the court as a party to the proceeding in accordance with sub-section 25(3);
    3. has done, or is alleged to have done, an act in respect of which a proceeding has been instituted in a court under sub-section 25 ( 1 ) or (4); or
    4. ) is prosecuted for an offence against this Act, may apply to the Attorney-General for the provision of assistance under this sectionin respect of the proceeding.

  2. Where an application is made by a person under subsection ( 1 ), the Attorney-General, or an officer of the Australian Public Service authorized in writing by the AttorneyGeneral, may , if he is satisfied that it would involve hardship to that person to refuse the application and that, in all the circumstances, it is reasonable that the application should be granted, authorize the provision by Australia to that person, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as the Attorney-General or officer determines, of such legal or financial assistance in relation to the proceeding as the Attorney-General or officer determines.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I move:

Clause 49 at present is a comprehensive provision under which a person may apply to the Attorney-General for provision of assistance in the nature of legal and financial assistance, but its purport has been greatly altered having regard to the amendments which have been made to clause 23 and clause 25. The purport of our amendment is to keep the intention which is inherent in clause 49, but to have regard to the changes which have already taken place. To that extent it seems to be appropriately a consequential amendment.

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have circulated a proposed amendment as an alternative to the amendment moved by Senator Greenwood. The purport of my amendment is to include in clause 49 (2) a specific reference to the Australian Legal Aid Office. The amendment is similar to the provisions of clause 1 17 (4) of the Family Law Bill that was passed by the Senate and clause 58(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Bill that has been passed by the House of Representatives and will soon be considered by the Senate. The amendment states that legal aid is to be provided in accordance with the means and needs test of the Australian Legal Aid Office for the giving of legal aid assistance. In summary, this test is that the applicant for legal aid is unable to afford the cost of legal representation. This test is one that has been supported by the Law Council of Australia and is used in most Australian legal aid schemes.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Marriott:

- Mr Minister, you have just foreshadowed a further amendment. Is the government amendment No. 6 to be proceeded with when it is called?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-No. The foreshadowed amendment is in substitute for government amendment No. 6 which was previously circulated.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The Opposition does not support and will vote against the amendment to sub-clause (2) which has been moved by the Minister. The Opposition, of course, has its own amendments which it will seek to move subsequent to the defeat of the Minister’s amendment, if that be the wish of the Committee. The reasons for objecting to the Minister’s amendment may be expressed as follows: In the first place, the insertion of a provision in this Bill for the grant of legal aid to persons who are involved in proceedings under this legislation is a matter of policy which has been declared by the Government. It is a policy provision which finds expression in some other pieces of legislation. It is not a general policy point finding expression in every piece of legislation under which rights are conferred.

I recall that the power to grant legal aid in particular cases is contained in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It was inserted into that Act some years ago in order to facilitate the utilisation of the powers of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and to ensure the enforcement of union rules. If unionists felt the rules of the unions were not being observed, or that there were unjust or oppressive rules, it was proper that aid should be available to enable the ordinary unionist, who for lack of means would not be able to contemplate the proceedings, in effect, to be indemnified by the Government in the action which he takes. There is a public policy which is served by provisions of that character. Therefore it is appropriate to regard the insertion of such a provision as a policy proposal. The Government obviously has regarded this Bill as one in which this policy proposal should be embodied. The Opposition certainly does not oppose the insertion of the policy in the Bill, but we believe it is important that the criteria under which the aid is given and the persons to whom aid is given should be clearly identified.

Also, when the Minister’s amendment refers to the Attorney-General or the Director of the Australian Legal Aid Office or a person employed by the Australian Legal Aid Office authorised by the Director in writing in that behalf to authorise the provision to a person of legal aid, the Opposition wonders what are the criteria on which the aid is to be provided. It also wonders at the standing of the person, that is, the Director of the Austalian Legal Aid Office or the employees of that office, who are to be authorised to grant this assistance. I note that under the Bill as it stands legal assistance is to be granted if the person granting the aid is satisfied that it would involve hardship to the applicant to refuse the application and that in all the circumstances it is reasonable that the application be granted.

There is no such provision in the Minister’s amendment and there would be no such provision in the total clause if the Minister’s amendment were accepted. We believe that there should be a criterion and are satisfied with the criterion which is contained in the clause but which is not contained in the Minister’s amendment. I feel that to nominate the Director of the Australian Legal Aid Office is to give legislative endorsement to an administrative creation of dubious constitutional validity which has no accepted position in any legislation which has been brought before this Parliament.

Senator Missen:

– It is putting the can before the horse.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-That is putting it kindly. I think it is wrong for the Government to ask for this endorsement of an office which has yet to receive legislative approval. For all that the Government knows the Austalian Legal Aid Office may not receive legislative approval. For all that the Parliament knows, the Government might never ask for legislative approval of this office. In these circumstances the Opposition considers it inappropriate to support the Minister’s amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I suggest that my amendments Nos 16, 17 and 18 be moved together.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Marriott:

– Is it the wish of the Committee to take amendments 16, 17 and 18 to clause 49 together? There being no dissent, it is so ordered.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I move:

These 3 amendments seek to give expression to a simple point, a clear principle, that if the aid is to be granted it should be granted by the AttorneyGeneral who is answerable to Parliament. This is the way that a similar provision under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act reads and the Opposition believes that that provision should apply likewise to this legislation. If aid is denied to a person the Minister can be asked in this chamber or in the other House why aid is not granted. If aid is granted and it appears on material available that aid should not be granted, likewise the Minister is responsible. That seems a sound principle. It is very difficult, as experience has indicated, to find satisfactory explanations of why in some cases of statutory grants of legal aid on past occasions some people have received aid and others have not. There is no satisfaction in a Minister being able to state: ‘It is not my responsibility, it is the responsibility of an officer and that officer cannot be directed on how he is to grant legal aid’. I say that not because this experience is limited to what has occurred in the last 2 years -for all I know there has been no experience of it- but because it is a factor of greater antiquity. I believe that this is an appropriate course to ensure that the Attorney-General is responsible for the decisions made and is answerable for them.

Amendments agreed to.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-I rise only to express my disquiet- I am not moving any amendment at the present time- at the way in which the legal aid is given either conditionally or subject to such conditions as the Attorney-General may determine. The incongruity of that situation can be seen by recalling that the Attorney-General may be the prosecutor in respect of some offences and may be actively pursuing or favouring the institution of civil actions. It seems to me entirely incongruous that the Attorney-General should have a wide discretion to impose conditions upon legal assistance that is given in the case of hardship, especially in cases where defendants are defending themselves against proceedings that the Attorney-General has instituted.

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I find it incongruous that Senator Wright, who saw fit to oppose my amendment to clause 49, should now give voice to the fears he has about the wide powers of the Attorney-General. If he had read the amendment which I circulated he would have seen that legal aid could have been given either by the Attorney-General, the Director of the Australian Legal Aid Office or a person employed by the Australian Legal Aid Office. One would have thought that in order to be consistent Senator Wright would have given enthusiastic support to my amendment. Evidently he sees no inconsistency in his attitude.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I rise only to say that it is inconceivable that the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) should submit that argument. The argument is absurd. The principles upon which Senator Greenwood advanced his objection to the Minister’s amendment satisfied me that the amendment should be wholly rejected.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 50 and 51- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Postponed clause 25.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Greenwood has moved an amendment to this clause. The question, therefore, is that the words proposed to be left out by Senator Greenwood’s amendment be left out.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I wonder whether the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) would allow me to suggest to him my willingness to accept a different form of words. I appreciate the point he made that the amendment moved by the Opposition, which states that the certificate should disclose whether or not a conference has been presided over by the Commissioner or his representatives, may prove self-defeating if a person has not attended. I recognise that though there is a penalty imposable upon a person who does not attend, the mere fact that the penalty is imposed will not allow the conference to take place if the person summoned still remains away.

Therefore, the civil proceedings which a person may wish to take would not be able to be instituted and there ought in those circumstances to be some change made to the provisions of this clause. I notice from what the Minister said that all that has to be done is to call a conference. It may be that if a conference is called, before the conference is actually held proceedings could be instituted. An aggrieved party could have indicated his determination to pursue his action, knowing that he must before he pursues his action obtain a certificate. All the certificate must say is that the conference has been called.

Senator Wright:

– No; and there has been an endeavour to settle the matter.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I appreciate what Senator Wright has said. My thought was that the endeavouring to settle the matter did not necessarily involve the summoning of a conference. The thought I had, and I suggest it to the Minister, is that an additional requirement of an alternative character might be included in the certificate. I am referring to sub-clause (3) in the amendment moved by the Opposition. I propose that the sub-clause be amended to read:

No proceeding shall be instituted unless the person aggrieved has received prior to the institution of such proceedings a certificate signed by the Commission stating that:

The Commissioner, a conciliation committee or an officer or employee of the Commission has presided over a conference directed by the Commissioner under section 22 ( 1 ) and has endeavoured to settle the matter, or

By reason of the non-attendance of a person who has been given a direction under section 22 such a conference has not been able to be held and that at the date of the certificate the matter has not been settled.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I would be content with that.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– If the Minister is willing to accept that, and I am grateful for his indulgence, I seek leave to move accordingly.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I move:

That sub-clause (3) of proposed clause 25 be amended to read:

No proceeding shall be instituted unless the person aggrieved has received prior to the institution of such proceeding a certificate signed by the Commission stating that:

The Commissioner, a conciliation committee or an officer or employee of the Commissioner has presided over a conference directed by the Commissioner under section 22( 1 ) and has endeavoured to settle the matter, or

By reason of the non-attendance of a person who has been given a direction under section 22 such a conference has not been able to be held and that at the date of the certificate the matter has not been settled. ‘

Senator Missen:

– There was a second matter raised by Senator James McClelland, namely sub-clause (4), which is redundant because it is already in an earlier clause. I had not noticed that before. Has Senator Greenwood given thought to the question as to whether that is needed?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I seek leave to amend proposed clause 25 further by withdrawing sub-clause (4). I accept what has been said by the Minister- that it is contained in section 22. I note that it was inserted in the debate in the House of Representatives.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Motion (by Senator Greenwood) agreed to:

Delete sub-clause (4).

Amendments to amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27.

Except as expressly provided by this Part, nothing in this Act makees it an offence to do an act that is unlawful by reason of a provision of Part II.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-A point has come to my attention as we have proceeded in the debate, and I seek leave to move an amendment to clause 27.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I move:

After ‘act ‘ add ‘or agree with another person to do an act ‘.

The clause would then read:

Except as expressly provided by this Part, nothing in this Act makes it an offence to do an act or agree with another person to do an act that is unlawful by reason of a provision of Pan II’.

The purpose of the amendment is to avoid any possibility that the criminal charge of conspiracy could flow. The purpose of this Bill as amended by the Opposition is as far as possible to keep these proceedings in the area of civil prosecution, and that has been the intent of all the amendments the Opposition has moved. I think that in the course of the debate Senator Chaney indicated that some of the provisions which have been removed might with experience be shown to have a necessity which the Opposition does not believe they have at present.

I think that that might be said of the whole tenor of the legislation, but only time will disclose how it operates. It would be disadvantageous and I think contrary to the spirit of the Act if criminal conspiracy charges could be laid in regard to matters which are declared to be unlawful for the purposes of facilitating civil proceedings; yet simply because of the declaration that they are unlawful they could give rise to the common law offence of criminal conspiracy, which is an agreement by two or more people to do an unlawful act. Accordingly, the Opposition offers the amendment to the Committee and trusts that it will be accepted in the spirit that it conforms with what the Opposition has been endeavouring to achieve with its other amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2041

ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDERS (QUEENSLAND DISCRIMINATORY LAWS) BILL 1974

In Committee

Consideration of House of Representatives amendments.

House of Representatives amendments.

After clause 5, insert the following new clauses: “5a. ( 1) An Aboriginal or Islander shall not be prevented from entering, residing on, visiting or otherwise being on, and shall not be ejected from, a Reserve by reason that a permit authorizing him to reside on, or visit, the Reserve is not in force in respect of him under a law of Queensland. “(2) It shall not be unlawful for an Aboriginal or an Islander to be on a Reserve by reason that he is a person in respect of whom a permit authorizing him to reside on, or visit, the Reserve, is not in force under a law of Queensland.”. “5b. (1) An Aboriginal or Islander shall not be ejected from a Reserve, or be penalised in any other way, under any law of Queensland relating to a Reserve by reason only that he has conducted himself in a way that is not to the satisfaction of an authority or person established or appointed by, under or for the purposes of a law of Queensland, if his conduct was not unreasonable in all the circumstances of the case. “(2) The burden of proving that the conduct of an Aboriginal or Islander was unreasonable in the circumstances of a particular case lies upon the person who alleges that the conduct was unreasonable. “.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– Having considered message No. 1 received from the other place I move:

I will subsequently move the adoption of message No. 2 from the House of Representatives upon the acceptance of message No. 1 as amended. Let me state the history of this matter. I introduced this Bill into the Senate and it was passed. The whole purpose of the Bill was to overcome the undesirable features of the Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders legislation. The 2 main clauses- 6 and 7- were deleted. One related to the right of an Aboriginal to go on to a reserve without permission. Under the Queensland legislation permission to go on to a reserve can be refused by a council or by the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs. The other clause, clause 7, provided that an Aboriginal could not be ejected from a reserve- a council or the Department may now eject him- unless his conduct on a reserve is unreasonable. There was discussion previously as honourable senators will recall, as to whether it was the desire of Aboriginal councils to have the right to say who could go on to a reserve. Many telegrams were received and there were accusations that the telegrams were phoney. However, the Senate on the information to hand and in its wisdom decided to reject the 2 clauses. When the Billreached the other place both clauses were reinserted into the Bill.

Following discussion with the Opposition over the last few days it is considered reasonable that

Aborigines should not be ejected from a reserve unless it can be shown that their conduct is unreasonable and would justify their ejection. While there should not normally be provisions to prevent an Aborigine from going on to a reserve it was felt that it would be desirous for the town councils, which are elected under the laws of the Queensland Government, to have the right to say who should go onto reserves in their areas.

While this may not at the present time meet the requirements of the United Nations convention as to the freedom of movement of an individual, it would meet the requirements subject to the land being handed over to Aboriginal communities. A submission has been put to Cabinet, as has been reported, that we should introduce legislation for the purpose of handing over such land to Aboriginal communities. As I have said in reply to a question, the Premier of Queensland has informed me that on certain conditions he is not opposed to the handing over of land to Aboriginal communities and this may then permit us to abide by the United Nations convention on the freedom of movement of an individual. It was for that reason that we agreed- I think there is unanimous agreement on this- to the amendment as proposed in message No. 1 subject to the preservation of the right of a duly elected council to have the say as to who goes on to a reserve. I think there is also agreement to accept message No. 2 from the other place.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-The Opposition is delighted that the Government has seen reason in relation to this matter and we are delighted to be able to reach a compromise which will put into effect the desire which we have that self-determination in relation to the Aboriginal people in Queensland should be real and not illusory. We have argued during the debate on this matter that if there was a desire expressed by the councils of the Aboriginal communities that they should have the right to determine who can enter and who can remain on their reserves in their communities then that they ought to have that right just as every Australian has the right to determine who shall come into his home, who shall come into the normal family unit, as we understand it, in the average urban community.

Senator Georges:

– That is not quite analogous.

Senator RAE:

– There is a clear analogy between the two. The Aboriginal community with its elected council ought to have, in our view, the right which is being given to it by the proposal now put forward by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh). We believe that it is a major step forward by the Commonwealth Parliament in the recognition of the right to selfdetermination. This is an aspect which has been pursued by the Opposition and we are glad that it has been pursued with success. We believe that it was clearly the desire of those councils that they should have this right and that this will provide for their wishes.

However, there is another aspect that I would like to take the opportunity to raise and that is to see just how far the Government intends to go in pursuing some consistent line in relation to this matter. I believe it is relevant to refer to the Northern Territory Social Welfare Ordinance which includes in section 18 the following provision:

  1. ) Where a welfare officer who is so authorised is satisfied that the behaviour of a person who has such a right and is on a reserve is such that it is desirable for the maintenance of order on the reserve that the person should not be on the reserve or a part of the reserve, he may declare to the person that the person’s right to enter or remain on the reserve, or on such part of the reserve as the welfare officer specifies, is suspended for such period not exceeding thirty days as the welfare officer specifies.

A welfare officer may be authorised by the Administrator to suspend the right of a person to enter and remain on a reserve in the Northern Territory. There is power under the Ordinance to authorise a person to enter and remain on a reserve or to declare or order that the right of a person to enter or remain on a reserve or a part of a reserve is or shall be suspended and includes a power to revoke the authorisation, declaration or order. The Director of Social Welfare or a person appointed under the Ordinance is declared to be a welfare officer,

I wonder what the distinction is between the provisions in the Queensland legislation which will be affected by the amendment with which we are now dealing and the powers that are given to the Administration in the Northern Territory under the Social Welfare Ordinance to give directions and make orders as to who shall go onto and who shall leave a reserve in the Northern Territory. We take the opportunity to challenge the Government to be consistent and to make provision in the Northern Territory for the councils to be able to have the same right that is now being given to Queensland councils to make the determination free from interference by Government departments. We would add that we understand that there is a likelihood of legislation being introduced as a result of the Woodward report in relation to Aboriginal land rights and we will look with considerable interest to that legislation when it comes before the chamber to find out whether a consistent line has been adopted in the drafting of that legislation. We will support the amendment moved by the Minister. We are glad that the Government has changed from the hard line it was adopting and which we believe was not in the best interests of the people whose interests we were concerned to safeguard. It was clearly against the wishes of those people. We believe that the amendment now should be supported.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I have not spoken for some considerable time on matters which concern the Aboriginal people. 1 must express some regret that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) has been forced to accept an amendment of this sort to get his legislation passed. It reminds me of the many instances in which a constituted council has shown discrimination against people who have a basic right to return to their settlement- a basic right by birth, by some previous residence at that place, by some association with people on that reserve. I do not like using the word ‘reserve’. Now that we have accepted the amendment, I ask the Minister whether there is some means by which an appeal can be made against a council’s decision and by which a council ‘s decision can be reversed if a person feels that he has been unjustly prevented from returning to his home place, no matter what his fault may have been. It may have been a fault which was not a criminal fault; it may have been a fault which brought him into disrepute, shall we say, as far as some councillors are concerned.

Senator Sheil:

– Aborigines cannot be forced to stay on a community.

