Senate
4 June 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 2167

PETITIONS

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 164 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 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 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,

b) 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.

Petition received and read.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 10 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.

Petition received.

Senator JESSOP:

– I ask that leave be given to attach to the petition documents signed by 5370 citizens of Australia objecting to the establishment of an Australian Government insurance corporation.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 602 citizens of Australia:

The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Nationalise the Insurance Industry.

Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.

Add to the taxpayers burden.

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 BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 23 citizens of Australia:

The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Shrink the flow of funds to the private sector.

Add to the taxpayers burden.

Trade unfairly.

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.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 138 citizens of Australia:

The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will: 1 , Shrink the flow of funds to the private sector. 2, Add to the taxpayer’s burden. 3, Trade unfairly.

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:

– I present the following petition from 6 citizens of Australia:

The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

. Lead to the nationalization of the Insurance Industry.

Divert a substantial flow of funds from the private to the public sector.

Depress the private sector still further and create unemployment both within the Insurance Industry and elsewhere.

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.

Superannuation Bill

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 257 citizens of Australia:

The humble Petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia, all being of or above the age of 18 years, respectfully showeth:

That the expressed intent of the Opposition Parties to amend the Superannuation Bill 1975 is causing and will cause widespread distress, inconvenience, confusion and loss of equitable living standard for those persons dependent on the proposed Bill for their rightful standard of living and welfare.

That whilst it is recognised that there is no certainty that all the benefits or indeed any of the benefits at all will immediately be made available to other sectors of the working community; past experience has shown that benefits given to the public sector have been taken up and spread throughout the private sector.

That the proposal to amend the retiring age provision to age 65 only is a retrograde provision certain to be detrimental to the health and general welfare of persons affected by the Bill; fails to perceive the accrued benefits to the Community at large, the Government and the Public Service by the responsible retirement of those persons, recognising that their best years have been spent in service of the community and that they should have the opportunity of moving out of the service to the wider community for leisure and or other meaningful occupations.

That the proposal to eliminate the up to 5 per cent increment in pension for over 30 years service fails to appreciate or recognise those benefits accrued to the whole community, the Government and the Public Service by the loyal, expert and hardworking efforts of those who commit themselves to a working lifetime of career public service.

That the proposal to leave the widows pension at 62 Vi per cent in lieu of the proposed 67 per cent of those amounts due to their respective contributor, discriminates against people who are unable to protect and care for themselves as effectively as those dependants fortunate enough to have the support of their spouse in the latter years of their life.

That the proposal to restrict the pension updating by Consumer Price Index to be applicable to the Government share of the pension only and limited to 5 per cent per annum maximum fails to recognise the detrimental effect and distress caused to people on fixed incomes who are fully subjected to the rigors and problems associated with inflation.

That the Superannuation Bill 1975 offers benefits which are eminently satisfactory, wherein the provisions acknowledge the importance of the quality, dedication and real value of the work of Australian Public Servants, mirrors community requirements, secures justice for Australian Public Servants and their dependants and establishes a realistic standard of conditions suited to widespread adoption for all other sectors of the Australian Working Community at an early date.

That note be taken that the provisions objected to by the Opposition are already enjoyed by State Government Employees under non-Labor Governments.

Your petitioners therefore pray: that the Senate will endorse and support the enactment of the Superannuation Bill 1975 without amendment in the interest of the loyal and hardworking members of the Australian Public Service.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

The Clerk:

– The following petitions have been lodged for presentation:

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 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 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.
  8. That as employees and agents of existing insurance offices your petitioners fear for their jobs and their future prospects if the Parliament proceeds with the legislation.

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Wood, Senator Lawrie, Senator Maunsell and Senator Bunton.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To 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 Corporation.
  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 Corporation (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 43 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Corporation would only be harmful at this time.

  6. That the insurance industry is already coping 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 $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated ) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Corporation.

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

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Nationalise the Insurance Industry.
  2. Increase Bureaucracy at a time when Government spending should be curtailed.
  3. Shrink the flow of funds to the private sector.

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 Sir Magnus Cormack.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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. by Senator Lawrie and Senator Sheil.

Petitions received.

Superannuation Bill

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia, all being of or above the age of 1 8 years, respectfully showeth:

That the expressed intent of the Opposition Parties to amend the Superannuation Bill 1975 is causing and will cause widespread distress, inconvenience, confusion and loss of equitable living standard for those persons dependent on the proposed Bill for their rightful standard of living and welfare.

That whilst it is recognised that there is no certainty that all the benefits or indeed any of the benefits at all will immediately be made available to other sectors of the working community; past experience has shown that benefits given to the public sector have been taken up and spread throughout the private sector.

That the proposal to amend the retiring age provisions to revert to age 65 only is a retrograde provision certain to be detrimental to the health and general welfare of persons affected by the Bill; fails to perceive the accrued benefits to the Community at large, the Government and the Public Service by the responsible retirement of those persons, recognising that their best years have been spent in service of the community and that they should have the opportunity of moving out of the service to the wider community for leisure and or other meaningful occupations.

That the proposal to eliminate the up to 5 per cent increment in pension for over 30 years service fails to appreciate or recognise those benefits accrued to the whole Community, the Government and the Public Service by the loyal, expert and hardworking efforts of those who commit themselves to a working lifetime of career public service.

That the proposal to leave the widows pension at 62½ per cent in lieu of the proposed 67 per cent of those amounts due to their respective contributor, discriminates against people who are unable to protect and care for themselves as effectively as those dependants fortunate enough to have the support of their spouse in the latter years of their life.

That the proposal to restrict the pension updating by Consumer Price Index to be applicable to the Government share of the pension only and limited to 5 per cent per annum maximum fails to recognise the detrimental effect and distress caused to people on fixed incomes who are fully subjected to the rigors and problems associated with inflation.

That the Superannuation Bill 1975 offers benefits which are eminently satisfactory, wherein the provisions acknowledge the importance of the quality , dedication and real value of the work of Australian Public Servants, mirrors community requirements, secures justice for Australian Public Servants and their dependants and establishes a realistic standard of conditions suited to widespread adoption for all other sectors of the Australian Working Community at an early date.

That note be taken that the provisions objected to by the Opposition are already enjoyed by State Government Employees under non-Labor Governments.

Your petitioners therefore pray: that the Senate will endorse and support the enactment of the Superannuation Bill 1975 without amendment in the interests of the loyal and hardworking members of the Australian Public Service.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Drake-Brockman (2 petitions), Senator Bunton and Senator Missen.

Petitions received.

Family Law Bill

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

That the Family Law Bill 1974 should be amended to include Matrimonial Fault.

That the Family Law Bill 1974 should provide for a woman to remain at home in the role of wife and mother after divorce if she chooses to do so.

Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament so amend the Family Law Bill.

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

Petition received.

page 2170

NOTICE OF MOTION

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

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

That the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (No. 2) 1975, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 9 of 1 975 and made under the Seat of Government ( Administration) Act 1 9 1 0- 1 973, be disallowed.

page 2170

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2170

QUESTION

PRIMARY PRODUCTION

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as the representative in this chamber of the Prime Minister. I ask: Is it a fact that in 1 972 the Prime Minister promised that the Labor Government would ensure the economic viability of primary industry with emphasis on financial stability, security and confidence in the future? As 3 years have passed without that goal being attained, has the promise been ignored or forgotten or is the Government preparing to give primary industry financial stability, security and confidence in the next Budget year?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · TASMANIA · ALP

– In the main the promises made by the Prime Minister have been fulfilled. In fact, at no time in the history of Australian agriculture has there ever been complete stability, as the honourable senator would be fully aware. The suggestion that the present Government has not been mindful of the problems of the agricultural sector just does not stand up to investigation. At this present time, 1974-75, the total amount of financial assistance out to the agricultural sector in Australia is just in excess of $800m. In the last year of the previous Government the amount of financial assistance out to the agricultural sector was just over $300m. It is quite absurd to suggest that this Government has not been prepared to assist the agricultural sector where assistance has been necessary. Assistance has been given not only in the wool industry but also in the beef industry and in other industries in relation to which I do not think it is appropriate for me to go into detail at this time. Suffice to say -

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– Are you counting loans?

Senator WRIEDT:

– Of course I am counting loans, because it has been said to me on many occasions by the primary industry organisations that they are quite happy to accept loans which they will repay when their industries recover from the particular difficulties in which they find themselves at any particular time. That, I believe, is a sensible approach which they have accepted in co-operation with this Government. The record shows that we have been prepared to provide the finance when it was necessary. No government could have done more to expand the marketing operations of the various statutory authorities which have functioned under this Government and indeed to expand the markets overseas. It would be a very difficult argument to sustain, if Senator Drake-Brockman would like to pursue it at a later date, that the fortunes of agriculture in this country today are any worse than they were even 10 years ago. In fact, gross farm income today is higher than it has ever been before. Certainly costs are higher. We recognise that. At the same time it should be considered that there was a 120 per cent increase in net farm incomes in Australia in the first 2 years of a Labor government. I think that answers the question.

page 2171

QUESTION

RABIES

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. By way of preface I refer to an extremely comprehensive answer the Minister gave on the policy of the Australian Government to combat rabies. It is in that context that I now put to him an episode that occurred in Perth recently when Singapore Airlines attempted to bring into Australia an unvaccinated dog. I simply ask whether the Minister will see that the Department of Health and the Department of Foreign Affairs ensure that in future false information is not given overseas the effect of which could result in the decimation of the Australian dog population if rabies is not controlled.

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

– I was disturbed when I read in this morning’s ‘Australian’ a report of a prosecution in the magistrate’s court in Perth of Singapore Airlines for unlawfully bringing a dog into Australia. I have obtained some information about this matter. Apparently the dog was the property of a Perth couple who had left Australia for Italy in December last year and who had taken with them their 10 year old dog. The husband had taken up employment in Italy but apparently decided to return from this employment to Australia. The couple brought the dog with them. When they reached Perth they were informed that the dog did not satisfy the quarantine arrangements, that Italy was not a rabies-free country. After some rather distressing confrontations at Perth airport, the dog was destroyed.

I think no-one would argue that our quarantine laws should be relaxed, particularly in view of the danger of rabies which apparently has recently become much greater in western Europe. At the same time there does seem to have been an appalling breakdown somewhere in the administration of government departments insofar as there appears to be no doubt whatsoever that these people were told by officials in the Australian Consulate in Milan that they would be able to take the dog into Australia because it had been kept free from contact with other animals. It must have been very distressing for those people to have arrived in the middle of the night and to have found this awaiting them. I do not know who was responsible for giving them this incorrect information. I do not know whether the Department of Health misinformed the Department of Foreign Affairs or whether the Department of Foreign Affairs misinformed somebody else. Clearly, somebody has blundered on this matter, unless the couple involved are telling blatant lies- and I do not think they are, on the evidence I have. I intend to ask the Minister for Health to make inquiries as to who was responsible for all this and, as far as one can, to see that such an episode does not take place in the future.

page 2171

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. I refer him to the misleading advertisement headed: ‘Pensioners will get a better deal with Medibank’ currently appearing at the cost of the Australian taxpayer in the nation’s newspapers. Is it not a fact that under the existing scheme developed by Liberal-Country Party governments pensioners do no pay one cent for general practitioner consultations either at home or in the surgery? Is it not a fact that under the new Medibank scheme the pensioner medical scheme finishes altogether and pensioners cannot be guaranteed treatment by the general practitioner without cost? Is it not quite obvious that the many pensioners who rely upon general practitioner consultations will have to make payments where previously they did not? Why does the Government not make that perfectly clear to the Australian people?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-Yesterday Senator Missen, I think, was complaining that not enough information was being given about -

Senator Missen:

– Not enough accurate information.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I do not think the word ‘accurate’ was used. I thought the honourable senator said ‘ not enough information ‘.

Senator Missen:

– I said ‘not enough accurate information’.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I see. I would have thought that information meant accurate information. It is misinformation if it is not accurate, I would have thought. (Opposition senators interjecting)-

Senator WHEELDON:

– Honourable senators opposite do not seem to like answers to these questions. Senator Greenwood and his friends seem to have a habit of asking questions and then not liking it when they are answered.

Senator Greenwood - I was not interjecting

Senator WHEELDON:

-Senator Greenwood says that for once he was not the Liberal senator making the noise. I must confess that this is something of a red letter day.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! This is question time, not a debate. The Minister should answer the question.

Senator WHEELDON:

-We are giving information about Medibank and in fact it is correct information that is being given. The specialist medical services are now available to pensioners in a way in which they were not available under the previous Government and under the previous medical scheme, lt is a substantial advance for all pensioners that the services are now available to them in the same way as they are available to all residents of this country and are not available on the basis on which they were available in the past, with the pensioner medical service operating like a sort of portable Dickensian poorhouse. This is something which the Australian Labor Party has changed since we became the Government. The position of the pensioners is different, and we are telling the pensioners how the position is different.

Senator GREENWOOD:

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

Minister representing the Minister for Social Security: Does the Government guarantee to pensioners who have general practitioner consultations treatment without cost to the pensioners as they have at the moment?

Senator Georges:

– It depends on the doctors’ attitude, and you know it well enough.

Senator WHEELDON:

-Obviously, as Senator Georges has said, this depends on the attitude the respective medical practitioners take to Medibank. If they engage in bulk billing, obviously the pensioners will get this free service.

Senator Greenwood:

– And if they do not?

Senator WHEELDON:

– If the doctors do not engage in bulk billing the pensioners will not get the free service; but this is the responsibility of the Australian Medical Association and the General Practitioners Society, not of the Australian Government.

page 2172

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT: COURIER SERVICES

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I preface my question to the Postmaster-General by saying that some time ago I asked him a question regarding the introduction of courier services and the possible date of commencement. Is the Minister in a position to confirm the possible dates of commencement and the cities in which the services will be introduced?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– There have been some problems which I have mentioned before. In the first place work had to be commenced on radio equipment for the vans. That work is not completed yet, but it is in progress. Also there have been some industrial issues which have occasioned talks between the unions involved and the Department. I refer to the issuing of licences, the garaging of the cars and other related matters. The talks have proceeded satisfactorily. It is now anticipated that the service will operate early in October and in the 3 cities I have mentioned before. We do not expect any hitch at all in the discussions which I have mentioned with the unions.

page 2172

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY

Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– The Minister for Manufacturing Industry will be well aware of concern in the industry that motor car sales could slump from 1 May following the change in the sales tax reduction introduced in January to try to keep up sales in the industry. While it is as yet very early in June, can the Minister say whether he has any indication from the May sales picture whether or not we are looking at a continuation of the problem that concerned us all in January?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My Department is in regular contact with the manufacturers in Australia on all aspects of problems of the motor car industry. We do not have the May figures as yet: I expect to have them within the next few days. There is no doubt that there will be a slump and that there is cause for concern about sales in the motor car industry. Likewise, there is no doubt that the measures taken by the Government in respect of a remission of sales tax had the effect of not only clearing accumulated stocks but also probably persuading people into forward buying; in other words people who ordinarily would have postponed the purchase of a car until August or September of this year bought it in February or March because of the favourable price resulting from the Government’s remission of sales tax. It would be inevitable in any circumstances, even in a situation of economic buoyance, which of course we do not enjoy at the moment- I note the assent of Senator Wright to that proposition, showing that he is on the ball about everything that is happening in our society- that measures such as those the Government took would have had the effect of persuading people to buy early rather than late, and that would have produced a downturn at the present time. The extent of the downturn is not known to me, but when I have the figures I will make them available to the Senate.

page 2173

QUESTION

PRIORITY PAID MAILS

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Postmaster-General and relates to the operation of the Postmaster-General ‘s Department’s priority paid mail service, which at present operates on an interstate basis. Will the Minister give consideration to extending the priority paid service to centres within a State?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– At present, of course, the service applies mainly between capital cities in the various States, but it has been decided that some trials should be carried out to ascertain to what extent the service might be useful and efficient within the States. I am told that it has been decided that the trials will start some time this month and will continue for 6 months. It is expected that such a service can apply favourably within the States.

page 2173

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOAN

Senator MISSEN:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Australian Government recently negotiated a loan from sources in the United States of

America under which $100m is to be borrowed? Is it proposed that $90m of that $100m will be paid to the Australian Industry Development Corporation? If so, for what purposes and under what conditions is the sum of $90m to be used or applied by the AIDC?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-The Australian Government is in the course of negotiating a loan on the New York market for the sum of $ 100m, and a statement to that effect was made by the Acting Treasurer last week. It has not as yet been finalised and it is necessary, of course, to go through certain procedures because the registration statement, as far as I know, is in the process of being lodged at present. It is necessary under the laws of the Securities and Exchange Commission in New York that there be a full and total disclosure of any material fact involving an application for a loan.

I understand that negotiations for the loan will be entered into in the second week of June- that is next week- and proceeds from the loan should be available before the end of this month. As to the purposes for which the loan will be used, I cannot state any specific amounts but I understand that the 3 principal areas will be payments to the States, payments to the Australian Industry Development Corporation, which was mentioned in the question, and payments to the Australian Shipping Commission. The honourable senator may remember that when the Australian Shipping Commission Bill was passed by the Senate recently reference was made to loans which would be raised on the New York market, and I think they constitute the bulk of the amount. I could not say how much the AIDC proportion would be, but it is extremely unlikely that it would be as much as $90m.

page 2173

QUESTION

DAIRY ADJUSTMENT SCHEME

Senator GEORGES:

-I ask a question of the Minister for Agriculture. In view of the declining number of dairy farmers in Queensland in recent years, can the Minister say what has been done and what success has been achieved by the new dairy adjustment scheme to arrest this trend?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– For many years there has been a very serious decline in the number of dairy farmers in Queensland. I must be truthful and admit that even under this Government that trend has not been arrested at this stage. In fact, the numerical rate of decline in the industry has been maintained. The whole purpose of the new scheme is to stop that trend and make it possible for dairy farmers who could not continue to make the adjustments that were necessary in the transfer, especially into the whole milk area, to do so. That is being done, of course, through the provision of interest free loans. That is, the Federal Government provides interest free loans to the States, but the States make a service charge of approximately three per cent. So in fact the producer is paying a small interest charge, but that is imposed by the State governments.

It is probably premature at this stage to expect to see the effects of the scheme, as it has been operating for only a matter of months, but the number of applications that have come in from Queensland have been of a matter of some concern to me. That being the State with probably the biggest problems in the dairy industry, I should have thought there would have been a greater response from Queensland than from some other States. Victoria, I think, has responded with greater expedition than has been the case in Queensland. Possibly that is due to local factors in the administration of the State agricultural departments; I really do not know. I should say that if the Queensland dairy farmer wants to receive the benefits which are available to him, it might well be that the State authorities in Queensland will need to sharpen up their tactics a little to ensure that they get a commensurate share of the moneys that are available.

page 2174

QUESTION

ROSNY CHILDREN’S CHOIR

Senator BESSELL:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Tourism and Recreation and relates to the Tasmanian Rosny Children’s Choir, which is currently on a visit to China. Is it a fact that one of the conditions required was that the children were to wear red uniforms? Is it also a fact that they were requested to delete from their repertoire any songs or hymns that made any reference to the Christian religion?

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

– 1 know nothing about any demands being made that uniforms worn by the Rosny Choir in China should be red. However, I did see a report that the person in charge of the choir said she thought its distinctive uniforms would be well received in China. As to whether they were asked to delete any hymns from their repertoire, that is beyond me. I think probably I would have to ask the Chinese Ambassador whether this was so.

page 2174

QUESTION

SUEZ CANAL

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the Senate whether the Government has received an invitation from the Egyptian Government to participate in ceremonies on 5 June 1975 to celebrate the re-opening of the Suez Canal? Is the Government to be represented at the ceremonies? What is the Government’s reaction to the reopening of the canal?

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

-President Sadat will reopen the Suez Canal on 5 June in a formal ceremony to be attended by heads of state, heads of government and other representatives. The Australian Government’s representative at the opening ceremony will be the chairman of the Australian Shipping Commission, Mr N. G. Jenner. The Prime Minister has sent a message applauding President Sadat’s decision to reopen the Canal. President Sadat has declared that the Canal will be available to all international shipping except vessels flying the Israeli flag. There remains some ambiguity as to whether nonIsraeli vessels carrying Israeli cargoes will be permitted to use the Canal.

The Australian Government regards the decision as a positive move towards peace in the Middle East and as an act of consideration for countries disadvantaged by the Canal’s long closure. The Government also would hope that in accordance with the principle of freedom of international trade and as another step towards peace and harmony in the Middle East the Egyptian Government also before long will open the Canal to Israeli ships and cargoes. The Government also notes that news reports of 3 June indicate that Israel has decided to withdraw some troops and equipment from the Sinai, lt is hoped that this move also will result in reduced tension in the area. There have been some reports alsomerely newspaper reports at the moment- of Syrian troops being withdrawn from the Golan Heights.

page 2174

QUESTION

BEEF FLOOR PRICE SCHEME

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

-Did the Minister for Agriculture suggest that the Queensland Government should implement a floor price scheme for the beef industry in that State? If so, will he give me details now or before the Senate rises of his plan for such a scheme so that interested people can study it? Does the Minister agree that Queensland presents special difficulties in that beef is a perishable commodity and is costly to store, the main beef growing properties are located in pastoral areas which are subject to prolonged droughts, and a large part of the production has to be exported?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I would have thought that if the Queensland Government was really dinkum about the beef industry, which is an important part of its economy, it might have emulated the efforts of Western Australia and Tasmania. The reason I mentioned what I did at a meeting in Queensland a fortnight ago was to put squarely to the Queensland Government the question of why does it not do the same as Western Australia and Tasmania have done if it really believes that the beef industry needs the assistance that it claims it does. Of course beef is a perishable product, but that is not the point in the operation of a floor price scheme which is something quite distinct from a stabilisation scheme. I think Senator Maunsell is fully aware of that. I challenged the Queensland Government to declare itself. It is not for me to say what ought to be done in the way of a floor price scheme. That constitutional right rests with the State governments, not with the Federal Government. If Western Australia and Tasmania can do these things when the beef industry is of less importance to them than it is to Queensland, I suggest that Mr Bjelke-Petersen is the man who ought to answer the honourable senator’s question.

page 2175

QUESTION

HOSPITALS CONTRIBUTION FUND

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. I refer to the fact that on 1 July, a month from Sunday, the national health scheme will come into operation. Is the Minister aware that the New South Wales Hospital Contribution Fund which incorporates the Medical Benefit Fund has circularised its members advising them not to drop their medical membership and asking them for large fees to continue their membership of that organisation? Has the Minister seen the pamphlet which is misleading to contributors, which can be described only as a rip off of money for the private insurance funds, and which ignores the fact that the Government’s national health scheme will be operative from 1 July this year and that it covers the whole of the Australian population? Will the Government consider publicly advising contributors not to continue their total membership of the doctors’ controlled private insurance funds?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I do not think it would be the responsibility of the Government to advise people not to continue membership of funds or, for that matter, not to take out insurance policies if they wished to do so. I think the responsibility of the Government is to provide services and to let people know what those services are. I do not think we have the right or the authority to engage in advertising which tells people not to take out policies or to join other funds. The Hospital Contributions Fund in New South Wales is endeavouring to maintain itself in business by asking contributors to continue paying at the same rate as they were in the past. It has offered a number of additional services which it did not make available in the past such as optometrical services, physiotherapy and so on. The HCF advertisement also refers to the fact that, because the Australian Government and the New South Wales Government have not yet reached agreement on the hospital aspects of the new medical and hospital benefits scheme, it may well be necessary for some time in the future for people in New South Wales to have some separate hospital insurance cover other than that which is available under Medibank in those States in which the State governments have agreed with the Australian Government.

I do not think there is any doubt that the people of New South Wales and of other States in which there has not been agreement between the Australian Government and the relevant State government are prejudiced as compared with other Australians because the full range of benefits available under Medibank cannot be obtained by people living in those States. However, I believe that that is the responsibility of the governments. If the Hospital Contributions Fund in New South Wales or any other fund wishes to offer additional services, I do not know that it is any responsibility of mine or of the Government’s to say that the funds should not make those offers, provided people understand what is being made available to them by the Australian Government’s health service. I think that is the end of our responsibility. People ought to be able to make up their own minds whether they want to contribute to the HCF.

page 2175

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. It follows the Minister’s answer to Senator Greenwood in which he confirmed that under Medibank general practitioner consultations will no longer be free of cost to pensioners. I ask: Why has this disadvantage not been pointed out clearly to pensioners? Why does the Minister blame the Australian Medical Association for this disadvantage? Does the Government expect general practitioners to charge all the Government’s pensioners concessional fees? Concessional fees to pensioners were considered downgrading and were one of the reasons for bringing in Medibank.

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I find it rather strange that Senator Sheil, who does not like social services and who speaks about excessive government expenditure, apparently is now complaining that the Australian Government is not spending enough on pensioner medical services and on Medibank.

Senator Greenwood:

– Stop the personal abuse and answer the question.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I will answer the question. I have not confirmed that free medical services will not be available to pensioners. I have said that they will be available, provided the general practitioner whom the pensioners attend engages in bulk billing. Specialist medical services which at present are not available, except in limited circumstances, will be available to pensioners, as they will be available to all Australian citizens. I am not quite sure what point Senator Sheil is trying to make. I am not suggesting, nor is the Government suggesting, that any concessional rate should be charged for pensioners or for anybody else. We believe that there should be a medical service, which is largely free, for the whole of the Australian people. It would be free if the relevant doctor agreed to bulk bill. These matters can be dealt with by the pensioners checking with their medical practitioner as to whether he proposes to bulk bill them or to charge them the additional 15 per cent.

page 2176

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FILM PRODUCTIONS

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

-Has the attention of the Minister for the Media been drawn to an article which appeared in today’s issue of the ‘Age’ and which strongly implies that he, personally, intervened to prevent the filming of Frank Hardy’s book ‘ The Outcasts of Foolgarah “? Is this true?

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

– I have seen the article and, frankly, I am absolutely amazed that a so-called responsible newspaper like the ‘Age’ can tolerate this sort of journalism without having the journalist check the authenticity or accuracy of the account. Apparently the journalist has reported details of hearsay upon hearsay conversations, as it were, and then based his conclusions or inferences on that series of conversations. I do not know of the conversation that my then special adviser, Mr Martin, might have had with Mr Hardy, but Mr Martin often told me that Mr Hardy, who is the author of ‘The Outcasts of Foolgarah’, rang him at home frequently at weekends.

Turning to the newspaper article, I cannot remember ever having lunch with Sir Norman Rydge and his son, as is alleged in the article. However, I have had lunch with Mr Mormon, the managing-director of Greater Union Theatres. Indeed, the purpose of my having lunch with Mr Mormon on one occasion was specifically to get Greater Union Theatres interested in looking at the question of making a film of Hardy’s book ‘The Outcasts of Foolgarah’. I can assure the honourable senator that far from trying to put a stop to the proposal I did my utmost to try to persuade Greater Union Theatres to get the film produced in Australia.

page 2176

QUESTION

CAPE BARREN ISLAND

Senator BAUME:

– Has the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs become aware of newspaper reports which have appeared in the Launceston Press relating to the possible misapplication of moneys allocated for the construction of a dam and for other projects for the benefit of the local community of Cape Barren Island? Has the Minister checked the accuracy of these newspaper reports, and is he in a position to give assurances that neither his Department nor any department of the Tasmanian Government has wasted or misapplied Aboriginal grant money in the northeast of Tasmania?

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

– I have not seen the newspaper reports which refer to the water supply in that area. I believe that before my time as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and before this Government came into office, there was a mistake in the allocation of money in that a dam was built on private property and the owner of that property had the right to close it up. There was some story about this mix-up in the area but there was no misappropriation of money. I can get the details which came to my notice some considerable time ago and give them to the honourable senator if he so desires.

page 2176

QUESTION

BEEF INDUSTRY

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for Agriculture seen reports that a group of New South Wales graziers want the Government to commence a massive meat canning and stockpiling operation as a way of overcoming the current problems facing the beef industry? Can the Minister say whether an organisation representing these graziers has approached him about this proposition and has he been able to evaluate the benefits or otherwise of such a venture?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-The suggestion is not new. It has been made on many occasions during the past 12 or 18 months. The main obstacle to it is the very low level of demand for canned meat both in Australia and overseas. Our export of the product is minimal. Our total production of canned meat is only about 56 000 tonnes a year as against a total meat export figure of about 750 000 tonnes a year. Not only that, the process is very expensive. At the present time canning costs are between $700 and $800 a tonne. That is without the cost of the meat itself. That is just the manufacturing cost. Therefore that cost makes canned meat a prohibitively expensive item on the world markets and even in Australia. The proposition has been well looked at over 12 months or more and it does not appear to be a reasonable or economic way of assisting the industry. The measures which are being taken by the Government to assist producers and to maintain as much as we possibly can the flow of meat to our overseas markets, and also of course to the domestic market as fresh meat, is a much more effective way of helping the industry.

page 2177

QUESTION

STATE ELECTRICITY AUTHORITIES: INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Postmaster-General. I ask: Is it a fact that electricity authorities in the various States have maintained their own telecommunications installations and services for their own internal purposes? Is the establishment of the new Telecommunications Commission likely to have any effect on that policy which the PostmasterGeneral ‘s Department has permitted the authorities to pursue in the past? Will the Postmaster-General assure the Senate that the procedures that have been adopted by the State electricity authorities in the past will be permitted to continue?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

- Senator Durack raised this question with me last night and it is related to the discussion we had concerning the various railway systems which have similar internal communications systems which are not to be interfered with. I should like to advise that it has always been the view of the Post Office that control and supervisory circuits used by the electricity supply authorities have been subject to sections 80 and 8 1 of the Post and Telegraph Act, which is now superseded. The authorities have not always accepted this view. However, in practice satisfactory working arrangements have been developed between the Department and the authorities and licences have been issued in various circumstances under the sections that I have mentioned. The Postal and Telecommunications Commissions (Transitional Provisions) Bill which has been introduced includes a definition of telecommunications services which clarifies the situation. In practice no change of working arrangements will result. Clause 10 of that Bill preserves in force an authority under section 81 of the old Post and Telegraph Act immediately before the commencing date. The effect of this is to preserve the right of those authorities to maintain the existing control of the services which have been built in their networks.

page 2177

QUESTION

DARWIN: INSURANCE POLICIES

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation aware of a reluctance on the part of insurance companies in Darwin to meet their contractual obligations towards policy holders? Will the Government’s efforts to compensate people in Darwin for their uninsured losses help the policy holders who have lost their legal entitlements?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I have received information that at least one insurance company which provided policies for people in Darwin has been refusing to meet the full extent of what could well appear to be its contractual obligations under its home insurance policies. In the policies of one company there is a provision which reads as follows:

Loss of rent in the event of the building being so damaged by any of the defined events as to become untenantable. The sum for which the Company shall be liable shall be proportionate to the time reasonably necessary for reinstatement not exceeding 1 2 months.

It now emerges that this company is offering people in Darwin who hold policies with that company 20 weeks rent and in some cases 26 weeks or 6 months rent. In the letters which the company is writing to its policy holders it is explaining that it is not paying the full 12 months rent which it said it would pay because:

Based on pre-cyclone construction times in Darwin our determination of the rent period at 20 weeks is most reasonable . . . (The) insurers have done nothing to delay construction in Darwin and as such they cannot be held responsible for delays enforced by Government.

I do not know what sense one can make out of that. I do not know how anyone could suggest that the insurers would in some way engage in the rebuilding or why the company is saying that the Government is responsible for the delays. Even if it were, I do not know how that relieves the company of its responsibility. Apparently the company is arguing that it would have been possible for Darwin to have been completely rebuilt in 20 weeks and because it has not been it is interpreting its policies as meaning that it is not liable for the 12 months rent for which its policies state that it is liable.

Insofar as the Government’s activities are concerned, we have undertaken- an Act has been passed to this effect- to pay half the uninsured value within a certain range to those people who have lost property, including their homes, in Darwin. We are providing that assistance to them. Nonetheless the situation is rather serious in Darwin with regard to the people who were carrying policies with this company because a number of them have already accepted such offers in full and final settlement of their claims. I can only suggest to the people who hold householder or home owner policies in Darwin that they check very carefully their policies and the offers being made to them by their insurers before they sign any releases from further liability under their policies.

page 2178

QUESTION

DIPLOMATIC SERVICE

Senator JESSOP:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the Press reports relating to Mr Barnard’s recent diplomatic appointment, which state that Mr Barnard will be the Australian Ambassador to Sweden and Finland and that Mr Petherbridge has been the Ambassador to Sweden, Finland and Norway. Does that mean that a new diplomatic post has been created for Mr Barnard? Will Mr Petherbridge remain as the Ambassador to Norway? If not, what will be the position with respect to Australia’s representation in that country?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– No new post is being created for Mr Barnard. I think that answers the question.

Senator Jessop:

– What about Norway? I asked the Minister about Norway.

Senator WILLESEE:

-There is no alteration in the representation in Norway.

page 2178

QUESTION

COLOUR TELEVISION

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for the Media. I ask: Is it true that the residents of Townsville and Rockhampton face a certain delay in the provision of colour television by the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s studios in those centres? Is there any prospect of that delay being reduced? If so, when can those cities expect to enjoy colour television on the national television service?

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

-The matter of the likely date of the conversion to colour was taken up with the Australian Broadcasting Commission by the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. The 6-year conversion plan approved by the Treasury provided for finance to be made available in the 1976-77 financial year for the conversion of those studios. That would have resulted in the local generation of colour programs in both Townsville and Rockhampton starting some time in 1 978. However, last year we reviewed the arrangements and it was decided to delay the conversion of presentation studios elsewhere.

That means that an earlier provision of colour equipment to Rockhampton and Townsville will be now possible. The target date for those centres to be able to produce and project colour on a local basis is now April 1 976.

page 2178

QUESTION

ROYAL FLYING DOCTOR SERVICE

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. The Minister will recall that last week I asked him a question concerning the serious financial effect that the new aviation charges will have on the Royal Flying Doctor Service and that he undertook to obtain a reply to my question. I now ask the Minister: Has he any information to give to me?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

- Mr Charles Jones has provided me with a reply to the honourable senator’s question. It states that the activities in which the Royal Flying Doctor Service aircraft are engaged fall within the aerial work category for the purposes of the Air Navigation Charges Act. However, some years ago it was decided to levy charges on the RFDS aircraft at the private rate. For example, this means that under the present scale of charges the Royal Flying Doctor Service Beechcraft 70 aircraft is assessed at an annual charge of $968 instead of $1,937, a reduction of 50 per cent. In view of the Government’s transport policy that the cost of providing transport services should be recovered from the users and other beneficiaries, it would not be appropriate for the Department of Transport to grant a complete exemption from air navigation charges for this aircraft. The further assistance that the honourable senator is seeking on behalf of the Royal Flying Doctor Service is, I believe, a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Health, to consider. I shall pass the honourable senator’s inquiry on to the Minister for his comments.

page 2178

QUESTION

HOUSING

Senator CARRICK:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction. I refer to recently published housing statistics, all of which indicate that the rate of commencement of domestic dwellings and the investment of money in home building are wholly inadequate to meet either the current demand or the back-lag created by the Government. I refer also to the fact that the lag in welfare housing shows similar trends. I ask: Does the Government intend to introduce another credit squeeze in either domestic housing or commercial building? Alternatively, what steps, if any, does the Government intend to introduce in order to stimulate this industry towards meeting the demands of the community?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– As was pointed out during a debate the other evening, the supply of housing has been at all times insufficient to meet the demand. I reported that there were 93 000 outstanding applications for housing commission homes when this Government came to power. The Government has doubled the expenditure on welfare housing since it has been in office in an effort to meet the needs of the community. It is recognised that we are not keeping up with the demand for housing. When we took office we faced the situation of people not being able to get houses because of a lack of skilled labour and building materials. We took action in an effort to rectify that position so that skilled labour and building materials would become available. Now that they are coming into better supply the Government has under active consideration proposals to do something to ease the housing position. Among those things which it has done was the introduction of legislation to create the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. The Corporation will be able to participate actively in home building if necessary to enable the Government to meet the situation. The plans that the Government has in that direction are a matter of government policy. We hope that some announcement in relation to the future of housing will be made in the Budget this year.

page 2179

QUESTION

HOBART AIRPORT: ELECTRIC GENERATING EQUIPMENT

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

-My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction. Is it a fact that the Department of Housing and Construction let a contract to a Victorian based firm for the installation of new electric generating equipment at the Hobart Airport on a tender which was $9,000 greater than that of a Hobart based contractor? Is the Minister able to inform the Senate of the reason for this discrimination against Tasmanian industry being permitted?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

-Obviously I do not know whether a contract was let for some generating equipment on a tender which was $9,000 greater than that submitted by a Tasmanian firm and, if that is the case, obviously I do not know the reasons for it. As a former Minister for Works I know that it has not always been the policy or the practice to let contracts to the lowest tenderer, especially in regard to electrical equipment in relation to which the capability of the material to be used is found on testing to be such that the accepta nce of a higher tender is justified.

In this particular case I shall find out from the Minister the reason for accepting the higher tender. I think the honourable senator will accept that the tender would have been accepted in consideration of the Tasmanian people and the fact that they deserve to be supplied with a better service, rather than with any consideration of prejudicing a local company.

page 2179

QUESTION

GRAPE GROWING INDUSTRY

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate been drawn to a Press statement made a few days ago by the Chairman of the Australian Wine Board, Mr Tom W. Hardy, that there had been an alarming decline in Australian brandy sales? He indicated that there had been a fall of 1 3 per cent in sales this financial year, following a similar fall last year. The repercussions of this situation are revealed in a letter received last week by grape growers in the Barossa Valley from one of the longest established and largest distilleries in South Australia. It says:

Over a number of years it has been our pleasure to take grapes from you at our Nuriootpa winery and we have greatly appreciated your loyalty to and co-operation with our company.

It is therefore a matter of deep concern to us that, under the policy of the present Australian Government both as regards broken promises and its vicious taxation measures with their two-pronged effect on sales, liquidity and even the ultimate viability of our industry, we feel you should be alerted now to the fact that we may not be in a position to continue purchasing grapes from you.

This possibility is being brought to your notice now to give you the earliest opportunity, if you so desire, of endeavouring to place your future grape deliveries with other wineries.

Will the Minister initiate, as a matter of urgency, such governmental action as would lead to a return of confidence in the grape growing and wine making and brandy making industries?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-The matters raised by Senator Laucke have been given a great deal of consideration by the Government. They stem largely from decisions taken in the 1973 Budget and really come within the responsibility of the Treasurer rather than within my responsibility. I think it is appropriate that I refer the question to the Treasurer.

page 2179

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for the Media: With the activities of the Australian Film Development Corporation, including some of its senior members, being critically questioned in the current articles in the ‘Age’ and because of the importance of the Australian film industry, will the Minister establish a full independent inquiry into all aspects and activities of the Australian Film Development Corporation and all people involved with it in order to clarify the situation openly? If the Minister is not prepared to do so, does it mean that he does not regard the revelations in the ‘Age’ articles as extremely serious? Is the Minister aware that he could be accused by many of covering up on a matter which reportedly has very sinister implications?

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

– I assure the honourable senator that I certainly am not covering up for anyone, nor do I intend to cover up for anyone. I mentioned yesterday that the Australian Film Development Corporation is a completely independent statutory body. As the honourable senator will know, this Government already has taken action to disband the Australian Film Development Corporation and to establish a new body, the Australian Film Commission. For that reason I do not intend to order an inquiry into the accusations that have been made. However, I should tell the honourable senator that last night I was able to speak to Mr Darling, the Chairman of the Australian Film Development Corporation, who told me that he personally had discussed these matters with Mr Stacey at length. I do not say this with any political malice at all, but it is a fact of life that Mr Darling was appointed by the Gorton Government, as were all members of the Corporation with the exception of one. Anyway, Mr Darling has authorised me to make the following statement on his behalf, as Chairman of the Australian Film Development Corporation, concerning Mr Stacey:

During the time that Mr Stacey has been Executive Officer of the AFDC, he has at all times declared any conflict of interest, however remote, that either involved himself, in his past capacity with Supreme Films or his wife, etc.

Full disclosure of all propositions in detail is made to the Board and investors are disclosed.

The investor who intended to participate as to SO per cent in ‘The Adventures of Bazza McKenzie’ was not Mr Abe Saffron but a corporation of substance.

At no stage did any of the 3 alleged conflicts ever come before the Board.

The Film Corporation and its Executive Officer have always considered its responsibilities were to the film industry at large and, if any assistance could ever be given for the promotion, distribution and investment in films outside the AFDC’s capacity, together with advice, then the Executive Officer assisted people in the industry wherever possible.

Mr Hector Crawford, together with many others, has received assistance and help from the AFDC. The accusation of Mr Stacey assisting the Crawford organisation by giving them an idea- any benefits of which should be made to the Motion Picture Benevolent Fund- can only be a credit to him, not a discredit.

On learning of these intended allegations, I immediately informed the Minister last week, had the whole matter discussed at a board meeting last Friday, at which the board unanimously agreed there was no substance in the allegation and that at all times Mr Stacey had acted in accordance with the policy and in the best interests of the Corporation, and I have forwarded to the Minister a minute passed at that meeting.

Over the last four years Mr Stacey has proved himself to be competent, loyal and an effective officer working under the difficulties of pleasing everybody, when the resources were available only to please those who met the policy conditions as laid down by the Board and with the finance available.

That is the statement that I have been authorised to make on behalf of Mr Darling, and I do not think I need say more than to repeat that this Government has taken action to establish a new body, the Australian Film Commission, and to disband the Australian Film Development Corporation. I assume that a proclamation to carry out that intention will be issued.

Senator Greenwood:

– Do you say that what you got from Mr Darling contradicts what appears in the ‘Age ‘ article?

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

– I am saying that Mr Darling, on behalf of the Corporation, is refuting the accusations in the ‘Age’ article.

page 2180

QUESTION

DARWIN CYCLONE COMPENSATION

Senator DEVITT:

-My question, directed to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, relates to insurance problems arising out of the cyclone at Darwin. Has the Government commenced making compensation payments for uninsured loss to the victims of the Darwin cyclone? Is the Minister aware that most people in Darwin who now hold insurance policies and who have claimed on them may not be left with adequate cover? Will the Government be in a position to assist such people if further misfortune should befall them?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– Royal assent was given to the Darwin Cyclone Compensation Act on 3 1 May, and well over 2000 claims completed by Darwin residents and owners of property in Darwin have been sent to the Treasury so that cheques can be drawn. The total value of the payment due for these claims is more than $3m, and the claimants should start to receive their cheques over the next few days. Quite a large group of officers from the Department of Repatriation and Compensation is at present in Darwin dealing with these claims. One of the problems arising from the latter part of Senator Devitt’s question relates to the nature of the cover given by insurance policies. 1 think many people are unaware that the sum assured under a householder’s policy is reduced by the amount of any claim on that policy. This means that most people in Darwin now have little or no cover left if they have claimed on their policies unless they have taken out new policies to replace the previous ones, because the value of the previous policies will have been reduced by the amounts already received which, in many cases, would be the full amount of the sum insured. I hope that the people of Darwin are aware of the necessity to take out new policies, and they should bear in mind that the Government may well be unable to assist them in the event of future damage. If fire or one of the other normal accidents that do take place to people’s properties should occur, they will not be getting assistance from the Australian Government in the same way as they did as a result of cyclone Tracy. Indeed, even if there were another cyclone, it would need to be proclaimed as a national disaster before any assistance could be given and it would need the passage of a new Act. I hope that answers Senator Devitt ‘s question.

page 2181

EXPORT PAYMENTS INSURANCE CORPORATION

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– Pursuant to section 98 of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1974, I present the final report of the operations of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation for the period 1 July 1974 to 31 January 1975, together with financial statements for that period and the Auditor-General’s report on those statements.

page 2181

TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the report on flat glass, table and kitchen glassware by the Temporary Assistance Authority.

page 2181

STUDENT ASSISTANCE SCHEMES

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

– For the information of honourable senators, I present 2 reports prepared by Mr N. J. Thomson on means tests applying under schemes of student assistance as follows: ‘The Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme- Means Test’, and ‘Schemes of Assistance to School Students- The Means Test’.

page 2181

EMOTIONAL TURBULENCE AMONG AUSTRALIAN SERVICEMEN’S CHILDREN

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

– For the information of honourable senators, I present a report on educational turbulence among Australian servicemen’s children by Lindsay Mackay and Brian Spicer of the Faculty of Education, Monash University. Due to the limited numbers available at this time, reference copies of this report have been placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 2181

QUESTION

YOUNG WOMEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION

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

– For the information of honourable senators, I present a report on a survey conducted for the Young Women’s Christian Association by Robin Anderson with assistance from Sheryl Ward entitled: ‘Leisure- An Inappropriate Concept for Women?’

page 2181

NATIONAL ESTATE PROGRAM

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · South Australia · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present a report on the investigation of the scientific, environmental and social issues relating to urban development in the Hallett Cove area, South Australia, as commissioned under the National Estate Programme. Due to the limited number of copies available a reference copy of this report has been placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 2181

QUESTION

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Senator MCAULIFFE:
Queensland

-As Chairman, I present the 154th and 155th reports of the Public Accounts Committee and move that they be printed.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– I seek leave to have a short statement incorporated in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Georges)- Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted. (The statement read as follows)-

Honourable senators will recall that on 4 December 1974 I tabled the 1 52nd report which relates to expenditure from the Advance to the Treasurer for the financial year 1973-74. The 154th report which I am tabling today relates to expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for that year and covers the remaining items included in the Committee ‘s annual examination of the expenditure results of departments for that year. In examining expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund each year the Committee seeks to ascertain whether or not the principles relating to the formulation of estimates have been adopted by the departments under examination. These principles which are included in Treasury Direction 16/9 have also been set out in Chapter I of the 154th report.

In recent years the Committee has paid particular attention to the estimates and related expenditure of departments. As a poor standard of estimating has wide ramifications, the Committee has concerned itself not only with excess expenditure charged to the Advance to the Treasurer but also with the over-provision of funds. The Committee has made it clear that such over-provisions are undesirable, misleading and perhaps unfair to other departments whose financial needs might not have been satisfied. At the same time, the Committee has emphasised that it does not regard the total expenditure of available funds under a particular appropriation item as an objective to be sought without regard to other important considerations. Indeed, undue emphasis on the need to match expenditure and available funds can give rise to unnecessary and uneconomic expenditure and can result in the distortion of administrative practices. In this regard the Committee has on previous occasions criticised departments that have accelerated payments in order to prevent an appropriation from lapsing.

As this and previous reports relating to expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund show, there are explanations for expenditure variations from the estimates which are acceptable to the Committee. In this report, however, the Committee has also found it necessary to refer to cases of unsatisfactory estimating, inadequate administrative performances that have resulted in shortfalls in expenditure and inaccurate and inadequate submissions to the Committee. Attention has been drawn to these inadequacies where they have arisen.

The other report I am tabling today, the 1 55th report, is a comprehensive index relating to the Committee s 1st to 142nd reports. I commend the reports to honourable senators.

page 2182

QUESTION

DAYS AND TIMES OF SITTING

Notice of Motion

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

– I withdraw Government Business notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name. It related to the prospect of sitting next Friday. It is quite obvious that the Senate will have to sit next week. I ask for leave to give a notice of motion relating to the sitting of the Senate next week.

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

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

– I give notice that tomorrow I shall move:

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday next, 10 June 1975, at 10.30 a.m.

page 2182

TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILL (No. 2) 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 Bishop) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

This Bill provides for the repeal of the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946-1975 and for the amendment of the Telecommunications Act 1 975 to provide for the incorporation of the functions of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) in the Australian Telecommunications Commission.

Following the majority recommendation of the Vernon Commission of Inquiry into the Australian Post Office, the Government decided to merge the national and international telecommunications services in one commission, the Australian Telecommunications Commission. Provision for this was made in the initial Telecommunications Bill and the Postal and Telecommunications Commissions (Transitional Provisions) Bill. However, Opposition amendment to these Bills had the effect of preserving this illogical division of control over the common functions of national and international telecommunications services.

The Government is convinced that a comprehensive national approach to telecommunications services is essential. In the United Kingdom, New Zealand, West Germany, Sweden and France, the internal and external telecommunications services are under the control of single government authorities. Honourable senators are aware of the rapid changes in telecommunications technology and the high and growing demand for telecommunications services of all types. Increasingly, services are being operated on a world-wide subscribertosubscriber basis and there is no logical reason for separate control of the international services. Costs in the principal area of telecommunications operated by OTC, that is, the provision of international links, are reducing as more sophisticated satellites and cables are developed. The overseas telecommunications organisation of every country throughout the world is making a profit.

On the other hand, it is equally true that the cost of providing domestic services is increasing in every country in the world. The fact that OTC has earned good profits does not necessarily indicate that it is more efficient than the Australian Post Office. OTC’s profits are also a reflection of factors other than operating efficiency- a traffic growth of 34 per cent per annum, its lucrative section of the market, and the fact that the Post Office and the person who makes national calls support its operations. In talking about efficiency the advocates of leaving OTC as it is have not looked at the relative operating costs, per unit of output of the two organisations. From published information they would find that the APO does more with its resources that the OTC.

It has been said that the OTC should remain separate as it is in competition with the APO. This is not so. Their services are complementary. Both serve the one set of customers. The telephone subscriber makes local, trunk and overseas calls from the one telephone and should not need more than one authority to provide the service. To make an overseas call the subscriber rings Post Office telephonists who answer inquiries and connect the calls. On the other hand, OTC operators switch messages into the internal telegraph network. It is logical to merge the 2 organisations as this will permit better coordination of total operations, simplified billing arrangements and improved service to customers.

It is expected that international subscriber dialling will commence to Papua and New Guinea this year and will progressively extend to other countries over the next few years. The introduction of this service from Australia to overseas countries depends basically for its technical feasibility on equipment in the national network. This applies also to the planned provision of itemised accounting for international calls and later for national STD calls. Advancing telecommunications technology is rapidly eliminating boundaries between national and international networks. Already many countries are exploiting satellites and modern submarine cables in the national networks and the advanced computer controlled switching systems are being used for automatically switching and charging both international and national calls. Common planning, design and technical development of the national and international systems will become increasingly important for both economic and technical reasons as technology develops further, especially for such services as data, facsimile and, ultimately, television telephony.

The merging of the 2 organisations would avoid continuing and protracted negotiations between 2 separate managements on technological planning and cost sharing. These negotiations and the diverse aims of the 2 separate managements required the Postmaster-General of the previous Government, Sir Alan Hulme, to have an APO /OTC policy liaison committee formed in 1969. Nevertheless, negotiations have tended to be time-consuming and difficult. Reference to a number of difficulties of this type is to be found in the Vernon Report. Many of these issues are highly technical and are best resolved at chief executive level. They should not be a matter for commissions whose role is to determine the overall policy. In moving to merge the services into one Commission, the Government has no intention of submerging the Overseas Telecommunications Commission organisation in the large national organisation. On the contrary, the Interim Australian Telecommunications Commission proposed the retention of an international unit reporting directly to the Managing Director, who will be the chief executive officer of the Commission and a member of the Commission itself. This will preserve its administrative identity. It will be largely autonomous in its internal operations and there should be no loss in its negotiating capability in the international forums. Separate status as a statutory authority is not necessary for the international service to achieve its objectives.

The Government has decided that it is in the national interest for OTC to be merged with the Australian Telecommunications Commission and, if this Bill is defeated in this House, it will be brought forward again at a later time. In view of the Government’s determination I would stress to the Opposition that it is not in the interests of the overseas service or of the staff of OTC for the Bill not to be passed. The service and the staff will be placed in a situation of great uncertainty as to their future and the staff will miss out on the wider career opportunities which will be available to them on establishment of the Australian Telecommunications Commission. There are only about 2 100 staff in the OTC against about 85 000 in the national telecommunications service. There are common designations in both services and for most staff there would be much better career opportunities in the larger organisation. For all the reasons that I have stated, merging is in the national interest, and I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned.

page 2183

SHIP CONSTRUCTION BOUNTY 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 James McClelland) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The Bill gives effect to the Government’s measures providing financial assistance to the Australia shipbuilding industry. The measures were announced by the Minister for Secondary Industry and Minister for Supply on 18 December 1973. It is the Government’s objective to provide assistance which will assure the continuing development of a rationalised and efficient shipbuilding industry in Australia. The assistance will alleviate local shipbuilder’s disabilities against prospective import competition while providing intending purchasers with the opportunity to source their requirements overseas.