Senator GEORGES:

-They can be prevented by a council from returning. I am not saying that they ought to be forced to stay on. I would have hoped that any discrimination or any overlordship of this sort had long disappeared. If it has not disappeared by now, I hope it disappears with the passage of this Bill. Aborigines should be free to move away from the reservefrom their home, to put it that way. They should be free also to return. I hope there is some means by which an appeal can be made by a person who may be persona non grata with the council. It can happen on many settlements. It can happen on many islands, as Senator Bonner could possibly tell the Committee. People have been excluded for personal reasons, and for no other reason. By accepting this amendment we have left in the hands of the councils the power to exclude. That exclusion could be a very severe punishment to the person or the family of that person. I hope that the Minister, having accepted this amendment which leaves a very substantial area of possible discrimination, can convince me that there is some means of appeal against a decision by a council which could exclude or separate a family or a group of friends.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

-I join with my colleague Senator Rae in saying how pleased I am that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) and his Government have now seen fit to accept this amendment to the Bill. The 3 major parties in the federal sphere, as I understand it, have as part of their policy self-determination for Aborigines. Today we have seen that policy being implemented for the first time. It gives Aborigines on Aboriginal communities selfdetermination. I opposed the relevant clauses when the Bill was first introduced. I can assure the Committee that I would have continued to oppose them today if the Minister had not moved his amendment which gives back to the Aboriginal communities the power to exclude persons from entering communities. Senator Georges expressed some concern- perhaps rightly so- that the councillors would now have the power to keep people off the communities and not allow them to return. He said that they have a basic right to return. I do not believe that is quite correct. They have a basic right to live on a community provided they are not interfering with the rights of other people living on the community. A person who might want to live on a community could be excluded by the councillors if he were causing problems on the community and if he were not prepared to live on the community and to abide by the standards set on that community. That would be the only reason a councillor or a council would not permit anyone to return to a community. I think that is right.

Senator Poyser:

– Who would make that decision?

Senator BONNER:

– The decision would be made by the council which is elected by the community. The 5 councillors on each community are elected by the Aboriginal people on the community. To suggest that 5 members of a council would be victimising people does not hold water because they would be tossed out at the next election, the same as we would be if we were not doing our job. The electorate would soon take care of that by not re-electing us next time around. The councillors on the Aboriginal communities are quite aware of that fact, and if they were doing those things they would not be doing them for long. I am very pleased to support the amendment because for the first time in the history of Australia Aborigines are really getting self-determination.

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I rise because the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh), in his opening explanatory remarks, has left the impression that there are still undesirable aspects in the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders Act in Queensland. On the previous occasion this Bill was before the Committee it was altered until it was unrecognisable from when it first appeared. Any law which discriminates, must discriminate against some and in favour of others. If the laws in Queensland discriminate at all, they discriminate in favour of the Aborigines and the Islanders in a way that can be tolerated by other Queenslanders. There are 16 communities in Queensland run by the State Department. Aborigines and Islanders take part in executive decisions and policy decisions. They are employed by the Department. They have free access to the Premier at any time. He said that he will even go so far as to abolish the Act if that is their desire.

Senator Georges:

– Why should the councils want that when it would affect their entrenched positions?

Senator SHEIL:

– The Queensland Act represents the desires of the Aborigines, which is not what the Federal Minister wants, that is, to tell the people what they are to have. The Premier truly represents the communities and their wishes. In previous debates I have dispelled the myth that Aborigines and Islanders have had their properties managed by the State Government by force. They can have their properties managed by the Government if they wish, but they can withdraw from that arrangement at a moment’s notice and have it re-instated if they wish. I have dispelled also the myth that Aborigines and Islanders are tried for minor offences by a Queensland Government kangaroo court by showing that an Aboriginal or an Islander is tried for these offences by a court of his tribal elders, which fills all the criteria for a good judicial system. The miscreant has easy access to it. It is handy. It administers all tribal law. He knows the types of judges which sit on it. For the more serious offences and for offences committed outside the communities, the offender has easy access to Aboriginal Legal Aid or to the ordinary legal system of the country.

If there is racism in Queensland, it is probably normal. As a matter of fact, I think that racism is normal, it is as it should be. Everyone, whatever his race, is proud of his race and naturally is suspicious of people of other races. The evils are bigotry, intolerance, racial domination and suppression. These are the bad things, not being proud of one’s race. We do not have racism on the communities in Queensland. What we have is the quiet development of a multi-racial society, and it is successful.

Senator Keeffe:

– You do not believe that, do you?

Senator SHEIL:

– Where are the riots in Queensland? Where is the sickness and starvation? Where are the demonstrations? Where is the high crime rate on our communities? Where is the boredom? Where is the alcoholism? Not on our communities. On our communities Aboriginal and Islander Councils are given complete control over the sale of alcohol or the refusal to sell alcohol. We admit that problems concerning Aborigines exist outside the communities, but mainly with Aborigines who in their own way are trying to be assimilated or perhaps not trying to be assimilated. Many more problems exist in the communities run by the Commonwealth. One only has to read the report on the Yirrkala people. It is a shocking revelation and an indictment of the scandalous administration of this Federal Government. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh), who is present in the chamber, walks with radicals, yet he has had these radicals camped on the front doorstep of Parliament House for months, ridiculing him. Honourable senators will have noted that the damage done by this protracted demonstration outside Parliament House still has not been repaired. A whole lawn is still torn up, waiting to be repaired. I think that if anything the Federal Government should be learning from Queensland rather than trying to dictate to it.

I will take a discriminatory look at the representation of Aborigines and Islanders in their communities in Queensland. Every single community is represented by the National Party. Labor does not represent one of them. Cherbourg is represented by the Queensland Premier himself. Palm Island, which is in the Hinchinbrook electorate, is represented by the National Party. Mornington Island and Doomadgee, which are in the Mount Isa electorate, are represented by the National Party. That electorate was taken from Labor. All the communities in the Cape York Peninsula are in the Cook electorate, which was won from Labor by an Aboriginal on behalf of the National Party. The National Party and the Liberal Party are the only parties with Aboriginal representation in both State and Federal parliaments. In the Queensland State elections which were held on 7 December last year- I remind honourable senators that that was the anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbour- and which were fought on Federal issues, the Aborigines and Islanders showed the Canberra mandarins of mandates just what sort of malarkey they were talking.

The final amendment concerns the right of tribal councils to determine who goes on or off their communities. The retention of the right of admission to communities by the tribal councils and the Queensland administration was the one request that was made by every tribal council. Prior to accepting this amendment, the Federal Government intended to deny these councils this right, a right that had been granted to them by the Queensland Government. The truth is incontrovertible. It can be taken, twisted and turned, but in the end it will be there. I think that this Bill was introduced originally simply as an attempt to discredit the Queensland Premier- because the Federal Labor Government sees him as its most formidable opponent- at the expense of the Aborigines and Islanders in Queensland, because this Government flew in the face of the expressed wishes of the people of those communities.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I know that we have to get legislation through this place so that Senator Sheil and others will be able to get away to their fishing in three or four weeks’ time, but the statements that Senator Sheil has made are entirely provocative. He ought to know that this Bill was born in a democratic spirit. It has been introduced into this chamber in an endeavour to democratise those aspects of our society that need this type of treatment. I wish to rebut a couple of things that have been said. Firstly, the Party to which Senator Sheil belongs is the worst offender in discrimination against Aboriginal people, and has been for many years.

Senator Sheil:

– Give us book and verse.

Senator KEEFFE:

– For years and years many pastoralists who belong to Senator Sheil ‘s Party and who support his Party- his colleague on his left, Senator Lawrie, would be aware that this has happened in the central district of Queensland- have exploited thousands of Aboriginal people by paying sub-standard wages, or no wages at all. As for saying that the 2 Acts concerning Aborigines are still required, this is just so much poppycock. There are 2 things that ought to be abolished in Queensland. The first is the 2 Acts that concern Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders and the other is the Queensland Country Party Government, or whatever it is called. When both of those things are gone there is some chance that democracy will return to Queensland. It is not likely to happen while Sir Gordon Chalk leads the Liberal Party, because apparently he is too timid to stand on his feet. Now that the Queensland Premier has a new Jaguar car I suppose that Sir Gordon Chalk feels even more inferior. It is all very well for Senator Sheil to say: ‘Just look at what has happened with representation in Queensland’. Without the aid of a gerrymandered electoral system -

Senator Sheil:

– How do you gerrymander the Senate?

Senator KEEFFE:

– After all, the National Party is still dictating the policies of Queensland, even with it exalter vote- a mere 29 per cent of the total vote. Senator Sheil must recall that over the years the National Party has dominated the Liberal Party and the State of Queensland with 19 per cent of the total votes. If he can tell me that a minority vote of 19 per cent can put a majority party into power, he can hardly say that this is an exercise in the expression of the democratic will of the people. It is not, and Senator Sheil knows it. If the Labor Party wanted to win a majority of seats in the Queensland Parliament it would need to receive about 56 per cent or 57 per cent of the total votes.

During the last few days in this place I have watched Senator Sheil crying crocodile tears about the Australian Government’s redistribution methods and how those methods will abolish the National Country Party. The National Country Party cannot always stay in office with a minority vote. People throughout the world have found this out over the years. South Australia was a prime example. To the credit of Senator Steele Hall and other people, they were democatlc enough to agree to an alteration of the electoral boundaries in that State. I wish to emphasise this point because Senator Sheil states that it was because of the good policies of his Party and because of the magnitude of outlook of his Party towards Aborigines that his party holds the number of seats that it does in Queensland today. This is just not true. Senator Sheil committed a further political sin by referring to the seat of Cook in Queensland. He said: ‘Look, we have an Aboriginal in the State Parliament’. Does he know what his Party did? It canvassed votes in order to get a gentleman from the Mareeba area on the No. 1 position on the National Party ticket. The members of his Party hoped like hell that an Aboriginal would not get the votes. It was purely by the accident of the leakage of preferences that Mr Deeral was able to represent the seat of Cook in the Queensland Parliament. Senator Sheil should not come here and adopt a holier than thou attitude when he knows that he does not mean it.

Now I wish to spend a couple of minutes dealing with Senator Sheil ‘s attitude to reserves and to the Act. I do not know whether he is aware of it or not, but a revolt is being born on every Aboriginal reserve in Queensland at present. If he thinks that the people on Mornington Island are living in peace and happiness, he wants to go and look at some of the things that his Party has done to them. For instance, the people on Mornington Island wanted their village down by the sea where they have lived for time immemorial. But no, Senator Sheil ‘s Party argued the point with the people and said that they ought to go into the bush, inland, and establish the village there. Thousands of dollars worth of timber has deteriorated over a period of 3 years because the building program could not be proceeded with. Who has won? The National Party dominated Queensland department has won, and the black people have to go and live in the bush against their will; it is not what they want.

Senator Sheil says that that is a happy community. He also knows what has happened at Weipa. There is a long sad history there. His Party, in co-operation with a certain church and a mining company, have broken the spirit of the Aboriginal people at Weipa and have given them nothing in return, in spite of his Party’s promises. Senator Sheil knows what is likely to happen at Aurukun. Some more friends of the National Party are taking up leases all through that area. They have the ultimate secret weapon to abolish that community when they are ready. Yet Senator Sheil says that these people are living in a spirit of democracy. They are not even getting a fair go- the ordinary Australian concept of a fair go.

Then he said that the Queensland Acts are discriminating in the Aborigines’ favour. That is just not true. The Acts are used as a restrictive measure to keep the Aboriginal people and the Island people down. It is no use saying that the communities, through their councils, have full control. They have full control at very few places. The internal feeling on most of the reserves is such that at long last they realise that they have been kicked from pillar to post by representatives of a government of Senator Sheil ‘s political colour and they are not going to cop it much longer. They will reach the stage when they will revolt. The average Aboriginal is a peaceful person. They are not going to take up arms. In any case people like Senator Sheil would use a nuclear weapon in return, if they could get their fingers on one, to wipe out the black problem, as they call it, for all time.

Senator Sheil referred to the representations that Aboriginal people of this country have made in front of Parliament House. I would like the honourable senator to recall that in the days when Mr Hunt was the Minister for the Interior, he was the man who brought in guns, batons and police to belt up Aboriginal people in front of this Parliament- one of the bloodiest episodes that we have ever seen on the lawns of Parliament House. Yet they were peaceful demonstrators. They were not trying to do anything except convince the government of the day that they needed justice in respect of their tribal land rights, the health of their children, employment opportunities and better health for the community generally. In other words, they sought equality in this land which we took from them. But it was a Country Party representative who ordered the police to go in there and hit and kick and, if necessary, kill. Yet Senator Sheil tells us how democratic this system is. But his Party would not give them the right to demonstrate peacefully because the demonstration was an eyesore, as I heard some people call it, in front of Parliament House. At least the Australian Government Minister who belongs to my Party treated everybody with tolerance and gave them the right to make their protest.

I felt that I had to say those few words to give the lie to the false story that was obviously written by somebody else which Senator Sheil has endeavoured to have incorporated in Hansard. This Bill is a necessary part of the democratisation of society in Australia today. I hope that it is passed, even with this amendment, with which I am not entirely happy. Nevertheless, the Bill fulfils most of the things that we need. I hope it is passed in toto.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I thank the Opposition for supporting the proposed amendment. As Senator Rae has said, it is a compromise and it implements the policy of selfdetermination which at present is apparently the policy of all political parties, at least in theory. The amendment concerns the question of what is determination. It has been suggested that it gives the right to a reserve council to decide who shall be on its reserve. It is contrasted with the ordinance of the Northern Territory which gives a right to a welfare officer who has a right to issue permits to say who goes on to a reserve and who stays on a reserve. I remind Senator Rae that that ordinance was introduced by a previous government of which he was a member. We can be accused of doing nothing about it since we came into power because we have a different policy and have not put our policy into operation. But we have set up a lot of machinery to ascertain how Aboriginal reserves in the Northern Territory should be operated and the Woodward Commission was set up to ascertain how we could give reserves to Aboriginals which they could operate themselves.

It is the intention of the Government, as soon as the legislation can be drawn up, to introduce the Northern Territory Aboriginal Lands Commission Bill which will establish a commission to decide the questions of what land should be given to Aboriginal communities, how they should be controlled and who should own them. Although that Bill is only at a preliminary stage, I have taken the Opposition shadow minister for aboriginal affairs into my confidence and shown him what it is desired to do with regard to Aboriginal lands in the Northern Territory and who may go on to them. There is nothing in the proposed Bill, which will override the ordinance of the Northern Territory, that will prevent an Aboriginal from going on to a reserve and remaining on a reserve. So we are seeking to carry out the policy which we sought to carry out in Queensland but about which we must now accept some reservations.

Senator Georges raised the question of appeals. One of the matters which we sought to clear up by this legislation, which has been passed by both Houses of Parliament, is that there was no right of legal representation before or appeal against a decision from a settlement court. Clause 7 of this Bill now gives a defendant the right to have both counsel and the right of appeal. When an Aboriginal on a reserve is in breach of an order the method of dealing with him- there is no question of throwing him off the reserve- is a prosecution under the Act that makes it an offence for him to be on that land without a permit to be on it. If it is a prosecution in a normal police court in Queensland he has a right of appeal to the highest court in Australia if he thinks he has been unfairly treated. After a trial by a court upon a settlement he has no right of appeal. This Bill corrects that and such a defendant will now have a right of appeal.

The proposed amendment does not give the reserve councils the right to throw people off reserves or to permit them to remain on reserves. The proposed amendment of the other place, proposed new sub-clause 5A, prevents someone from being prohibited from being on a reserve because he lacks a permit authorising him to visit the reserve in accordance with the laws of Queensland. Whatever other laws may apply that can refuse anyone right of entry to a reserve will still apply, but it will not be an offence under the laws of Queensland if he is on the reserve and he has not a permit. Previously under the laws of Queensland it was unlawful for a person to be on a reserve without an authorisation that permitted him to be on the reserve. Such a person does not now need that authorisation, but there is nothing in proposed new sub-clause 5a (2) which says that he can be on a reserve without that authorisation. He must not be on a reserve if the council has issued an order that he shall not be on the reserve. But the council must comply with the normal laws and is not free to eject anyone from the reserve unless it has issued an order. If the council issues an order it must stand up to an inquiry into the justification of the order, which inquiry would be conducted by way of appeal to a normal court.

Senator Sheil was far removed from the Bill in what he had to say, but obviously he is the selfappointed advocate of the Queensland Parliament. He expressed appreciation that at last we have given to Aborigines the freedom of selfdetermination, and if an injustice is done to an Aborigine he has the right to receive legal aid. As I have said, under the Queensland Act he does not have the right to legal aid. This Bill does not seek to abolish the Queensland Act; it seeks to abolish those sections of the Queensland Act which all members of both Houses of the Parliament now agree need to be abolished and overridden by the Commonwealth Act.

Let us look at the freedom of selfdetermination that the Aborigines have. I wish to read from a telex which I received from the present Deputy Director of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in Queensland, who keeps me advised in regard to some of the problems. The telex reads:

Director Aboriginal and Island Advancement visited Yarrabah 16 May 1975. It is alleged he instructed Yarrabah Council to serve ‘notice to show cause’ to all people possessing only monthly residence permits as to why they should not be removed from reserve.

That instruction came from the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs in Queensland. The telex continues:

It is understood that DAIA sent those notices to Yarrabah Council for service at least three months ago but that Council had declined to serve them. A meeting of leaders Bud.dabadoo Trading Company and NACC representatives was held at our Department-

That is the Federal Department- in Cairns 1 9 May 1 975. At this meeting people indicated that Yarrabah Council had expressed considerable reluctance in following DAIA Director’s instructions. And in fact notices as at a.m. today had not been served. It is understood Bud.dabadoo Trading Company leaders meeting with Yarrabah

Council at Yarrabah this a.m. and indications are that majority Council will refuse serve notices and indicate to Director DAIA that he should serve them himself.

Here is an example of the freedom of self determination that exists in Queensland when an instruction is given by the Queensland Department to serve notices on those people who have only a monthly permit to remain on the reserve.

The Council which the Opposition says has self determination is reluctant to serve the notices because it wants those residents to remain there. That is the instruction. According to law, if the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs or anyone else serves the notices and if the residents on the reserve refuse to obey them they are in breach of the law. I am grateful that by decision of the Senate this afternoon that power will be taken away from the Queensland Department. Unless it can be shown that the conduct of the individuals on the reserve was unreasonable in the circumstances, they will have a legal and perfect right to remain on the reserve. Having moved amendment No. 1 from the other House, I thank the Opposition for its support.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I wish to reply to what the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) has said in relation to the Yarrabah community, because the information I have received indicates that at least the matters referred to by the Minister are not beyond dispute. The information which I have indicates that the Queensland Government Department has been acting at the request of the Aboriginal Community Council. I understand that the Aboriginal Community Council expressed concern on a number of occasions about the developing events and particularly at what appeared to be a deliberate attempt by Commonwealth officers to ignore, or at least to disregard, their responsibility locally to the community and to the development of the area. I understand that on 1 7 January 1975 the Community Council appealed to the Department for legal assistance and guidance in response to a news release which indicated that the Commonwealth Government was providing funds for some of the people who were the subject of the matter raised by the Ministerthat is, the people who were short term residents or visitors to the area.

I understand that on 27 February 1975 the Chairman of the Council appealed personally by telephone requesting a visit by a senior State official for guidance in regard to the Bud.dabadoo area, the interference by outside groups which had no responsibility locally, and support for the Community Council against the pressures being exerted by the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service in Cairns. I understand further that because of local legal aid involvement the Chairman of the Council sought the support of the Queensland Solicitor-General’s Department in order to remove legally certain of the visitors to the reserve who, whilst initially there with Council approval, were resisting movement from the reserve and were impeding and in fact attempting to dominate the Council within the reserve. I understand that the Queensland SolicitorGeneral ‘s Department did provide the advice requested.