Honourable senators will be aware that financial assistance has been provided to the shipbuilding industry since 1947. The assistance is currently provided under section 47 of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act 1956, as amended, under which Australia agrees to purchase a vessel from the shipowner on completion of construction and the shipowner agrees to re-purchase the vessel from Australia at the same price less the amount of the subsidy to be provided. The level and mode of assistance to the industry has been reviewed by the Tariff Board from time to time, the latest review being the Tariff Board report on shipbuilding signed on 25 June 1971. The annual payments of subsidy have risen from about $2m in 1947 to about $3Om in 1974

The legislation now being introduced sets out the assistance that will be available to shipbuilders and the procedures by which that assistance will be made available. The Bill is similar to other bounty legislation and brings the method of providing assistance to shipbuilders into line with other bounty assistance accorded to manufacturers. The Bill provides that bounty will be payable on the production in Australia, in registered shipyards, of vessels of 150 gross construction tons or more and fishing vessels 2 1 metres or more in length, where these vessels are for use in Australian waters or for use by Australian flag operators in international trade. Bounty is also payable on the modification in Australia of existing vessels where the cost of the shipbuilding type activity involved in the modification exceeds $500,000. There is provision for pro-rata re-capture of bounty if the vessel is disposed of for use outside Australian waters by other than an Australian flag operator within 10 years of completion of the construction or modification.

The amount of bounty payable is as follows: vessels of less than 1000 gross construction tons, 25 per cent of the bounty price; vessels of 92 000 deadweight tonnes or more, 25 per cent; oil exploration vessels, 25 per cent; modification of existing vessels, 25 per cent; other vessels up to 3 1 December 1 980, 25 per cent to 40 per cent according to gross construction tonnage and date of keel laying specified in the building contract; and other vessels on or after 1 January 1981, 25 per cent.

In determining the bounty price the cost of certain items such as purchase of designs overseas, miscellaneous stores, fees and specialised functional equipment not being part of shipbuilding activity may be excluded. The Bill also includes provisions for the registration of premises for the construction, or modification, of vessels generally or vessels of a particular kind. The provisions are similar to those provided in the Metal Working Machine Tools Bounty Act 1972, and the Agricultural Tractors Bounty Act 1973. The Minister for Transport will be responsible for the administration of the bounty legislation. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 2184

TASMANIA GRANT (ASSOCIATED PULP AND PAPER MILLS LIMITED) 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 James McClelland) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to seek the approval of the Parliament to pay to Tasmania, in accordance with the provisions of Section 96 of the Australian Constitution, a sum not exceeding $650,000. Such payments are to be made in return for Tasmania providing financial assistance to Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd, subject to that company in turn maintaining employment at agreed levels.

Briefly, the background to this matter is as follows: Last year concern was expressed regarding a possible shortage of printing papers. As a consequence, considerable quantities were imported, whilst at the same time Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd- the only Australian manufacturer of fine papers for printing and writing purposes- was also experiencing a high level of demand. Towards the end of 1974 it became apparent that very high levels of stocks were held by merchants and users of fine paper, and as a result orders for further supplies from the local supplier fell away dramatically. Consequently, APPM Ltd found its inventories of paper rising sharply. An inquiry by the Temporary Assistance Authority found that the company was not at present being threatened by imports, and the Government accepted the recommendation of the Authority that emergency protection against imports should not be applied.

Orders on the company have continued at very low levels throughout 1975, and orders have been at a level considerably below the company’s production. The company found that it was impossible to continue to amass stocks and was faced with the necessity of closing down large sections of its plant, which would have had particularly sudden and serious consequences in employment and social terms in the areas in which these plants are located, both for the families directly concerned and the many others indirectly dependent upon the company and its employees.

Alternative employment opportunities in the areas concerned are very limited, and the particular areas which would be affected are heavily dependent on the company’s operations. The Government considered it desirable that all steps reasonably possible to avoid such a serious situation should be taken. Because of the findings in the report of the TAA it was clear that assistance through the tariff was not appropriate.

Because of the very high level of stocks held by the company, it has reduced operations in the coating plant of one mill from a 7-day to a 5-day week, and at other locations is working 3 weeks in every four. This has enabled retrenchments to be kept to a minimum, but still results in production in excess of demand. To permit a reasonable level of operations to continue, it is proposed that Tasmania will reimburse the company for interest actually paid, up to a maximum of $650,000, on a loan necessary to finance the accumulation of additional stocks. Tasmania will then be reimbursed by the Australian Government. These payments will only be made if the Minister for Manufacturing Industry is satisfied as to the reasonable maintenance of employment levels and other conditions, such as the provision of necessary information.

I draw the attention of honourable senators to clause 5 of the Bill. Apart from retrenchments resulting directly from the reduction in throughput I have mentioned, the company cannot, in terms of the agreement, undertake further retrenchment of employees before 31 December 1975 without the express agreement in writing of the Australian and Tasmanian Governments. Such agreements would only be contemplated in extreme circumstances, such as if stocks continue to rise and reach a level beyond which further stock accumulation would be untenable. The financial assistance proposed by this Bill is exceptional in nature to meet exceptional circumstances. It is not intended to be a generalised form of assistance. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 2185

GRANTS COMMISSION BILL 1975

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with message No. 309 acquainting the Senate that the House has disagreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill.

Motion (by Senator Willesee) agreed to:

That consideration of House of Representatives message No. 309 in Committee of the Whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 2185

PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL BILL 1975

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with message No. 312 acquainting the Senate that the House has disagreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill.

Motion (by Senator James McClelland) agreed to:

That consideration of House of Representatives message No. 3 12 in Committee of the Whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 2185

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS BILL 1975

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with message No. 310 acquainting the Senate that the House has disagreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill and making another in place thereof.

Motion (by Senator Willesee) agreed to:

That consideration of House of Representatives message No. 310 in Committee of the Whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 2186

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION BILL 1975

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it has agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill.

page 2186

CHILDREN’S COMMISSION BILL 1975

In Committee

Consideration of House of Representatives message:

Clause 5.

Senate’s amendment No. 1.

In sub-clause ( 1 ), leave out paragraph (d).

Senate’s amendment No. 2.

In sub-clause (4), after ‘Australia’, insert ‘or of any State or Territory’.

Motion (by Senator Willesee) proposed:

That the Committee does not insist on the amendments of the Senate to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition will not oppose the motion moved by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee). The Committee will recall that when this matter was previously before the Committee the Opposition took the view that these payments ought to be made by way of section 96 grants and that they should be made by the States. The Opposition took the view that that was also the desire of the charitable and benevolent institutions involved and that to handle the matter in that way would have been far more satisfactory than to have it dealt with through a new and no doubt growing bureaucracy which would be established in Canberra to handle it. However, as the Government is insisting on the provisions and as the moneys ought to be granted and the Commission ought to be set up so that these things can be put into operation at the earliest possible date the Opposition will not persist with its amendments. I think it ought to be placed on record as a matter of great regret that this is another example of this present Government’s mad keen desire for centralism for centralism ‘s sake. We only trust that in spite of all the defects which will arise the children concerned will not be disadvantaged.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 2186

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 June on motion by Senator James McClelland:

That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed)

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Bill last night was described by Senator Everett as being an historical measure. I agree with that description inasmuch as for the first time in this country’s history it is proposed to establish a tribunal of general national jurisdiction to give hearing to appeals for review against a whole range of administrative decisions. I suggest that this Bill deals with one of the most important elements operating in our community today, that is, the ever burgeoning growth of the power of the Executive and the need to bring it under proper control. The Bill provides for a general administrative tribunal to be established to review administrative decisions taken under Federal law. It provides for a fair degree of independence on the part of that tribunal. One of the things that I was pleased to note in the Bill is that generally it requires proceedings to be conducted in public. I made reference to that aspect as being an essential quality of adjudications when we were dealing last week with the so-called Family Court of Australia, which is to operate in camera.

Having stated those aspects of the proposed Administrative Appeals Tribunal, I say that I for my part welcome the introduction of this measure with a great degree of appreciation. It is the culmination of some 20 years work- desultory, I agree, but nevertheless directed to this end- on the part of some people, including myself. It is a great joy to me to remind the Senate that it was the Gorton Government whose Attorney-General, Mr Nigel Bowen as he then was, set up machinery to establish an examination of this proposal. That machinery- the Kerr Committee- came forward with recommendations which were implemented by way of the proposals of the McMahon Government that set up the Bland Committee and so enabled this matter to be brought to fruition. Prime Minister McMahon, as he then was, referred to the Kerr

Committee’s report in the House of Representatives on 1 4 October 1 97 1 in these terms:

The Committee has concluded that a Commonwealth administrative court should be established to provide a means for judicial review of the decisions of Commonwealth Ministers, officials and administrative bodies. The jurisdiction of the court would be limited to judicial review on legal grounds. Alongside the court would be established an administrative review tribunal. The tribunal would, in appropriate cases, review on the merits the exercise of administrative discretions under Commonwealth statutes and regulations.

He also adverted to the other proposal that the Liberal-National Country Party Opposition in the House of Representatives has been able to persuade the Government to include in this Bill, namely, the establishment of an Administrative Review Council. Prime Minister McMahon then said that the Government had decided that immediate action on 2 fronts was appropriate. He said that a group of 3 people would be appointed to examine existing administrative discretions and to advise the Government as to which of whose discretions it would be appropriate to put within the jurisdiction of the review tribunal and that, secondly, the Government would institute a review of the prerogative writ procedures. A report on that subject was made. A further report has been made. I take it that we can expect legislation to be introduced at an early date to improve that area of procedure. Prime Minister McMahon went on to say:

The Government believes that these two immediate decisions relating to the report of the Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee will be taken as a tangible demonstration of the significance it attaches to the protection of the rights of individuals at a time when governments exercise extensive powers on their behalf.

The Prime Minister said ‘on their behalf. I take the liberty of saying on their behalf and often against their interests. Senator Greenwood, who led for the Opposition in this debate and who was the Liberal-Country Party Government’s Attorney-General at the time that statement was made by Prime Minister McMahon, spoke on this matter in the Senate on a further occasion in May 1973. He welcomed the report of the Bland Committee and referred to the important recommendations that the Committee had made. He thoughtfully made reference to the deficiency in jurisdiction under the prerogative writs of prohibition, certiorari and mandamus. He referred to them as being the traps of lawyers and fruitful occasions for much discourse that is not really related to the substance of the matter raised before a court. He then went on to say that he was happy to speak in welcoming the report of the Bland Committee because 2 aspects of the work of the previous Government to which he thought sufficient recognition was not given had been brought to fruition in the lifetime of the present Whitlam Government. I speak with the knowledge of the history of this measure and an appreciation that its contents as it was presented to Parliament were in some respects deficient. In my submission it is still in some respects deficient, but it makes a most important contribution to the judicial review of administrative decisions and, putting it on a national basis, it is a most important measure.

There is no divine line, in my opinion, which enables one to distinguish between administrative jurisdiction and judicial jurisdiction. We recall that the old Chancery and the Exchequer in the English judicial system both began as administrative tribunals. The Chancery had a very fortunate run for many centuries until it became involved in complex disquisitions about procedures and evidence. It then fell into disrepute until it was remodelled and, to some extent, reformed in 1875. The Exchequer operated until then as an arm of the common law situation. We in our Constitution endeavoured to provide protection of individual rights by creating an entrenched judiciary in the Federal field, lt is well known that we adopted to some degree from America the separation of powers and that that was much influenced by Montesquieu ‘s mistaken interpretation of the English system at the time the American Constitution was penned.

Up until about 1950 the prevailing view, I suggest, was that only judicial courts could be relied upon to give appropriate protection for individual rights, first of all, as between citizen and citizen and then, as was developed in the first half of this century, as between citizen and the Government. That was because they had established for themselves a place in histroy based upon the complete independence that they were accorded after 1688, practising their jurisdiction before the public and therefore open to public criticism, adopting a strict adherence to the rules of law and minimising discretion to the limit, adopting an impartiality and, most of all, governed by a traditional doctrine which made them a cohesive mechanism for the administration of the law.

It is sad for me to assert that the whole of that purpose is today being frustrated by an all too dilatory attitude on the part of our courts adopting a complex argumentation for the disposal of cases, adhering to technicality and expounding it as if research instead of the practical administration of justice were important, and then handicapped very seriously by an over-burden of excessive cost. Those 3 features are impeding the full implementation of the purpose of the judicial courts. I suggest to everyone concerned with that most important arm of government that those are matters which demand immediate attention. But they still remain the ultimate and, in the last resource, the only safeguard of the citizen for his individual rights of liberty, home and property.

But this measure deals with administrative courts and it provides, as I have said, an important tribunal without detracting at all from the judicature system, as I would see it, and not even detracting, in so far as I have read the Bill, from their jurisdiction in relation to prerogative writs. This measure contributes an important supplementary arm in the administrative field which greatly assists the administration of justice and which supplies it in great measure where the common law courts deny themselves the right to review administrative decisions on the merits. The jurisdiction that they take under the prerogative writs is very limited. Frequently the cases concerning those writs today are absorbed by a technical argument, over-burdened by great costs, and the final result is not a general review of the decision complained of. If error is found in that decision complained of, frequently the only remedy is to send the matter back to the original tribunal for a fresh decision in the light of the correction by the courts.

So I welcome this measure as a supplement to the judicature system. I welcome it ever so much more when I remind myself, as I did last night, of a few passages in Professor Keeton ‘s work ‘The Passing of Parliament’ which was written in the mid 1 950s. At page 4 1 he states:

The relentless growth in size and function of the Departments of State, and the relatively high level in calibre of those who staff them, coupled with the steady decline in importance and function of Members of Parliament, has led to a gradual transfer of power and influence from the floor of the House of Commons to the private rooms of permanent civil servants.

That is a theme to which I have been adverting as a warning throughout my period in the Senate. We know that not only has the great Public Service, which advises the Government on administrative matters pure and simple and upon legislative matters, entrenched in our legislation many instances where the decision as to the thrust of the legislation will rest with the administrator but also, by attempts to relegate actual administration to subordinate legislation and, really, intrude upon the function of Parliament, its endeavour has been going on in the form of subordinate legislation for decades. I think it is of great satisfaction to this chamber that former Senator Murphy when he was here used to pay unfailing tribute to the aspect that this chamber set up the Senate Standing Committee on

Regulations and Ordinances as far back as 1932. That was a significant year because it was about the time that Hitler came to power by a breach of these principles.

In the resolution that set up this Regulations and Ordinances Committee to supervise subordinate legislation- which, as honourable senators know, just passes over the public servant’s desk and then goes through 2 Ministers for the signature of the Governor-in-Council- the Committee was charged with the function of seeing that regulations do not make the rights and liberties of citizens unduly dependent upon administrative rather than judicial decisions. That was at a time when nobody could gain acceptance for the idea that there should be a general administrative tribunal of review such as this measure puts forward. We were then relying almost exclusively upon the judiciary proper. The Committee has maintained, I believe, a faithful adherence to that as a criterion for criticising regulations when they come before it.

Of course, a Federal court has endeavoured to establish the judiciary in an exclusive field of its own. I refer to the decision in the boilermakers case. For the reasons I have mentioned, that has not been fully effective as a control of the burgeoning bureaucracy. In the other direction, the Public Service sought power, not merely administratively and not merely by subordinate legislation but often by constituting special ad hoc tribunals which purported to decide anew original administrative decisions. The special tribunals sometimes were effective, but often were most unsatisfactory. Two tribunals which I believe have gained acceptance are the repatriation appeal tribunal, both on quantum and entitlement, notwithstanding the criticisms of which we are all conscious and notwithstanding, in my view, errors on the side of generosity that have been made. They sat in private, gave no reasons- until recent years- and gave a lot of dissatisfaction in that regard. Better instances of satisfactory performance on the part of special administrative tribunals are the taxation boards of review which I have found to be completely comparable with judicial tribunals in their approach, their method and their adherence to doctrine and to the law.

Whileever these administrative tribunals are established ad hoc and for special purposes, we will always find a tendency for the bureaucracy, on this occasion and that, not to want to establish an appeal tribunal to review its decision. On one occasion, when the Regulations and Ordinances Committee disallowed the regulations which were the basis of the whole import licensing structure of this country, we said: ‘Jack, in office, thinks there is great virtue in his decision. He sees no need in a special case for its review’. Relying upon special ad hoc tribunals gives no satisfaction. That is the merit of this measure; it provides for a general administrative tribunal with general jurisdiction. In a minute I shall say something about the attempts that have been made to narrow it down. I think they are greatly to be regretted. By the perseverance of the Opposition in putting forward an amendment in the lower House and now by the consent of the Government and I hope by the amendment of the Opposition here, the jurisdiction will be greatly increased.

I welcome this general tribunal because if one looks at clause 8 of the Bill one will see that the appointments of the presidential members are in effect life appointments. The presidential members are limited to 70 years of age, which is an improvement on life appointments. These appointments give the independence that enables a man to disregard all pressure and to say that his lifetime is devoted to his office. Clause 1 provides that a presidential member who is appointed has to have the legal qualifications of a judge or be a legal practitioner of not less than 5 years standing, and under clause 8, he may be appointed for a period until he attains the age of 70 years. Secondly, clause 9 gives a presidential member the rank, status and precedence, but not the designation, of a judge. Thirdly, I hope I will be permitted to note the signal measures in this Bill just briefly in this second reading debate. Clause 35, with some qualifications, requires that the hearing of a proceeding before the Tribunal shall be in public. Clause 32 permits a party before the Tribunal to be represented by any other person. There is in this Bill no such ignorant provision as there is in the industrial field which precludes people who have legal experience and knowledge from appearing before the Tribunal. Lastly, one hallmark of effectiveness on the part of the Tribunal is clause 28 which, in ordinary cases, subject to some limitations which I hope will be discussed in Committee, enables a party to request reasons for decisions, and in the generality of cases the Tribunal will be required to give reasons for its decision.

I think the Tribunal is fairly effective in its structure. Sad to relate, the McMahon Government, after receiving the general recommendation to set up this Tribunal, with a very practical and careful scrutiny of its purpose, was minded to be informed as to the area in which it would operate. It set up the Bland Committee, consisting of Sir Henry Bland, Professor Whitmore and

Mr Bailey; all experienced people in this field- to identify the thousands of cases of decisions appropriate for review by this Tribunal. This Bill was presented to Parliament practically disembodied. Clause 20 of the Bill gave the Tribunal no area of application. It was left for future statutes to nominate the Tribunal as the tribunal of review. That meant that the Tribunal was not given any jurisdiction. So it was left to the Liberal Party in another place to suggest that the Bland Committee report be looked at, accepted and imported into the Bill, scheduling and cataloguing a whole host of particular Acts of this Parliament under which administrative decisions were made and for which reviews should be provided actually and expressly in this Bill. That was the very purpose for which the Bland Committee was set up. That Committee was later adopted by this Government, its terms were expanded, and it was given the added duty of recommending an ombudsman. It made a valuable report in that respect and led to a decision by this Government to appoint an ombudsman, a matter not irrelevant to this Bill because, in my conception, the ombudsman occupies an executive singular jurisdiction very similar to the appeal tribunal ‘s jursidiction on more important and weighty matters.

The Bland Committee went through all this catalogue of decisions, yet clause 26 of the Bill adopted not one of them. Now the Government has circulated an amendment for our consideration suggesting that there should be some 30 or 50 matters- I have not counted them- actually specified in the Bill. We have circulated another amendment suggesting, I would think, from 50 to 100; I have not counted them. This is where I think the chief contest will come in Committee unless the Leaders, in conference, have been able to reconcile what should not be a conflict, because all that is wanted by the advocates of this Bill is that this Tribunal at once shall have a substantive area of jurisdiction. I hope that the Senate will show its capacity by adopting and defining the appropriate content for the Bill and the appropriate area of the Tribunal’s substantive jurisdiction.

The Kerr Committee, consisting of Sir John Kerr, Mr Ellicott and Professor Whitmore, recommended a most forward looking proposal to establish a review council to operate from month to month in looking at appropriate measures that should be incorporated in this Bill from time to time in the future. I am happy to say that the Government has accepted the Liberal Party’s proposals to incorporate that provision as a feature of the Bill. I support the measure.

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

– in reply- I do not think there is anything contentious in what has been said by speakers on the opposite side of the chamber, so I propose that the definitive debate on specific matters in the Bill be dealt with in Committee. There is only one matter to which I should like to advert, namely, the list handed to me last night by Senator Greenwood asking why discretions under certain Acts which the Bland Committee thought should be granted to a body similar to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal were excluded from the schedule. The first one is the Agricultural Tractors Bounty Act, which has been amended since the report of the Bland Committee in such a way as to make it clear that some of the matters arising are to be treated as policy questions. Moreover, the recommendations in respect of this Act do not appear to be consistent: For example, no appeal under section 9 is proposed. The Act therefore requires further detailed study.

The second Act adverted to by Senator Greenwood is the Book Bounty Act. There are a number of bounty Acts which, in the estimation of the Government, should all be considered together. It is intended to deal with this by regulation. The appeal provisions would require careful drafting consideration and there just has not been time for the draftsman to give attention to these Acts. The third one is the Cellulose Acetate Flake Bounty Act, to which the same considerations apply as apply to the Book Bounty Act. The fourth matter is the Coal Excise Act, and to what extent there should be an appeal under section 12 of this Act depends on whether there should be a right of appeal to the Tribunal against the amount or form of security required by Customs. The Bland Committee generally has not recommended appeals against determinations of the amount or form of security required by Customs. An appeal under section 12 of this Act would not seem to be of much value unless a right of appeal is given against the fixing of the amount of, or manner of giving security required, which is dealt with by earlier sections of the Act in respect of which no right of appeal is recommended. There needs to be a reexamination of the whole question whether there should be a right of appeal against the fixing of or manner of giving security, and this should be approached on a consistent basis throughout the whole of the legislation administered by Customs.

The Bland Committee has not recommended an appeal under section 17 of the Act but it recommended an appeal in respect of a precisely equivalent provision under the Distillation Act. Again, the whole of the legislation administered by Customs needs to be reviewed in order to ensure consistency of terms in cases where the Minister is given power to cancel a licence for the carrying on of some manufacturing processes or other activity on the premises. The fifth item on Senator Greenwood’s list is the Citizenship Act. Refusals of citizenship may be based on security reports and the form of appeal in such cases is a matter that has been referred to the Hope Royal Commission. As I said in the second reading speech, the Government proposes to defer matters which await the report of that Royal Commission.

The sixth matter is the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act. The discretions conferred by this Act involve questions of whether there should be a right of appeal against a requirement by Customs to give security, and so the same considerations apply to this Act as apply to the Coal Excise Act, to which I have already referred. The seventh item is the Copyright Act and the questions arising under section 135 of the Copyright Act are the same as those arising under the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act, to which I have already referred. The eighth item relates to the Gold Mining Industry Assistance Act. There has not been time to discuss this with Treasury and to give drafting instructions. Sections 12 and 13 of this Act were repealed in 1965 but the Bland Committee recommended an appeal under those sections.

The ninth matter related to the Life Insurance Act, and consideration of this has been deferred pending a decision on the future of the insurance tribunal under the Insurance Act 1973. The tenth item is the Narcotic Drugs Act, which is in process of being re-written, so it is not thought that it should be included in the schedule at this stage. The eleventh item is the New Zealand Reexports Act, and insofar as this Act is still operative the appeal provision in section 167 of the Customs Act on the amount of duty payable would appear to cover matters arising under this Act.

Item No. 13 is the Navigation Act. The Bland Committee recommended that an appeal should go to a court of marine inquiry or to the Medical Appeals Tribunal, except for one case. This is the reference in Appendix E of the report in section 361 of the Navigation Act. The Committee recommended an appeal to the Tribunal. Section 36 1 does not confer any discretionary power on a

Minister. It deals with suspension or cancellation by the court of marine inquiry. The last item on the list was the Passports Act and the same considerations apply to this Act as to the Citizenship Act.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Interpretation).

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I seek the indulgence of the Committee to refer to sub-clause (2) of clause 3 for the purpose of asking the Minister if my understanding of the reference there is correct. The sub-clause states:

Where a board, committee or other unincorporated body -

Some boards are incorporated, but not often; some committees are incorporated- constituted by 2 or more persons is empowered by an enactment to make decisions, this Act applies as if that board, committee or other body were a person empowered to make those decisions.

I have interpreted that provision to refer to unincorporated boards, committees or bodies and to give them the classification of a person for the purpose of making a request to review a decision, because I suppose- I have not checked this- that is not within the definition of ‘person’ within the Acts Interpretation Act. Will the Minister be good enough to give me his view of it and relate it to clause 27 of the Bill, which states in subclause ( 1 ): the application may be made by or on behalf of any person or persons . . . whose interests are affected by the decision.

Sub-clause (2) states:

An organisation or association of persons, whether incorporated or not, shall be taken to have interests that are affected by a decision if the decision relates to a matter included in the objects or purposes of the organisation or association.

I need not take time to read sub-clause (3), but that brings together the thoughts in my mind. I ask whether sub-clause (2) of clause 3 is directed to providing unincorporated boards, committees and bodies with the same right of audience as if they were an incorporated body?

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

– I direct the honourable senator’s attention to clause 28, which I think covers the question that he asks. Sub-clause (1) of clause 28 states:

Where a person makes a decision in respect of which an application may be made to the Tribunal for a review, any person (in this section referred to as the ‘applicant’) who is entitled to apply to the Tribunal for a review of the decision may, by notice in writing given within the prescribed period to the person who made the decision, request that person to furnish to the applicant a statement in writing setting out the findings on material questions of fact and the reasons for the decision, and the person who made the decision shall, within 14 days after receiving the request, prepare and furnish to the applicant, such a statement.

Does that answer the question you asked, senator?