I could go on further, but I simply indicate that it is quite clear that the matters referred to by the Minister are perhaps one side of what is clearly a matter in dispute. I understand that it would not be disputed that these requests have been made to the Queensland Department by the Chairman of that Council. These matters can be substantiated from the records.

Senator Keeffe:

– It is the only Council in Queensland with a bit of stomach and you are trying to knock it down.

Senator RAE:

– It is said by Senator Keeffe that we are trying to knock the Council down. We are the ones who have been trying to support the right of the Council. It was the Government which was trying to knock it down. I do not wish this to be the subject matter of debate this afternoon. I wish to put on record what is another side to the matter which the Minister has chosen to introduce.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I do not think Senator Rae can put another side to the matter if it is not factual. Obviously the honourable senator has received his information from the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs. He can substantiate his information because there was some trouble on the reserve in January and apparently the Council made a request of him. My information is that the trading company concerned has seen the Legal Aid Office in Cairns with the view to seeing what it can do to stop the direction of the Queensland Department, which is contrary to the wishes of the Council. That direction was given in the month of May. I have as a clear statement, whatever may have been the reaction in January, that in May the Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs wants to serve a month’s notice on the residents on the reserve and the Council does not want that to happen.

If the notice is served it will be in complete contradiction of self-determination of the Council. The Council does not want the notice to be served. It seems that the Queensland Department is directing the Council to do so. Of course, if the Council does not serve the notice there is nothing to stop an officer from the Queensland Department from doing so. In that case the notice would be served and people would be removed. The Council has no objection to these people remaining on the reserve. It may have had objections in January, but I doubt it. I cannot contradict what Senator Rae has said but, to the best of my knowledge, in May it has no such objection.

Senator Rae:

– What I read out indicated concern in February and subsequently when the Community Council chairman sought the advice of the Queensland Solicitor-General as to how to take legal action to remove those people.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The honourable senator’s informant in Queensland is so slow in getting information to him that it is out of date before it gets here. My latest information which refers to the situation at Yarrabah, arrived by way of telex sent and received in my office on 23 May of this year. The information that Senator Rae has in regard to January and February does not disclose the factual position today.

Amendment No. 1 agreed to.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I move:

That amendment No. 2 be agreed to.

I hope that this amendment will not create the scorn and the debate that was engendered by the previous amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Resolutions reported; report adopted.

page 2049

PIG SLAUGHTER LEVY BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22 April on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BESSELL:
Tasmania

– I assume that from the cognate nature of this Bill and the 3 following Bills the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) would want a general debate on all of them so I will proceed on the basis that we have 4 Bills before us. Basically, these Bills were introduced as a result of a request by the pig industry for a levy on its product for a promotion fund. Most of the amendments in the other 3 Bills are of a machinery nature and are designed to bring the Acts into conformity with Government policy. The Bills are clear and are of a machinery nature. For example, in some instances where the word ‘Commonwealth’ appears the word ‘Australia’ is to be used and in others the words ‘Primary Industry’ will be replaced by the word ‘Agriculture’. I have no real quarrel with the use of either of those terms although I have some nostalgia about the word Commonwealth’, as does the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) who said so recently. To me it has connotations of the Commonwealth of Nations or a federation of nations or States but I imagine that in this instance this point is not terribly important and I mention it only in passing.

The Opposition is supporting these Bills, as it did in the other House. They have been introduced as a result of a request by the industry. When there is this sort of co-operation I am sure that this Government, like the previous government, is only too ready to acquiesce. It is fairly obvious in this day and age that it is most important for the producer of any product, be it a primary industry product or a secondary industry product, to establish some method of promotion. When an industry is as scattered and as decentralised as the pig industry is it is obvious that this can be done only at the industry level. That is why there is now a need for this pig promotion levy.

One thing has to be carefully watched once the proposed Pig Meat Promotion Advisory Committee is set up. Because of the general trend in pig production we will have to be careful that we do not find that we are promoting a product that we can no longer supply. There has been a dramatic evolution within the industry and it has been brought about by the changes that have taken place in the dairy industry. For many years people were producing butter fat and the milk that was the by-product of the dairy industry was used to fatten pigs. We also have seen a dramatic evolution within the dairy industry and now a vast majority of the producers have switched over to milk production, either for manufacture or for town milk supply. The obvious result has been that no longer is there the relatively cheap food for the fattening of pig meats. It is important that this is kept in mind when decisions are made on a yearly basis as to the amounts to be spent by the industry for promotion.

Another thing which has had quite a dramatic effect on the industry is the very substantial increase in the world price of grains. Two or three years ago feed grains were available to the pig industry and other industries for 70c or 80c a bushel but today the price is about $2 a bushel. The price of alternative foods is increasing. The prices of meat meals and fish meals, for example, are increasing at an ever accelerating rate and closing the gap between the costs and the eventual returns. There has been an intensification of pig production but it has been brought about not so much by one side of the industry disappearing and the other becoming more prominent; I think it has been brought about by the people who have intensified their production of pig meats. They have done so by establishing some relatively large single units. We see some very large single units throughout the Commonwealth today.

Although research is not referred to very much in the Bills before us there is a need for the research side of the industry, about which we have just received a report, to give very careful attention to the importance of good husbandry and health. Where there is intense production of any animal, particularly pigs, we find a need for extremely good husbandry. I think it is necessary for the industry to get all the assistance it can in order to maintain its healthy state. We know the susceptibility of cloven-hooved stock, particularly pigs, to some of the exotic diseases. Let us hope that such diseases never reach Australia because we have so many cloven-hooved animals. This is something which must be watched carefully and research needs to be kept to the present level. There is one disturbing thing to be noted on reading the latest report on the industry. While there is some long term and medium term research being undertaken with moneys provided for research into the pig industry, a lot of it is of a biochemical nature and is of a short term. It is important, for the future and long term health of the industry, that this aspect be watched with every-increasing care.

I want to turn now to promotion. The honourable member for Paterson in the House of Representatives, Mr O ‘Keefe, said that in 1972- 73 a certain amount of money had been spent on research. Since that time the Australian Pig Industry Research Committee report for 1973- 74 has been received and one disturbing fact that emerges from it is the drop in income. Under this legislation equal amounts of money will be collected for research and promotion. The fall in this collection of levies was from $227,000 to $244,200 which indicates a fall not necessarily terribly dramatic but significant and it represents in effect 56 000 slaughterings of pigs, whether it be for bacon or pork. I think this is a fairly significant number and it indicates that the narrowing of the gap between the cost and the end product is slowly easing more and more people out. I think that the industry itself has recognised this and this is the reason it has asked the Government for money to promote their product.

We know that the secondary side of the pig industry does a lot of promoting in its own right and it has been estimated that in the bacon area this amounts to as much as $ 1 per pig, but I do not think this is in itself the importance of it. The industry itself at the producing end wants to be involved. In the promotion that will be established under this Bill and the recommendations that will come from the Committee to be established under the Bill, I think there is a need for the industry to have at least consultations with the Australian Meat Board so that we do not see a situation developing in which the Australian Meat Board, which unquestionably will be looking at promotion because of the over-production factor and its responsibility, undertakes a competitive type of promotion. I think it is terribly important that if possible the Pig Meat Promotion Advisory Committee and the Australian Meat Board should at least have consultations to establish the guidelines that each of them wishes to follow and to avoid, if possible, any duplication which of course in the promotion field is expensive and a waste of resources.

Dealing with the provisions of the 4 Bills, I indicated earlier that the main provision is to allow the collection of an additional 5c to the maximum allowed under the Act of 10c per pig killed. It is perhaps important that this be watched very carefully because one thing that has not yet been made clear- of course it cannot be made clear until the provisions of these Bills are implementedis that one of the responsibilities of the new promotion Committee to be set up is to report, suggest and recommend to the Government, the amount that the levy should be. At present it is the maximum amount possible allowed under the Act- 5c for promotion and 5c for research. As has been set out in the second reading speech, the Committee is to comprise 3 representatives. There Will be a departmental representative, 2 representatives from the Austraiian Commercial Pig Producers Federation, one person being chosen for his expertise in marketing and with the departmental officer being chairman. Each of these representatives will have the right under the legislation to elect a deputy.

The remuneration of this Committee will be provided under the Remuneration Tribunals Act. It appears that at least some of the administrative expenses of this promotion Committee will be met by funds collected from levies, and in this respect it may well be argued that the Australian Government could have seen fit to make some contribution, even if only of a token nature, under the amended Act. The expenses of the Committee will be paid for out of the trust account that is to be established under the legislation, and moneys collected will be paid into a trust account for pig promotion. It is also noted that one of the duties is to make recommendations, as I mentioned a moment ago. One such recommendation that cannot of course as yet be made is the recommendation to the Government with respect to the amount of individual levies so that the size of the levy account can be maintained.

I think it would be unfortunate if we were to find a situation whereby there was a need for more money to be spent by this Committee on promotion than will be collected by this levy. On the figures available to us from the 1973-74 report, it looks as though the maximum amount available, including the administrative expenses, etc., of the Committee, will be about $225,000, and in a 17-odd per cent inflationary situation I think we can assess fairly accurately that this amount will not last in a very big, expensive or extensive promotion campaign. But it is what the industry has asked for and we thank the Government for acceding to its request. As I mentioned earlier, I think it is important that on this occasion the industry has asked for this.

I know it has been the practice for these sorts of promotional committees to be set up in this way without Government contribution but I think that, all things considered, this might well have been one of those instances where at least some of the administrative costs involved could well have been borne by the Government. Be that as it may, we sincerely hope that the industry enjoys the benefits of the money that the industry itself will contribute for the promotion of its own product. Bearing in mind the things that I mentioned should be watched, I think there is no reason that this promotion cannot be as effective as the industry would wish it to be. I know that the Minister has the final say when the recommendations come to him, and I imagine that he will deal with them in the way he deals with the other matters under his responsibility. We support these 4 Bills and again we thank the Minister for acceding to the requests of the industry.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I appreciate the fact that the Opposition will support the legislation. It is at the request of the industry. The Australian Meat Board, of course, is not responsible for pig meats but there is quite a close liaison with the Meat

Board, which deals with red meats, and I believe it has quite a satisfactory arranagement with the pig industry. The question was asked, why now? Why commence a promotion campaign when supply tends to be short and prices are comparatively high? The main reason, of course, is that the market not only could change in the next year or two but also it will take time to get the promotion campaign under way. It is a wellestablished principle in the commercial world that you advertise your product when the market is good because you then have a greater chance of penetrating areas in which you have not been able to to sell previously.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– The quality of production techniques has gone downhill in the last 2 years.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I would not think that is correct.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I breed the damn things so I should know something about it.

Senator WRIEDT:

-One very often finds that the person who breeds them knows less about it than do some other people.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– You would not know a baconer from a porker.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I probably would not, but I would not think it would make much difference anyway. Perhaps at some time the honourable senator can bring us an example of what he grows and we will test it. Senator Bessell also made reference to a contribution by the Australian Government. That, of course, was not asked for by the Federation. It has not been customary with governments in the past to do so. The obvious reason is that if that were the case one would set a precedent for a wide range of requests from a whole series of industries. I do not think I need to make any more points other than to indicate that one small amendment will be moved to the Pig Meat Promotion Bill 1975 to correct a drafting error.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2052

PIG SLAUGHTER LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 22 April 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 2052

PIG INDUSTRY RESEARCH BILL 1975

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 22 April 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 2052

PIG MEAT PROMOTION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 22 April on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– As I indicated earlier I have a drafting amendment to clause 6, sub-clause (3). The sub-clause provides:

  1. The Minister shall not exercise his power to approve the expenditure of moneys from the Research Account for the purposes referred to in paragraph ( 1 ) (a) except in accordance with recommendations of the Committee.

I move:

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

Sitting suspended from 6.1 to 8 p.m.

page 2052

ELECTORAL LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 1974 [No. 2] (1975)

In Committee

Consideration of House of Representatives message.

Clause 4.

Section5 of the Principal Act is amended-

Senate’s amendment No. 1-

Leave out paragraph (b).

Clause 6.

Section 1 6 of the Principal Act is amended-

Senate ‘s amendment No. 2-

Leave out paragraph (a).

Clause 13.

After section 4 1 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: 4 1 a. (1 ) A person (other than a person who is, or is entitled to be, enrolled by virtue of section 41 ) who-

Penalty: $10.

Senate’s amendment No. 3-

In proposed section 41 a ( 1 ) leave out paragraphs (b), (c) and (d), insert the following word and paragraph: and (b) has left, and is living outside, Australia, but has a fixed intention of returning to Australia and ofliving within a Subdivision,’.

Senate’s amendment No. 4-

In proposed section 41 a (1), after paragraph (d), leave out ‘or the spouse of such a person who is living with that person.’.

Senate’s amendment No. 5-

In proposed section 41a (1), after paragraph (d), leave out ‘or her’.

Senate’s amendment No. 6-

In proposed section 41a (1), after paragraph (d), leave out ‘or she’.

Senate’s amendment No. 7-

In proposed section 41a (2), leave out ‘or she’.

Senate’s amendment No. 8-

In proposed section 41a (3), paragraph (b), leave out ‘or her’.

Senate’s amendment No. 9-

In proposed section 41a (3), paragraph (b), leave out ‘or she’.

Senate’s amendment No. 10-

In proposed section 41a (3), after paragraph (b), leave out ‘or she’.

Senate’s amendment No. 1 1 -

In proposed section 4 1 a (4), leave out ‘or her’.

Senate’s amendment No. 12-

In proposed section 41 a (4), leave out ‘or she’.

Senate ‘s amendment No. 13-

In proposed section 41 a, leave out sub-section (6).

Senate ‘s amendment No. 1 4-

In proposed section 41a, leave out sub-section (11).

Clause 17 (Names on Roll may be objected to).

Senate’s amendment No. 15-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 2 1 -Proposed new Part IXA.

Senate’s amendment No. 16-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 23 (Members of certain legislatures not entitled to be nominated).

Senate ‘s amendment No. 1 7-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 24.

Section 73 of the Principal Act is amended-

Senate’s amendment No. 18-

Leave out paragraph (b).

Senate’s amendment No. 19-

Leave out paragraph (c).

Clause 27.

Section 85 of the Principal Act is amended-

Senate’s amendment No. 20-

Leave out paragraph (d).

Proposed new clause 2 8 A.

Senate’s amendment No. 21-

After clause 28, insert the following new clause: “28a. After section 88 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: 88a.( 1 ) The Divisional Returning Officer for each Division that exceeds 260 000 square kilometres in area shall keep a register, to be called the Register of General Postal Voters.

Where a person is enrolled as an elector for a Division referred to in sub-section ( 1 ), otherwise than by virtue of section 39a or 41 a, and it is normally difficult for him to vote at a polling booth open in the State for which he is enrolled by reason of-

the distance between the address in respect of which he is enrolled and the nearest place in the Division that is normally appointed a polling place; or

the lack of adequate means of transport from that address to that place, he may at any time make an application in writing to the Divisional Returning Officer to be registered on the register for the Division.

) An application shall be signed by the applicant in his own hand writing and shall set out the name and address of the applicant and the grounds of the application.

Upon receipt of the application, the Divisional Returning Officer shall-

if he decides that the application is properly made and that there is sufficient reason for registering the applicant under this sectionregister the applicant; or

if he decides otherwise- reject the application, and shall notify the applicant in writing accordingly.

Subject to sub-section (6), the Divisional Returning Officer may at any time cancel the registration of an elector under this section, and in that event (except where the elector is deceased) he shall notify the elector in writing.

The Divisional Returning Officer is not empowered to register an elector or (except where the elector is deceased) cancel the registration of an elector under this section after 6 o’clock in the afternoon of the day of the issue of the writ, and before the close of the poll, for an election.

An elector who is registered under this section is, by force of this section, but subject to Part VI and to the regulations, entitled to vote at an election in accordance with this Part.

As soon as practicable after the hour of nomination for an election the Divisional Returning Officer shall send a postal vote certificate and a postal ballot-paper or postal ballot-papers, as the case requires, to each elector who is registered on the register for the Division, other than an elector who has made an application under section 85.’.”

Clause 29 (Inspection of applications).

Senate ‘s amendment No. 22-

Leave out the clause.

Proposed new clause 2 9a.

Senate ‘s amendment No. 23-

After clause 29, insert the following new clause: 29a. Section 90 of the Principal Act is amended-

by inserting in sub-section ( 1 ), after the words “each postal vote certificate”, the words “, other than a certificate referred to in sub-section (1a),”; and

by inserting after sub-section ( 1 ) the following subsection: “( 1a) The Divisional Returning Officer shall mark each postal vote certificate issued under section 88a in the manner prescribed. “. ‘.

Clause 30.

Section 92 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (2).

Senate’s amendment No. 24-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 31.

Section 94 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the words ‘a Divisional Returning Officer, a Registrar, a Returning Officer or an Assistant Returning Officer or delivery to a presiding officer,’ and substituting the words ‘the appropriate officer’.

Senate ‘s amendment No. 25-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 32 (Preliminary scrutiny of postal ballot-papers).

Senate’s amendment No. 26-

Leave out the clause, insert the following clause:

Section 96 of the Principal Act is amended-

by inserting after the word “ballot-papers” (first occurring) the words “and all applications for registration under section 88a”; and

by omitting from paragraphs (a) and (b) the words “application for the certificate” and substituting the words “relevant applications”.’.

Clause 38 (Printing of House of Representatives ballot papers).

Senate’s amendment No. 27-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 39 (The polling).

Senate’s amendment No. 28-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 40.

Senate ‘s amendment No. 29-

In sub-clause ( 5 ), paragraph ( b), leave out ‘ 6 ‘, insert ‘ 8 ‘.

Clause 42.

Section 115 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-sections (1) and (2) and substituting the following subsections:

Senate’s amendment No. 30-

At the end of paragraph (a) of proposed sub-section ( 1 ) add the following sub-paragraph:

Have you already voted either here of elsewhere in this election (or in these elections, as the case requires)?’.

Senate ‘s amendment No. 3 1 -

Leave out sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph (b) of proposed sub-section ( 1 ).

Clause 45 (Marking of votes in Senate election).

Senate’s amendment No. 32-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 46 (Marking of votes in House of Representatives election).

Senate’s amendment No. 33-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 47 (Informal ballot papers).

Senate ‘s amendment No. 34-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 48 (Scrutiny of votes in Senate elections).

Senate’s amendment No. 35-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 49 (Scrutiny of votes in House of Representatives elections).

Senate’s amendment No. 36-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 50 (Scrutiny prior to receipt of absent voters’ ballot papers, etc.)

Senate’s amendment No. 37-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 51 (Return of writ for election of Senators).

Senate’s amendment No. 38-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 52 (Return of writs for House of Representatives).

Senate’s amendment No. 39-

Leave out the clause.

Clause 57.

Senate’s amendment No. 40-

Leave out paragraphs (c) and (d).

Clause 65.

The Schedule to the Principal Act is amended by omitting Forms A to F (inclusive) and substituting following forms:

FORME Section 104(1)

Ballot-Paper

page 2056

AUSTRALIA

[here to be printed the name of the State]

Election of [here to be printed the number of Senators to be elected] Senators.

Directions

Your vote must be made by placing consecutive numbers, beginning with the number 1, in the square opposite the names of candidates so as to indicate the candidates for whom you vote and the order of your preferences for them. You must indicate the order of your preference for at least [here to be printed number of candidates to be elected] candidates. You may, if you wish, indicate the order of your preference for an additional candidate or candidates.

This means that you must use all the numbers [here to be printed 1, 2 and so on up to the number of candidates to be elected] but may use additional consecutive numbers.

NOTE-The letter’A’or’B’or”C’&c, appearing before the square immediately to the left of a candidate’s surname indicates that that candidate and each other candidate who has the same letter appearing before the square immediately to the left of his surname have been grouped by mutual consent.

The fact that no letter appears before the square immediately to the left of a candidate’s surname indicates that the name of that candidate has not been included in any group.

FORM F Section 104 (2) and 105

Ballot-Paper

page 2056

AUSTRALIA

[here to be printed name of State].

Electoral Division of [here to be printed name of Division]. Election of one Member of the House of Representatives.

Directions

Your vote must be made by placing the number 1 in the square opposite the name of the candidate for whom you vote as your first preference.

page 2056

QUESTION

CANDIDATES

Senate ‘s amendment No. 4 1 -

In proposed Form E, leave out-

Your vote must be made by placing consecutive numbers, beginning with the number 1, in the squares opposite the names of candidates so as to indicate the candidates for whom you vote and and the order of your preferences for them. You must indicate the order of your preference for at least [here to be printed number of candidates to be elected] candidates. You may, if you wish, indicate the order of your preference for an additional candidate or candidates.

This means that you must use all the numbers [here to be printed 1 , 2 and so on up to the number of candidates to be elected] but may use additional consecutive numbers. ‘, insert-

Mark your vote on this ballot-paper by placing the numbers [here insert 1 , 2 and so on, as the case requires] in the squares immediately to the left of the names of the respective candidates so as to indicate the order of your preference for them. ‘.

Senate ‘s amendment No. 42-

In proposed Form F, leave out-

Your vote must be made by placing the number 1 in the square opposite the name of the candidate for whom you vote as your first preference.

Mark your vote on this ballot-paper by placing the numbers [here insert ‘ 1 and 2’ where there are two candidates, ‘1,2 and 3 ‘ where there are three candidates, ‘1,2,3 and 4’ where there arc four candidates, and so on as the case requires] in the squares respectively opposite the names of the candidates so as to indicate the order of your preference for them. ‘.

Motion (by Senator Willesee) proposed:

That the Committee does not insist on the amendments made to this Bill by the Senate and disagreed to by the House of Representatives.

Senator WITHERS:
Western Australia

– I indicate on behalf of the Opposition that we will not agree to the motion put down by the Minister. As I recall it, there was a reasonably long second reading debate on this Bill. In the Committee stage we certainly had 2 bites at it, possibly even three, on various occasions. To a large extent this was a Committee Bill and the various propositions were argued back and forth. I note that the reasons of the House of Representatives for disagreeing are set forth at the bottom of the schedule of amendments. One could stand here and re-argue all those propositions, namely, optional preferential voting, printing of Party affiliations, the drawing for positions and postal voting changes, but I put to the Committee that these matters were fully canvassed in the second reading debate and were certainly fully canvassed at the Committee stage. I think there were some 47 amendments and we divided many times. I put to the Committee that the Senate ‘s view then was quite clear and I ask the Senate to stay with the decisions we made previously on this matter.

Question put:

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

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator J. A. Mulvihill)

AYES: 25

NOES: 29

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 2057

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

The PRESIDENT:

– I draw the attention of the

Senate to the presence in the President’s Gallery of Mrs Shalomit Aloni, a member of the Israeli Parliament and a former Cabinet Minister and Leader of the Civil Rights Movement in Israel. We extend our very sincere and warm welcome to her.

page 2057

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 1 April, on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– At the outset I would like to indicate that I propose to move in the Committee stage an amendment to this Bill and I would be glad if arrangements could be made for distribution of copies of the amendment. As the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) has indicated, this Bill contains proposals for what he called fundamental changes in the organisation of statistical services. These changes are designed to increase what the Minister also described as their effectiveness and relevance for modern conditions. The Minister went on to point cut in his second reading speech that the Bureau would guarantee the objectivity of statistics and more particularly their impartiality. As honourable senators will recall, the Bill passed through the House of Representatives in April and whilst it was in that place it was the subject of a Government amendment which was strongly supported by the Opposition. Indeed, if I may say so, the initiative for the amendment came from the Opposition and an acknowledgment is made of this fact. The amendment provided for State representation on the Australian Statistics Advisory Council. For the information of the Senate I mention that the Bill provides for the setting up of the Advisory Council.

I have more than a passing interest in a Bill of this kind because the development of a Bureau of Statistics as a statutory authority is something that will facilitate the cost effective development of statistical services which are designed to meet nationwide needs and to ensure the maximum compatibility between different data systems. In 1973 I had the opportunity, as the representative of the Senate on the National Library Council, to speak to what was then called the new National Library Act. That Act entrusted the National Library Council with nationwide library-based information services under a director-general. There is a distinct connection between the Australian Bureau of Statistics Bill and the purpose for which it is established and a national information service. In spite of the very severe limitation of resources the program initiated by the National Library has resulted in very important developments such as the establishment of the scientific and technological services and the Australian Social Sciences Library. All of these are developing and co-ordinating nationwide information services. Some 40 co-operative networks are already being developed within the services and I want to point out with some emphasis that a statistical network with the Australian Bureau of Statistics which is the subject of this Bill serves as a focal point and is one of the most important of our networks. Therefore I am very glad to say that the Bureau of Statistics has already volunteered to make the maximum contribution to the statistical network and this ensures that information services and statistical services will be available to assist the Australian community in its areas of need.

Having made that observation I want to say that the Bill is therefore in my opinion, significant. It is fairly easy to say that a ‘ Bill is significant but when it deals with the collection of statistics and relates to information services it takes on a significance which is of some importance. I say that it is of some importance because information services and the related services that go with it are a very substantial national resource. Indeed, the community is gradually becoming aware of information as a national resource. I suggest to the Senate that it is a national resource of very great value and like all resources of very great value it should be developed properly and it should be distributed widely. Having said that I want to emphasise that it should also be carefully guarded. I repeat that it should be used with discretion and I issue a warning against its misuse. This applies to the field of statistics which is the main stream of this Bill.

The appearance of this Bill before the Senate follows the completion and presentation of what is now known as the Crisp report. In setting up the Committee under Professor Crisp which led to this report it was pointed out in the background to the inquiry- the Crisp Committee brought this forward in its report- that it was important for the quality and consistency of both Government and parliamentary decisions, as well as for the community’s capacity to evaluate such things as official data systems particularly in closely interrelated areas of social policy and economic policy, that they be mutually compatible and above all that they reflect what I think we can describe as the dynamic needs of the Australian community, the Australian economy and the Australian society. The Crisp report went on to say in the background notes to this inquiry:

The Government and the public must have adequate information on which to assess the likely effects which a particular initiative in one area will have on related areas and policies.

Because separate departments responsible for administering particular aspects of Government policy have been developing information systems independently of one another and sometimes without effective co-ordination, there is a need to formulate guidelines which will ensure greater integration of data systems.

This brief extract from the Crisp report is reflected in the Minister’s second reading speech. I will take a moment of the Senate’s time to quote a paragraph from that speech. The Minister said:

Prior to the War, statistical activity was directed towards the provision of basic statistics such as population, births and deaths, employment, manufacturing and agricultural production, overseas trade, and so on.

After the war, the emphasis turned to the provision of a wider range of more frequent and up-to-date economic statistics and indicators such as retail sales, capital expenditure, overseas investment, building statistics, monthly production, balance of payments, considerable development in national accounts, labour force and unemployment, and many others.

The report of the Crisp Committee found expression in the Minister’s second reading speech. The Committee expressed several opinions. It is not possible, nor would it be useful, to refer to all of them. I look at one on page 71 of the Committee’s report which implied that a strong statistical organisation should be established. The report stated, what is more, that it should be charged with full responsibility for standards and co-ordination. Later, at paragraph 76, the report concluded that it was fundamental that the product of official statistical systems should reflect and actually contribute to the attainment of community goals. I think it is important that we make these references because statistics are generally related to the world pf figures. It is very interesting that an important document such as the Crisp report states that a product of official statistical systems should be related to community welfare.

The statistical needs are articulated in the report in a number of ways. They refer to social policies and to employer and employee associations. They refer to consumer organisations. Others relate to research and the academic field. So it will be seen that while a Bureau of Statistics is related to the compilation of numbers it has a very close and direct relationship to our style and standards of life. The report emphasised that statistical services must be user oriented and dynamic. The report stated that the statistical services must be up-to-date in interpreting its knowledge of government and general community trends.

I think the Bill is an attempt to reflect these views. I have read the Bill, and I have looked again at the Minister’s second reading speech. I am not totally convinced that the Bill is completely constructed to meet all these needs. My particular concern is that the involvement of Parliament is not sufficient. The inclusion of Parliament enables reviews and decisions. Because the whole world of statistics and the establishment of a Bureau of Statistics now embrace the totality of our personal and community life, I think it is imperative that there be ample opportunity for Parliament to review constantly and decide on any new enterprise and any new undertaking. Parliament provides the opportunity for expression of the people and for expression of the needs of both government and community.

As the Senate would know already, I have had distributed copies of an amendment which I will move at the Committee stage. It will give expression to this matter. We live in an age of authorities, corporations and commissions. According to the Bill, we are about to have another one. The community has a reservation, I think, about the establishment of yet another statutory authority- this one to deal with statistics. Statistics have a very inclusive and powerful influence on our general life. We are persuaded that such an authority may very well give a degree of objectivity and impartiality to the whole establishment of a Bureau of Statistics. I suggest that the matter of impartiality is of tremendous importance because we must guard against the whims and interests of any government. I have a concern about the statement that this statutory authority, having as it does a very central function, with activities which relate to the collection, the compilation, the analysis and the dissemination of statistics- according to the second reading speech and to the references that have been made- is designed to avoid duplication. It may be a very worthy sentiment. The Bureau will endeavour to avoid duplication by working with other official bodies which are involved in what I suppose could best be described as statistical activity. Yet as I look at the Bill and as I interpret the second reading speech, I feel that the Bill is not sufficiently specific on proposals that the duplication to which the Minister referred will be overcome.

The essence and tone of this Bill- there are references in the second reading speech- imply the importance of information services in their totality. The Minister will recall a previous occasion on which I stressed the value of information services. The introduction of a Bill of this kind, I suggest, underlines this fact. At the outset I referred to the relationship between a bureau and the services provided by the National Library. In response to requests from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and many other organisations the National Library, through its information services, is currently improving its library based computerised services in many areas. Some of them include the social sciences, including statistics. There is a pilot scheme based on the social sciences citation index. In addition, priority is being given to computerising and extending the National Library’s Australian Public Affairs Information Services. I point out to the Senate that these Library based information services for the social sciences, including statistics, will provide general backing for the more specialised statistical data bases. They will be developed by the Austraiian Bureau of Statistics.

I am privileged to be a member of the Council of the National Library. I can say that every effort is being made and certainly will be made by the National Library to ensure maximum cooperation and compatability with the services of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Therefore I have an interest in the nation-wide powers of the Australian Bureau of Statistics which, I think I can truthfully say, will have the major support of the National Library’s information services. I hope that other national and State agencies will assist in the development of the other 40 cooperative networks that are now being established by the National Library. Having referred to the work of the National Library and the information services, I wish to take a moment of the Senate’s time to refer to remarks which were made when we were dealing with the National Library Bill. I refresh the memories of honourable senators by reminding them that the amendment to the Act in 1973 provided the National Library with the opportunity to develop a national network of information services. I take the liberty to quote from my speech during that debate. On that occasion I said:

This national system will provide the means whereby other resource centres and other information services may link together and create a network of centres through which each participant may gain access to resources and services. This is a modern concept and it provides for a share of national resource. It is the result of a great deal of progress and improved technology. Of course, it provides also for the widespread use of information . . . programs for library and information services which recognise the importance of a free and ready access to knowledge. As a basic factor in material progress and in advancing the quality of our life. I draw attention again to the fact that the National Library will act as the chief source, indeed the chief channel, of advice to the Government on library and information services.

Since that time there has been an interdepartmental committee on the development of an Australian library-based information system. The background to this matter is contained in the report of that’ committee. It points out that in January of last year the Government considered a proposal for the development of a national information service focused on the National Library and agreed to the establishment of an interdepartmental committee to consider the matter further. Honourable senators will recall that a report relating to this matter was tabled in July of last year. In that document, and in explaining the system, the committee pointed out that there should be a number of main components. One of these comprised a comprehensive collection of materials covering all fields of knowledge held by administratively separate organisations throughout the nation which are prepared to make this information publicly available. The committee stated that there should be a service whereby material in the national collection is made available to the public. It also pointed out that these services are, of necessity, decentralised and are operated by administratively separate organisations; for example, the National Library of Australia, State libraries, municipal libraries and others.

I am taking a little of the Senate’s time to make this fairly detailed representation because I believe that any discussion of a Bill which sets up a Bureau of Statistics is also very closely related to the total retrieval and dissemination of other information services. In the report to which I have just referred there is a number of examples of how an information service would work. Because I believe it to be of interest, and because I believe it to be related to our quality of life, I shall take a little of the Senate ‘s time to readjust one example. The report states:

A council member in Broome wishes to obtain the five or six most recent publications on legislation relating to water pollution . . . and seeks the assistance of the local municipal library. Because of its specialised nature the query is referred to the State Reference Library which uses its own data terminal to gain direct access to the computer stored library material held by the National Library in Canberra. The computer in Canberra recognises that the required information may be found in any of 4 sets of computerised library information, only one of which is held by the National Library. This is scanned and, in addition, the inquiry is automatically routed to the other 3 sets of library information stored on the computers of CSIRO and the Department of Environment and Conservation. Following a short delay in gaining access to the computers in these organisations the relevant library information files within the computers are scanned. The responses are relayed to the National Library computer which compares the responses from all sets of information to avoid duplication and assembles them in appropriate chronological order. This information is then relayed in turn to the State Reference Library, the municipal library and finally to the inquirer.

That is purely an example, but it is an indication of the way in which information services are developing and can be made available, and therefore it is related to the measure which is before us this evening. There are 2 features about information services in particular which are related to this Bill, to which I will refer. They are certainly much more closely related to the Bill than the matter to which I have just referred.

One matter that I wish to emphasise is the important facet of privacy. The matter of privacy today is of extreme importance. Our own areas of privacy are being daily invaded. They are being invaded more and more. They are being invaded because of various subtleties of government and public administration. I regret to say that this intrusion into our privacy is being largely unnoticed and unobserved by the great mass of the Australian public. It is being unnoticed because we are victims of greater government control and influence in our general lives. Therefore, because we are so much influenced by it we tend to let it pass by unnoticed.

Every day we are subject to more bureaucratic control and influence. More and more authorities are being established, and earlier in my speech I referred to the fact that yet another authority is being established by this Bill. More and more surveys are being undertaken. There is an increasing number of inquiries into all facets of our personal, private and public lives. More public servants are being appointed to ask us more and more questions. Having asked us more and more questions they ask us for more reasons for the answers that we give to those questions. If there are no answers to the questions or if there are no reasons why there are no answers to the questions, there are being made more assumptions which may or may not be correct. More forms are being designed to be filled in. Any one of these might disclose personal or private details which can cover anything from our debts of the past to our hopes of the future.

Much of this springs from community indifference and community acceptance of an increasing number of these developments. I suggest that this particularly difficult and dangerous situation springs from the present Government’s program of distribution of subsidies and handouts. Certain personal details are required before there is a distribution, and the distribution cannot be made unless the details are provided. Therefore, more power is being given to public servants, commissions, government offices, government authorities and statutory authorities. So there is an increasing intrusion into the privacy of our citizens. I suggest to the Senate that this problem especially comes to light in the area of statistics, which is the basis of the measure that is before the Senate this evening. Of course we need statistics.

The Bill provides for a more efficient way of collecting and dealing with statistics. The Bill has assured us that there will be an avoidance of duplication in relation to statistics. The Bill and the second reading speech assure us that the provision of these statistics will be valuable as far as the total life of the country is concerned. But it is yet another authority that has about it elements which might well make another intrusion into our personal privacy. The wonders of our computer age multiply, and as they multiply they also increase the possibility that there will be abuse of the national privacy. I hope that in the interpretation of the measure which is before the Senate tonight there will be a sense of proportion. I ask for a sense of the fitness of things in relation to personal statistics and statistics which can be described as being of a private nature.

The other danger in this measure to which I refer lies in the ultimate operation of such a bureau as the Australian Bureau of Statistics. It might well be described as a feedback. One of the problems of our society is that the more we develop systems to get more information and to give us more statistical accuracy, the more we tend to be in the position to issue forecasts of events and trends. The more we co-ordinate statistics, the more we tend to avoid duplication of statistics, the more efficient we become in our statistics and the more we relate current statistics to other information- some of which I have referred to tonight- the more we prophesy the possibilities and the probabilities of the future. So a very important but perhaps not so apparent question in relation to this measure dealing with the Bureau of Statistics relates to what I have seen described as a ‘self-fulfilling prophesy’. It may very well be argued that knowledge and information relating to a particular circumstance as far as the nation is concerned can help us to avoid a problem which may be seen to be descending upon us. But by the same token constant repetition of statistics and of facts related to those statistics can impose upon the community and upon individuals the worsening of a given situation. The repetition and publication of statistics and information, I suggest, tends to affect the process which they describe. The repetition and the publication of statistics and information can have a very serious effect on the process described. I warn the Senate that this feed-back effect is something of which we should be very aware and of which we should take full cognisance.

So the Bill, the Bureau and the program take their place. We support the Bill. I have a proposed amendment about which we will talk in the Committee stage. The Bill is supported with the reservations that I have about it and that I think the Opposition has about it. The Bill is supported with the warnings that we issue concerning it. I support the Bill as one who has a keen interest in the distribution of information services because I believe it will be of the maximum benefit, interest and pleasure to the Australian community all of which are closely related to the establishment and working of a bureau of statistics. I hope that when this organisation is established those who are responsible for its day-to-day administration will bear in mind that they are not only distributing facts and figures but also that the facts and figures which they distribute will be closely related to the total and everyday lives of the Australian citizens.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I thank the Opposition for its support and for giving this Bill a reasonably speedy second reading. As Senator Davidson has said, we will deal with the proposed amendment at the Committee stage. I will keep my remarks on that proposed amendment until then. Senator Davidson has a tremendous interest in this kind of thing and I remember very well the speech which he gave concerning the library 2 or 3 years ago and which he quoted tonight. I could just about quote it back to him. Some of the philosophical matters that he raised, as well as the other fields of information to which he referred, are interesting. They are now on the record.