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I regret not. That clause refers to the provision of reasons. Clause 27 gives the person the right to make an application for review, and it is a person. Sub-clause (2) states that that right belongs to an organisation or association of persons, whether incorporated or not, as long as they have an interest, and they are deemed to have an interest if the decision relates to a matter which is included in their objects or purposes. I should think that that has in mind something like a scenery preservation association or an environmental protection association. I was directing the Minister’s attention to the language of sub-clause (2) of clause 3, which refers to a board, committee or other unincorporated body. I should have thought that it was intending to refer to an unincorporated board, committee or other body, and I am not sure whether we are missing some body there or whether that is properly expressed. As I would understand it, the purpose is not to give a new right, it is only to give an unincorporated body the right of audience and request for review, even though it is not a body known to the law and is not within the definition of ‘person’ within the Acts Interpretation Act.I ask only whether that is a correct interpretation of the intendment of the clause?

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

– Yes. I had not adverted to the clause in the depth which the honourable senator has applied to it, but that is my understanding of the intendment.

The Government has circulated a proposed amendment to clause 3 to add at the end of the clause a sub-clause. The intention of the proposed addition is to make it clear that a reference in the Act to a decision is intended to cover all the various forms that a decision may take. This is set out in detail in the circulated amendment. I move:

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I think it might be appropriate at this stage to express the general view which the Opposition takes with regard to the different proposals to amend clause 26. As has been developed in the course of the second reading debate, the one concern of the Opposition then was that there was no jurisdiction given to this tribunal. The jurisdiction is left to be determined in the future when enactments are made. The Opposition proposed the substantive amendment to incorporate the recommendations of the Bland Committee when this Bill was in the House of Representatives, and notice was given of the same amendment in this chamber. The Opposition equally is aware that in the second reading speech in this chamber the Minister intimated that the Government was giving consideration to the Opposition’s proposals and it was hoped that an amendment would be circulated. That amendment has been circulated, and it is a comprehensive one which covers clauses other than clause 26. The particular amendment which has been moved by the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) is one part of that comprehensive amendment which is now proposed. The Opposition is not as satisfied as it would like to be with the substance of the amendment proposed by the Government, but it is indebted to what Senator James McClelland has said today because that indicates the reasons certain provisions are not included in the substantive jurisdiction to be given to the tribunal.

I indicate that the Opposition will accept the proposal moved by the Government and accept the reason for it which has been given, with the implicit assurances that there will be some further amendments in due course. On any return to government, the Opposition itself certainly would examine this particular Bill to ensure that the purposes which I think the Opposition clearly has demonstrated it desires to have implemented are implemented as fully as can be in order to provide the most comprehensive review system possible. Having said that, it follows that we do not oppose this amendment. It is part of the general proposals which the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, Senator James McClelland, has indicated will be moved by the Government when we come to the appropriate clauses. Therefore we will support this amendment.

It is not to be taken from what I have said that every clause which is proposed warrants support. I indicate in particular that the amendment to clause 26 (2) might arouse some discussion when the Committee comes to deal with that provision. I have taken up the time of the Committee to indicate a broad approach and to indicate that we accept this amendment at this stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 7- by leave- taken together.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I wonder whether clause 5 might be postponed and dealt with later. Clause 5 states:

There is hereby established an Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which shall consist of a President and such number of Deputy Presidents and other members as are appointed in accordance with this Act.

At the time when the Bill was introduced it was not known what the jurisdiction was likely to be. We now have some indication of what the jurisdiction is likely to be. It appears that it may be appropriate, and the Committee may agree, that the number of deputy presidents to be appointed might be limited. A figure not exceeding four or not exceeding seven might be inserted in clause 5. That is a matter to which the Government might give consideration as the debate proceeds in the light of an indication that that is the Opposition’s thinking. When we see the quantum of the jurisdiction which is to be examined it is not a jurisdiction which is going to occupy, one would expect, the time and attention of a great number of members or a great number of tribunals, but the actual format which the Bill will take depends I suppose upon the substantive amendments which are carried. For that reason, without seeking to move any amendment at this stage, I ask that clause 5 be postponed and dealt with after all the other clauses are dealt with. In the meantime the Government might consider the proposal which I have mooted.

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

– That is a proposal which commends itself to the Government. Would Senator Greenwood be prepared to indicate at this stage what number he had in mind in order that we might give some thought to it before we reach this matter again?

Senator Greenwood:

– Not exceeding four.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I agree that clause 5 be postponed and we will give consideration to the suggestion made by the honourable senator.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 postponed.

Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.

Clause 8.

  1. Subject to this Part, a member holds office on such terms and conditions as the Governor-General determines.
  2. The terms and conditions that may be determined by the Governor-General under sub-section (3) do not include terms and conditions authorising the provision of superannuation benefits.
Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The Opposition has an amendment to clause 8 and it has been circulated. The amendment seeks the deletion of the words ‘the GovernorGeneral determines’ and the insertion of the word ‘prescribed’. This amendment also comprehends the second circulated amendment relating to sub-clause (4) of this clause which is to the effect that sub-clause (4) be left out. We would suggest it should be left out only as a consequence of the amendment to sub-clause (3) being carried. I suggest that the 2 amendments be taken together.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:
QUEENSLAND

– Is it the wish of the Committee that the 2 amendments be taken together? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I move:

The amendments are designed to ensure that the position of the members of this Tribunal are positions fixed by the Act or by regulation. The effect of the clause in the Bill is that the terms and conditions of these members may be fixed by the Governor-General; therefore those terms and conditions can be fixed by the Government. That is a procedure which invariably is followed with regard to the appointment of heads of statutory corporations and other persons who have executive functions to perform. It may be that the manner in which it has been done in the past could be the subject of some review but this Bill relates to the appointment not of a person to perform an executive function but a person who is to fulfil the role of reviewing administrative decisions. I think it is tremendously important that a person who occupies that sort of role, whether he be an ombudsman or a president or a member of a tribunal such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, should be seen to be free of any possible accusation of attachment to the administration whose decisions he is to investigate. One way in which that situation can be obtained is to ensure that his position is fixed by the legislation. If some areas cannot be fixed by the legislation and have to left and dealt with so that there is some degree of flexibility, they can be fixed by regulation. The advantage of making it by regulation is that regulations are tabled in the Parliament and people can see the terms and conditions. Where the Governor-General determines the terms and conditions, in the ordinary course no one knows what they are. That is the particular vice to be avoided and that is the purpose of the amendments.

We believe that in the semi-judicial role which the Tribunal is to fill the terms and conditions of employment should not be left to be a matter of arrangement between the Executive or the administration and the person who is to comprise the Tribunal. It should be fixed in the manner suggested by our amendment, namely, by regulation. If the Government desires to do it by legislation we would have no objection. We appreciate that there might be some difficulties in doing it in that way.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I wish to add to what has been said. This amendment was referred to in the House of Representatives and it was curious that no reason was given for refusing it, except that this form had been used in some recent legislation, mostly relating to examples not of the nature of the duties that will be performed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, as Senator Greenwood said. People who will be performing these duties will be dealing with appeals in respect of which it is highly desirable that it be known what are the terms, the length of office and the particular rights which this particular person who is to adjudicate on an appeal will have. I hope that this amendment will be considered seriously. This information ought to be known. The situation is not as stated by the Attorney-General, Mr Enderby, in the other place, who said that this amendment would introduce a rigidity that is not desirable. I think that it is a rigidity that is desirable. This information ought to be known because this Bill will cover not one person but quite a number of people. The exact and precise rights of the office bearer ought to be known by the public. I hope that the Government will give more serious consideration to this amendment than it did when it was moved in the House of Representatives.

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

– I find the arguments of Senator Greenwood and Senator Missen persuasive. The Government will not oppose the amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 (Status of presidential members).

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The Opposition will oppose this clause. The reason is fairly clear from an examination of the amendments which it is proposed will be moved at a later stage. The intention is to remove from this Bill all references to appeals to the Superior Court of Australia and to replace the references to the Superior Court with the expression ‘the Supreme Court of a State or the Supreme Court of a Territory’. The reason for these amendments lies in the fact that there is no Superior Court of Australia. In the Opposition’s view, there never should be a Superior Court of Australia. The legislation designed to establish a Superior Court, which has been proposed by this Government, has been rejected by the Senate on 2 occasions. The clear indication of the Opposition Parties is that they do not believe that a Superior Court is in the interests of the people of Australia or the administration of justice. Putting it very shortly and not at all comprehensively, we do not believe that in this country we should develop 2 hierarchies of courts side by side, with all the problems of duplication and questions as to whether one is in the right court or the wrong court, together with the massive cost and bureaucracy which would be necessary to sustain those 2 court systems. We in the Opposition believe that there should be one court system, and that should be the existing court system, with the High Court of Australia at the apex. That is, in very short form, part of the case which the Opposition maintains against a Superior Court.

Consistent with that view, we say that, where there is a need for appeals or questions of law to be decided by a court under this legislation, the question should be taken to the Supreme Court of a State or of a Territory. Therefore, we are proposing to amend subsequent clauses of the Bill to replace the words ‘Superior Court of Australia’ with the expression ‘the Supreme Court of a State or of a Territory’. Having given that indication, it seems appropriate that clause 9 should be depleted. Clause 9 states:

A presidential member has the same rank, status and precedence as a Judge of the Superior Court of Australia.

I suppose that an argument could be raised that the presidential member is not a judge and therefore he should not be given the style of a judge. I note that the word ‘designation’ does not appear. All that is suggested is that he should have the rank, status and precedence of a judge. It may be a question of some moment as to what is comprehended by those expressions. Whether the presidential member should have the rank, status and precedence of a judge, it certainly should not be of a judge of the Superior Court of Australia. The Opposition proposes to vote against this clause. If it were suggested that it be postponed until after the other amendments are dealt with, the Opposition would accede to such a request by the Government; but I have indicated the Opposition ‘s attitude.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I support the opposition to this clause. I wish to add one comment. The clause states that a presidential member is to have the status of a judge of a Federal court. Would that not mean that it would be a lifetime appointment? Surely the status would have to include the right of lifetime appointment. That would clash with clause 8, which enables a presidential member to hold office until he attains 70 years of age. I may be wrong, but I would have thought that the inclusion of the word ‘status ‘in this clause would mean that there would have to be a lifetime appointment. That is inconsistent with clause 8.

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

– I shall deal firstly with the point raised by Senator Missen. I would not have thought that the words in this clause would be sufficient to make a presidential member a judge for the purposes suggested by the honourable senator- that is, to give him a lifetime appointment. I would have thought that he would have had to be specifically designated as a judge to attract that sort of entitlement.

Senator Missen:

– Is that not part of the status of, say, a High Court judge?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I understand that that is arguable. I would have thought not. I would have thought that he would have had to be designated specifically as a judge to become entitled to a lifetime appointment.

This matter is not something on which the Government proposes to go to the barricades. There are 2 aspects of this matter. The first is the Opposition’s oft stated objection to the very notion of a Superior Court. This matter will recur several times in the consideration of subsequent clauses. I do not propose to argue all over again whether there should be a Superior Court. Senator Greenwood did not do that. The Government does not resile from the stand that it has taken in the past, for the reasons that have been stated in previous debates. We still espouse the proposition of a Superior Court. It is no secret that the Superior Court Bill will be presented again to the Senate. I see no point in arguing all over again at this stage the case for a Superior Court. I formally state that we adhere, in respect of this clause and of other clauses, to the proposition of a Superior Court. We will not divide the Committee on this matter, but I adumbrate that if this clause is defeated we will be proposing the insertion in clause 19 of a sub-clause which preserves the right of a presidential member to enjoy the privileges of the Judges Pension Act. That is an amendment which, if necessary, I will move later. I suggest that in all the circumstances it might be better to postpone consideration of this clause until after we have considered clause 1 9.

Further consideration of clause postponed.

Clauses 10 and 1 1- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 12.

A full-time member shall not, except with the approval of the Minister, engage in paid employment outside the duties of his office.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I move:

Clause 12 states simply:

A full-time member shall not, except with the approval of the Minister, engage in paid employment outside the duties of his office.

The short point which the Opposition makes is that the words which make up the exception ought not to be included. If the task of a presidential member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is to be full time- that is indicated by clause 6 of the Bill- he should not be able to engage in any other paid employment. If an occasion arises when he has spare time on his hands, he can do other work and if the Minister approves his doing other work, he may do so; but he ought not to be paid for the other work. He will be paid a salary at the rate of $36,000 per annum, with an allowance of $2,250 per annum. A deputy president who is full time will be paid $35,000 per annum, with an allowance of $ 1 ,750 per annum. Having regard to that fact, we think that there ought not to be any question that he can engage in other paid employment. We want to remove any question or doubt that might exist, therefore we have proposed that the words be left out.

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

– This also is an amendment about which we do not feel very strongly but I would put these considerations to Senator Greenwood: The proposal that members of the Tribunal should be allowed to engage in other occupations does not apply only to those whose salary strikes Senator Greenwood as being sufficient to deter them from any other activities. It also applies to other members of the Tribunal -for example, to accountants, valuers, etc.- who are paid considerably less than the high emolument to which Senator Greenwood has referred.

I think that it says something for the limitations which our society places on the activities of some of its leading citizens that this would be almost taken for granted in a society such as in the United States, where a man who chooses one occupation is not considered to be limited for his entire life to that occupation. In the United States it is quite commonplace for professors of law to act as arbitrators in disputes between companies or between trade unions and companies. It is quite accepted that such people will accept lecturing engagements. In fact, it is accepted that the special talents which have enabled them to get their high office should be at the disposal of the community in extra-curricular activities.

I find nothing horrifying in the proposition that a member of this Tribunal might accept, for example, a part-time lecturing position. I do not apprehend that activities such as that would in any way diminish his efficiency or his devotion to his main task. I suggest that the Opposition might reconsider its attitude towards the amendment which is, I think, limiting the activities of people who could spread their talents more widely to the benefit of the community at large. Having said that, I indicate that it also is not an amendment on which I propose to divide the Committee.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-Might I be permitted to intrude an observation. This clause applies to a full-time member of the Tribunal. That may be either a presidential member or, in some cases, a non-presidential member. Clause 6(3) states:

A non-presidential member shall be appointed either as a full-time member or as a part-time member.

If one looks at clause 7 which refers to the experience that non-presidential members of the Tribunal must have, one sees that a part-time member has to have all sorts of connections with business, commerce, universities or other outside interests. I think that it would be dangerous to allow a full-time non-presidential member to engage in outside paid employment. I think that the whole respect for this Tribunal will come from its exclusive devotion to the duty in hand. As it is the first entry upon the administrative jurisdiction, it is much more desirable that the members of the Tribunal remain completely independent of other activities of life so that everybody knows that the person who is participating in an administrative review decision is quite independent of all other interests. I think that is the commanding consideration in this matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 13 to 18- by leave- taken together.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– Clause 15, which refers to the disclosure of interests by members, was amended in the House of Representatives. The amendment which ultimately was moved by the Government in the other place incorporates much of what the Opposition had been proposing. Could the Minister explain why it is that questions of interest of the President are excluded? Is it intended that the use of the word ‘member’ or the words member of the Tribunal’ is sufficiently comprehensive to include the President?

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

– A member of the Tribunal includes the President. We must go back to clause 5 for that. It reads:

There is hereby established an Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which shall consist of a President and such number of Deputy Presidents and other members as are appointed in accordance with this Act.

I respectfully suggest it is subsumed in that clause that the President is a member.

Senator Wright:

– And in clause 6(1), I suggest.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Yes, that is so.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I am indebted to the Minister.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 19 postponed.

Clauses 20 to 22- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 23.

  1. 1 ) If the President is a member of the Tribunal as constituted for the purposes of a proceeding, he shall preside at the hearing of that proceeding.
  2. If the President is not a member of the Tribunal as constituted for the purposes of a proceeding, the Deputy

President who is a member of the Tribunal as so constituted, or, if by reason of a provision included in an enactment in accordance with sub-section 26 (6) there are 2 or more Deputy Presidents who are members of the Tribunal as so constituted, one of those Deputy Presidents who is nominated by the President, shall preside at the hearing of the proceeding.

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

– As a result of the incorporation of a schedule into the Bill, it is necessary to move a small amendment to clause 23. 1 move:

In sub-clause (2) after sub-section 26 (6), insert ‘or a provision of the Schedule ‘.

I do not think it is necessary to elaborate on that. I think it is self-explanatory.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Clauses 24 and 25- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 26.

  1. 1 ) An enactment may provide that applications may be made to the Tribunal-

    1. for review of decisions made in the exercise of powers conferred by that enactment; or
    2. for review of decisions made in the exercise of powers conferred, or that may be conferred, by another enactment having effect under that enactment.
  2. Where an enactment, being an Act or an Ordinance of a Territory, authorizes the making of regulations prescribing matters necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to the Act or Ordinance, regulations under the Act or Ordinance may provide, notwithstanding that so to provide would be inconsistent with the Act or Ordinance, that applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of decisions made in the exercise of powers conferred by the Act or Ordinance, and, where regulations under the Act or Ordinance so provide, provision may also be made by regulations under the Act or Ordinance modifying or excluding the operation of any provision of the Act or Ordinance providing for appeals from or reviews of decisions in respect of which applications may be made to the Tribunal for review.

  3. Where an enactment makes provision in accordance with sub-section ( 1 ) or (2), that enactment, or another enactment having effect under that enactment-

    1. a ) shall specify the person or persons to whose decisions the provision applies;
  4. For the purposes of this section, a failure by a person to do an act or thing within the period prescribed by an enactment as the period within which that person is required or permitted to do that act or thing shall be deemed to constitute the making of a decision by that person at the expiration of that period not to do that act or thing.

  5. Where an enactment provides for applications to the Tribunal-

    1. that enactment, or another enactment having effect under that enactment, may also include a provision that a non-presidential member shall not exercise, or participate in the exercise of, the powers of the Tribunal in relation to such applications unless he was appointed as a non-presidential member in accordance with a procedure, or has special qualifications, specified in the provision, and sub-section 21(1) has effect subject to any provision so included; and
    2. that enactment, or another enactment having effect under that enactment, may also include provisions adding to, excluding or modifying the operation of any of the provisions of sections 22, 23, 27, 29, 32, 33 and 35 or of sub-section 43 ( 1 ) or (2) in relation to such applications, and those sections and sub-sections have effect subject to any provisions so included.
Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– It was quite apparent that clause 26 represented an area in which the Opposition and the Government had differing views as to what should be the scope of the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I do not recapitulate all that I said before the sitting was suspended, but the Opposition had proposed an amendment to give a substantive jurisdiction. We note, as the Bill has been debated in this chamber, that the Government has also put forward its substantive proposal for an amendment. I have indicated on behalf of the Opposition that we will yield the assertion of the amendment we propose to the Government’s proposal. But I think it might be desirable for Senator James McClelland to outline the way in which the Government’s proposal would work.

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

– I move:

This new sub-clause enables other enactments to make provision for appeals to the Tribunal inconsistent with the Schedule. This new subclause is made necessary by reason of the fact that in some cases the Schedule confers rights of appeal under regulations. Without the new subclause it would not be possible for an amendment of the regulations concerned to vary the provisions of the Schedule. The deletion of existing sub-clause (2) removes the power for regulations made under another Act to make provisions for appeals under that Act inconsistent with the provisions of that Act.

Senator Greenwood:

– If that is the provision, the Opposition welcomes it because it removes what was an objectionable feature in the original legislation.

Senator Wright:

– What is the meaning of ‘enactment’ in the amendment?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-That is denned in clause 3 which in part states: enactment ‘ means-

  1. an Act;
  2. an Ordinance of a Territory; or
  3. an instrument (including rules, regulations or bylaws) made under an Act or under such an Ordinance, and includes an enactment as amended by another enactment;
Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I confess to some misgiving with regard to this matter. The objection that I had to the original clause was that it enabled regulations to amend statutes. As I read the amendment, the only purpose of it is to apply regulations within the meaning of enactment’ and it gives it exactly the same effect. I think that is not sufficient control because it is no use relying upon the supervision of Parliament as to detailed regulations. We have our Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances to watch regulations and with the aid of our legal adviser and our secretary our attention is drawn from time to time to those regulations that offend against particular categories of regulation. All that is involved here is the question of what administrative appeal decisions should be appealable. I think by the complexity of regulations that all sorts of jurisdiction might be filched by this Tribunal of which the Parliament can be quite unaware.

Why can we not have a statute which by clause 26 simply confers jurisdiction by reference to a schedule? If there is to be any amendment of it, let us have the experience for 3, 5 or 7 years of bringing in a statute once a year to amend. If we find that that is required to be done with too great a frequency let us then give a power of regulation to amend. It is as plain as can be that all the bureaus in the administrative complex of government will avoid like the plague giving jurisdiction to this Tribunal. If I were to ask the Department of the Capital Territory a question concerning the rate of loans that it is making available at present and what range of decision it has for interest on loans, I would just create a disclosure that would be quite embarrassing as to the rate of tenants, the system of priorities and other matters on which the administrators make decisions.

If regulations can be made by which those decisions become unreviewable we are not safe. We should have a system, at least for the initial 5 years of this Tribunal ‘s experience, by which jurisdiction can be added by regulation but not by an amendment of statute. If there is to be an amendment of statute it should be done by having public notice drawn to it by being debated, if need be, in the 2 chambers of the House. As I see it, proposed sub-clause (2) of clause 26 enables a regulation to vary a schedule so as to subtract jurisdiction from the Tribunal. I hope I am wrong in that instruction. If I am not, I object to the amendment.

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

– I apprehend the honourable senator’s reservations about this clause, but I suggest that it is worthy of trial in its present form. Senator Wright suggests that it is a simple matter to amend what we have by statute, but it is not all that simple. It takes some time to get amendments of that kind through the Parliament. I suggest despite the reservations that he has- I must confess, as I have done, that I see some point in them- that the Bill is worth a trial in its present form. If the honourable senator’s fears emerge as having some substance 1 think there is sufficient consensus in this Parliament, and there would be in future Parliaments, about what we are setting out to achieve in this Bill for an amendment to cure those vices to be assured of a passage in this Parliament.

I suggest that this is a Bill about which there is comparative unanimity on both sides of the Parliament. We are setting out to establish a machinery which will do something to mitigate the rigours of bureaucratic and ministerial, shall I say, tyranny. I do not think there is any real contest on either side as to the desirability of that machinery and I do not think there need be any real anxiety that the Bill in its present form will be abused. If it is, I suggest that the Parliament will readily devote itself to an amendment to cure such vices as may emerge.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:

– We are dealing with Government amendments 3 and 4 to clause 26.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-May I ask just one question? I felt some reservations, but perhaps not so strongly as Senator Wright. I wonder whether the Minister is satisfied with all the areas of enactment as defined in clause 3. I refer in particular to paragraph (c) of sub-clause ( 1 ) of clause 3- ‘an instrument (including rules, regulations or by-laws) made under an Act or such an Ordinance’. Is the Minister satisfied that the various instruments would all be areas that would be subject to the disallowance powers of this House? If it were not and if some rule could be made which, in effect, would obliterate, say, a provision made by an Act of this Parliament, then I think that probably would be a matter of some concern. Is the Minister satisfied that all those instruments would be disallowable by the provisions which we have set up in this Parliament for this purpose?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I am indebted to Senator Wright. His analysis brings to mind something which certainly escaped my attention in examining the proposal put forward by the Minister. I think the real concern that Senator Wright has expressed has been identified in what Senator Missen has said. It would be wrong to put in a provision deprivative of a right which the legislation confers. The whole concept of the Government’s amendment, as was the concept of the Opposition’s amendment, was to ensure that in particular areas where there was a ministerial decision made or another administrative decision made in which a right of appeal was to be granted, those particular types of decisions were identified. It would enable people to know the areas in which they could appeal. This particular sub-clause is one which enables that right of appeal to be taken away. On an initial reading of it, it appears it would be an Act of this Parliament. But, as Senator Wright pointed out, and as Senator Missen supported, closer examination shows that that right could be taken away by an instrument.

My thought is that the expression ‘instrument’ is not so comprehensive that it includes regulations or ordinances capable of being disallowed by the Parliament. If that be the case I feel that, consistent with the view the Opposition has taken, we would not find this particular amendment acceptable. I suggest to the Minister that either he limits the word ‘instrument’ to refer to an ordinance, regulation or rule that is capable of being disallowed under the Acts Interpretation Act or in some way we lessen the deprivatory effect of the clause which he is inserting. I think the Minister appreciates the way in which we are putting our case. We just feel it is wrong that this Government- or any other government- might be able, if tempted, to use a provision under which it could shut out what ought to be a clearcut right of appeal. I should be interested if the Minister is prepared to respond.

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

– I am indebted for the contributions that have come from the Opposition spokesmen on this matter. I think they have disclosed a shortcoming in the Bill and I am prepared to move an amendment to clause 3 ( 1 ) (c) to make it read as follows: regulations made under an Act.

I do not know whether that would go far enough to allay the misgivings expressed by the Opposition, but I agree entirely that we should confine ourselves to legislative measures which are examinable by the Parliament. I do not know whether I am in order to move this amendment, Mr Temporary Chairman- we are going back. I seek your guidance on this matter. Consideration of the clause we had reached, clause 26, drives us back to the definition clause, clause 3(1) (c). If it is in order, I move that clause 3(1)(c) be amended to read: regulations made under an Act.

Senator Greenwood:

– That is in place of the existing clause 3(1) (c)?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes, in place of the existing clause 3 ( 1 ) (c).

Senator Greenwood:

– The Opposition greatly appreciates the co-operation of the Minister, and, if leave is required, leave will be granted readily to achieve that objective.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:

– I shall seek the Committee’s view on leave if the Minister will more clearly define what he intends.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I wonder if this matter could be deferred for a few moments, Mr Temporary Chairman. My advisers point out to me that this amendment would have some consequences that were not foreseen by me when I foreshadowed it. But if it could be postponed to a later time in the consideration of the Bill in order that we may examine the consequences, but with the idea of moving an amendment later, on which would involve the considerations that I have just mentioned, I should like to do so. I therefore move:

That further consideration of clause 26 be postponed to a later time.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:

– Do you wish the whole of clause 26 to be postponed?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Yes, Mr Temporary Chairman.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– It put the proposition that clause 26 be postponed. Those in favour say aye, against no. I believe the ayes have it. I call the Minister, Senator James McClelland.

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

– I am sorry, Mr Temporary Chairman, but which clause am I to speak on?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– On clause 26. I believe you are moving a new clause, are you not?

Senator JAMES McCLELLAND I understood we were postponing consideration of clause 26, Mr Temporary Chairman. There would be other amendments to clause 26 that are unrelated to the problem we were just considering but in all the circumstances, having postponed consideration of that part of the clause, I suggest that we should postpone consideration of the other parts of the clause as well for the time being.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

-To be more clear, do you intend to postpone amendment No. 7 to clause 26 until later?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Yes, Mr Temporary Chairman, I am suggesting that all amendments relating to clause 26 be postponed for the moment.

Further consideration of clause 26 postponed.

Proposed new clause 26a.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:

– The question is- and I hope the Committee is clear on this- that proposed new clause 26a be inserted in the Bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I think that Senator Greenwood, leading in this debate for the Opposition, has said that he accepts the Schedule. But in proposed new clause 26A, sub-clause (3), there is a provision that the regulations may amend the Schedule’. I am not announcing final opposition to this provision but I want to point out what is involved. It is a Schedule which confers upon the Tribunal jurisdiction in respect of decisions under several statutes. This is the minimum that we have been able to get. I have pointed out that it is a pursuing battle to get the administration to concede that its decisions are reviewable. Sir Henry Bland ‘s committee enumerated a whole lot of matters that should be reviewed; we put forward that list; then the Minister has come forward with a more limited list. If the regulations may cut out the areas existing in the Schedule there would be a narrowing of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

Prima facie it is not desirable to have an Act alterable by regulations, although in matters of detail and often in relation to those matters relegated to schedules it is appropriate. But here the Schedule is not an enumeration of figures, items of expenditure or things of that sort; it is an enumeration of particular enactments under which decisions are reviewable. I question whether it is proper by regulation- that is to say just by a department doing so- to withdraw the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. That is in effect what the amendment deleting an area in this Schedule amounts to. I cannot point too strongly as a warning to the original Bill and to the way in which the Department and the advisers constructed this matter to ignore the whole area in which Sir Henry Bland’s committee advised that there should be review by a tribunal. The Bill as introduced simply said: ‘Let us give this Tribunal jurisdiction from time to time as statutes come before us’. I think that the idea of the departments, by regulation, withdrawing from the Schedule areas of jurisdiction is fraught with great danger. I have raised the matter in those terms in the hope that it will attract comment from other members of the Commute who are interested in it.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-I am not sure whether I entirely understand Senator Wright’s objection. My reading of proposed new clause 26a (3) is that it allows the regulations to amend the Schedule by inserting certain things in the Schedule; in other words, the Government has accepted a number of specific jurisdictions that are to be put into the Schedule and this adds to that. I do not think it in any way entitles the deletion of anything contained in the Schedule.

Senator Everett:

– Under paragraph (c) on page 3 of the circulated amendments one may omit by regulation.

Senator MISSEN:

– I am sorry; that is so. I had not noted that there was a power to omit. In my view that does justify the criticism that Senator Wright has made. Insofar as the rest of the matter is concerned, it seems to me to be desirable that there should be power by the Government to insert provisions because there is obviously a need for further work to be done and more jurisdiction to be given to this Tribunal. But in that event I do think that objection can be made to the power to omit provisions from the Schedule.

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

– Once again I express my gratitude to Senator Wright for pointing out what I concede is a weakness in the amendment that the Government has proposed. It is a weakness that is there by inadvertence. What we were seeking to deal with in paragraph (c) of proposed new clause 26a (3) was the situation in which an Act had been repealed. I suggest that if we were to add to paragraph (c) such words as would make it read ‘by omitting any provision of the Schedule that has ceased to have effect’ we would achieve the purpose that is aimed at in the proposition advanced by Senator Wright. I agree that if we are to take away a right which is conferred by this statute it should be done by a substantive amendment of the Act. All that we were seeking to achieve in paragraph (c) was to deal with the position in which an Act had been repealed. I do not know whether those words would satisfy the objection raised by Senator Wright. I invite him to give us his thoughts on that aspect.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-The suggestion is that to the words ‘by omitting any provision of the Schedule’ in the draft amendment there should be added the words ‘the operation of which has ceased to have effect’. I should think we would want to say there words to the effect ‘by omitting any provision of the Schedule the operation of which, by any other enactment, has ceased to have effect’. It would want to be made clear that the provision had ceased to be effective by a provision other than a regulation. It is difficult for one to deal adequately with the matter when one is on one’s feet. I wish to occupy one minute or so of the Committee’s time for the purpose of saying that if no better suggestion occurs I will be content with the suggestion that has been made, but other honourable senators may think the words proposed are not quite adequate for the situation. I suggest that the words used should be ‘by omitting any provision of the Schedule the operation of which, by virtue of some other enactment, has ceased to have effect’.

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

– I am doubtful whether the alteration to my formulation really makes much difference, but I would be content to accept the formulation suggested by Senator Wright and I am prepared to move accordingly.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:

– Order! If it is the intention of the Committee to proceed at this stage to add words to paragraph (c) of proposed new clause 26a (3) the Committee has to be definite on the words to be added.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Before any motion is formally moved, Mr Temporary Chairman, I wonder whether the final consideration of the amendment I have advanced could be postponed until a little later to enable the draftsman to examine it carefully with a view to finding a formulation that might satisfy all the requirements of the Opposition and the Government.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Is it the wish of the Committee that consideration of proposed new clause 26a be postponed? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Further consideration of proposed new clause 26a postponed.

Clause 27.

  1. 1 ) Where an enactment provides that an application may be made to the Tribunal for a review of a decision, the application may be made by or on behalf of any person or persons (including Australia or an authority of Australia) whose interests are affected by the decision.
Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The Opposition seeks to move an amendment to clause 27. The amendment is of a formal character. I think it flows readily from the amendments that have been proposed by the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) to clause 26. It may be that he would like consideration of this amendment postponed also, but I should think in the circumstances it could be dealt with. The amendment seeks to leave out the word’ an’ where first occurring and to insert the words ‘this Act or any other’ so that the clause would read: ‘Where this Act or any other enactment provides that an application may be made’, and so on. I think the consequential character of the amendment is self-evident. I move:

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 28.

  1. If a Minister certifies, by writing signed by him, that the disclosure of the contents of a statement prepared in accordance with sub-section ( 1 ) would be contrary to the public interest-

    1. by reason that it would prejudice the security, defence or international relations of Australia;
    2. by reason that it would involve the disclosure of deliberations or decisions of the Cabinet or of a Committee of the Cabinet; or
    3. for any other reason specified in the certificate, the person who made the decision is not required by that sub-section to furnish the statement to the applicant.
Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I think this is a significant section of the Bill because it represents the area in which the Government, the Minister or the Department may seek to withhold from the scrutiny of the Tribunal material that it believes should not be made public. It does so on a very broad and comprehensive statement of matters of public interest. The purport of the clause, of course, is desirable. It seeks to enable persons affected by a decision to obtain reasons in writing for the decision. When an application for those reasons is made there is an obligation upon the person who made the decision to make a statement setting out the reason within 14 days after receiving the request. That is a wholly desirable provision because it prevents a person who made a decision from withholding the reasons for the decision. It gives a right which at present does not exist, and it is wholly comendable. But sub-clause (2), which is the area in which the amendment is proposed, states:

If a Minister certifies, by writing signed by him, that the disclosure of the contents of a statement prepared in accordance with sub-section ( 1 ) would be contrary to the public interest -

Then it sets out 3 grounds- the person who made the decision is not required by that sub-section to furnish the statement to the applicant.

So it is apparent that there are circumstances in which the right which is being conferred can be rendered nugatory. It is apparent that in particular cases in which it is deemed to be contrary to the public interest the statement of reasons is not to be furnished.

Two points arise: Firstly, who has this power to prevent the statement from being furnished? Secondly, what are the grounds upon which the refusal can be justified? The answer to the first question is ‘The Minister’. The words are: ‘If a Minister certifies . . . ‘ I think it was pointed out in the debate in the House of Representatives that it is not just the Minister in charge of a department whose activities or decisions are being investigated who can certify; any Minister can certify in writing that the public interest would not be served by allowing the statement to be furnished. So it is a very wide provision and it could be quite frustrating. What are the grounds upon which the statement can be prevented from being furnished? The first ground, which is set out in paragraph (a) of sub-clause (2), is: by reason that it would prejudice the security, defence or international relations of Australia.

One might suppose that, broadly expressed as that is, it is a proper ground upon which nondisclosure can be justified. Secondly, nondisclosure can be justified on the following ground: by reason that it would involve the disclosure of deliberations or decisions of the Cabinet or of a Committee of the Cabinet.

That provision is unusual because it gives statutory recognition to a convention. The Cabinet, of course, is a convention. It acknowledges that there are decisions of the Cabinet and that there are committees of the Cabinet. Whilst I sense that there is great width in the expression ‘deliberations or decisions of the Cabinet or of a Committee of the Cabinet’, there are areas in which conventionally secrecy is preserved, and the Cabinet is one area in which it is reasonable to believe that secrecy should continue to be preserved. The third ground, which is set out in paragraph (c) of sub-clause (2), is: for any other reason specified in the certificate.

That can be as wide as any Minister desires to make it. The Opposition seeks to overcome what it feels are many problems in the expression of this justification for non-disclosure of statements by moving 2 amendments. The first amendment seeks to take away from Ministers this power which they have and to confer it on one specific Minister, namely the Attorney-General. The second way to deal with the matter is to remove the provision which enables any other reason to be specified as a reason for non-disclosure of the reasons in a statement.

I shall explain the justification behind the Opposition ‘s approach. We believe that the AttorneyGeneral traditionally has a more independent role in relation to government than have other Ministers. This is part of the traditions under which the office of the Attorney-General has grown. He is expected to exercise an independent judgment with regard to a number of matters in connection with the administration of the government. For example, he has to make the decision on whether or not he will give his fiat which would permit action to be taken to challenge legislation, where otherwise no right exists in the prospective plaintiff, and to make his judgment on grounds which do not take into account whether or not the Cabinet of which he is a member will be advantaged or disadvantaged and on principles which derive from his role as the protector of the public interest. I mention that as just one aspect of the independent, objective consideration which an Attorney-General should bring to certain obligations falling within his purview. We believe that if it is the function of the Attorney-General to give his certificate in his area he will do so having regard to the language of the section and upon an appreciation of whether or not the provisions of that section have been observed. He is more likely to do that, having regard to his qualifications and the nature of the office he holds, than would be a Minister who might be tempted to take the course which would enable him to protect his interests or the interests of his department.

The second ground is that of avoiding a blanket refusal simply by specifying any reason. This age old question of what should be the appropriate grounds of disclosure of official documents has long been a matter of controversy. The original Kerr Committee report stated in paragraph 343:

The position as to disclosure of official documents before the ordinary courts has been defined by the House of Lords decision in Conway v. Rimmer [1968] A.C. 910. Broadly speaking, the view was expressed that the administration of justice should not be frustrated by the withholding of public documents. Where the possible harm to the nation or to the public service is so grave that no other interest should prevail over it then, of course, a document should be withheld.

Reference is made to what Lord Reid said at page 940 of that judgment. The report continues:

But where there is a clash between the public interest in non-disclosure because of possible harm to the nation or the public service and the public interest in disclosure for the fair administration of justice then the court must balance the two conflicting interests. We agree entirely with this approach but consider that statutory provision should be made to clarify the position so far as administrative justice is concerned.

I think it is fair to say that the provisions contained in clauses 28 and 36 correspond fairly closely with what the Kerr Committee recommended; but it seems that they do not give to the Tribunal any effective power to scrutinise a reason given by a Minister for granting a certificate withholding the information. We believe that there should be some means whereby the Tribunal can assess these matters for itself. We think that such provision is contained in the legislation. The Tribunal is, by and large, required to hold a public hearing. That is expressly the intent of the legislation. But in particular circumstances the Tribunal may hold the hearing in private. For example, clause 35 (2) states:

Where the Tribunal is satisfied that it is desirable to do so by reason of the confidential nature of any evidence or matter or for any other reason, the tribunal may, by order-

direct that a hearing or part of a hearing shall take place in private and give directions as to the persons who may be present;

I appreciate that that relates to a hearing specifically and not so precisely to the furnishing of reasons. We recognise that there has to be some limitation upon the ultimate right of people to know, but it should not be such a right and such a Limitation that it absolutely blankets an individual to get his reasons. Those, put very shortly, represent the basic reasons behind the 2 amendments which the Opposition proposes to move to clause 28 and the comparable amendments which the Opposition proposes to move to clause 36 in due course. Therefore, I move:

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I support strongly both amendments to this clause. I address a remark only in regard to the second of the 2 amendments. I believe it is very desirable that this very vague and open reason be removed because it gives to the Minister a tremendous power to fail to disclose reasons. The point I want to make is that although in clause 36 there is some power allowed to parties who appeal to the Tribunal to inspect documents the problem is in the area to which clause 28 applies, where a person wants to know the reasons for a decision and wants to make up his own mind whether he has some reasonable grounds for going to the expenses, where there is the difficulty and the general worry of appealing, at that stage the information is denied. I think it would be highly undesirable to give that sweeping power to the Minister to make this certificate and thereby allow the person who has made a decision to know nothing about it. A person would have to act in the dark and go ahead with an appeal and possibly have some right later to find out the reasons. I trust the amendments will be adopted.

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

– The Government feels that the sphere of exercise of ministerial discretion embraced in sub-clause (2) of clause 28 is one exception to the proposition that ministerial discretions should be open to scrutiny. It is a matter on which the Department of Defence in particular feels very strongly and it is the reason why it is included in the Bill. I point out that under the scheme of the Bill- and let us read clauses 28 and 36 together- there is no information on which a Minister makes a decision which is closed off from the scrutiny of the Tribunal. In any event any document involved does go to the Tribunal, and in matters other than security considerations, the Tribunal may make it available to the applicant. The only case in which the reasons for a decision are not given to an applicant are those involving the considerations expressed in subclause (2) of clause 28.

The Opposition’s assumption that a certificate under clause 28 is a bar to an application to the Tribunal is based on a wrong proposition. A certificate under sub-clause (2) of clause 28 does not bar an appeal to the Tribunal. The effect of that certificate is that an applicant is not entitled to a statement of reasons if the disclosure of that statement would, in the opinion of the Minister giving the certificate, be contrary to the public interest for reasons set out in sub-clause (2) of clause 28. The power to give a certificate has been vested in any Minister rather than just the Attorney-General for the following reasons: Firstly, the right to claim Crown privilege against the production of a document in ordinary proceedings in court resides in any Minister and is not restricted to the Attorney-General. Secondly, the appropriate Minister to give a certificate, we believe is the Minister who is responsible for the subject matter in question. For example, he will be the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Foreign Affairs or, in the case of confidential material supplied to the Department of Social Security, that Minister.

I think that Senator Greenwood in his comments has traversed both his proposed amendments, amendment No. 7 and amendment No. 8, so it may be appropriate to comment on what he said about his proposed amendment No. 8 now. The effect of that amendment would be to delete the paragraph which would empower the Minister to give a certificate under clause 28(2) for reasons other than those set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of that sub-clause, namely security, defence, international relations and the disclosure of Cabinet proceedings. In the House of Representatives the Opposition objected to what it described as a blanket authority being given to a Minister to certify that a document is not to be disclosed. The Opposition argument also assumed that the ministerial certificate was the end of the matter. Two things may be said about that. First, the courts have not attempted to define the limits of the categories of public interest that may give rise to a claim of Crown privilege in respect of the production of documents in judicial proceedings. One may give obvious examples where it would be right to give a certificate on the ground of public interest, for example, where the statement of reasons to an applicant would necessarily involve the disclosure of the private affairs of another person. But it is impossible, I suggest, to foresee in advance all of the categories of public interest which would justify a refusal to disclose information to a person who wished to appeal to the Tribunal.

A second consideration is that the certificate of the Minister on a ground other than those set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-clause (2) of clause 28 is not final. It is reviewable by the Tribunal as is set out in clause 36 sub-clause (3). Thus the position is the same as in a claim of Crown privilege on the ground of public interest before the courts. If the Tribunal considers that the claim of public interest is not made out by the Minister it can order the release of the information to the person who applied for it. To sum up, we believe, while understanding exactly the motivations of the Opposition in moving its amendment, that the amendment is based on an unjustifiable fear of the effects of the Bill as it stands at present. We believe that the exceptions that we are making to the general requirements of disclosure can be justified in the national interest.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I rise only to say, appreciating the strength of what the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) has said, that it still does not cover the basic proposition with which the Opposition is concerned. The basic point surely is that a certificate can be given which in effect shuts out the right of a person to obtain information or to prosecute his appeal in the way he would like to simply on a Minister’s say-so. If the Minister says, for a reason which appears to him to be appropriate, that in the public interest the reason should not be given or the certificate should not be given, that is the end of the matter. This is the concern which the Opposition recognises. Perhaps the Minister will be able to come up with some suggestion which assists his position and at the same time recognises the Opposition’s position. I think the course which this Committee debate has so far followed would indicate a real willingness to co-operate. I shall read what Lord Reid said in the House of Lords case in 1968 of Conway and Rimmer as to what is the concept of the public interest which has to be protected:

There is the public interest that harm shall not be done to the nation or the Public Service by disclosure of certain documents and there is the public interest that the administration of justice shall not be frustrated by the withholding of documents that must be produced if justice is to be done. There are many cases where the nature of the injury which would or might be done to the nation or the Public Service is of so grave a character that no other interest, public or private, can be allowed to prevail over it.

With regard to such cases it would be proper to say, as Lord Simon did, that to order production of the document iri question would put the interest of the State in jeopardy.

I do not think anyone questions that there must be cases of that character and we think that the provisions contained in the legislation which enable the Minister- or, as we would have it, the Attorney-General- to prevent matters being disclosed if it would prejudice the security, defence or international relations of Australia or would involve the disclosure of deliberations or decisions of the Cabinet or a committee of the Cabinet are sufficiently wide to cover these grave circumstances. As Lord Reid goes on to say:

There are many other cases where the possible injury to the Public Service is much less, and there one would think it would be proper to balance the public interest involved.

That is what the Opposition is endeavouring to do. We think the 2 amendments we propose will operate to protect the rights of individuals and to secure that the benefits conferred by this legislation can be effectively enjoyed. I repeat what I said earlier: If the Minister could bring forward some suggestion which is less draconian in its implications than this provision he would find a receptive Opposition. We recognise that there is a problem here, but we think that the Bill as cast goes much too far in giving the Minister the ability to shut out rights of appeal and review.

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

– I have been invited to come up with something a little less draconian but, while I appreciate the spirit of the Opposition amendment, I am afraid that the Government regards the Bill as framed as satisfying the normal requirements we are used to in our legal structure. We believe the Tribunal could be relied on as can courts, and it would operate in the same way as do the courts in interpreting the limitations of the claim of Crown privilege. For that reason, and because we feel strongly about the necessity for this provision, the Government adheres to the formulation in the Bill, and I propose to divide the Committee on this matter.

Question put:

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

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator G. Georges)

AYES: 28

NOES: 26

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:

– The question is that the words proposed to be inserted be inserted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I move:

I have expressed the reasons for this amendment, and I do not think it assists the Committee to recapitulate them.

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

– I wonder whether this amendment could be postponed until a little later today while we attempt to find a formula which would satisfy the objections of the Opposition and at the same time achieve what the clause in its present form aims to achieve, that is, the preservation of the right of privacy of the individual.

Clause 28 postponed.

Clauses 29 to 35- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 36.

  1. 1 ) If a Minister certifies, by writing signed by him, that the disclosure of information concerning a specified matter, or the disclosure of the contents of a document, would be contrary to the public interest-

    1. by reason that it would prejudice the security, defence or international relations of Australia;
    2. by reason that it would involve the disclosure of deliberations or decisions of the Cabinet or of a Committee of the Cabinet; or
    3. c) for any other reason specified in the certificate, the following provisions of this section have effect.

  2. This section excludes the operation of any rules of law relating to the public interest that would otherwise apply in relation to the disclosure of information or of the contents of documents in proceedings before the Tribunal, but does not affect any rules of law relating to privilege in relation to the disclosure of information or of the contents of documents in such proceedings.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– This is a clause under which, at a hearing, certain documents and information may be withheld from the hearing upon the Minister’s certification. It is a clause which is comparable in its impact with clause 28, with which the Committee has been dealing. If clause 36 remains unamended, a Minister may certify by writing that the disclosure of the contents of a document would be contrary to the public interest on 3 grounds. Those 3 grounds have been discussed already under clause 28 of the Bill. The Opposition has the same 2 amendments. We believe that if there is to be a certification which has the effect of withholding a document from the Tribunal, then it should not be the certification of a Minister who, no matter how well intentioned, may be motivated by self interest or by the interest of his Department, but the certification of the Attorney-General, who should apply the standard of objectivity which by training and by the nature of his office he is expected to apply. The Opposition also seeks to alter the grounds on which the certificate can be granted by removing the blanket ground of any reason which the Minister chooses to specify. Substantially the same arguments apply with regard to these amendments as were put forward with regard to the amendments to clause 28. 1 move:

In sub-clause (1), leave out ‘a Minister’, insert ‘the Attorney-General ‘.

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

– The principles involved in this amendment are identical to those involved in the matter on which the Committee recently divided, so I merely signify the Government’s formal opposition to the amendment. I should point out that we are dealing with clause 36(1), apart from sub-paragraph (c), which is the subject of a separate amendment. This is amendment No. 9, and the Government formally opposes it.

Amendment agreed to.

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

– Might I suggest that amendment No. 10 relating to sub-paragraph (c) of clause 36(1) also be postponed as it involves an identical problem to that in proposed amendment No. 8, and they should be taken together.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:

– Are you suggesting that the whole of clause 36 be postponed?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-No, that the consideration of amendment No. 10 be postponed.

Clause 36, sub-clause ( 1 ), paragraph (c), postponed.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The Opposition has another amendment to clause 36. 1 move:

In sub-clause (5), leave out ‘, but does not affect any rules of law relating to privilege in relation to the disclosure of information or of the contents of documents in such proceedings’.

The Opposition has had some difficulty in fully appreciating the import of this clause. As I have said, the clause is a means by which, in a hearing before the Tribunal, the Minister can decline to produce certain documents, and there are other provisions relating to the procedure which may be followed where a Minister has certified and the steps which the Tribunal shall take. Then follow sub-clauses (5) and (6). Sub-clause (5) states:

This section excludes the operation of any rules of law relating to the public interest that would otherwise apply in relation to the disclosure of information or of the contents of documents in proceedings before the Tribunal, but does not affect any rules of law relating to privilege in relation to the disclosure of information or of the contents of documents in such proceedings.

It would appear that the first part of that subclause is designed to exclude any rules which might prevent the clause as a whole having operation in regard to the disclosure of information or of the context of documents in proceedings before the Tribunal. Having done that, the subclause then seems to retreat a little from the absolute exclusion and states that it does not affect any rules of law relating to privilege in relation to the disclosure of information or of the contents of documents in such proceedings. One could suppose that, on a literal reading, the fact that the exclusion is not to affect rules of privilege has the consequence that the privilege which is normally attachable to the disclosure of documents, as was considered, for example, by the House of Lords in Conway v. Rimmer, will not be affected by anything which exists in this particular clause. I cannot help but feel that that is not what is intended, but it seems to be the natural reading of the words. In the circumstances the Opposition feels that unless there is a clarification which could be given, either by an interpretation of the words or by different language, much of what is contained in this clause could be nullified. That is why the Opposition seeks to have the words removed.

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

– The Government will not oppose this amendment, but by way of explanation I might say that the words objected to are in the Bill for more abundant precaution. The words which the amendment moved by Senator Greenwood proposes to omit are there in order to protect claims of privilege that may be made on grounds other than the public interest; for instance, a claim of privilege based on the solicitor-client relationship. I suppose it might be argued that this abundant precaution is over cautious, but the Government does not feel excited enough about it to insist on the clause remaining in its present form. For that reason, the Government will not oppose the proposed amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further consideration of clause 36 postponed.

Clauses 37 to 39- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 40.

  1. The oath or affirmation to be taken or made by a person for the purposes of this section is an oath or affirmation that the answers he will give to questions asked him will be true.
Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The Opposition has an amendment seeking to add 2 new sub-clauses to clause 40, which details the powers of the Tribunalpowers such as the taking of evidence, the adjournment of proceedings, proceedings to deal with a matter in the absence of a party, and the power of the Tribunal to summon persons to appear before it. The power of the Tribunal to require people to appear before it is of immense import. It is different from the power which ordinarily is availed of in court proceedings, where a party may determine who are the witnesses he wants in the court proceedings and require the issue of a subpoena which will ensure attendance. That is a right which parties have. In this Bill it is a power which is exercisable by the Tribunal. It may be that the Tribunal can exercise the power irrespective of whether it is the wish of the parties. Leaving that aside, because it would appear in all the circumstances to be a power which the Tribunal ought to have and which one hopes it will exercise with prudence, there are certain rights which ought to be available but which are not conferred by the provisions of the Bill. That is the matter with which the Opposition is concerned.

The Opposition seeks to add 2 new subclauses, and I move:

Proposed sub-clause (3A) refers to the right of representation. Where there is a Tribunal which on its own initiative has the power to summon persons to appear before it, those persons ought to be granted certain rights. One of the fundamental rights they should have is the right of representation. I think the Senate will well remember that in recent years some Senate committees excited a considerable amount of attention because of the powers they were able to exercise in requiring people to appear before them. I know, and I think the Senate knows, that one committee went to great pains to protect the rights of persons who appeared before it, but there was controversy and concern as to whether there should be a right of representation.

I recall that one of the committees came down almost in a middle position in allowing representation for some purposes but not for all the purposes for which representation normally is accorded. I also recall that a document has been tabled in this Parliament seeking to protect the position of witnesses before parliamentary commutes. That document contained certain recommendations. I think it is a document which ought to have been taken up by the present Government. Maybe it is being considered- I do not know- but certainly no steps have been forthcoming which will protect the position of witnesses before parliamentary committees. The first new sub-clause which the Opposition proposes deals not with a parliamentary committee but with an Administrative Appeals Tribunal which is concerned to give rights to persons who are aggrieved by decisions of Ministers or by certain departmental decisions. It is appropriate that if people are called before this Tribunal they should have some rights, and one of the rights we believe they should have is the right of representation.