The question of duplication of documents in such places as the library and the various departments is very important indeed. Senator Davidson would have knowledge of that. It is a constant challenge to ensure that that does not happen. Of course it is much more liable to happen with regard to archives. There has been duplication in the statistical field and hopefully this Bill, by setting up a central body, will be able to organise across departments and will help to remove the duplication, or at least stop it from growing, and hopefully will cut it back and get it into its proper perspective.

The question of privacy is very important. But this Bill does not really touch on that matter. I am informed that that will be dealt with in later comprehensive legislation which was foreshadowed in the second reading speech. So Senator Davidson’s remarks and the study which he has put into this matter will not go amiss when a Bill is introduced at another time. I will not say any more. I thank the Opposition. We will deal with the proposed amendment specifically in the Committee stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Proposed new clause 6a.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

-I move:

In my speech on the motion for the second reading of the Bill I pointed out the influence and control that the increasing number of bureaus, commissions and committees were having over the lives of Australian citizens. I referred also to the influence that a sophisticated collection of statistics was having upon the lives of Australian citizens. I also drew attention to the fact that there was a distinct relationship between the collection of statistical material and the collection of other information services. In short, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) very well knows, we have today not only in Australia but also throughout the world an explosion of information, and with the explosion of information comes an explosion of statistical collection. We live in an age when so many of the members of our community desire instant information, instant statistical material and instant statistical collections because all these things provide an insight into trends and provide information relating to developments concerning every conceivable phase of personal, community and national life. They also place into the hands of competent and responsible public servants a great deal of authority, power and influence. This is entrusted to them by the administration of the day.

It may very well be that the administration of the day is seeking information, the development of information services or the development of statistical services which might very well be described as cutting across personal freedom, privacy and in particular the personal concerns of a citizen of this country. The safeguard against any intrustion into personal privacy, against any intrusion into a person’s freedom, against the restriction of anybody’s movement and against the compulsion for somebody to divulge some fact which he does not wish to divulge is in the pattern of Parliament, because Parliament is the representative of the people, is the safeguard of the people and is the protection of the people from the bureaucracy. Because I believe this Bureau of Statistics to be important and because I believe when it is established that it will be an instrumentality of considerable power, influence and persuasion, I am equally persuaded that every new proposal that it desires to undertake should first be cleared by Parliament It should first be discussed by the Parliament and its implementation should be decided by the Parliament so that at all times there is a close relationship with that which the Government of the day requires in terms of statistical detail and information and which the people of the nation are prepared to give. It would provide an opportunity for the citizen to resist the door knocker, the man with the form at the door, or any other implementation which the government of the day, whichever day it is, desires to put forward.

I regard this, Mr Temporary Chairman and Mr Minister, as a tremendously important amendment, and I ask you to look at it very closely. I ask you, Mr Minister, to receive it very sympathetically. I ask you to receive it with understanding because I suggest to you, Sir, that if there is provision for every new proposal to go before Parliament there will be a much greater co-operation by the citizenry of this country as they endeavour to assist the Bureau of Statistics and other information authorities in providing not only the nation but also each other with appropriate and proper statistical information. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I accept Senator Davidson’s amendment with understanding. I believe that he is quite sincere in what he is saying, and so I do accept it with understanding. However, I think it is an unnecessary amendment. In fact, it could be damaging to the efficiency of this Bureau. Because of that I ask the Senate to vote against it. Firstly, it would greatly inhibit the flexibility of the Bureau to respond quickly to changing government needs. For instance, quite recently the Bureau introduced a new survey of import orders within a few weeks of receiving a direction from the Government to do so in the light of the impact of rising imports on unemployment. If the proposed amendment had been in operation and if Parliament had been in recess, it would not have been possible to introduce that survey which obviously provided valuable information for the Government to make a decision.

So I think it can be seen immediately, if such small things that would be within the annual Budget of the Bureau had to go before the Parliament, where the inflexibility would creep in. Such a process would detract from the present authority of the Minister to determine the activities of the Bureau which is under his ministerial control. Since he will have the advice of both the

Advisory Council and the Statistician the Minister is in the best position to determine statistical priorities. I know that Senator Davidson comes back to the point of having parliamentary control over these matters, but I am sure that he does not suggest that we should get around ministerial responsibility. The Minister’s hand is strengthened and safeguarded by this Bill because of the Advisory Council and the new Bureau. Probably the most critical point of all, when talking of parliamentary control, is that the Bureau of Statistics could not undertake any major new statistical collection without prior expenditure approval by the Minister and the Parliament. Hence the Parliament and the Minister would have ultimate control over all new programs of the Bureau.

Senator Davidson might think that by saying that I am contradicting what I said at the beginning of my remarks, but it is not a contradiction because the second matter is a major one which comes into the Budget considerations. Therefore the major proposals of the Bureau for the ensuing year could come under questioning at that time and there would be the normal parliamentary control that operates now. The first matter I mentioned would be a minor one and would involve such things as looking at import controls, which the Minister could quickly switch on. If honourable senators think about the amendment a bit they will see that it would have an inhibiting effect and provide for nothing very new in the legislation, which has already been operating for several years, in the way of greater efficiency, greater movement away from duplication and that type of thing.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– I have no wish to prolong this debate at a time when we are trying to get through the work, but I was extremely impressed by the observations of my colleague, Senator Davidson, and by the moderate nature of the response by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee). I want to make 2 comments which I hope will emphasise the reason why the Opposition feels that its amendment ought to be put and voted upon. Many people in this chamber have in one way or another had to deal with the filling in of statistical forms for the compilation of information. In many cases they have found that people have filled in their forms extremely sketchily, mostly inaccurately, and with some resentment. 1 suggest to the Minister and to the officers of this new Bureau that the most important factor in the compilation of statistics is willingness on the part of the population to provide reliable information and not a feeling of resentment that something is being pushed upon them by somebody they know nothing about and who is remote from them.

That is one of the reasons why the Opposition believes that a general parliamentary interest in this matter would lead to a better community understanding and a willingness to supply information for statistical purposes which was much more reliably based. Those who have had to involve themselves in looking at evidence that has been collected have found it from time to time to be quite inaccurate because the people who had to supply the base information regarded it as a damn nuisance. That is one thing that we want to try to avoid. The community needs good information, it needs good statistics, but to get that it needs a willingness on the part of the community to provide that information.

The other factor that does interest us very much is the problem that we see growing in every democracy around the world- I include this one- namely, the dichotomy between representation and management and the difficulty in getting into mesh an accelerated program of work. The 2 facets of the life of a parliamentarian are to represent the community well and at the same time to see that the management of his society through its parliamentary and governmental system is both adequate and sensible. We in the Opposition have come to the view that there is a very great case for keeping the Parliament better informed, more up to date, and as far as possible in better touch with the community. Therefore we are moving this amendment to see that to some extent the executive arm of government does not, because of the pressure of work which we all know exists, become inexorably drawn away from the Parliament and that representation through the Parliament is not watered down because of the complexity of management in a democratic system. So we are arguing really for oversight, not in a restrictive form but in a form which will help everybody get a better understanding of the importance of this issue. I suggest that it is a function of the responsibility of the Minister and his Department to assess situations and see that the Parliament is told quite quickly and quite readily of emerging events and needs for information which it is believed the Parliament should approve.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) for his response to my presentation of the amendment. I do not accept the fact that an amendment of this kind would be damaging to the efficiency and the administration of the Bureau of Statistics. I do not accept the suggestion that it would inhibit the flexibility of the movement of the Government and of the Bureau. It is true, as the Minister says, that when the Estimates come before the relevant Estimates Committee and before the Senate there will be opportunity to ask questions, but I would remind the Minister- I covered this point when I spoke earlier- of the very strong influence of the Bureau of Statistics within the total Australian community. I point out to him the very strong effect that it will have on various forms of our community and personal life, because it will be providing and will be collating information relating to a wide range of community affairs, personal affairs, and personal information. Therefore it would be altogether fitting, not only in the case of the present Government but also in the case of any subsequent government, if there were opportunity for this matter to be reviewed by the representatives of the people before it was written into a program. I press the amendment. I regret the Minister’s response. I feel that if the Government rejects the amendment it may well do so to its regret. Having said that, I feel that the Government would be doing the community a service if it accepted the point of view which we put forward.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I compliment Senator Davidson and endorse what he has said about this Bill in the second reading debate and during the presentation of this amendment. I join with Senator Cotton in what he has said. The importance of this provision is not to be underestimated. I sense that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) has some appreciation of what the Opposition is striving to attain. The powers contained in this Bill are enormous powers.

I believe that this Government is an intrusive Government. The mere statement of that remark in that sense carries some connotations of offensiveness to those on the Government side who hear it. I say it in 2 senses. One might be the pol.tically partisan sense, that it is a government which does not care very much for the rights of individual citizens. That has been demonstrated by incidental activities from time to time. But in the broader sense it is an intrusive government because it accepts that its role is to provide for the whole of the community. In that way it is a government which has a total obligation and it views society as a totality for which it must provide. Once that concept is accepted the Government will move into many areas because it realises that it has to have the fullest possible information to satisfy those needs of the total society which it determines.

I do not think that socialists ought to object to that sort of characterisation of what they are about. They have to have control of society. They always have had to, and this Government is no different from socialist parties right round the world. They are totalitarian parties and their downfall in almost every democratic society comes about because they are unable to go the full distance and exercise all the powers. They would deny the liberties they would like to preserve, and when they try to preserve some liberties they cannot exercise the full control which really is necessary to give effect to total policy.

This Bill is part and parcel of this process of assembling the statistical material upon which the total involvement of society can be managed by the Government. The danger lies in the precise powers which are given. I notice that in clause 4 of this Bill the Australian Statistician is to have the functions, powers and duties expressed by the Census and Statistics Act 1905-1973, by any other Act, or by any regulations or other instrument made under any Act, to be conferred or imposed on the Commonwealth Statistician’. I am not sure what other Acts there might be which confer powers on the Statistician but I do know that quite apart from the general powers which he has under the Census and Statistics Act with regard to the census he has quite widespread powers with regard to the compilation of statistics. For example, section 17 of the Census and Statistics Act enables the Statistician to require a person to fill up and supply, in accordance with the instructions contained in or accompanying a form supplied to that person by the Statistician, the particulars specified in that form, and that person shall, to the best of his knowledge, comply with the requirement’. If he does not comply he is liable to a penalty of $20. How the figure has been left at $20 over the years is quite remarkable. But equally, section 1 8 of the Act states:

A person shall, to the best of his knowledge and belief, answer all questions asked him by the Statistician or an officer authorised in writing by the Statistician that are necessary to obtain any information required for the purposes of any statistics authorised by this Act to be collected.

Again the penalty is $20. Section 19 of the Act provides certain powers of entry and inspection and there is a penalty if those provisions are not complied with.

What are the matters in regard to which the Statistician may require the assembly of this information? If one looks at this Bill one sees that the area is just wide open. Under clause 5 of the Bill there is to be an Australian Statistician who shall control the operations of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. I assume that all the powers of the Statistician in the Census and Statistics Act are to reside in the Bureau and therefore in the Statistician because he is to be the controller of the Bureau under this Bill. Clause 6 indicates the functions of the Bureau. Clause 6(1) (b) states that the Bureau is to ‘collect, compile, analyse and disseminate statistics and related information’. There is no limit on that sort of material. Clause 6 ( 1 ) (e) states that the Bureau is to ‘provide advice and assistance to official bodies in relation to statistics.’ Official bodies are not defined. Nor is there any delineation of what might be the statistics which the official bodies might require.

I look ahead significantly to a government which is intrusive by philosophy and by nature. Where is the limit to be drawn in regard to the matters which can be inquired into? Speaking personally, I would have thought that there was a case for a prudent parliament, examining this Bill with the scrutiny which it ought to give to all legislation, to have imposed a much more rigorous control on the Statistician than is imposed by this Bill. In approaching these matters in the way that it has, the Opposition has decided to move the amendment proposed by Senator Davidson. It has the full support of the Opposition and we hope that the Committee concurs in it. At least it will provide the Parliament and the public with some information as to what are the new activities which the Bureau of Statistics is to undertake. To that extent the amendment is invaluable.

We hear a great deal about the need to protect privacy. This is one of the great issues which I think our society has to meet. Individuals are entitled to feel that they are free of the control and manipulation of the power of the mass corporations which might either employ them or supply them with finance and in return seek to exact a control over mind and body which is offensive and from which people would like to free themselves. I think that Government is as intrusive and as controlling an institution as any of the great corporate institutions in this country and Parliament traditionally is the place where the rights of the individual are expected to be protected. The amendment moved tonight by Senator Davidson seeks to do this in a real way. I think Senator Davidson outlined this amendment and elaborated upon it commendably. 1 rose to speak merely to indicate that what he said has the total support of the Opposition parties.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– I have sensed that the Minister for

Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) is not in a mood to accept the amendment. I want to remind him that earlier today we were discussing the individual rights and freedoms of citizens, and we have talked about discrimination. As Senator Greenwood just said, this Bill will confer upon the Bureau of Statistics an enormous amout of influence and power. Surely the Government, in its own interests, if it wants to safeguard its own situation and if it wants to provide some authority for what it proposes to do, should not be unwilling to return to Parliament and to put before it new proposals for the collection and compilation of statistics by the Bureau of Statistics. I believe that this is a tremendously important amendment because, as I said earlier, it will provide the opportunity for the representatives of the people not only to question the Bureau but to hear from it that which it proposes to do. I believe that the Bureau, together with other information services, will set out to work for the well being of the Australian nation but at the same time, when we are dealing with an increase in the inquiries into the lives of people, it is essential that the matters be referred to the Parliament from time to time. I hope the Minister will agree.

Question put:

That the clause proposed to be inserted (Senator Davidson’s amendment) be inserted.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator J. A. Mulvihill)

AYES: 27

NOES: 23

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2066

HOMES SAVINGS GRANT BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 May on motion by Senator Cavanagh:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

-This Bill gives effect to the Whitlam Government’s policy announcement that it would terminate homes savings grants. In addition it provides that those grants will be terminated and substituted by an interest subsidy, namely, the deductibility of interest on mortgage payments for income tax purposes. The Opposition will not stand in the way of the passage of the Bill but we express implacably our opposition to the ending of the grants. The homes savings grants over some 12 years have been a remarkably successful part of home building policies in Australia. They have been highly successful. They have enabled many Australians to obtain homes by providing finance for bridging the deposit gap. The Government has said that this is not a good scheme and that in its place the interest deductibility scheme would be better.

I want to test this because interest deductibility is now functioning and has been functioning for some time. This is the record of housing for the people of Australia in that time: Each week the cost of building a home goes up by approximately $ 1 30, that is, by almost $7,000 a year. If that is a success story, I have never heard one. Let me look at the record of what has happened as a result of the so-called incentive of interest deductibility, because that is the test. The Government says that interest deductibility will be better and it will abolish the grant scheme. The Government has a proud record. The cost of building materials in February of this year is 22.5 per cent higher than in February last year.

Senator Mulvihill:

– From where do you get those figures?

Senator CARRICK:

– These are Australian Statistician’s figures. Dwelling approvals in the March quarter of 1 975 were 29.4 per cent lower than in the March quarter of 1974. In this quarter, with the incentive of tax deductibility, the Government has managed to produce 29.4 per cent less dwelling approvals than at the same time last year. Shall we improve on that? Dwelling commencements in the March quarter of this year were 26.9 per cent lower than in the March quarter of last year. Dwelling completions in the March quarter of this year were 7.1 per cent lower than in the March quarter of last year.

The Government, by its policies, has in fact produced a negative incentive. There is in Australia, by all tests on housing, an absolute disincentive series of programs. By allowing housing costs to accelerate by $130 a week or some $7,000 a year it is impossible for the average person to do 2 things- to find a basic deposit and to obtain a loan which would be sufficient, together with the basic deposit, to buy a home. They are the 2 ingredients. I have said here before that the test of the capacity of people to buy a home is whether they can pay monthly their weekly salary to obtain a sufficient loan. That is known as the quartering principle. All through some 20 years of Liberal-Country Party Government it was possible for people on the average weekly wage to buy a home on the quartering principle, lt is now totally and utterly impossible. This is the test of the Labor Party’s policy.

Senator McLaren:

– Why did you not support the prices referendums? You defeat your own argument.

Senator CARRICK:

– I am always grateful for Senator McLaren’s interjections. Senator McLaren can invite his Government to use the instrument of price control that it has under the corporation power of the Constitution. His Government knows it has the power to control prices and wages in all corporations. If he wants now to impose price control- he invited me to answer his question- let him say that he stands for the use of the corporation power to control prices and wages. Let him go and tell the trade unions of Australia that he will invoke that power which is there at this moment. Quite clearly it is nonsense to talk about prices referendums. The Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) has on his table the opinion of his own SolicitorGeneral that the corporation power gives the

Government that option. Let the Government invoke that power if it wishes. The simple fact is that it hurts Government supporters when they are told that they have scrapped a successful scheme and that the scheme that they lauded and praised to the skies is failing.

Senator McLaren:

– There were more rorts under your Government’s scheme than in all the others put together.

Senator CARRICK:

– The simple fact of the matter is that when my Party was in government 80 per cent of all Australians owned or were paying off the homes in which they lived. The simple fact of the matter is that Australia then had the highest rate of home ownership of any country. The fact is that the average working man could then buy his own home. The fact is that that cannot happen today. The facts from the Australian Bureau of Statistics are that under this scheme of interest subsidies that has been brought forward the construction of houses is falling and the costs are rising. This is the test. At the present rate of escalation of costs each year the gap for the home buyer increases by $7,000 each year. How does the home buyer get the $7,000? Is an interest subsidy to be the solution? Surely Government supporters must know that yesterday or the day before it was announced that the Government’s borrowing program had failed, there was a serious shortfall in the bond raising of this Government in the domestic market and that all the experts predict that this must mean a basic increase in the future in the long term bond rate. Therefore, a major increase will occur in the commercial overdraft interest rate. Yesterday we had another formidable figure come onto the scene. Along with an inflation rate running at 17.6 per cent in the last quarter we are now facing an escalation in interest rates. The figures 1 have cited are low when compared with the present trend.

If the tax deductibility scheme were running happily, of course a flock of people would be wanting to build homes, but the simple fact is that people cannot do so. The largest amount of loan that a person on the average weekly wage can obtain is about $20,000. That is the loan that can be repaid by a man on the average weekly wage. In my own State at this moment the cost of an average house is running at about $34,000. There is the little matter of some $14,000 of bridging. The housing situation is becoming impossible under this Government. This Government last year proclaimed as a success story that the credit squeeze and high interest rates would stop development. It proclaimed its joy when developers collapsed. As a result in

Sydney and Melbourne there is the most chronic shortage of serviced land in the post-war years.

Sentor Mulvihill- Look at all the unoccupied office blocks. What about them?

Senator CARRICK:

- Senator Mulvihills party, by its policy of squeezing credit, stopping land development and deliberately having high interest rates, has produced the greatest shortage of serviced home blocks that has ever occurred, and that shortage will continue for 2 or 3 years.