The second sub-clause that we seek to insert states:

Evidence given by a person before the Tribunal is not admissible against him in any criminal proceedings other than proceedings for offences against this Act.

It is desirable that there be a provision of that character because a person who is called before the Tribunal has to give evidence, to produce documents and to answer questions. He is obliged to take an oath or to make an affirmation if the Tribunal insists upon it. In those circumstances admissions which might be obtained from a person under compulsion ought not to be used in evidence against him. That is one of the fundamental rules of our law. There are exceptions to it, but they are few and far between. I do not believe that when we give powers to tribunals- we are giving enormous powers to tribunals these days- some of these rights should be allowed to be lost. We think that they have not been mentioned in this Bill and that they should be mentioned. That is why we seek to include them.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I would like to comment on both of the proposed subclauses that are included in this amendment. I want to draw to the attention of Senator Greenwood one factor which, on a reading of what the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) said when this Bill was debated in the House of Representatives, may cause some slight confusion. The same amendment was put before the House of Representatives. The first sub-clause in the amendment relates to representation by counsel or solicitor at hearing of the Tribunal. I note that in the debate in the House of Representatives the Attorney-General, in reply to this amendment, said:

In fact, the Government takes a different view and suggests that they are not self-evident at all. With respect to the first aspect put by my good friend-

This relates to proposed sub-clause (3A)- he seeks to have a right built into the legislation for every witness- party or not- to have a lawyer. We think that that is not self-evident. That is not the normal position in other courts.

I wonder whether, in fact, under this proposed sub-clause the position is that someone is being summoned by the Tribunal. No doubt the procedure prescribed by tribunals will enable witnesses to be summoned by parties apart from the Tribunal. I put to Senator Greenwood the question, whether, in fact proposed sub-clause (3a) ought not to commence with ‘a person so summoned to appear’ or alternatively ‘a person summoned under this clause to appear’. There should be some limiting words in the amendment. I wonder whether that would overcome the objection which the Government took previously with regard to this proposition.

In regard to the second part of the amendment, I would like to address a question to Senator James McClelland. When this matter was debated in the House of Representatives the Attorney-General objected to the proposal. At page 2736 of Hansard the Attorney-General is reported as having said: the Government certainly accepts the proposition but it claims that it is part of the existing Bill.

I would like to know where it is. I cannot ascertain what part of the Bill contains this provision. Perhaps it could be drawn to the attention of the Committee.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I would like to comment on the 2 proposed new sub-clauses. I referred with appreciation, in my contribution to the second reading debate, to the fact that clause 32 provides:

At the hearing of a proceeding before the Tribunal, a party to the proceeding may appear in person or may be represented by some other person.

I take it that that includes a barrister or solicitor or other professional adviser such as an industrial advocate or a next friend. Therefore, the proposed new sub-clause (3a) must be intended to refer to a witness not being a party to the proceedings. I am influenced by the observation that occurred to me on reading this amendment: It is not normal in a law court for a witness to have the right to have counsel appear for him, except by leave of the court. The second part of the amendment, in my view, would be appropriate only if there were power for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to require a witness to answer notwithstanding that the answer might incriminate him. I have not seen any provision in the Bill that gives that power to the Tribunal. Therefore I would think-

Senator Greenwood:

– I suggest clause 5 1 .

Senator WRIGHT:

-Senator Greenwood refers me to clause 51.

It states:

A person appearing as a witness before the Tribunal shall not, without reasonable excuse-

refuse or fail to answer a question that he is required to answer by the member presiding at the proceeding;

I would submit that that still preserves the privilege, which everyone appearing before any tribunal has, not to be compelled to answer a question that he believes may incriminate him. I believe that an amendment such as proposed new sub-clause (3B) is appropriate only where answers are given overriding that common law privilege. It is a privilege which is to be preserved without any qualifications that come to my mind. It is one of the fundamentals of the freedom that we Britishers have under the law not to be required by any authority to give an answer which may incriminate us. I do not see anything in the Bill and I do not read clause 5 1 as overriding that privilege. I suggest that these 2 amendments might receive a little further consideration.

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

– I shall answer the question raised by Senator Missen which has been answered largely by Senator Wright. The protection against self-incrimination is contained in clause 49 (3) and clause 51. 1 would suggest that the effect of the amendments, if carried, would be to give a witness before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal greater rights than witnesses in any other court have. In my view, no cogent reasons have been advanced why a witness appearing before this Tribunal should have greater rights than a witness appearing before a court. I would point out also that the notion that what makes a need for such an exceptional right apparent is the power which this Tribunal has to issue a summons in its own right does not appear to indicate a genuine exception at all because that is an inherent right which resides in most courts. Further, I see a danger in the proposed new sub-clause (3B) which on my reading of it, would exclude a power to take proceedings against a witness who perjured himself before this Tribunal. The proposed new sub-clause states:

Evidence given by a person before the Tribunal is not admissible against him in any criminal proceedings other than proceedings for offences against this Act.

If we read the Bill closely we see that there is no provision which makes perjury an offence. The offence of perjury is created by the Crimes Act. Accordingly, I think it is rather dangerous to have the proposed new sub-clause in its present form. Obviously the numbers are with those who favour the amendments. I would suggest for the consideration of the Opposition that if the amendments are persisted with these words should be added at the end of proposed new subclause (3b): or for the giving of false evidence.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– If we were to do that we would be creating inroads into the law to which we do not advert. If I am a witness before the Supreme Court of any State, a transcript is made of my evidence. If it is material in any other proceeding it is admissible. I want to see the Administrative Appeals Tribunal having the status, respect, power and purpose- much more purpose than some- which the judicial courts have. I do not want witnesses appearing before this Tribunal to be given privileges that witnesses before the courts of judicature have not. I think if I were to give evidence before the Supreme Court my evidence would be admissible against me in any civil proceeding or in a licensing court anywhere in the country. I think we ought to trust the status and superior outlook of this Tribunal to watch and to administer the interests according to law.

The provision which still remains prohibits this Tribunal from being the subject of the Prerogative Writs. That is the place, I think, to buttress the Tribunal and see that if there is an overriding of the law it can be corrected by the Prerogative Writs. The amendments pose a situation which is quite exceptional for witnesses appearing before this Tribunal compared with witnesses appearing before other courts.

Senator EVERETT:
Tasmania

– I suggest that the first amendment arises from a misconception of the power given by sub-clause (2) of clause 40 to a member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. That sub-clause provides:

The member who is to preside at the hearing of a proceeding before the Tribunal may-

summon a person to appear . . .

The cases in which the Tribunal will itself initiate a move to summon a witness will be very rare. That sub-clause is designed to provide in a Tribunal the ordinary power to issue subpoenas to witnesses. I suggest that is why it is included. Senator Wright seems to have some doubt about it. How does a party to the proceedings get a relevant witness before the Tribunal, except by invoking this power? That is what legal men do when they send their clerks to the Supreme Court to get a subpoena ad testificandum.

Senator Missen:

– Would not you expect that under the regulations there would be provision for issuing a subpoena in the normal way?

Senator EVERETT:

-Not necessarily. I suggest that the real purpose of clause 40 (2) is to provide the power for parties to be able to summon witnesses through the machinery of the Tribunal, just as they do now through the machinery of the courts. I apprehend that Senator Wright does not agree with me. He can express his views if he wishes. If my contention is correct, the proposed new sub-clause (3A) puts the witnesses in a supremely superior position to the position of witnesses before ordinary courts. I agree with Senator Wright that they should not be in such a position.

I would apply the same reasoning to the second amendment. Why should persons who give evidence before this Tribunal be in any position different from or more privileged than that of the witnesses who appear before the ordinary courts? I think it would be wrong to start off the exercise of this Tribunal’s jurisdiction by distinguishing between traditionally established rights. I add one further point. I do not know, because I have not devoted my mind to it, whether the Tribunal would have the power to issue a certificate under the Evidence Act. I believe that the Evidence Act in most States provides for the issue of a certificate. It may be that by virtue of the application of clause 49 (3) that would be so. I would like to think about it. I think this matter could be resolved on the simple basis that we ought not to put witnesses appearing before this Tribunal in any privileged position. For those reasons, at this stage I oppose both amendments.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I would interpret the functions given to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal under clause 40 (2) as being slightly different from the functions of an ordinary court. I do not think that an administrative tribunal would be expected to summon only witnesses who have been called by the parties.

Senator Everett:

– I did not say that. I said substantially’.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I understood that of the honourable senator. I only wanted to make it clear that in addition to summoning the witnesses who are nominated by the parties, I think it would be quite proper for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, of its own motion, to ensure that it had all the relevant witnesses who occurred to it before it, before it upset an administrative decision. I think that the Tribunal has to look to a wider area than that which perhaps the 2 parties raise before it, before it upsets an administrative decision. But notwithstanding that somewhat different function, I find the provisions in these 2 amendments not acceptable.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The discussion that has taken place has been helpful. I think that Senator Everett raised the real point where distinction must be acknowledged; that is, that some persons can be summoned by this Tribunal on its own initiative. If such people are summoned I believe that they ought to have rights. I also believe that we have an obligation to ensure that people who are summoned against their will to appear before these administrative appeals tribunals, which are not courts, ought to have protection. The other situation to which Senator Everett adverted concerns persons who may appear as witnesses. I should imagine that their position is to be equated to the position of witnesses before an ordinary court. One hopes that the Tribunal will deal with these witnesses in the way in which a court would deal with them. But there is, I think, a distinction between persons who appear before the Tribunal as witnesses for a party and persons who are summonsed at the instance of the Tribunal itself. It is not as clear cut a dichotomy as one would appreciate. It can also be appreciated that no one is safely protected where there is simply a tribunal which is not a judicial body and which is not amenable, as judicial bodies are, to the supervision of superior courts. I therefore believe that some type of protection ought to be provided in these circumstances. I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to acknowledge that there is some position which could be protected. But if, after the words ‘A person summoned to appear before the Tribunal’ in the amendment, the words ‘other than a witness summoned at the request of a party’ were added, it would certainly enable protection to be afforded to persons who are summoned to appear and who otherwise would have no redress.

With regard to the provision contained in proposed new sub-clause (3B), I think that the Minister will appreciate that there are in the legislation provisions which make it an offence for a person to refuse or to fail to answer a question. I must say that unlike some other legislation, this legislation does not require a person to answer questions honestly, and that of course creates a different situation from the one which applies in other provisions. I agree with what the Minister has said, that in those circumstances a person could not be proceeded against for perjury. He could be able to be proceeded against if he does not give evidence on oath. Having regard to the issues which have been raised and to the fact that other clauses have been postponed, I suggest that it might be prudent if the Committee might agree to this clause being postponed.

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

– I would not oppose the idea of the clause being postponed if that will assist to produce an amendment which is more consonant with the Government’s notion of the form that the Bill should take. But I would like to point to, I think, one fallacy that existed in the argument in respect of this clause put by Senator Greenwood. It relates to the proposition that the ground on which it can be argued that a witness before this Tribunal can, in certain circumstances, be distinguished from a witness in the ordinary sense is that an unwilling witness can appear before the Tribunal on the summons of the Tribunal itself. But of course it is notorious that an unwilling witness may be summoned in any court. Any party to a proceeding may issue a subpoena to a person to give evidence and, if it is served in the proper way, that person is under an obligation to appear before the court even though he may be unwilling or hostile. The same goes for a criminal proceeding. Either the Crown or the defence can issue a subpoena to a person to attend. That person may be most unwilling to attend, but in the normal course of events he would not be entitled to be represented.

I do not think that a case is made out here for treating a witness- even one who is present on the summons of the Tribunal itself- in any way which is different from the manner in which a witness is treated by the law in general in other courts. If it will assist to get a better formulation of what the Opposition seeks to achieve in respect of clause 40, 1 would have no objection to the clause being postponed.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:

– I am tempted to make the observation that if we postpone much more of the Bill it may be necessary to report progress in order for the clauses to be re-presented.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr Temporary Chairman, I do not apprehend the intention of either the Opposition or the Government to be to postpone consideration of any of the clauses that we have referred to for any purpose other than to attempt to come up with a formulation which will satisfy the objections of one side or the other. With respect, I do not think that there is any obstruction or adverse effect to be had by the postponement that we are seeking.

Further consideration of clause 40 postponed.

Clauses 41 and 42 agreed to.

Clause 43.

  1. A decision of a person as varied by the Tribunal, or a decision made by the Tribunal in substitution for the decision of a person, shall, for all purposes (other than the purposes of applications to the Tribunal for a review or of appeals to the Superior Court of Australia), be deemed to be a decision of that person and, unless the Tribunal otherwise orders, has effect, or shall be deemed to have had effect, on and from the day on which the decision under review has or had effect.
Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– Clause 43 enables the Tribunal, when making its decision, to affirm decisions which are under review, to vary decisions which are under review or to exercise other powers which are set out in the clause. But the clause also introduces the concept of the Superior Court as a court to which appeals might be taken from the Tribunal. It is the first of a number of clauses in which reference is made to the Superior Court. As I indicated earlier in the debate, the Opposition is opposed to the concept of a Superior Court, and I do not re-state the short reasons that I then gave. As this is the first appearance in the Bill of the reference to a superior court, it is appropriate that the substitution which the Opposition desires to make should be made here; and it can then be carried through in all the other provisions. I move:

In sub-clause (6) leave out ‘Superior Court of Australia’ and insert ‘Supreme Court of a State or Territory’.

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

– As I stated earlier, the Government’s position is that it adheres to the proposition that the words ‘Superior Court’ should be retained in the Bill wherever appearing for the simple reason that it is still wedded to the notion of a Superior Court and in fact will be reintroducing legislation proposing a Superior Court which has already been rejected by the Senate. I would foreshadow that if the Opposition persists with the various amendments designed to remove the words ‘Superior Court’ and to substitute the words ‘Supreme Court of a State or Territory’, we would offer the suggestion that instead the words ‘Industrial Court’ should be substituted. The reason why we do that is that we believe an administrative tribunal which is dealing with the question of the discretions of Federal Ministers and public servants and institutions generally should be appealed from to a Federal court. We believe it is not appropriate that State courts should be the ultimate courts of appeal in matters which are within the province of the Federal Government and its instrumentalities.

There is of course a further argument in favour of having one court as the ultimate appeal court in these matters, and that is the desirability of achieving some sort of uniformity of approach in these matters. I put now a proposition in respect of not only this amendment but also all amendments involving the words ‘Superior Court’ for the Opposition to consider whether it would be prepared to accept the words ‘Industrial Court’ instead of, as it proposes, the words ‘Supreme Court of a State or Territory’.

Senator EVERETT:
Tasmania

-May I add these brief considerations? It would seem to me unfortunate, especially in view of the speeches that were made on the second reading of this Bill, if by a positive amendment we were to reduce the status of this Tribunal, including a tribunal sitting alone via the President, below the so-called status of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory. I do not believe that that is a concept which honourable senators on either side of the chamber have of this new body.

Secondly- although it is not our concern, I suppose, to worry about the domestic position of States- I wonder what the judges of Supreme Courts of States or Territories will say when they look at the salaries given to the President and Deputy President of this Tribunal, then look at their own salaries and say: ‘Goodness gracious me, we must exercise appeal jurisdiction from this Tribunal. Look at our salaries and look at theirs’. I suggest that that is not an irrelevant consideration.

Thirdly, I know that the great difficulty in this matter arises from the fact that there is not a Superior Court. If the Opposition persists in its attitude, it may be that there never will be a Superior Court. That being so, surely it would be better when we are starting out to provide a legislative framework for the development of administrative law in Australia- that is the ultimate that we are setting out to achieve- that the appeal should be to a body which has been established under the laws of this Parliament. I add those 3 reasons to those given by the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James

McClelland) and would urge the Opposition to consider them.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I appreciate the way in which the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) has suggested that we might consider the substitution of the words ‘Industrial Court’, but he will recall that the fairly uniform practice being followed by the Opposition when it has come to deal with provisions in Bills relating to either the Superior Court or, if the Superior Court is not established, the Australian Industrial Court, has been to ask the Senate to remove from the legislation references to the Superior Court and to the Australian Industrial Court in favour of giving a right of appeal to the Supreme Court of a State or of a Territory. That has been because, firstly, there is no Superior Court and the Opposition does not believe that there will be a Superior Court. Indeed, the concept is one which has no appeal for the Opposition for the reasons already advanced.

Secondly, the Australian Industrial Court is a curious court to which to give an appeal of this character. It partakes of the character of virtually the only Federal court apart from the High Court- I know that the Federal Court of Bankruptcy exists- which has been established; and it is thought that in some way the Australian Industrial Court might be utilised. But the Opposition feels on the question of whether an appeal should go to the Supreme Court of a State or of a Territory or to the Industrial Court that the preferable course is for the appeal to be taken to the Supreme Court of a State or Territory. We do that because where this is an administrative tribunal and an appeal is being taken on a question of law, the question of law ought to be adjudicated upon in the ordinary courts of the land. The ordinary courts of the land are to be found in the Supreme Court structures in each of the States.

The purpose of an administrative tribunal is to provide a ready made means by which the members of the tribunal, with the expertise which they have acquired through experience, can deal with the types of administrative decisions which come before them for review. It is thought proper that it should be an administrative appeals tribunal rather than a court which deals with these matters. Of course if there are matters of law, those matters of law ought to be tried in the courts. Why should they not be tried in the ordinary courts of the land?

That is the basic approach which the Opposition has and which it hopes will appeal to the

Senate. Accordingly we invite the Senate to accept our amendment which would substitute the words ‘Supreme Court of a State or Territory’ for the words ‘Superior Court of Australia’. Much as one would like to accede to what the Minister invited us to accede to, the Opposition ‘s view is that it is preferable to have a right of appeal on a question of law to the Supreme Courts.

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

– I find it rather odd that Senator Greenwood should suggest, at least by inference, that the Australian Industrial Court is not an ordinary court of the land. I also find odd his plea of uniformity of Opposition attitude that wherever the words ‘Superior Court’ bob up in legislation, as a matter of principle the Opposition seeks to replace those words with the words ‘Supreme Court’ of the relevant State, because that is not the uniform practice of the Opposition. We only have to look at the Trade Practices Act which passed through this Senate last year. The Opposition had every opportunity to amend that Act but in fact it allowed the Australian Industrial Court to remain in that legislation as the relevant court to hear appeals. I suggest that there is nothing odd in my proposition, even though there is something odd in the name Industrial Court’, when one thinks of the extension of its jurisdiction from that on which it has traditionally been based. But there is an historical and logical explanation for that.

The Australian Industrial Court is gathering additional jurisdiction primarily because of the absence of the type of court that we have in mind in the Superior Court. The industrial court, I suggest, is going to get more and more jurisdiction as Commonwealth legislation grows. Apart from the Bankruptcy Court, it is the only court which exists below the level of the High Court in the Commonwealth constellation and it is the logical court to hear such matters.

I repeat my appeal to Senator Greenwood that, despite what he claims to be a uniform policy of the Opposition on this matter, it is not a policy without exceptions as I have shown in the case of the Trade Practices Act. It appears to me to be overwhelmingly logical that the appropriate court to hear appeals in matters of law from the decisions of this Tribunal is the only Commonwealth court which exists apart from the High Court and the Bankruptcy Court. For those reasons I repeat the suggestion that the Industrial Court should be the appropriate court of appeal.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-When Senator Everett intervened with his observations I listened to them intently and for a moment I was inclined to suggest that we should consider either the supreme courts or the industrial courts as alternatives to be chosen by the parties. But on reflection I think there are grave observationsimportant considerations why the Opposition’s amendment should be accepted as it is. In the first place, I suggest that there is nothing in the argument that just because this administrative tribunal is dealing with Federal matters the appeal court should be a designated Federal court. I do not believe that there is anything in the argument that the government whose notions are being reviewed should be the government which has created the court to review. Rather I would be disposed, if I could find a court that was not so created, to prefer that.

Secondly, if the Industrial Court is made the general appeal court in all these matters to which appeals should gravitate, we will find it indirectly constituted as a superior court. We of the Opposition think it would be a grave mistake at the present time to insist upon this division between Federal and State jurisdiction. As the Minister said quite wisely, this is not the time to re-present arguments that we have had with regard to the advantages or disadvantages of the superior court. But the Opposition remains firmly convinced that it would be a grave mistake to establish a superior court dealing with matters of Federal jurisdiction and so to create 2 structures- one State and one Federal- and have all the humbugging questions of jurisdiction that bedevil the American system as to whether the litigant gets into the right court. So I think the Industrial Court is out of the question as a proposed court of appeal from this Tribunal.

Then the question arises as to whether it is appropriate that a decision of the Tribunal should be submitted for appeal to the supreme courts of the States. I had regard to what Senator Everett mentioned as to relative salaries. I hope that relative salaries are not an indication of the relative competence and appropriateness of an appeal court. I suggest that in various States comparable salaries would be paid to those mentioned in this Bill. But that is a consideration which I think should be put out of our minds.

At first, when I thought an appeal would be an appeal on fact as well as of law, I thought there might be some argument to say that unless there were uniformity in matters of administration we would be heading for trouble. But here the question under appeal is a pure question of law. No one in the country will gainsay the competence of the supreme courts of the States to adjudicate upon a question of law. They are of unqualified respect, integrity, competence and learning in every respect and they are the appropriate courts to listen to appeals on questions of law from this Tribunal. This is so not only because of the considerations I have mentioned, but also because they are accessible to the litigants who will want to appeal these decisions. It would be entirely inappropriate to channel all appeals to Canberra, Melbourne or Sydney when people in Perth, Hobart, Brisbane or Cairns wish to go before the supreme court and argue a question of law. For those reasons I submit that the Opposition’s amendment ought to be accepted.

Question put:

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

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator G.Georges)

AYES: 29

NOES: 25

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Greenwood’s amendment) be inserted.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary ChairmanSenator G. Georges)

AYES: 29

NOES: 25

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 44.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The same amendment is proposed in relation to clause 44; that is, that the words ‘Superior Court of Australia’ be left out and the words ‘Supreme Court of a State or a Territory’ be inserted. That proposition applies to a number of successive amendments. The suggestion I make to the Committee, in the light of the decision that was just taken, is that all the amendments with the same purport and having the same effect be taken together. I refer to amendment No. 13, amendment No. 14, amendment No. 15, as it has been circulated in a different form, amendment No. 16 and amendment No. 17.I seek leave of the Committee to have amendments Nos. 13 to 17 circulated in my name taken together.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I agree to that course.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:

– Is it the wish of the Committee that amendments Nos. 13 to 17 be taken together? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I move:

There is another matter which comes to light in the discussion of clause 44 and which arises from the debate that took place with regard, in particular, to clause 40. That is the provision contained in sub-clause (4) of clause 44. I wish to move that that sub-clause be deleted.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I think that you may have to deal with that matter separately, Senator Greenwood.

Amendments agreed to.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I now move:

Leave out sub-clause (4).

Sub-clause (4) of clause 44 reads:

Except as provided by this Act and subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court under paragraph 75 ( v) of the Constitution, a decision of the Tribunal shall not be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called in question, or be subject to prohibition, mandamus, certiorari or injunction, in any court on any account whatever.

When we go back to clause 40, the Opposition will suggest a modification of what it proposed earlier; but an added safeguard is the control that a superior court may be able to effect over the activities of the Tribunal or members of the Tribunal. There must be some doubt as to how far the superior courts can control a statutory body such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. But to the extent that the prerogative writs, for all their defects and for all that might be said about their complexities, have always purported to assert or to recognise the rights of the superior courts to control the proceedings of inferior bodies, it is wise that that right should be protected. It does seem an unnecessary deprivation to shut out a right of appeal which may be desired to be exercised. In the absence of good reason, we would suggest that it is a protection to the person aggrieved that his right of appeal should be restored. We therefore propose that sub-clause (4) be left out.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:

- Senator Greenwood has moved a further amendment to clause 44 for the purpose of leaving out sub-clause (4). I do not think that amendment had been circulated. It is not a document which is before me.

Senator Greenwood:

– No, the amendment was moved as the result of the discussion.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The question is: ‘That the words proposed to be left out be left out’.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-The question can be put either in that way or simply by taking the clause by sub-clauses. But on the motion which you have put, Mr Temporary Chairman, namely that the clause be left out, it is inconceivable to me that there is any basis at all for depriving the courts of the supervision that they have by law to issue prerogative writs in relation to any tribunal or officer or body or committee or board. Even though we have criticised the imperfections of the prerogative writs- it is because of their shortcomings in the main that this general right of appeal on the merits is being given to a national tribunal- yet if there were capaciousness on the part of a part time member or if undisclosed interests were operating or some other impropriety occurred which in the ordinary course of administrative jurisdiction would invalidate a decision and should be prohibited under the writ of prohibition, that right should be preserved. I speak with very great care in this jurisdiction because I do not know whether the current theory is that a writ of prohibition lies only with a judicial body. However, I think this body would be sufficiently judicial to attract a prohibition. I just mention that matter. I would say that on that ground alone we should preserve the right of superior courts to supervise this Tribunal.

Secondly, we have the right inalienably vested in the High Court under the Constitution to supervise this Tribunal by the prerogative writs. Nothing that we can do can deprive that Court of that supervision. Thirdly, I suggest that it is much more imperative that we retain the jurisdiction of the prerogative writs in the field of administrative law than it is in any other field, and that is the field in which they have been chiefly operative. I have always understood for the last 30 years that we in the Liberal Party have opposed any exemption that is given to statutory boards, officers or others from being supervised by these prerogative writs. This provision became common during the First World War. Of course, it was a protection of administrative power. Why should we withdraw it in this Bill which is supposed to bring to a focus and to finality a special tribunal set up in aid of the prerogative writs really to supervise the propriety of administrative law? Therefore, to my way of thinking, the Tribunal itself ought to be subject to the ordinary courts of the land. Where you do get a case in which, on certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or the other one which has just escaped me for the moment, a proper case is made, then this court should attract it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 45.

  1. 1 ) The Tribunal may, of its own motion or at the request of a party, refer a question of law arising in a proceeding before the Tribunal to the Superior Court of Australia for decision but a question shall not be so referred by the Tribunal constituted by 2 or more members, in a proceeding at which a presidential member presides, without the concurrence of that presidential member.
  2. Jurisdiction is conferred on the Superior Court of Australia to hear and determine a question of law referred to it under this section.