Senator McLaren:

– That is in New South Wales, not in South Australia under a Labor Government.

Senator CARRICK:

– Let us look at the situation in South Australia.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Carrick, will be heard in silence.

Senator CARRICK:

– I am addressing you, Mr President, and nobody else. An interjection suggested that one should look at South Australia. It is instructive to note that the prices that the South Australian Government is obtaining for blocks of serviced land in South Australia in recent weeks are higher than the average market price of the private sector. Indeed, the blocks offered by this socialist Government instead of being at competitive prices are above the market price. That is what the Government is boasting about. A home savings grant, which has been most valuable, is to be scrapped. It encouraged providence. It has supplemented providence. It helped to bridge the gap and created a climate in which people could buy a home. Let me say emphatically that a LiberalNational Country Party upon election will reintroduce and upgrade -

Senator Mulvihill:
Senator CARRICK:

-Much quicker than the Government may think and as quick as it fears at this moment. It will be as quick as is feared in the apprehensions which have been expressed in the corridors and in Caucus, as quick as the changes that are taking place in the gut reactions of the Labor Party. The Government knows that if it goes on with the same tired structure of Caucus and Cabinet it will be self-destructive. There is an inbuilt quick time fuse of self-destruction. Therefore I say at an early date a LiberalNational Country Party Government will reintroduce a homes savings grant scheme and will help the people of Australia to purchase a home.

I repeat that the test of a housing scheme is whether it produces a sufficiency of homes for the Australian people. In this year by the normal demand trend some 180 000 new dwellings should be built. On the official figures there will be a shortfall of between 70 000 and 80 000 new dwellings this year. So there will be the start of a most chronic shortage of homes in this year in which there is running this interest rate subsidya shortfall not of 8000 but of some 80 000 homes. If the market indications are to be reflected there will be first a steadying and soon a shrinking of the actual credit available for housing in the market place. Already there is a steadying in the banks and already there is a sign of a tightening. If credit is to be further tightened inside the market place the home building program will be scrapped. What an incredible situation it is when you have those 2 factors running side by side. Let honourable senators listen to these figures: Building society loan approvals in March 1975 were 1.6 per cent higher than in March 1974 but let us not forget that in that time the cost of building materials rose 22.5 per cent. So building society loan approvals have fallen cataclysmically.

Senator Georges:

– Young couples could not get a home.

Senator CARRICK:

– I acknowledge Senator Georges. The building society loan figures are for all building societies. Savings bank loan approvals were 22.7 per cent higher in March 1975 than in March 1974 and the cost of building materials was 22.5 per cent higher. So, taking inflation into account, you are not doing anything but running on the spot. Last year you did not have a lag; this year the Government, by the creation of a shortage, has a lag. Indeed, the figures demonstrate that the Government is getting deeper and deeper into the mire.

Let us set out the situation. Housing costs are going up by $130 per week a house; building approvals are falling all around the place; money is shrinking in the market place; and now we have the disincentive of the wiping out of the home savings grants. Very briefly, what the Bill does is to provide that only persons who had been commencing to save before the presentation of the Budget on 21 August 1973 and who contract to buy, build or start a dwelling before 31 December 1976 can be in the market to receive a home savings grant. In other words, this is the execution of that grant.

Senator Georges:

– Young couples could not get a home.

Senator CARRICK:

– I wonder whether this is an approval of the idea of abolition. Am I to understand that the interjections are in approval of the present home building programs and interest? Under our programs all persons who wanted to have a home were able, on an average weekly wage, to get a home. Today that is absolutely not so. I have set out the disastrous condition and indeed the foreshadowed disaster in the home-building area. I have pointed out that the interest subsidy scheme, much lauded and highly costly and highly discriminatory- indeed, a sectional, nasty kind of impost that favours some and not others- has been a total failure. We will allow the passage of the Bill, of course, because it enacts Government policy as announced. However, we foreshadow that we will reimplement and update the home savings grants scheme.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-I must intrude for a moment. I should have liked Senator Carrick to take into consideration a new factor in home demand which he has neglected but which is quite evident and which has been reported in Brisbane. There has been a change in the attitude of home buyers and in the needs of home buyers, possibly because of some of the factors the honourable senator has referred to. There is a heavy demand for the older type of home and a considerable amount of the finance that has been provided by the private banks and the Commonwealth Bank has been put towards this kind of purchase. This is now reflected in the number of new dwellings that are being erected, and considerably so. I must say to Senator Carrick that he ought to be taking a look at the changing attitudes of people. People are certainly not now seeking out, as they used to, a very expensive mansion in the outer suburbs but are looking now to the purchase at a lower price of an established home which is more convenient to transport and more convenient for many other reasons.

Senator Carrick:

– Where do the people in the old established homes go when they sell?

Senator GEORGES:

– If the population trend continues as at present there will be a fall-off in demand for new building and there will be a greater demand for the older homes which become available, and they will become available more often as our population increase is reduced. I suggest to the honourable senator that he ought to look at this matter. I am not in any way denying the fact that it costs a lot of money now for a young person to go into the home or that the interest rates are far too high. I have spoken about that before. But interest rates are not the only charge that is imposed on a new home builder these days. There are all sorts of added costs and charges which one may suspect are unfair and which are placed on the young home purchaser especially if he is purchasing a new home. For example, he has to take out a life insurance for the period of the loan and finds himself paying substantial premiums at the same time as he is making repayments on the home.

Senator Carrick:

– That is not new.

Senator GEORGES:

– No, but it is more extensive now. It is also evident in some areas that the loans which are being provided by building societies are being directed to the purchase of homes the price of which has been considerably inflated, and we as a Senate ought very soon to be looking at some inquiry into the method by which homes are being financed by home building societies and other mutual groups because all sorts of side charges are being imposed which lift the cost of the home unnecessarily. There is also evidence of finance flowing to certain vested interests that are concerned in home building. So you have a false inflation of the cost of building. It is not fair for the honourable senator to get up and merely indicate a certain narrow area of fault. He ought to be looking at other reasons for the problems that home builders face today. The assistance which his Government gave, a sum of $500, mattered very little, because that extra $500 was soon taken up in the increased charges made to young people and was soon lost; but the interest rebate which he declared to be discriminatory has been of considerable benefit.

I must admit also that it is not a method that we should continue to rest upon; nevertheless it has been of considerable assistance in bringing people back into the area where they can buy a home, whether a new or an old home. His concern is the concern we also share. We do not agree on the reasons and I think it might be necessary for us some time to refer to one of our committees the subject of home finance, what is happening, and what errors and perhaps what deliberate mistakes are being made in that area.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I thank the Opposition for not opposing the legislation. I represent the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) in this place. This is one of the many Bills that I have been responsible for conducting through this Senate. I think that on each occasion a Bill such as this one has been before the Senate, Senator Carrick has been the Opposition spokesman and the housing policy of the Labor Government has met with so much approval that I cannot recall an occasion when the Opposition opposes Government legislation on housing. However, there is always this tirade of abuse and a repetition of what we heard tonight. In the absence of logic, facts or truthfulness, statistics are cited to bomboozle us in an attempt to prove that some previous scheme was better. I have always claimed that statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is interesting but what they conceal is vital. Although the Government may cite figures to illustrate a point we do not use them as a means of concealing something.

Let me look at the claims of the great achievements of the homes savings grant scheme. When this Government came to power there were 93 000 applicants for housing commission homes in the States. That will give honourable senators an idea of how the previous Government met housing requirements prior to December 1972. I recall that in 1964 when the homes savings grants scheme was introduced into this Senate by the late Senator Spooner I was one of the most vigorous opponents of the scheme and I have continued to be so ever since. The responsible Ministers since the scheme began, although their views may have been different, will find voluminous correspondence concerning cases which I have taken up over the years on behalf of people who just missed out under the Homes Savings Grants Act. The scheme rewarded only a few. Applicants had to be under 36 years of age and the grant was made for their first matrimonial home only. To qualify for a grant a person was required to have made savings over a period of 3 years. There had to be a specified date of commencement of building. The grant was a reward only for those people under 36 years of age who were able to put aside in savings a sufficient amount in 3 years to get the full benefits. There have been arguments from time to time about someone whom it was thought was entitled to a grant of $500 but who received only $50, $60 or $70. That was the previous Government’s contribution under the home savings grant scheme. In Opposition we had continual fights with the previous Government concerning the prescribed date, whether a contract was drawn up at an earlier time, whether a person was entitled to receive benefits and whether a block of land which ultimately was regarded as savings was bought for the purpose of building a home. It was found that people were being deprived of the grant.

I have spent a lifetime associated with the building industry. When I became a member of this Senate I thought I had escaped the building industry but I was given the portfolio for Works and later I was to represent the Minister for Housing and Construction. In all the time I have been associated with the building industry it has been known as a Cinderella industry with fluctuations in employment and fluctuations in the availability of manpower and materials required to meet the requirements of the industry. Immediately there was a suggestion of a recession in the economy people stopped building and the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission acknowledged this situation by granting a wage loading for lost time and saying that it is one of the industries that must have a reservoir of labour in order to function efficiently. It was necessary to have manpower and materials available so that a contractor could construct a building as soon as he obtained a contract. If he did not get a contract unemployment occurred amongst his work force. This has been part of the life of the building industry.

When this Government came to power in 1 972 we found that those who could afford to save and those who could afford to invest in the industry were getting benefits under the homes savings grant scheme. There were 93 000 families who could not get these benefits. They were applicants for housing commission homes. There were many more people who were not applicants for housing commission homes who got meagre relief under the homes savings grant scheme. Something had to be done. There was a deliberate policy to curtail housing activity. In this town of Canberra bricklayers were getting up to $300 a week when they bartered their labour while all through the north of Australia buildings could not be completed and in every mainland State buildings could not be completed because of the lack of materials. This happened at a time when Australia, the biggest producer of nails, had to import nails to put down a floor in a cottage, when contractors had to send workmen from one retail store to another to buy a pound of nails. That was the position in the building industry at that time. The capacity of the building industry had been over-utilised, so preference was given to housing the needy.

There was an immediate grant of about $150m to the States to keep the work force in employment because they had between January 1 973 and June 1 973 spent in excess of the money which had previously granted to them. This scheme was brought into operation because of the record bankruptcies in the building industry at that time and the non-payment of accounts. The scheme was introduced to bolster up the building trade. In 1964 the record of all the bankruptcies showed the builders were in the lead.

We introduced, as the then Treasurer said in his Budget Speech, the home mortgage interest savings scheme. It has been suggested that we are depriving some people. The mortgage interest tax deductibility scheme is estimated to benefit 1 .4 million families each year at a cost of over $ 130m a year. That means $130m is going back to home purchasers each year and 1.4 million families are receiving the benefits. We are trying to replace the homes savings grants scheme that benefited 40 000 families a year at a cost of about $20m a year. Our scheme gives back to 1.4 million families $130m a year compared with the previous scheme under which about 40 000 families benefited at a cost of about $20m a year.

This Government has made increasing amounts of money available under the defence service homes scheme. It has liberalised the eligibility requirements for servicemen to include those who have had 3 years service in Australia. The Government has increased the amount of the loan. A new Housing Agreement was negotiated with the States in 1973 and advances for welfare housing are being made to the State housing authorities and the States home builders account at the respective rates of 4 per cent and 4lA per cent. There has never been a cheaper rate. We are told that today the increase in cost of materials is about 22 per cent. The price of materials for buildings has always fluctuated according to the inflationary trends of the day. We are told that today the rate of inflation is 22 per cent. The States have never had such good welfare housing agreements. The amount advanced to the States under the State Housing Agreement in 1972-73, the first year in which we were in government, was $168m, an increase on the amount for the previous year. At present $375m is being advanced to the States. In other words, the amount advanced to the States has been doubled. Towards the end of 1974 some $ 150m was made available, mainly through the savings banks, for housing loans. No government has a better record in housing than this Government.

Comparisons relating to housing should be based on the finished product. Pre-war it was possible to have a house built for £800- a shell with a roof and a floor. Today the price includes furniture, hot and cold water and carpeting in some cases. Even without comparing the types of houses, this Government by its mortgage interest tax deductibility scheme is, in effect giving back to the people $130m a year. But it is ridiculous simply to use figures to show that a government has not done its job. This Government has done more for housing than any previous government did. Labor has a great record. Because we are making available, for welfare housing, labour and materials we are the subject of criticism today. There is a reduction in housing loan repayments of up to $6 a week through the mortgage interest tax deductibility scheme. The benefit is not to a particular section; it applies to home owners who have to pay interest on their mortgages. There will always be a housing shortage. No society has ever housed its whole population. The building industry has always been the Cinderella industry. It fluctuates. It slackens off before other industries and revives after other industries. All we can do is try to assist the house hungry people of Australia and in that we have a better record than any previous government. We are compensating those who seek home ownership through the mortgage interest tax deductibility scheme, not through a grant to a privileged few.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2071

GRANTS COMMISSION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22 April on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– Speaking generally, the Opposition does not oppose this Bill but we will move an amendment, copies of which I will circulate later. The Bill seeks to do 3 main things. It provides for the appointment of a further full time member of the Grants Commission, thus increasing the number of members from 6 to 7. It argues that the addition of another full time member is necessary because of the extra burden of work taken on by the Commission in recent years, particularly in the municipal and shire areas. Secondly, it seeks to amend the Act to enable a chairman such as the existing Chairman, Mr Justice Else Mitchell, who immediately prior to his appointment as Chairman, was a judge of a Federal or State court, to have the same designation, rank, status and precedence as a judge of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court. Finally, it incorporates machinery changes consequent upon the existence of the Remuneration Tribunals Act.

I wish to comment on the first 2 points. The Opposition does not oppose at this moment the appointment of an extra member to the Grants Commission. I must say that of all the statutory institutions which have served this country in the last three or four decades, the Grants Commission has been eminent and pre-eminent in the quality of its function. Particularly with the less populous States it has done a great deal of service for Australia. It has been served by notable people, the outstanding one being Sir Leslie Melville who is one of the greatest of all Australians. Members of the Grants Commission currently are continuing that tradition and that work. They have moved into a field which is new to them in that they are seeking to comprehend the needs and the differential needs throughout Australia of 930-odd municipalities and shires- each of them different, different in their needs and different in their structures. Therefore they are confronted with an immense task. Under these circumstances it is clear that there is justification for an additional member. In acknowledging this fact, the Opposition desires to foreshadow that it would look to the future in the local government field and would establish in each of the States a States Grants Commission to perform a role for the State so that in each State the work would be done by a commission appointed by the State, knowledgeable about that State and concentrating wholly upon the needs of that State.

By so doing, it would be possible for the burden to be carried. It is quite impossible now for a Commission sitting in Canberra to comprehend the needs of 930-odd local government bodies. Inevitably the Commission will move to what the Government instructed it by the Act to do, that is, to deal with regions, not municipalities and shires. When the Commission does that it will, however unwittingly, be carrying out the policies of the Whitlam Government to unify Australia, to scrap the 930-odd local government bodies, to amalgamate them into 50-odd regions, to bypass the States and to destroy the States. That is the expressed policy of the Whitlam Government. The policies aimed at local government must be viewed as policies aimed at carrying out the stated objectives of this Government- the scrapping of local government bodies, their amalgamation and their replacement by regions. The Federal Opposition expresses its implacable opposition to the scrapping of local government bodies and to their replacement by forced regions, brought about from Canberra and thrust upon local areas.

We believe that the local body should be of a size that enables it to maintain an intimate understanding and contact with the area that it serves. It should be of a size and nature to be able to reflect and to argue the right to be different from other areas. It should not be of such a huge size that it is forced to compromise; that its right to be different is compromised out. This is fundamental to our policies. In fact, in the months ahead we will announce policies to create that state of affairs. The policies that we look to in a Bill relating to the Grants Commission are policies which would give local government a much better deal and a much greater assurance of survival and of independence of action. Today independence of action is being destroyed.

I do not seek to speak at length on this Bill, except to say a couple of further things on this aspect. Last week- I think very unfortunately- a Minister in another place, the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) made an attack, and a very vigorous attack, on municipal and shire governments in Australia and alleged of those bodies that they were grossly inefficient and irresponsible. In fact, as I understand it he used the basis that they had put up their rates in a large fashion. I make it quite clear that the reason that municipalities and shires have put up their rates is because of the inflation thrust upon them at all points by the Whitlam Government. Rates go up around Australia because the Whitlam Government has imposed inflation on every wage paid, and on every material bought throughout Australia. Where the work of municipalities and shires has shrunk it is because of the credit squeeze of last year, in terms of their capacity to borrow money.

Today local governments, including semigovernmental bodies, are not to blame for putting up their rates. They are paying the price of the Whitlam Government. Semi-governmental bodies, such as the water and sewerage boards, which have put up their rates throughout Australia, are merely reflecting the fact that their costs have increased because of the inflationary characteristics of this Whitlam Government. Their costs increased by 40 per cent last year. The Opposition has outlined a variety of policies to overcome this situation concerning higher water and sewerage rates. Those policies will be further enunciated at another time. I make the point that it was wilful and wrong of the Minister in the other place to seek to put the blame upon local government for the sins and errors of the Whitlam Government.

Having said that, I now turn to that section of the Bill which seeks to give to a chairman of the Grants Commission, who has previously been a judge of a Federal or State court, the designation, rank, status and precedence of a judge of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court. In so doing, nothing that I say should be taken as a reflection upon the incumbent Mr Justice Rae Else-Mitchell, whom I am privileged to know and whose work I respect. The Opposition proposes to move a simple amendment. The effect of that amendment will be to allow such a person, having been a judge beforehand, to continue to have the status, emoluments and all those particular privileges that have previously gone with his appointment as a judge. It will not permit the carrying on of the illusion that such a body as the Grants Commission is a judicial or semi-judicial body. I make an appeal to the Government on this point.

One of the things that the Government has said many times is that it wants to humanise institutions. Certainly we also wish to do that. One of the dangerous things in setting up institutions is to give to an institution, which is not purely a judicial body, a pseudo-judicial atmosphere, because there is some kind of feeling of deprivation by those who approach such a body that they are facing, in their belief, a person who is a judge and who has certain powers and immunities; that they in fact are in a court. Nothing could be more wrong. Nothing could be more destructive of the empathy that should exist between a person who comes to the Grants Commission and the chairman and members of the Grants Commission. I believe that the incumbent would not want it, nor would any other chairman.

I make it quite clear that the Grants Commission is not in any way a judicial body, and it has never sought to be a judicial body. It would be wrong if there were given to it the illusion that it is a judicial body. It would be wrong if those who approached the Grants Commission believed that because a person sitting on the bench was designated as a judge, that person had judicial powers. I remind honourable senators that if the Parliament had wanted this body to have judicial or semi-judicial powers it would have written into the legislation that the chairman shall be a j udge. This is not so. The chairman can be a person from any walk of life and of any profession or skill.