  3. Where a question of law arising in any proceeding has been referred to the Superior Court of Australia under this section, the Tribunal shall not, in that proceeding-

    1. give a decision to which the question is relevant while the reference is pending; or
    2. proceed in a manner, or make a decision, that is inconsistent with the opinion of the Superior Court of Australia on the question.
Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I wish to move an amendment to clause 45 similar to the earlier amendments. I move:

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 46,

  1. 1 ) When an appeal is instituted in the Superior Court of Australia in accordance with section 44 or a question of law is referred to that Court in accordance with section 45-

    1. the Tribunal shall, notwithstanding sub-section 36 (2), cause to be sent to the Court all documents that were before the Tribunal in connexion with the proceeding to which the appeal or reference relates; and
    2. at the conclusion of the proceeding before the Superior Court of Australia in relation to the appeal or reference, the Court shall cause the documents to be returned to the Tribunal.
  2. If there is in force in respect of any of the documents a certificate by a Minister in accordance with sub-section 28 (2) or 36 ( I ) certifying that the disclosure of the contents of the document would be contrary to the public interest, the Superior Court of Australia shall, subject to sub-section (3), do all things necessary to ensure that the contents of the document are not disclosed to any person other than a member of the Court as constituted for the purposes of the proceeding.

  3. If-

    1. the certificate does not specify a reason referred to in paragraph 28 (2) (a) or (b) or 36 (1) (a) or (b), as the case may be;
    2. a question for decision by the Superior Court of Australia is whether the contents of the document should be disclosed to the parties to the proceeding before the Tribunal in respect of which the appeal was instituted or the reference was made; and
    3. the Court decides that the contents of the document should be so disclosed, the Court shall permit the parties to the proceeding before the Court to inspect the document.

Amendment (by Senator Greenwood) agreed to:

Leave out ‘Superior Court of Australia’ (wherever occurring), insert ‘Supreme Court of a State or Territory’.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 47 (Temporary exercise of jurisdiction by Australian Industrial Court)

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The Opposition opposes clause 47.

Senator Poyser:

– What about the Supreme Court of Cocos Island? How are we going to get that in?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I do not think there is any such body, but we are indebted to the interest which Senator Poyser is showing in these legal matters. The Opposition will oppose clause 47, and its opposition is consequential upon the decision already taken by the Committee that the words ‘Superior Court of Australia’ be replaced by Court). words ‘Supreme Court of a State or Territory’. The provisions of clause 47 relate to the temporary exercise of jurisdiction by the Australian Industrial Court if there should be no Superior Court. The Minister asked the Opposition earlier to consider this proposition and we gave reasons why we felt it was appropriate that all questions of law should go to the Supreme Courts of the States and the Territories. Therefore clause 47 as it is proposed is unnecessary and the Opposition will oppose it.

Clause negatived.

Proposed new Part IVa.

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

– I move:

Proposed new Part IVa provides for the inclusion in the Bill of clauses for the setting up of an Administrative Review Council. This is one of the institutions which was envisaged in the Kerr report as an integral part of a total scheme of administrative law. I touched on the reasons why this is desirable in the remarks which I made last night as an addendum to my second reading speech. As I know that this is a matter on which the Opposition is in agreement with the Governmentin general agreement, at least- I feel that it is unnecessary for me to say anything further at this stage. I know that the Opposition also has circulated a proposed amendment to effect the same purpose as that which is sought to be achieved by the Government’s amendment. I should like some indication from Senator Greenwood as to whether the Government’s proposed amendment is acceptable.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I indicate that the Opposition will not pursue its amendment but will support the amendment which the Government has moved. The Opposition acknowledges what the Government has done. The Bill, as it came into the House of Representatives, did not contain any provision for an administrative review council. It appeared to the Opposition that this was an omission. It was a council which had been recommended by the Kerr Committee and it had an obvious function to perform by maintaining an oversight of the whole system of administrative review which was envisaged by the Kerr Committee. At present no body exists which could perform this supervisory function in the legislation- and by legislation I mean not only this Bill which we are considering but also the Bill to establish an Australian ombudsman and the Bill to establish a defence forces ombudsman which are yet to come into this chamber. Obviously this provides a worthwhile function for such a council to perform.

We proposed an amendment in the House of Representatives. It was apparent from a reading of the debate in the other place that the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) was attracted to the idea. My recollection is that when Senator James McClelland introduced the Bill into this chamber he was able to indicate that the Government would propose an administrative review council. The amendment which has been moved establishes that council. It is a much more comprehensive provision, as befits the resources available to the Government than was able to be proposed by the Opposition. The provision is all the better for that. We notice, however, that there is a much larger administrative review council than had been contemplated by the Opposition. We felt that a council of five very significant individuals would have comprised a much more effective working council than the large body which is proposed by the Government. It seems to me that 10 persons could comprise the council which the Government proposes, though it may be only six, of course. We thought a council of 5 nominated persons would have better served the function, but it is the Government’s prerogative, in a way, to determine who should be the members of the review council which it sets up. Apart from making that comment in the hope, at this late stage, that it might fall upon receptive ears, we do not persist with our amendment and will support the Government’s amendment.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-I just make one comment and it is in line with what has fallen from Senator Greenwood. I think it militates against the efficiency of this body to increase the numbers of its members so largely. Experience shows that if we had the President of the Tribunal, the Ombudsman and the Chairman of the Law Reform Commission, each of whom in his special function has a purpose to keep up to date and to keep the principle of this Bill applicable to circumstances as they develop, we would have a body that is effective, but if we add to it not less than three nor more than seven other members I think it will make the council such that it will have formal meetings and its work will be about 20 times as slow as it would be on the other basis.

Clause 47G provides that these appointed members will be subject to the Remunerations Tribunal Act. It envisages that these officers are of the class that will attract the attention of the Remunerations Tribunal. That Tribunal ought to be reserved for only the higher officers of the Crown and the fixation of allowances and salaries for other people should be a matter for some other body, such as the Public Service Board which recommends salaries for second division officers, third division officers and so forth. If we clutter up the Remunerations Tribunal it will lose its significance insofar as it has a specific superior responsibility to fix the salaries of higher officers of the Crown. I regret very much that this excellent idea of an administrative review council may be handicapped considerably by a large membership and the expense involved as indicated by appointments subject to the Remunerations Tribunal.

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

– I refer to the doubts expressed by both Senator Greenwood and Senator Wright as to the impairment of the effectiveness of this council by the addition of further members in addition, I must confess, to those who were suggested by the Kerr Committee. It may be that there is a presumption of some sort of cumber.somness in having additional persons on the council. I have no doubt that if that turns out to be the case it will be possible to amend the Act in due course, but I do not think there is such a great deal in the fears expressed. After all, something may be added to the deliberations of the council by the seconding of persons of the type envisaged in proposed new section 47C ( 1 ) (d). I have in mind retired senior public servants or professors of public administration- people who would have had some sort of general purview in the course of their lives of the things that we are seeking to achieve in this Bill. Of course it would also be envisaged that the real work of the council would be done by the President, the Ombudsman and the Chairman of the Law Reform Commission. I do not think it is realistic to suppose that their deliberations would be seriously held up by having available thoughts and deliberations of other persons.

Proposed new Part agreed to.

Clauses 48 to 57- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 58 (Regulations).

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The House of Representatives inserted in this Bill a provision to which the Opposition raises a formal but nevertheless significant objection. The Bill did not contain any provision originally under which legal aid and assistance could be given to anyone who wanted to avail himself of these provisions. An amendment- inserted in the Bill by the Government in the House of Representatives- was designed to give that right to legal aid or assistance to any person who made application for it. The Opposition does not object to the insertion of a provision enabling legal aid to be granted. It is an unusual provision because if there are rights to obtain legal aid throughout Australia- at present there are exceptionally general provisions under which legal aid can be obtained- it seems unnecessary to insert a provision in a Bill specifically enabling the AttorneyGeneral to grant legal aid. I know it has always been in the conciliation and arbitration legislation as a special provision to enable persons who wanted to challenge oppressive rules made by organisations to be able to do so without being prevented through lack of means from achieving their objective. Earlier governments expressly conferred a right to financial assistance on persons who had that objective. It was a matter of public policy which was being aided.

The same concept emerged in the recently passed Racial Discrimination Bill, where the Government inserted a provision enabling legal aid and assistance to be given to persons who wanted to pursue proceedings under that legislation. The Opposition amended the provision and we intended to ask this Committee to amend this provision in the same way as the Senate amended the provision for legal aid in the Racial Discrimination Bill. The provision inserted in that Bill was, I think, justified by the Government, or at least was accepted by the Opposition on the basis that it was a public policy which was being promoted. It seems that the same public policy is sought to be promoted in this legislation. I must say it is stretching the concept of public policy. It facilitates the granting of legal aid in a way that possibly ignores the complete role which may be filled by the legal aid committees and other bodies providing legal aid throughout the community. On behalf of the Opposition- the amendment has not been circulated I move:

That, as I understand the position, is the precise wording which the Senate accepted regarding legal aid provisions in the Racial Discrimination Bill. It is certainly the Opposition’s intention that it should be precisely the same. The amendment leaves out the express reference to the Australian

Legal Aid Office, a person employed by the Australian Legal Aid Office, or the Director of the Australian Legal Aid Office, because no such bodies have been approved by the Parliament.

The Opposition has been waiting for a long time for legislation authorising the Australian Legal Aid Office and specifying the terms and conditions upon which it operates to be introduced into the Parliament. We have been waiting since an express announcement was made in February by the present AttorneyGeneral, but such legislation has not been forthcoming. The Australian Legal Aid Office has been growing like Topsy for almost 2 years without express parliamentary authority. It is a matter of concern to the Opposition, and we do not believe that reference should be made to the Australian Legal Aid Office when we do not know what it comprehends and when no legislation has yet been introduced. Accordingly, we seek to follow the same procedure as was followed in the Racial Discrimination Bill, which we think is a fair procedure.

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

– I formally oppose the amendment. Specific reference to the Australian Legal Aid Office already exists in legislation passed by this Senate, namely, the Family Law Bill, and I cannot help thinking the objection to the specific reference to the Australian Legal Aid Office in this Bill, as with the Racial Discrimination Bill which was before us a few days ago, is based on Senator Greenwood’s recently aroused antipathy to the Australian Legal Aid Office and is not soundly based in any particular principle. It is not a matter on which I would be prepared to divide the Committee; I merely signalise our formal opposition to the amendment.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I think the objection of Opposition members to the reference to organisations which have no statutory authority is much more widespread than would be covered by any suggestion of antipathy. It may well be that in some legislation that has passed the Senate we have nodded at times when we should have observed something of this nature, but I suggest that in the form in which it is now proposed it will adequately cover the provisions of legal aid for persons who need it, and that what we should not do in this Bill is create what appears to be legislative form for a body which is not properly formed and which has not been scrutinised by this Parliament.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 59 agreed to.

Proposed Schedule

Senator JAMES McCLELLAND (New

South Wales- Minister for Manufacturing Industry) (4.54)- I move:

Motor Traffic Ordinance

Section 4 1 n- President sitting alone.

Nurses Registration Ordinance

Section 23- President sitting alone.

Section 28k- President sitting alone.

Section 30- President sitting alone.

Optometrists Ordinance

Section 17- President sitting alone.

Section 26- President sitting alone.

Pharmacy Ordinance

Section 26- President sitting alone.

Section 32- President sitting alone.

Police (Disciplinary Provisions) Ordinance

Section 43- President sitting alone.

Soil Conservation Ordinance

Section 7.

Surveyors Ordinance

Section 32- President sitting alone.

Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance

Section 28- President sitting alone.

PartV

page 2222

ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETIONS HITHERTO VESTED BY A.C.T. ORDINANCES IN MINISTERS, OFFICIALS AND STATUTORY AUTHORITIES SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY OTHER THAN THE COURTS

Boilers and Pressure Vessels Regulations

Regulation 4 1 -President sitting alone.

Regulation 36.

Building Ordinance

Section 1 7- President sitting alone.

Section 42.

Section 47.

City Area Leases Ordinance

Section 1 1b.

Section 28b.

Inspection of Machinery Regulations

Regulation 18.

Landlord and Tenant Ordinance

Section 30.

Motor Traffic Ordinance

Section 4 1 m.

Roads and Public Places Ordinance

Section 3.

Scaffolding and Lifts Ordinance

Section 7.

Stock Ordinance

Section 15.

Part VI

page 2222

QUESTION

ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETIONS UNDER A.C.T. ORDINANCES HITHERTO WITHOUT ANY PROVISION FOR REVIEW

Adoption of Children Ordinance

Section 1 1.

Apiaries Ordinance

Section 14.

Boilers and Pressure Vessels Regulations

Regulation 39- President sitting alone.

Building Ordinance

Section 42.

Section 53.

Canberra and Jervis Bay Electric Supply Regulations

Regulation 25- President sitting alone.

Canberra Sewerage and Water Supply Regulations

Regulation 6- President sitting alone.

Child Welfare Ordinance

Section 3 1 .

Section 88.

Section 90.

City Area Leases Ordinance

Section 10.

Sections 28 and 28b.

Section 30.

Hawkers Ordinance

Section 6- President sitting alone.

Section 6b- President sitting alone.

Sections 8, 9 and 25- President sitting alone.

Money Lenders Ordinance

Section 9a- President sitting alone.

Section 9b- President sitting alone.

Public Health (Barbers’ Shops) Regulations

Regulation 6 (Registration of Barber’s Shops)- President sitting alone.

Regulation 6 (Cancellation of registration).

Public Health (Boarding Houses) Regulations

Regulation 5- President sitting alone.

Public Health (Eating Houses) Regulations

Regulation 5- President sitting alone.

Regulation 6- President sitting alone.

Public Health (Meat) Regulations

Regulation 4- President sitting alone.

Public Health (Piggeries) Regulations

Regulation 4 (Registration of Piggeries)- President sitting alone.

Regulation 4 (Cancellation of registration).

Public Health (Private Hospitals) Regulations

Regulations 7 and 1 1 -President sitting alone.

Scaffolding and Lifts Ordinance

Section 7- President sitting alone.

Theatres and Public Halls Ordinance

Sections 8 and 1 5- President sitting alone.

Unit Titles Ordinance

Sections 16, 1 7 and 2 1- President sitting alone.

Workmen’s Compensation Ordinance

Section 18- President sitting alone.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– Although I have not had the opportunity to examine the schedule in detail, one thing stands out that I wish the Committee to consider. Clause 1(1) provides that the schedule applies only in respect of decisions made after the commencement of the Act. I did not understand that we would be so limited. I should like the Committee to debate the question, as I think any existing decisions should be subject to review. Otherwise a considerable area of decisions will be outside the scope of the tribunal. I point out that it is not a question of retrospective legislation. When a court is established and given jurisdiction, it is not usual to give it jurisdiction only in respect of disputes occurring after the constitution of the court; nor is it usual to give it jurisdiction only in respect of debts or agreements contracted after the constitution of the court, if it is a civil court. I suggest that, if it is not proper to leave out that paragraph entirely, it should be possible in some way to have a review of decisions which were made within a specified period before the date of commencement of the Act. Otherwise, I foresee that this Tribunal will be a somewhat restricted mechanism. I have not had an opportunity to consider fully the implications of what I am asserting, so I should be obliged if some members of the Committee would say whether there are views to the contrary.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-I put a view which is only slightly to the contrary. I see the force of what Senator Wright said, namely, that appeals should not be restricted merely to decisions that are taken from the date of proclamation onwards. On the other hand, I can see a situation in which decisions have been made before now and existing review proceedingsperhaps an appeal to a court or to a Minister or other forms of review that exist at present- are already in process and a great deal of expense and time has been involved. Whilst I go along with the main proposition put by Senator Wright- that the operation of the Bill should not be restricted to the future- perhaps where an existing review facility has not been entered upon then a review ought to be available under this Bill.

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

– Theoretically, I see a lot of force in the proposition advanced by Senator Wright, but I think Senator Missen has put his finger on the main objection to altering the subclause referred to. That is that there may be pending matters under existing legislation; for example, actions under the Customs Act which may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction, or actions under the Taxation Administration Act which in the Australian Capital Territory are maintainable in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court. It would be necessary to introduce into the Bill quite elaborate transitional provisions if we were to attempt to give the Bill any retrospective operation. I suppose it is a little arbitrary to say that injustices that have occurred up to now will not be subject to the sort of redress that is envisaged in the Bill; nonetheless the fact remains that the Government had to have a starting point somewhere. I do not think it is advisable to reopen matters that have been decided. On balance, whilst acknowledging that there is some force in what Senator Wright puts, I think the Committee would be wise to adhere to the intendment of this clause; that is, to confine the remedies to events occurring after the proclamation of the Bill.

Proposed new schedule agreed to.

Postponed clause 5.

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

– The matter for consideration previously was whether the Government would accept the proposition of a named number of Deputy Presidents. The answer is that, on consideration, the Government has decided against such a proposition. It is not a deep matter of principle, but the Government feels that it is not possible to conjecture at this stage just how heavy will be the work load of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. For that reason at this stage the Government would prefer to keep the number open.

Clause agreed to.

Postponed clause 9.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The Opposition indicated earlier that it would oppose clause 9 in its entirety. In the light of the decisions which have been made by the Committee with regard to deleting all reference to the Superior Court of Australia, the Opposition’s point has added validity. I note also that a proposed amendment to clause 1 8 has been circulated. I think it has been circulated in anticipation that clause 9 might be deleted. The Opposition opposes clause 9.

Clause negatived.

Postponed clause 19.

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

– I move:

The Government considers that the position of persons in this category in relation to pensions would be subject to considerable doubt- in fact they would not be covered- unless this subclause were inserted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Postponed clause 26.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:

– The Minister for Manufacturing Industry has moved Government amendment No. 3.

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

- Mr Temporary Chairman, the Government has made some further amendments to its proposed amendment, designed primarily to satisfy the objections- the justifiable objections- raised by Senator Wright. What is proposed now is that the existing sub-clause (2) be omitted and in its place the following words be inserted:

  1. An enactment (being an Act, an Ordinance of a Territory or regulations made under an Act) may make provision under this section that is inconsistent with a provision of the Scheule and, where such enactment makes provision, any provision of the Schedule that is inconsistent with that provision of the enactment is of no effect.
Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I regret that I have to rise, Mr Temporary Chairman. A note of this proposal was sent to me some 10 minutes ago and I was penning a reply when the matter was called on. I am mystified, because I think the whole drift of my argument has not been understood. What I was trying to convey before was an objection to the idea that, by regulation, the Schedule which the Committee has deliberately inserted in this Bill could be altered. If members of the Committee who are interested would look at the amendment circulated on behalf of the Government, the only effect is to insert parentheses after the word ‘enactment’. That would give to an enactment exactly the same effect as if we applied the definition in the definitions clause.

Senator Everett:

– Does it not ensure that it has to be tabled in Parliament? Under the definition there is doubt as to whether an instrument need be so tabled. Therefore parliamentary control is preserved.

Senator WRIGHT:

-I acknowledge that it makes that difference- that is right- and I am grateful to Senator Everett. It was not clearly in my mind before Senator Everett intervened. The whole point of my objection to regulations or other instruments making amendments to this Act is that it is impossible to keep track of details like this even with the best will in the world and with the Senate trying to supervise the shifting sands of jurisdiction. I want to speak up with some spirit at the closing stages of the debate, not to disturb the tranquillity of the debate but to show that the spirit has not entirely flowed out of it. Anybody with the experience of the Public Service that I have had, for 25 years now, will know that there will be enormous pressures to escape the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. All one would have to do is to go to a Minister with about 20 papers and say: ‘Mr Minister, there is suchandsuch and it is inconvenient to have the Administrative Appeals Tribunal snooping over our shoulder and looking into this. There is a little regulation there that I want to put before the Governor-General tomorrow. It is urgent, Mr Minister, otherwise somebody is going to sue us for recovery of a customs duty amounting to $500.’ Right, the Minister has to get a car or a plane and go somewhere.

Regulations are not the proper vehicle to subvert this Tribunal. I use a provocative term such as ‘subvert’ because to subtract from this Tribunal’s jurisdiction will be the pressure of all the bureaucracy. To amend the Schedule by regulations, to my way of thinking, would be to defeat the Tribunal. I do not think the Government wants this. We will be vigilant in respect of future Acts, not only in the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, to watch the situation as we have done in that Committee. We will be vigilant in the case of future Acts where administrative decisions are provided for to see that there is a clause saying that the Tribunal shall have jurisdiction in regard to decisions made under them and make the position very general; that is what it should be. I am disappointed that there was no jurisdiction in the original Bill. I am disappointed that the jurisdiction excluded by the Schedule is altogether too small and narrow. I am disappointed if the Government, by regulation, is going to have the opportunity to subtract from that jurisdiction and vary it by way of reducing the jurisdiction. I hope that the Minister will not press for this amendment.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-So far as the objection I raised is concerned, this amendment covers the situation. It seems satisfactorily to ensure that there will be at least regulations that are subject to this Senate. I have some difference with Senator Wright in this respect. I do not think there is any way of avoiding the eternal vigilance that has to be observed. If in fact there is some wholesale method pursued to try to take jurisdiction away from this Tribunal 1 think it will be noticeable to the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, or to some other person in the Senate. I think that this probably is the best that can be done.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:

- Senator James McClelland, I understand that you are seeking leave to amend your amendment. Would you do so now?

Senator JAMES MCCLELLAND (New South Wales- Minister for Manufacturing

Industry) (5.10)- I seek leave to amend the amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

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

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I now move the amendment in the following terms:

Leave out sub-clause (2), substitute the following subclause.

An enactment (being an Act, an Ordinance of a Territory or regulations made under an Act) may make provision under this section that is inconsistent with a provision of the Schedule and where such enactment makes provision any provision of the Schedule that is inconsistent with that provision of the enactment is of no effect.

I think the fears expressed by Senator Wright would largely disappear if he considered this sub-clause alongside the amendment relating to proposed clause 26A which I will be moving in an amended form. The sub-section we are considering at the present time does not envisage taking away anything that is in the Schedule. On the contrary it is a provision for adding to the Schedule.

Senator Wright:

– It permits the taking away, does it not?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not think it does. I direct the honourable senator’s attention to the proposed amendment relating to the inclusion of proposed clause 26a, the last part of which particularly attracted his misgivings earlier in the debate. Proposed clause 26A(3)(c), in the form in which it was circulated, is the one to which I direct attention. Proposed clause 26a (3) states:

The regulations may amend the schedule-

by omitting any provision of the Schedule.

As I recall, that was the sub-clause which attracted Senator Wright’s misgivings- that by some sleight of hand or by some sort of bureaucratic device we could wake up one day and find that the Schedule in some way had been whittled down and the protections that we thought we had had in some way been eroded. We have not reached that stage yet but I am proposing, in order to allay the honourable senator’s misgivings, to add words which would make the subclause read ‘by omitting any provision of the Schedule that has ceased to have effect by virtue of the operation of any other enactment’. The addition of those words would provide safeguards against any snide erosion of the Schedule.

Senator Wright:

– It permits only for you to omit any dead wood.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Yes, that is all that was envisaged.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-In response, I point out that if this sub-clause is introduced into the Bill it will say that an enactment being a regulation- I am omitting other words- may make provision under this clause that is inconsistent with the provision in the schedule, and where such enactment so makes provision any provision of the Schedule which is inconsistent with that provision of the enactment is of no effect. The 2 things cannot stand together. This clause gives a power, by regulation, to vary the Schedule by an inconsistent provision, and to that extent any provision in the Schedule which is inconsistent ceases to have effect.

Senator Everett:

– I do not think so.

Senator WRIGHT:

– If I am misunderstanding the situation I will be open to enlightenment.

Senator EVERETT:
Tasmania

– It is understandable that there is some confusion in these matters but I believe that clause 26 (2) has to be considered initially separately from the Schedule because it appears in a clause which provides for the conferring of power, the giving of power, and not for any subtraction from it, because sub-clause ( 1 ) provides:

An enactment may provide that application may be made to the Tribunal-

  1. for the review of decisions . . . .;or
  2. for review . . . That is the origin of the power under clause 26 and the purpose of sub-clause (2) is simply to provide that where an enactment does confer that power- not takes it away- if there is any inconsistency resulting by virtue of the provision of the Schedule, to that extent the Schedule does not operate. I believe that to be the true purpose of sub-clause (2).

Amendment agreed to.

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

– I move:

Sub-clause (3) will then read:

Where an enactment makes provision in accordance with sub-section ( 1 ) of that enactment . . .

The amendment is consequential upon the substitution of the new sub-clause (2).

Amendment agreed to.

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

– I move:

In sub-clause (6) (a), leave out ‘, or another enactment having effect under that enactment, ‘.

In sub-clause (6)(b), leave out ‘, or another enactment having effect under that enactment, ‘.

They are consequential amendments and are of exactly the same nature.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Postponed proposed new clause 26a.

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

– I seek leave to amend the proposed new clause by the addition of these words in sub-clause (3) (c): that has ceased to have effect by virtue of the operation of any other enactment.

Sub-clause (3) (c) will now read:

By omitting any provision to the schedule that has ceased to have effect by virtue of the operation of any other enactment.

I adopt the words of Senator Wright- it merely has the effect of getting rid of dead wood.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:

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

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

In sub-clause (3) (c), add ‘that has ceased to have effect by virtue of the operation of any other enactment.

Amendment to proposed new clause agreed to.

Proposed new clause, as amended, agreed to.

Postponed clause 28.

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

– I seek leave to move:

In sub-clause (2), leave out paragraph (c), substitute ‘(c) for any other reason specified in the certificate that could form the basis for a claim by the Crown in right of Australia in a judicial proceeding that the contents of the statement should not be disclosed. ‘

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

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

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

In sub-clause (2), leave out paragraph (c), substitute ‘(c) for any other reason specified in the certificate that could form the basis for a claim by the Crown in right of Australia in a judicial proceeding that the contents of the statement should not be disclosed.’