Certainly what is happening in this Bill- we do not argue against it- is that there is being provided a means of accommodating a situation in which a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales has been transferred to the chairmanship of the Grants Commission. It is suggested that his status, his emolments and the special privileges of his previous office should be transferred. We do not argue with that. We will not argue if a government of the future seeks to have a judge as the chairman of the Grants Commission, but we strongly reject the idea that the Grants Commission is a judicial body. We strongly reject the idea that that illusion should be created. We believe that the whole aim should be to achieve a working relationship between the community and the Commission, and that there should be none of the austere atmosphere or the inhibitions that unhappily do and need not inhabit the court room from time to time. I say that without casting any reflection on Mr Justice Rae Else-Mitchell. In due course we will move a simple amendment which is designed to remove the word ‘designation’ from the Bill. That will achieve all that we ask, while giving to Mr Justice Else-Mitchell all the privileges that he had previously. We support the Bill with those qualifications. We foreshadow that amendment.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise very briefly to support from the Opposition benches the Grants Commission Bill 1975 that is before us. It is a simple Bill concerned basically with the structure of the Commission. It provides for the appointment of an additional full-time member to the Grants Commission and it seeks to amend the Grants Commission Act to enable the chairman of the Commission to have the same designation, rank, status and precedence as a judge of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court. I believe that this addition to the membership of the Commission can serve only to increase its capacity to do the important job that it has to perform, a job which during the last 12 months or so has widened quite considerably. Whilst I emphasise that we support the Bill that is before us and the amendment that has been foreshadowed by Senator Carrick, I should like to make, very briefly, one or two points.

The concept of the Grants Commission goes back a great number of years. The Commission has been concerned primarily with making grants to the States which are disadvantaged for various reasons. They can be physical reasons or reasons relating to population or developmental problems. The making of grants to the States has been the basic reason for the establishment of the Grants Commission and the basic area of its operation. Last year its role was extended to involve the granting of money directly by the Commission to local government. In this capacity it made grants in that 12 months period of approximately $56m to approximately 900 local government bodies across Australia. In the main this was extremely well received by local government bodies in this country. Probably at no time have they needed grants more to help them in the exigencies in which they found themselves. But there was some measure of concern even with the grants as they occurred. Probably the increase in the size of the Commission will enable an even more accurate and definite investigation to take place in the future which may obviate some of the fears and concerns that were felt in some areas of local government.

Senator Wright:

– I suggest that it would be an impossibility if it had 1 00 members.

Senator SCOTT:

-I think it is relevant to Senator Wright’s comment to say that of the 900 bodies in the field of local government in Australia approximately 10 per cent received no grants at all and a significant number received very small grants. The most disconcerting aspect of this circumstance is that it appeared at least on the surface and, indeed, below the surface, that there was a tendency at this point to penalise those areas of local government that had been amongst the most efficient operators. I am sure that this is an area to which the Grants Commission in its expanded form will pay particular attention. The effect of this occurrence in perhaps only 10 per cent of the areas and in another percentage of local government areas which received small grants has been accentuated by the loss of revenue from Government funds for road construction and maintenance and the general provision of facilities which are the province of local government.

Whilst I would be the first to admit the value of the Grants Commission and the value of the idea of these added grants which are not tied to local government, there is concern because this sort of financing, together with the current financing that has occurred mainly because of the unemployment situation- the Regional Employment Development Scheme and other assistance plans- tends to have an element of insecurity in it. In this sort of finance there is no measure of real permanency. This is probably the greatest single problem for the areas to which these grants are made. There must be a measure of real permanency if a proper standard of planning is to be part of the effective operation of local government.

Whilst again confirming support for this Bill, I want to make it clear that I believe there is a considerable menace in the possibility of financing becoming, or tending to become, a piecemeal affair. If local government is to be efficient in its projection of planned development according to the priorities of the people on the spot, it cannot operate in that way unless there be permanency and not a piecemeal method of handling the finances in that area. I express my support for the

Bill and my support for the proposed amendment which I believe can only add to the effectiveness of the legislation.

Senator BESSELL:
Tasmania

-! support this Bill for the reasons outlined by both Senator Carrick and Senator Scott. Both of” them mentioned what I think is probably the most important aspect of local government funding in Australia at present, which is not so much to extend the Commission but, as Senator Carrick pointed out, to establish in each of the States a State Grants Commission. If we do a little arithmetic we realise that for the Grants Commission, even if its membership is extended from 6 to 7, effectively to do the job of looking around and interviewing representatives of each of the local government agencies in Australia, whether it be a shire or a council, would take 52 weeks- a whole year; and the Commission would have to interview 1 8 separate councils every week.

Notwithstanding that additional administrative cost is involved in so many local councils. I think everybody will agree that the people best able to make a judgment on what is needed for local government are the people who are closest to it- those who are on the scene. No matter how efficient or capable a grants commission may be- we do not in any way decry the efficiency and capability of the people involved in the Grants Commission- I think it is well accepted that the only way that we will know what a situation is, is to have a look for ourselves. As I have indicated, to do this would take a tremendous amount of time.

One of the other matters which is worrying local government today is the tremendous increase in costs in local government administration as well as in all other types of administration. A second feature which I think is worrying many of them- one which probably involves a shift of responsibility- is that such matters as child care centres, aged persons homes and environmental protection are slowly but surely being shifted into the responsibility of local government and are bringing with them the obvious additional costs. As we know, about 80 per cent of the income that each local government receives on average is available from its own funding. It is usually funded by a rate struck on the residents and landowners in the area. The other 20 per cent of income comes from State government. The changeover from Commonwealth aid road grants to other road grants recently has done nothing to help notwithstanding that a couple of hundred million dollars of additional finance is supposed to be available.

When we go through the municipalities in Australia, particularly in my own State, we see the roads at local government level and at ordinary council level deteriorating through lack of funds adequately to maintain them and to provide the types of facility for which the rural industries of those areas are always increasing their dem and. It is fairly obvious that if we are to obtain that sort of finance we must move away from the situation we have had in the past. Many accusations have been made by many people in local government that patronage in the past has been one of the problems associated with local government funding at federal level and at State level. We realise that the States have obtained grants in the first place from the Federal Government usually under section 96 of the Constitution. There have been many occasions when money has fairly obviously been used for the express purpose of patronage. I do not say that this necessarily is directed towards one or other of the Parties when in government; I think that both major political Parties have been responsible for doing this. But I think it is fairly axiomatic and that it will continue while we have this sort of situation.

I do not think the situation we have at the moment lends itself quite so much to that sort of practice, but what it does do, unfortunately, is to establish on a regional basis a tremendous air of competition amongst the local government bodies in each of the areas. Each one of them has to establish its needs when it is applying for more funds and fairly obviously, as I mentioned and as I think I proved earlier, it is not going to be possible for the Grants Commission to get around to all these local government areas, even if they are regionalised, to establish for itself without equivocation that that council or this council in a particular region really needs the money that is asked for. Without any doubt this will have the tendency to develop a situation in which local government bodies will not necessarily assess or guess the true level of their need. They will tend to claim more than they need so that if the Grants Commission cuts back on their claim they will still get somewhere about the amount they were hoping to get.

I believe that there is only one way in which to prevent that sort of situation developing, that is, to have State grants commissions on which there are only a certain number of people- I do not think the number is important; it is the principle we are concerned with here and not the individual members- who will be qualified and will have the time to get around to the local government bodies. To increase the membership of the Grants Commission from 6 members, as it is at the present moment, to 7 members will obviously relieve individual members of the Commission of a good deal of the load. If the Commission is to be made big enough to do the sorts of things which I personally believe have to be done, its membership would need to be increased many times. If the membership of the Commission were to be divided into 3 groups, each of them would have to cover 6 areas during each of the 52 weeks of the year in order to ensure that each local government area was visited and had its real needs assessed.

Senator Carrick pointed to the tremendous increase in costs which each of the local government areas has had to bear. We all know that inflation, whoever is responsible for it- I think the Government must accept a good deal of that responsibility- is causing an increasing worry and an increasing burden. Unfortunately the result is not only unemployment at the local government level but also local governments are finding that they are not able to give the services that are required of them. One of the reasons, of course, is the dramatic increase in wages.

I have before me some figures which apply to Queensland and which were prepared by the Legislative Research Service of the Parliamentary Library. I think they would be fairly relevant to other areas of Australia. They show that a garbage collection driver received $90. 1 1 a week in February 1973 and in September 1974 he received $131.03 a week, an increase of 45 per cent. A concrete worker received $61.80 a week in March 1973 and $101.72 a week in October 1974, an increase of 65 per cent. A general construction labourer received $57.80 a week in March 1973 and in October 1974 he received $94.01 a week, an increase of 63 per cent. A municipal officer in the Brisbane City Councilthese figures refer to a male clerk in his first year -received $3,632 per annum in March 1973 and $6,384 in July 1974, an increase of 76 per cent. Nobody would deny that these people are entitled to these wages, but the granting of those wages is putting councils into the sort of situation about which we hear all too often and which is all too true.

I believe that the only method by which we can get some sort of rationale in this situation is that outlined by the three of us who have spoken from this side of the chamber. We have to establish in the not too distant future as a follow up to the Grants Commission, which has done a good job and will continue to do the same sterling job, grants commissions at the State level. Those commissions, when established, will have to have sufficient funds to enable them effectively to help ease the burden. One of the problems associated with local government funding is that account is not taken of the ability of the people to pay the rate demanded of them. At the present moment many people in the rural parts of Australia are required to pay a pretty substantial rate. Many of those people live in beef producing areas and fairly obviously, because of the conditions in the beef industry today, are not in a position to pay; but their rate is not assessed on their ability to pay. I fully support the motion and the amendment foreshadowed by Senator Carrick.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– in reply- I will be very brief in my reply and we will then deal with the foreshadowed amendment, which is a simple one, in Committee. Although it is really quite outside the terms of the Bill- I do not complain about that because this is still a comparatively new area and comments are welcomethere has been an assertion that State governments could better assess the needs of local government bodies than could the Grants Commission. The substantial interstate differences and the responsibilities and fiscal needs of local governing bodies require that recommendations for assistance from the Australian Government be based on the assessment of criteria applied uniformly throughout Australia. The role of the Grants Commission in respect of local governing bodies is an extension of the role which it has been carrying out since 1933 with regard to the claimant States. Each of its annual recommendations has been accepted by the Government in power, regardless of its political persuasion.

The Grants Commission is the best qualified body in Australia to undertake an assessment of the relative needs of the local governing bodies on a nation-wide basis. State governments have a clear involvement in the scheme. The Grants Commission Act requires the responsible Australian Government Minister to consult with them on the determination of regional boundaries and on applications for financial assistance received from local governing bodies. The Commission also welcomes submissions from the appropriate State Ministers concerning applications by local government authorities in the State. Although it is outside the terms of the Bill, I make that comment because there is a sincerely held view that State governments could do better than the Grants Commission. In view of the variations in the States, it is most essential that we have for the time being a central body such as the

Grants Commission. I am glad that the Opposition is supporting the Bill. The foreshadowed amendment will be dealt with in Committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

The Bill.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– I have an amendment which relates to clause 3, which reads in part:

  1. by inserting after sub-section (6) the following subsection: (6a) If the Chairman was, immediately before his appointment, a Judge of a Federal Court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory, he shall have the same designtion, rank, status and precedence as a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.’.

I move:

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– Paragraph (b) of proposed sub-section (6A) applies to a person who was a judge before taking up a position on the Grants Commission. In the strict sense, the Commission does not exercise Federal judicial power as that term is used in the Constitution, but neither does the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the Prices Justification Tribunal, or the Flight Crew Officers’ Tribunal. Yet members of each of those bodies are designated as justices. Even if that designation were removed, I think that in practical terms if a well-known judge, as is the case at the moment, happens to be a member of the Commission he would still be referred to as a judge because he has been working in that field. I do not think the field in which he practised would make very much difference.

I simply make the point that those other bodies do not operate in the manner of a court or, to be much softer, with rules of evidence and that sort of thing. Over the 40 years 3 out of the 5 chairmen have been lawyers. It seems that there has been a need for judicial knowledge over the years. I suggest this knowledge is needed even more now that the Grants Commission has moved into the more complex field of local government bodies as well as dealing with the States. I listened to Senator Carrick ‘s speech during the second reading debate on this proposition. The amendment was moved in another place and the Government resisted it there because we think there is no great harm done. The Bill as it stands does bring this judicial element into the situation and the same term is used in regard to its sister bodies, if I can use that expression.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– I put it to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) that the arguments he raised do not support the Bill but rather are arguments for taking other decisions in other places. If the Minister believes that the work of the Grants Commission is judicial or semi-judicial it is the duty of the Government to move that the chairman shall be a judge or a lawyer, but the Government has not done so and therefore that part of his response must go out the window. It is not good enough to argue that because we appointed a judge peradventure to be Chairman of the Prices Justification Tribunal this tendency should be followed. I believe that the Prices Justification Tribunal should not be a judicial tribunal. It is a tribunal which makes an inquiry. When you seek to clothe a tribunal with a judicial function I think you widen it in such a way that it is wrong.

I think the examples are not in support of the argument and I urge the Government to reconsider and support the amendment. I invite the Government to accept the belief that the Grants Commission should be a human institution. On the Government’s test, that does not require a judge. It should be a tribunal to which people can come without having any belief or illusion that they are in a judicial atmosphere or that there are any privileges or immunities flowing to the person on the bench. The Government must support that argument because it is unanswerable. If that is so, the good sense of this amendment must follow.

Senator EVERETT:
Tasmania

– I have been tempted to speak extremely briefly in this debate because I am surprised that the question of the designation of the Chairman of the Grants Commission should attract such disputation. The issue seems to be whether he should be addressed, in the course of his normal duties, as ‘your honour’. I have heard some very different titles applied to judges when I have been in robing rooms, especially after cases, but we are not concerned with that aspect. As I see the situation there are 2 main points to be made. Firstly, the mere deletion of the word ‘designation’ would not, I suggest, achieve the purpose of the Opposition even if that purpose were to be considered a proper one because if you have the rank, if you have the status, and if you have the precedence of a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, surely those attributes would carry with them the appellation of ‘your honour’, at least in the minds of most persons. How can you have the rank of a judge and not the appellation? How can you have the status of a judge conferred expressly by statute and not the appellation?

Senator Greenwood:

– Would you tell me why the word ‘designation’ was put in the Bill?

Senator EVERETT:

– Because it means what you call him.

Senator Carrick:

– If the word is deleted does it not mean that you should not call him that?

Senator EVERETT:

-To achieve that purpose you would have to draft the Bill in this way: ‘He shall have the rank, status and precedence but not the designation of a judge of the Supreme Court’. That really is what the Opposition is seeking to do and I suggest that would be absurd. It would be even more absurd when one would hope that, as with the present incumbent of that office, in future persons who have acquired a very high judicial reputation will be attracted to this position. I am not one of those people who sets any store by a name. I think a person builds his reputation in a situation like this by the quality of the way in which he performs his duties and not by what he is called by all and sundry. If we are to attract persons who, if they continued in their existing judicial office, would on retirement retain by practice a designation which fitted the judicial office they had held, is it right to expect a person leaving a judgeship and taking on the chairmanship of the Grants Commission to be stripped of the title by which he was known, probably for many years?

Senator Carrick:

– There is a difference between retirement and being active in the profession, is there not?

Senator EVERETT:

– I do not know. It may be that in retirement the title of ‘your honour’ might be of some use.

Senator Carrick:

– It would have no force because the person would not be meeting the public in a professional capacity.

Senator EVERETT:

-It has no force.

Senator Carrick:

– None at all and the argument is about him meeting the public in a professional capacity.

Senator EVERETT:

– I have put 2 arguments, each of which I think is cogent, why the Opposition’s amendment ought not be accepted. The first argument is particularly important because I suggest that by the amendment the Opposition simply would be leaving the situation unaltered. I repeat that to achieve the Opposition’s purpose the Bill would have to be amended so as to state that the person concerned shall have the rank, status and precedence other than the designation. I suggest that that would be an extremely insulting situation.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I am impressed by Senator Everett’s argument. It seems to me that if a person is to have the rank, status and precedence, the only way we are to know about it, unless we look up this Bill, is by what he is called. I see some advantage in that.

Senator Carrick:

– You could look up the report of the Remuneration Tribunal.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-That could be so. I have the utmost respect for the Grants Commission. If in any way we can give the slightest encouragement to highly qualified judicial people to come to the Commission, I do not think it should be a bar to their accepting the position if they do put some store by their designation. Quite frankly, it would save a lot of confusion if the wording of the Bill is left as it is. Then people might realise, simply by how the presiding officer is addressed, that the presiding officer does have the rank, status and precedence as outlined in the Bill. I am impressed by Senator Everett’s explanation and will vote accordingly.

Question put:

That the word proposed to be left out (Senator Carrick’s amendment) be left out.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator J. A. Mulvihill)

AYES: 26

NOES: 24

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2078

PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 15 May on motion by Senator James McClelland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-This is a small Bill which the Government introduced to achieve 2 purposes, firstly to transfer the ministerial responsibility for the Parliamentary Counsel corporation from the Attorney-General to the Prime Minister, and secondly, to define the functions of the Office. The functions of the Office are well defined in clause 3 as follows:

  1. the drafting of proposed laws for introduction into either House of the Parliament and of amendments of proposed laws that the being considered by either House of the Parliament;
  2. the drafting of instruments that are to be given the force of law by an Act; and
  3. functions incidental to any of the preceding functions.

It will be remembered that in 1970 the previous Government thought fit to incorporate Parliamentary Counsel as a statutory corporation for the purpose of giving it an independence and therefore, it was thought, increased efficiency. Since then, I am bound to say, the Parliamentary Counsel’s office has performed with notable efficiency and the volume of work that it has produced has been remarkable. So one is left to accept the definition of the functions of the Office and to express thanks to the distinguished members of the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office for the work that they have performed.

The second purpose of the Bill is to transfer the ministerial responsibility for the Office of Parliamentary Counsel from the AttorneyGeneral to the Prime Minister. That is a bit of a mystery at the moment. Whether or not it arises out of relations between the present AttorneyGeneral (Mr Enderby) and the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), or between the previous AttorneyGeneral, the former Senator Murphy, and the Prime Minister 1 do not know, but that may have prompted this idea. This is a statutory corporation embodying skilled legal professional counsel who, as Mr Ellicott said in his address to the House of Representatives, are distinguished by the requirement that they are not merely specialists in one branch of the law but have to draft statutes over the whole range of statutory law. They are expected to know the substance and, by reference, the detail of many various parts of the legal area. It is surprising in that respect that the Government proposes a departure from the ordinary basis whereby Parliamentary Counsel should act under the advisement and direction of the Crown’s Chief Law Officer, the Attorney-General. We offer no objection; nevertheless we merely report that we remain unconvinced in that respect.

The point in my rising at this stage is to adumbrate in Committee an amendment that is of considerable importance to the Parliament, and of special importance to all members of the Parliament who wish to take an active part in the positive work of the Parliament; that is to say, the members of the Parliament, whether they be of one party or another, who have occasion to propose measures to the Parliament by way of motions, Bills, regulations or otherwise that require drafting by skilled counsel. The Bill is called the Parliamentary Counsel Bill and the corporation, according to my recollection, is the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. But it is a corporation, not merely a department of the Crown -Parliamentary Counsel not Crown counsel. Therefore it is suggested by the Opposition that it is appropriate to provide that the services of at least two of the professional officers of the corporation shall be seconded to draft proposed laws, amendments and instruments at the request of members of Parliament in priority to the services of Ministers. That proposition does not detract in any way from the attitude of the members of the staff heretofore. But the demands of Ministers are such that they can permit the services of counsel only, as the AttorneyGeneral said, as far as is practicable.