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The Opposition will support this amendment. We appreciate the action of the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) in responding to the suggestion of the Opposition that if a different form of words to what we were proposing could be adduced those words would be considered. I think that the amendment is a happy compromise. Problems must arise in due course when it is sought to rely upon this provision, as it will undoubtedly be sought to be relied upon from time to time. I think that after the Committee had agreed that the Attorney-General was the relevant Minister to issue the certificate this amendment was not an altogether inappropriate form of words to be applied as the general dragnet provision under which the contents of documents might be withheld. I do not suggest it will be an easy application. At least something will come out of that consideration. I am reasonably confident that the ultimate objectives which we have for this legislation will be aided rather than detracted from, which was the fear we had about the original wording. We support the amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Greenwood, I think it may be necessary for you to withdraw your amendment so that precedence can be given to the Government’s amendment. Would you do so?

Senator GREEN WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

-If that is the correct procedure, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

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

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I speak to this amendment, which will now be carried, as one who objected to this clause. I am not completely happy that in the long run it will satisfactorily cure the problem. I think it is probably the best we can get at this time. The objection was that a Minister could have too great a power to refuse to give reasons for his decision. I think it could still be the case. We are adopting the position at common law- what the courts have worked out. I doubt whether it will be sufficient in the long run. I will certainly watch the operation of this clause. If it becomes, in the eyes of the Ministers, a convenient excuse for not giving reasons, I certainly will raise the matter in the future.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Postponed clause 36.

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

– This is an exact repeat of the exercise that we have just gone through in respect of clause 28. I seek leave to move an amendment, which is to delete the existing paragraph (c) of sub-clause (1), and to insert in its place a new paragraph (c) in the following terms:

  1. for any other reason specified in the certificate that could form the basis for a claim by the Crown in right of Australia in a judicial proceeding that the information or the contents of the document should not be disclosed,’.
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:

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

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

The same arguments apply to this sub-clause as applied to clause 28.I think it will be necessary also for Senator Greenwood, if he is so minded, to withdraw his original amendment.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I shall follow the course suggested by the Minister, concurring in the amendment which he has moved. I therefore seek leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

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

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Postponed clause 40.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I seek leave to amend the amendment which I have moved so that only one new sub-clause would be inserted in the clause. It represents the first four to five lines of the amendment that has been moved and it will read as follows: (3a) A person summoned to appear before the Tribunal may request that he be represented by counsel or a solicitor and upon such request being made the Tribunal may allow such person to be represented. ‘.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

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

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I now move:

After sub-clause ( 3 ), insert the following new sub-clause: (3a) A person summoned to appear before the Tribunal may request that he be represented by counsel or a solicitor and upon such request being made the Tribunal may allow such a person to be represented.’.

The purpose of the amendment, as varied, is to take account of the various comments made when the much lengthier amendment was before the Committee earlier. There is a very real problem in that the way in which clause 40 is worded permits not only the parties to proceedings to require witnesses to be summoned but also the Tribunal, on its own initiative, to summon quite possibly reluctant persons to appear before it. If the Tribunal consists of a legally qualified President, I am reasonably confident that the Tribunal will act, in the light of the amendment which is now being considered, in the way in which a court would act. If it is a proper case for representation to be given to a person, representation can be granted by the Tribunal. The fact that express provision is contained in the legislation facilitating the grant of representation may be a significant factor to which the Tribunal would give weight.

On the other hand, if the person appearing before the Tribunal is simply a witness, it would require, I think, highly unusual circumstances for the witness to be granted representation. Sometimes those highly unusual circumstances occur and would warrant representation. Bearing in mind all that has been said, the Opposition has moved this amendment and trusts that it will be acceptable to the Committee. We note, for example, that in clause 44, sub-clause (4) was omitted so that there are complete rights of appeal available through the prerogative writs if possible difficulties of a character that I mentioned earlier arise.

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

– The amendment, as amended, is totally acceptable to the Government. I commend Senator Greenwood for his reasonableness in accepting the proposition that his original amendment could be improved in the way in which it has now been improved.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator James McClelland) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– This has been an exhausting afternoon, but the Opposition regards it as a rewarding afternoon. The Bill, which of course had the support of the Opposition, has been significantly amended but we think constructively amended, so that what finally is sent to the House of Representatives will be a Bill which is much improved for the attention which the Senate has been able to give to it. The Bill represents a landmark in the development of administrative review in this country. I think that I speak on behalf of all the members of the Opposition when I thank the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) for his ready cooperation in the course of the debate this afternoon.

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

– I should like to say that I, too, welcome the passage of this Bill. I believe that it is one of the most significant Bills that has been passed by this Parliament in the time that I have been here. I am particularly gratified because some distinguished lawyers who have long been friends of mine were associated in the preparation of the original report which formed the basis of this legislation. I must confess that when I first read the report I was not too sanguine that it would be translated into something on the statute books in such a short time. Even though it may appear to those who have been listening sporadically to the debate today to be merely a lawyer’s Bill, it is anything but that. It is a Bill to safeguard the rights of the citizens of this country against abuses of power by Ministers and by bureaucrats. I do not use the word ‘bureaucrats’ pejoratively. I believe that in a period of growing governmental power, it is essential that the ordinary citizens should have the sorts of safeguards that are enshrined in this legislation. I should like to reciprocate the remarks of Senator Greenwood and thank the Opposition for its cooperation and for the spirit in which this debate has been conducted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2228

SUPERANNUATION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 June on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

- Mr Acting Deputy President, there are 3 Bills on the notice paper- the Superannuation Bill 1975, the Superannuation Act Amendment Bill 1975 and the Defence Forces Retirement and Death Benefits Bill 1975. The 2 Bills to which I referred lastly are cognate, really, and could be debated with the first Bill that I mentioned. They depend upon the first Bill. I trust that the Minister is in agreement that we should have a general debate covering these 3 cognate Bills.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)- Are you seeking leave to have a general debate covering orders of the day Nos. 2, 3 and 4 on the notice paper?

Senator COTTON:

-I am.

Senator Wheeldon:

– It is all right with me.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-

Leave has been sought. Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator COTTON:

-I thank the Minister for his co-operation and for his observation. I think it ought to be fairly admitted, first of all, that the question of superannuation, wherever one may find it, is really for highly trained experts, of whom there are not many. When one detects them in a cluster they tend not to agree. I do not cast myself in the role of an expert in this matter and I trust that none of my colleagues will think of themselves in that way. Therefore, I shall address myself to some fairly general propositions. I have long mentioned in the Senate- I shall continue to mention it today and in the future- that Australia’s principal economic management problem is to bring into balance the available resources and the total demand on those resources in economic terms. This matter of superannuation is an enlargement of demand on economic resources. There is also to be seen in superannuation a cost thrust in its impact on the quantum of expenditure involved both now and later and in its impact on the total economic scene, in particular the wages bill of the Commonwealth.

There was a time when one could fairly have said of Australian society that employment in the Public Service in the prime instance offered to people great security of employment and in general rather lower pay and higher benefits in the form of superannuation, leave and conditions of that kind, whereas in the open market place, in private enterprise or for self-employed people the reverse tended to be the case. Outside the Public Service there was greater insecurity of employment, a tendency for higher pay and equally a tendency for lower benefits. This situation in Australian society is tending to become reversed in that the Public Service, with great respect to a body of fine men and women, is tending not only to receive higher pay and higher benefits but also to retain better security of employment. I am concerned that in Australia this tendency is beginning to create 2 classes of people. I say that without wishing to be in any way offensive to anybody.

Substantial pressures have been placed upon us all in relation to this legislation. We all have received a great number of telegrams- most of them couched in highly respectable terms, one or two attempting to be funny and the odd one being dictatorial. I think we all will approach this matter in the light of what we conceive to be our view of the public interest. That is the way in which the Opposition will approach this matter. I am suggesting in the first place that, whilst worthwhile changes are being made in many areas, at present the Australian community will not find it very easy to afford the total bill for the full proposals embodied in this legislation. Within the legislation there are certain assumptions based upon certain costs. As far as I can tell, the proposals are based upon an implicit assumption that the inflation rate in Australia is 3.9 per cent. I think we all agree that that is not the case. Many of the calculations involved are no more up to date than 1972 and they may need to be recast statistically and actuarially. This is a case in which a fair bit of care needs to be taken, and I hope that it will be taken.

I wish to make one or two brief references to the cost implications of this legislation. I shall try to state them in terms which are fairly unrefined. First of all, the main objection which I have to the proposed benefits in their total scene is that they are too generous financially and that they are incapable of being matched by other employers whose workers will pay taxes for the benefits which the members of the Public Service in total will enjoy. I have done a little sum. I hope that people will not require me to be too precise. It is a general sum which I think is applicable to the situation. In 1973-74 receipts from individual income tax totalled $5, 490m. In the same year the Public Service wages bill was $ 1 ,700m. So, in effect, 30c out of every dollar of income tax paid by individuals went to fund the Public Service wages bill. I take the matter further. This meant that about 6c of the tax dollar of every individual went on Public Service pensions.

One of the objections which the Opposition has had in relation to this matter is that we have found it very difficult, particularly in the House of Representatives, to obtain fair answers to fair questions. Mr Fraser, in particular, has made requests for answers about these matters, those requests have been on the notice paper for quite a long time, and he has had no satisfaction. Equally, I am told by my colleagues- they can produce evidence to this effect if it is requiredthat as an Opposition in the House of Representatives, where this matter originated, they could obtain no help in drafting proposed amendments and in looking at the total considerations that they might want to change.

I will pick out one item from the second reading speech which was delivered in this chamber. The second reading speech stated that based on the cost estimates for 1975-76 the new scheme would have been $5.4m cheaper. I think this is not necessarily to be regarded as totally correct. The relevant part of the second reading speech states that under the existing scheme the pension provided by a member’s own contributions is paid from the Superannuation Fund, under the new scheme the pension provided by the member’s own contributions is to be paid from Consolidated Revenue and in compensation, and the lump sum representing the discounted value of the pension is transferred from the Superannuation Fund to Consolidated Revenue. This sum is estimated at $20m for 1975-76. If the mechanical change of paying member-provided pensions from Consolidated Revenue instead of from the Fund had not been adopted, the effect of the new scheme on Consolidated Revenue would have been plus $ 14.6m and not minus $5.4m.

One examines as best one can the various superanuation schemes which are available to people in the private sector, and one finds that those people generally are worse off than Public Service people. Some people in the private sector are not really covered at all. For instance, there are self-employed people who are not covered and who have to make their own arrangements. One is concerned here again about the problem of creating in Australian society 2 classes of citizens- those who are secure and those who are insecure. When one looks at Commonwealth Public Service employment alone one finds that, in 1973-74, 25 people out of 270 000 were sacked. The same immunity is not offered to people in the private sector. The unemployment ratio in Australia has this relationship: In the work force in Canberra unemployed people represent 0.6 per cent; in the total work force in Australia unemployed people represent 4.4 per cent. I think the difference begins to emerge in rather interesting terms.

The Bill is to come into operation on 1 July 1975. The Government has stated that it should lead in this field. This is a debatable proposition if one is looking at a community that is entitled to some equality of opportunity and security. The Opposition accepts that the present scheme is complex and unwieldy and definitely needs tidying up. It is a fairly good scheme as regards benefits, but it is lacking in equity with regard to contributions, particularly in later years of contributor service. In some cases contributions can rise to 53 per cent of a member’s salary and in the early years of service they can be as low as 2 per cent. The Bill requires new contributors to make a basic contribution of 5 per cent and provides that they may contribute a further 5 per cent, with which we agree. It also is proposed that in due course- not immediately- there will be a reduction in administrative costs, which also is good.

Other quite significant and highly desirable features are that contributors or their dependants have options to take part of the benefit on death or retirement as a lump sum; Provident Fund contributors will receive the same benefits as other contributors on retirement and improved benefits on death or invalidity; children and orphans will receive better benefits; and the position of temporary public servants is to be improved. In 1972 a committee under the chairmanship of Mr Davey was appointed. It reported in March 1 973. Other reports have been made by Mr Melville and Professor Pollard. The final scheme was announced in December 1 974.

The Opposition does not deny that the Bill contains worthwhile improvements- indeed it supports them- but we believe that the question of the total cost must be examined and that the Government has not really taken this factor sufficiently or adequately into account. The Treasury advised in a report of May 1975 that if the Government-financed element of benefits payable were to be funded by the private sector the Government would have to contribute 23 per cent of the total salaries of all contributors. The Government Actuary estimates that the cost of updating based on 1972 salaries, the then inflation rate and membership, would be $225 m. It would now have to be a great deal more than that but I have not been able to obtain precise figures. Other people, of course, are making estimates of a figure much greater than that; I am trying to be as conservative as the facts available to me allow. I think there is no doubt in our minds in the Opposition that the scheme is a pacesetter scheme.

Senator Wriedt:

– Were you quoting the private sector then?

Senator COTTON:

-Yes. I would rather not read it out again because I am running out of time, if that is okay. We do not really feel that pacesetting is a wise thing to engage in for a government today in the confused, difficult and uncertain state of” the Australian economy. We think the tying of the pension to the consumer price index is over-generous. The consumer price index increased by 13 per cent in 1973 and 16 per cent in 1 974 and the increase is running now at about 1 8 per cent. Independent actuaries who have been looking at this state that the private employer would have to pay much more than the 23 per cent indicated by the Government Actuary. This is because of the current ages of employees and the lack of assets to provide for past service. It is stated to us that these contributions could rise to between 30 per cent and 40 per cent of salary.

The Opposition believes that, while it supports in many ways the broad principle of the scheme and its updating, there are areas in which it would necessarily be wise to amend. There are five of these and they will be taken up later on in the Committee stage, not because the Opposition wishes to negate the scheme’s advantages, but to put under substantial test the scheme’s massively increased cost. These particular amendments will relate to the retiring age, to the 50 per cent Government pension, to widows’ pensions, to the consumer price index and to options to remain in the existing scheme. As I have said, they will be dealt with when we come to the Committee stage of the debate.

I wish to consider this Bill in the context of the broad Australian scene, of which this proposal is now an important part. There is a great need for economic recovery; for economic certainty; for an understanding by the people of where the country is headed; a realisation of Australia’s true problems; and a genuine attempt to bring the demands upon the resources into approximation with the resources available to meet them. To do more than that- to promise people things they really cannot have; to lift expectations beyond reality- is to be unfair to the Australian people and unwise. Whoever does that will, of course, in the end have to come to account with the people, who really will have not been told the truth. There is no other way to run such a situation. Sometimes there can be a certain amount of expansion; then a little bit of time can be allowed to catch up. But the massive area in this Government’s proposals- right across the board- of spending or committing expenditure well beyond the capacity of the Australian people to make the resources available to meet those things is, to say the least of it, a piece of sleight of hand.

I look at the situation and say to myself: Above all this country needs a state of economic certainty and of economic management and, having achieved that, it needs to begin on a path of economic recovery. In that context, to achieve that, it is essential that we go back again to economic growth and stop just redistributing old resources which are being inflated away by bad management. We have to return in this country to resource creation and the development of the country’s opportunities, of its raw materials, of its people, and of all the ways of creating better living standards and greater opportunities. Out of all this it is possible to have a reduction in inflation and reduction of unemployment. But the principal thrust in achieving that has to be, first of all, a responsible government that knows where it is going and a community that believes in that government’s capacity to manage and be sensible. Then people in the market place, in professions and self-employment, people in trade unions, genuinely will want to put out an effort to establish a situation which is more creative rather than less creative. In that way a country expands its living standards and its opportunities and everybody is better off; not just one section is better off as against others.

I do not believe that this proposal, moving as it does in effect to take away from one section of the community which is now less secure and giving more to another section which is now more secure, is the proper and sensible way to achieve that. I think that those people I know in the Public Service and for whom I have an immense respect, from my association with them in earlier years and since, would in their hearts understand that there is merit in this general argument. When one thinks about such matters one is reminded, as is often the case, of things one believed in. I have always had a very strong regard for John Galbraith ‘s theories and attitudes. I recall an observation by J. K. Galbraith, in which he said that we must not create a society which is one of public affluence and private squalor. I say quite soberly and objectively that there is a very distinct limit to the amount of money that the Australian taxpayer can afford to pay if our society is to advance and all the people are to be better off.

Senator MCAULIFFE:
Queensland

– I think that all honourable senators will admit that some provision should be made for the declining years of people whether they work in government service or outside that service. I have found over the years that one of the principal reasons for industrial unrest is the uncertainty of employment coupled with the uncertainty of the future for people when they become old. This Bill is not unlike all other superannuation Bills. It is a very intricate measure. But I feel that the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) and his Department have made this issue perfectly clear to us all. They must have devoted a large amount of hard work towards this Bill’s consideration and completion. I agree with Senator Cotton that the formulating of superannuation funds is a matter for the experts, and there are very few of them. Still, as I said, I believe that the Minister and his Department have placed this Bill before us in a manner in which we can follow it.

Without going right into the statistical pros and cons of this scheme and comparing it with any other, there are a lot of generalities to which I feel the Senate can devote its attention. On 4 December 1974 the Government announced that it would introduce a new superannuation scheme for Australian Government employees. In line with the philosophy that is now attributed to the Australian Labor Party, that what Labor promises Labor will do, we are discussing this superannuation scheme and the amending legislation this evening. The present superannuation scheme was introduced in 1922. As Senator Cotton said, it is true that even in those days when it was introduced it was said that it would be a leader in its field. That is right. The national government should be the leader in all things- in superannuation, in social reform and in all forms of government. I might add here that even though this was the contention in 1922, much of private enterprise felt that the Government might be setting aims for its employees that they could not match for theirs. After 52 years I do not know of any private enterprise that has experienced extreme hardship in bringing into operation a superannuation scheme for its employees that compares favourably with that introduced by the Government. I feel that heights have not been reached with the proposed scheme that will not in time also be reached by private enterprise for its employees.

It is also worthy of mention that when the first superannuation scheme was introduced in 1922 those who introduced it had the vision, ambition and hope at that time that the Superannuation Bill would be the forerunner of a national scheme that would eliminate such calamities as occur when there is death, accident, fire and unemployment and there are worries about receipt of the age or invalid pension. Again I say that it is a feather in the cap of the Government and to its credit that only it, even in comparison with any of its predecessors, has done anything in a tangible way to bring about a national superannuation or compensation scheme.

Since its introduction the superannuation scheme has undergone many changes, including the introduction of the Provident Account. Employees in the service of the Australian Government who cannot meet the medical requirements concerning entry into the Public Service can contribute to a Provident Account and be able to take care of themselves in retirement. They receive a retiring allowance of something in the vicinity of3½ times the amount of their contributions. The scheme also has been widened with regard to membership to enable people who are officers of statutory corporations, of which there has been a proliferation over the last 2 decades, together with temporary public servants who have had lengthy service to be able to contribute to the Fund under the Act.

But the alterations that have been made have been only mechanical alterations that have not provided a great deal of trouble. The main complexities and the crises have arisen from the contribution structure of the present unit of pension scheme. It has been the contributions structure of the scheme that has provided the fundamental weaknesses. It is for that reason in the main that it was felt that a new superannuation scheme ought to be introduced. Under the present scheme contributions may represent 2 per cent or less of a member’s salary early in his career, but in the latter years of his career the contributions represent in some cases 25 per cent or even more if the member seeks to maintain his full contributory entitlement. I know that it is the exception, but there have been instances in which 100 per cent of a member’s salary has been contributed towards the scheme. Contributions of 60 per cent, 70 per cent and 80 per cent have been quite common. We all agree that the contributions system is complex. When one takes into account that there are over 220 000 employees in the Australian Public Service one can readily understand the crises situations that must inevitably arise.

Let us took at the development of the new scheme. It was on 8 May 1973 that a report by a departmental committee that recommended the introduction of a new scheme was tabled in the Senate. After receiving invited comments from interested parties the then Treasurer made certain changes to the scheme outlined in that report and proposed the introduction of a new superannuation scheme for Australian Government employees. A proposal, or proposition if one wants to call it that, was again tabled in the Senate on 14 March 1974.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator McAULIFFE:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later time.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2232

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM SHIPS

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Government in the Senate · Tasmania · ALP

– I lay on the table of the Senate a treaty which has not yet entered into force and which Australia has signed subject to ratification, namely, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, open for signature at London on 2 November 1973 and signed for Australia subject to ratification on 24 December 1 974.

page 2232

SUPERANNUATION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator McAULIFFE:
Queensland

– When the sitting of the Senate was suspended this evening I was endeavouring to tell the Senate what had taken place regarding the introduction of this new superannuation scheme. I had arrived at the point of saying that on 8 May 1973 a report by a departmental committee on the present scheme was tabled in the Senate. That committee recommended the introduction of a new superannuation scheme for Australian Government employees. After receiving invited comments and proposals from interested parties the Treasurer accepted certain changes for the new superannuation scheme for Australian Government employees and tabled the report in the Senate on 14 March 1974. It was at that stage that the Government then appointed Mr G. L. Melville, a Sydney actuary, and Professor Pollard to report on those proposals. The report of those 2 experts was tabled in the Senate on 10 July 1974, and as a result the legislation that we are discussing today was brought before the Parliament.

One can safely say that no subject brought before the Parliament has been so carefully researched, critically reviewed and open to public examination and debate over such a long period as has this new superannuation legislation. Yet we find that the Opposition is not satisfied with it, despite the fact that the best consultative brains in the land in relation to these matters were employed and despite the fact that the matter was thoroughly canvassed. I was sorry to hear Senator Cotton, who usually is very constructive in these matters, damn the measure with faint praise and refer to the expenditure that the country must bear in connection with this scheme. That seemed to be the main punchline in his contribution to the debate. Those of us who have read the legislation and have read the second reading speech know that the public servants will largely be paying for the benefits that they will receive. Surely anybody with a spark of humanitarianism would not object to people being paid sufficient to keep body and soul together after they have served the country faithfully and well to the age of 60 years. How false can the Opposition be in this regard? On examination we find that the proposed scheme will not cost the Government any more to cover those currently covered by the existing scheme. I think it is important to state that point because that was the whole premise upon which the Opposition’s defence and argument were based this evening. It will not cost the Government any more to cover under the new scheme those currently covered by the existing scheme.

Senator Wright:

– That is not right.

Senator MCAULIFFE:

- Senator Wright will have his opportunity to refute what I am saying when he makes his contribution to the debate. I am making the claim and I am standing by it. The fact is that any increased costs that the Government may have to meet and which in fact are caused by the proposed scheme will cover those people who ibr various medical reasons had belonged to the Provident Account. That is the main punchline and the main point in the whole scheme.

I now refer to the ridiculous situation in which the Opposition finds itself. It supports that part of the scheme in which the Government shall incur extra expenditure to provide the facilities for those people who hitherto were covered in the Provident Account. So it is humbug for the Opposition to say that the reason it is opposed to the scheme or the reason that it will not give the scheme its wholehearted support is because of the extra money it is going to cost the country. I have just pointed out to honourable senators opposite that they are not opposed at all to that part of the scheme in which the extra expenditure will be incurred.

Let us look at some of the Opposition’s proposed amendments. It has circulated 95 proposed amendments. If they are accepted they will make the Bill look like a pakapu ticket.

Warnings by the Opposition in relation to proposals to spend money on the poorer section of the community are usually framed in derogatory terms. We know that from experience, and yet, on the other hand, members of the Opposition vote enthusiastically in favour of proposals to make presents to big business, as we witnessed earlier this afternoon when a 6-figure amount was given to a Tasmanian business.

Senator Wright:

– The Opposition declared its attitude on that.

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– The Opposition is there when presents are made to big business but it opposes any endeavours made by the Government to give some relief to the poorer section of the community.

Senator McLaren:

- Senator Withers said here last year that all public servants were bludgers.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)- Order! There are too many interjections. Senator McAuliffe is addressing the Chair.

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– We all know that when referring to Commonwealth public servants members of the Opposition are at times very extravagant in their language. Yet it is a remarkable thing that the standard of the Commonwealth Public Service is such that every private enterprise undertaking in this country is trying to poach public servants from the Australian Government and use them in its own businesses because deep down it recognises the ability and efficiency of the public servants in Australia.

I turn my attention to some of the amendments proposed by the Opposition. The main amendment that it is putting forward proposes that a contributor under the new scheme must reach the age of 65 years before he can obtain the full Government share of the pension. We all know that since 1902 the Public Service Act has provided that the normal retiring age for public servants shall be 60 years and that it is only with the consent of the employee and the management that a public servant can continue in service until he is 65 years of age. The current Australian Public Service Superannuation Act has provided since 1924 that 50 per cent of salary be paid as the employer’s share of pension at the age of 60 years. I submit that it is absurd for the Opposition to propose to put back the clock to 1924, particularly when the social aims of the world community are for a lower retiring age and more leisure time. That is the principle that has been adopted universally throughout the world- a lower retiring age and more leisure time. Yet these great progressives of the Opposition want to advance the retiring age of public servants from 60 years to 65 years. They advocate the removal of the current provision for retirement at 60 years and insist that in future all public servants must work to 65 years if they are to qualify for the full Government benefit.

I refer to another major amendment foreshadowed by the Opposition. The Opposition proposal is to limit the updating of pensions to the Government financed section of the pension only. This is a significant reduction of benefit compared with current standards. We propose to apply the updating to both parts of the benefit- the member’s contribution financed part and the Government portion. The Opposition proposes to reduce this standard and to apply the updating to the Government portion only. What is proposed is out of step with all comparable superannuation funds, whether operated by State governments or private enterprise. The current practice is for the Government financed element of pensions to be updated by 1.4 times the increase in the consumer price index. In the Bill we propose that the whole of the entitlement of the contributor should be updated by one times the movement in the consumer price index, except in the case where the member opts for a lump sum payment. In that event the Government liability for updating applies to the Government’s share only. The Opposition wants the updating to be restricted to the Government share and to be one times as against 1.4 times the movement in the consumer price index. It is a watering down of the provisions that members of the superannuation fund have already. Would this amendment proposed by the Opposition not encourage contributors to opt out for a lump sum? I do not need to remind responsible senators what embarrassments a run on lump sum payments could cause to the fund.

As I have said 95 amendments are proposed by the Opposition. If they are accepted they will make the Bill look like a pakapu ticket. I am not prepared this evening to go through the lot of them. Some are consequential. I believe the major amendments concern the retiring age being increased from 60 years of age to 65 years of age and the updating of the