It is not good enough that the ordinary member of Parliament should be dependent upon the convenience of the Ministry as to whether or not drafting services from the Parliamentary Counsel’s office are available to the backbencher in the Parliament. We have taken for too long a subordinate role in this respect. One of the reasons is that we are so ill-equipped to prepare the necessary instruments to give effect to our purposes on the floor of the House. Therefore we seek by this amendment that in priority, not to and not to the exclusion of requirements of the Ministry, backbenchers should be able to call upon a section of the professional staff who should be seconded to give services of a drafting nature for the backbencher.

The Attorney-General raised the question of confidentiality and recognised that in the present structure, if a member of the Opposition or an independent goes to the Parliamentary Counsel’s office and puts forward a proposal, there is always some conflict of duty to the Government and to that parliamentary member. That is so when one does not define duty which is directed in the one place to the Ministry and in the other place to the backbencher. The proposal that the Opposition puts forward will not exactly remove that, but it will give such a definition as to establish in the minds of the 2 professional counsel so seconded a duty in priority to the Ministry which is owed to the backbencher and will enable him and justify him in retaining confidence that should prevail between him and the proponent of the measure for whom he has drafted it. I therefore indicate that the Opposition does not oppose the Bill but in the Committee stage for the reasons I have advanced will propose the amendment to which I have referred.

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is pleasing to note that Senator Wright, speaking for the Opposition, will not oppose the Bill even though he could not forbear to take a sideswipe at the proposition that the Parliamentary Counsel properly belongs within the administrative domain of the Prime Minister. One would have thought that something was exceptional about this proposition from the way Senator Wright spoke, but I remind him that in that citadel of democracy, Queensland, the office of the Parliamentary Counsel is in the Premier’s Department. In the United Kingdom the Parliamentary Counsel traditionally comes under the domain of the Treasury. So the notion that something is outrageous or exceptional about this arrangement is untenable. I do not propose to debate the main matter which we are to consider- the amendment which has been foreshadowed by Senator Wright. I merely say that the Government does not accept the amendment and will be opposing it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I have an amendment to clause 3. The clause provides:

Section 3 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section substituted:

The functions of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel are-

the drafting of proposed laws for introduction into either House of the Parliament and of amendments of proposed laws that are being considered by either House of the Parliament;

the drafting of instruments that are to be given the force of law by an Act; and

functions incidental to any of the preceding functions.

I move:

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I should like to speak very briefly to this amendment and to support it. It is in no way a derogation of the duties which are performed. In the limited opportunity I have had I have certainly found the Parliamentary Draftsmen very helpful. On the other hand, I think there is good argument for this amendment. One thing is clear. The Attorney-General, Mr Enderby, replied to this proposal on 14 May. It is recorded in Hansard. I felt it was an extremely weak reply. All that he could say in relation to providing this service for backbench members of Parliament on both sides of the House was that the Government recognised that there are problems in the area and it hoped to put them right. That, of course, gave no satisfaction and gives no undertaking of how the problem is to be put right. He made the further argument that there are difficulties of which we are aware. He said, for example, that the question of confidentiality occasionally poses a possible problem.

I have rarely heard so weak an argument against the proposal. So far as confidentiality is concerned, I would think that if it were provided that Counsel had first priority, and that is all this amendment requires, to look after the drafting problems of backbench members he would know his obligations and the question of confidentiality would not occur. So far no reason has been shown why this amendment should not be adopted. It would be a most valuable thing for the use of all backbench members of Parliament. I hope it will be adopted.

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not think, with due respect to Senator Missen, that there is any onus on the Government to show that this does not need to be done; rather there is an onus on those who seek to change the present situation to show that there is some vice in the present situation which requires to be cured. There is no doubt, as members of the Opposition would readily admit if they searched their consciences, that abundant assistance has been available to them under the present dispensation. I have a list of members of the Opposition who have been given assistance by the Parliamentary Counsel during the life of the present Government. It is a very impressive list and shows that there is really no requirement for this amendment. I suggest to members of the Opposition that they would not fare better under this change than they fare at present.

The only case I know of of a member of the Opposition being refused assistance by the Parliamentary Counsel in recent times is that of Senator Wright. Senator Wright approached me in the last few months and asked me to approach the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) with a request that the Parliamentary Counsel should make a draftsman available to him to draft some measure that he was to put before the Parliament. It turned out to be a minor drafting chore related to the judicature provisions in chapter III of the Constitution. That part of the Constitution is encrusted with judicial decisions and the amendment would, in effect, have required a senior experienced member of the Parliamentary Counsel staff to desist from his ordinary duties for a period of probably 6 months. This struck me as an abuse of the rights of a member of the Opposition and underlines the possibilities of abuse which lie in this amendment. I suggest that if this amendment were carried the First Parliamentary Counsel would have to advertise for a couple of comparatively junior people to be made available to him and he would, far from getting the services of an experienced member of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, have to do the best he could with the services of a couple of relatively junior people. I am not suggesting for a moment that Opposition members are not entitled to some assistance in drafting amendments for private members’ Bills but I suggest that the solution to this problem- is that this assistance should probably come from outside the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.

Consideration interrupted.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

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

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

Question resolved in the negative.

Consideration resumed.

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– As I was saying, I believe that the solution to this problem lies in the setting up by the Parliament itself of some form of assistance. I think there should be draftsmen outside the Office of Parliamentary Counsel who would fulfil the task suggested by this amendment. I think that there is no more over-worked section of the Public Service than the Parliamentary Counsel. If there were a genuine case for asserting that Opposition members and private members had not been receiving an appropriate or adequate service from the Parliamentary Counsel, I would see some virtue in this amendment. I see no ground whatsoever for the suggestion that the already over-worked Parliamentary Counsel should be called on to give priority to private members and Opposition members as is suggested in the amendment. I believe that we should look to other solutions to this problem and, for that reason, the Government opposes the amendment.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-In his use of the expression ‘over-worked staff’, the Minister indicates the attitude of the Ministrythat is, that members of the Ministry can burden the staff an d occupy their time entirely. They are not Crown Counsel; they are Parliamentary Counsel. Our amendment seeks to ensure that a proper recognition of the responsibility to members other than members of the Ministry is prescribed by the Parliament so that back benchers will be entitled, not as an act of grace but as an act of parliamentary prescription and in priority over Ministers, to the services of at least two counsel when they have Bills or instruments to put before the Parliament.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I rise because of the remark made by Senator James McClelland and to put the record straight. Problems do arise. The Opposition, on Tuesday last after it had formulated its attitude to the Superannuation Bill, was greatly discomforted and prejudiced in the preparation of its amendments by the unavailability of Parliamentary

Counsel. A request was made to the AttorneyGeneral, who could not accede. The earliest opportunity Parliamentary Counsel was able to be made available was on the Wednesday morning on which day, I understand, the matter came on for debate in the other House. Problems do arise and I think the Minister would acknowledge it.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Wright’s amendment) be added.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator J.A.Mulvihill)

AYES: 27

NOES: 23

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2082

ADJOURNMENT

Family Law Bill- Questions upon Notice

Motion (by Senator Bishop) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I want to make one of my very rare appearances as a speaker on the adjournment debate and I can assure honourable senators that I will be very brief. I do not think that we ought to let this occasion go by without paying some tribute to a previous member of this Senate on this historical day when the Family Law Bill finally passed through this Parliament. I am referring to His Honour, Mr Justice Murphy, who sponsored this Bill as a senator in this Parliament. I think honourable senators will agree that when the dust of history settles on this Parliament one of the things for which it will be remembered is the enactment of what is probably the most enlightened matrimonial causes Bill in the world. I think that it is fitting that we should pay a tribute to the man who more than anybody else was responsible for the conception of this Bill, for bringing it to this Parliament, for drafting it and for seeing that it became law.

Before I sit down I would also like to pay a tribute to the work of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs which, in its deliberations helped to make this a better Bill than it was when it was introduced into the Parliament. I pay a tribute especially to the work of- if I have to single our anybodySenator Missen who I think interested himself more than anybody else on the Committee and indeed in the Senate in making this a better Bill. I woul like to think that senators on both sides of the chamber will remember Senator Murphy, as he then was, as the sponsor and advocate of this Bill and the man who made it possible.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– As an individual senator I join the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, Senator James McClelland, in those remarks. I thank him for the remarks he made about me. I think that we all take some pride in the fact that this Senate has put together a Bill which I think will be one of the momentous social Bills in the history of this Parliament. Mr Justice Murphy can no doubt take great credit and great pride in his contribution, by his persistence, by his preparedness to listen to representations and by his handling of the Bill. I say to the Minister that the members of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs greatly appreciate the fine work which he did. I am sure I speak on their behalf when I say that is a fine achievement in which I know he can take pride. So far as this Bill is concerned, I believe a lot still has to be done. It has to have good appointments. It has to have concentration on the State courts, which is an obligation on the Government. I do not propose to debate any of those issues. I merely say that I believe that this is an important day and I join with the Minister in congratulating all those who were associated with the making of this Bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– It gives me no pleasure to detract from congratulations on any occasion but I should be a traitor to my duty if I did not register my appreciation of this Bill in terms to indicate that in my opinion it is the most degraded and socially destructive measure that has ever been introduced in this area. From my point of view, Mr President, it leaves a perfect print of former Senator Murphy on the record of the legislature.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I wish to rise briefly on an entirely different matter. It relates to the answering of questions on notice. On 13 November I asked a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Tourism and Recreation. Since then I have asked a number of questions of that Minister and, as tourism is within my shadow ministerial responsibility, I have been anxious to obtain information. I have asked a number of questions and I cannot get any answers. I do not know whether it is as a result of the negligence or incompetence of the Minister or his Department but I do suggest to the Senate that it is an intolerable situation when 6 months or more go by without answers being given to relatively simple questions. If they were so complex that the Minister regarded them as unreasonable questions, surely to goodness he could bring that fact back to the Senate by saying that the cost of obtaining the information sought was beyond reason. But simply to ignore question after question- I think there are some 8 questions on notice which date back to 13 November and which have not been answeredI regard as either a result of incompetence, negligence or wilful refusal to answer questions. I give notice that if the questions are not answered we shall have to consider whether we will pass the Estimates for that Department next time they come around.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– I can appreciate the matter that Senator Rae has raised tonight because I can recall having a question in this House unanswered for over 20 months when I was in opposition. These frustrations occur and I think Ministers should answer questions as quickly as possible. But do not let anyone suggest that this situation is something new; it is not. It was terribly difficult to get replies from certain Ministers in the previous Government to correspondence and I have files to establish this. So Senator Rae’s experience is not unusual in this aspect; it seems to be ever thus.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– Just to flex my muscles as a former adjournment discussion exponent, I simply support what Senator Poyser has said. The classic illustration that I am sure Senator Rae will take consolation from is the occasion when a former Government senator, Senator Branson, led with his chin and asked if it was a fact that the Mount Isa dispute was going to cost the country $50m.

The question waited on the stocks for well over 12 months and, when the figure came out, it was tremendously less than than amount. If the question had been answered a bit earlier Queensland socialist senators like Senator Keeffe, would have had a hay day. But of course the answer was held back. I can assure Senator Rae that that is the way the game is played.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– As Senator Douglas McClelland, who represents the Minister responsible in the matters raised by Senator Rae, is not here tonight, I shall refer the matters to him in the hope that we can expedite an answer.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.19 p.m.

page 2084

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Cyclone Tracy: Darwin Communications (Question No. 480)

Senator Baume:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. 1 ) Following Cyclone Tracy, for what period of time was adequate communication cutoff between Darwin and the major cities of Australia.
  2. By what means was radio communication initially reestablished.
  3. How soon after the cyclone was a military communication system in operation in Darwin.
  4. Is the Minister satisfied with the ability of the defence forces to establish communication quickly and effectively under adverse field conditions such as existed under Cyclone Tracy, or has the Cyclone demonstrated inadequacy in material and capacity to respond, which will require urgent attention and rectification.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. RAAF communications were lost at 0137 local Darwin time on 25 December 1974. RAN transmissions ceased at 0222 on 25 December. The cyclone was then at its height and continued for five more hours. At 0900 an Army Radio circuit was established to Townsville and messages relayed to southern cities. The RAAF established voice radio contact with Richmond by means of air transportable equipment at 0910 on 26 December. At 1448 on 26 December the Post Office provided line telegraph circuits from RAAF Darwin and Post Office telex service was restored to the RAN at 1530 on 26 December.

Throughout the whole period an order wire (technical control link) on the Post Office’s microwave radio trunk route to Darwin remained in service and was used to relay emergency messages. Channels on the Post Office microwave system providing telephone, telegraph and telex services were brought back into service progressively in the afternoon of 26 December.

  1. Military radio communication with Darwin was initially re-established by the Army Signal Squadron based at Larrakeyah Barracks working to a Signal unit at Townsville on a training circuit devised for such contingencies. Field equipments were used. HMAS ‘Assail’ and HMAS ‘Advance’ also regained contact with HMAS ‘Harman’ (Canberra) between 1 145 and 1232 on 25 December 1974.

As mentioned in ( 1 ) communication via the Post Office’s microwave radio link was never entirely lost.

  1. Military communications were available from 0900 25 December 1974. This was 6 hours 38 minutes after normal military communications had failed.
  2. In general the defence forces demonstrated an adequate capability to establish communications under adverse conditions. There were and still are inadequacies in a few areas of military response. These were mostly known before Cyclone Tracy and remedial action was already in progress. Other aspects such as building design, construction techniques for antennae, emergency drills and procedures and communications equipment quantities and locations, are under study. The whole question of survival capability of Defence communications installations in Northern Australia is currently being studied.

Helicopters (Question No. 532)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. Did Bell Helicopter Australia in 1973 submit a detailed presentation to the Australian Government for the establishment of a fleet of 15 strategically positioned coastal surveillance helicopters on the Australian coastline.
  2. Was the submission accepted by the Government; if not, what were the reasons for its non-acceptance.
  3. Is there a current need for a fast mobile, flexible task force capable of investigating any points of Australia ‘s coastline within hours of an alert being given; if so, how is this need being met.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.

  2. (a) No.

    1. The Bell Helicopter Company submission addressed the non-military advantages inherent in the use of light observation helicopters as a supplement to existing law enforcement capability in the civil role.
  3. Question 3 does not follow as a corollary of the preceding questions and cannot be answered in that context.

The armed services provide the capabilities referred to.

Flights From Vietnam (Question No. 524)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. During the four weeks preceding 1 May 1975, how many Australians were evacuated from Saigon by RAAF aircraft.
  2. What was the capacity of these aeroplanes in numbers of people who could have been accommodated.
  3. How many Vietnamese citizens were carried from Saigon by RAAF aircraft during the 4 week period.
  4. How many Vietnamese have been allowed to enter Australia and take up residence since 1 April 1975.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. In the period 4-25 April 82 Australians were evacuated from Saigon by RAAF aircraft.
  2. The RAAF C1 30 Hercules which were used had a nominal seating capacity of 91. The seating capacity, however, depends on the amount of luggage and other cargo the planes are carrying. The space on these aircraft was fully utilised during the period in question both on the inward flight to Saigon when relief supplies were carried, and on the flight outward when passengers and necessary freight were loaded.
  3. In the period specified 286 children (the orphan flights) and 78 adult Vietnamese were carried by RAAF aircraft from Saigon. Much emotionalism was roused by unfounded claims that vast numbers of orphans were awaiting passages from Saigon. As explained in my Ministerial statement of 8 April 1975 (House of Representatives Hansard, p. 1256), the Australian Government was bound to require that orphans be approved for exit from Saigon by the South Vietnamese Government for adoption in Australia and that the States and Australia would guarantee that normal adoption procedures would be observed. The Australian Government would have provided RAAF transport to bring other Vietnamese who had been approved for entry to Australia if it had been possible for them to leave Saigon. It was virtually impossible, however, for a Vietnamese to secure a passport or an exit permit as the authorities in Saigon would not grant them, and people not holding valid documents were generally turned back at checkpoints manned by Vietnamese military or police on the routes to the airport. 1 stress that the Australian Government was prepared, and there was aircraft capacity, to carry Vietnamese who could pass through the control points to the airport. We could, if necessary, have sent in another RAAF aircraft. It was never a question of choosing between people and equipment, as has been suggested in some quarters. There was space for both.
  4. Apart from the orphans the Government has approved SI 1 Vietnamese for entry into Australia. Of these 141 have arrived on flights arranged by the Government. Figures are not yet available for others who have made their own way to this country.

Aboriginal Reserve

Senator Jessop on 27 May, 1975, asked the following question, without notice:

I direct my question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, ls it a fact that the Everard Park cattle station in South Australia which was purchased by the Government for use as an Aboriginal reserve, I think some time last year or the year before, is in a bad state of repair and that, due to a lack of maintenance, most of the bores on the property are now non-operative? Is it also a fact that as a result 400 cattle have died? Can the Minister tell me the present condition of the bores? How many cattle remain on the station? How many Aborigines are employed there? If it is correct that the bores are out of action, what is the Government doing to rectify the situation?

Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

– The answer to Senator Jessop ‘s question is as follows:

The Manager of Everard Park was dismissed in November 1974 and a new Manager, Mr Bob MacLelland did not take office until 31 December 1974. 1 believe the station did experience trouble with their bores from November 1974 through to January 1975. During the period from the previous Manager’s dismissal to the appointment of Mr MacLelland, no maintenance was carried out. 1 might add that in addition, a portion of Everard Park was burnt out in bush fires, thus cattle was forced to move from the burnt out area and caused extreme loading on other bores. I am assured the situation has now been rectified. At present 23 out of the existing 25 bores are operative; the two remaining bores being repaired at present. Everard Park has never carried more than approximately 3300 head of cattle, and 12 only died due to fire and lack of water during the course of the abovementioned bush fires. At present there are 3031 head of cattle on the Station. This figure is based on a stock count in June 1974 and allows for the 12 deaths mentioned above, a 5 per cent loss due to natural causes (which is the average figure in such situations), 62 1 cattle sold and 400 calves; thus the June 1974 mustering figure was 3317. Ten Aboriginals are presently employed at Everard Park.

Aid to Cambodia

Senator Willesee:
ALP

-On 27 February 1975 Senator Drake-Brockman asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate a question, without notice, concerning aid to Cambodia. The following further information is provided in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Australian Government is ready to assist with the airlift of suplies to Phnom Penh. Two RAAF Hercules aircraft with U.N. markings are carrying U.N. relief supplies to destinations requested by UNHCR. The new Government of Cambodia (GRUNK.) has not yet requested any country or the UN to provide any form of humanitarian assistance to Phnom Penh. Australia stands ready to assist, if such a request is made.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 29 May 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1975/19750529_senate_29_s64/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant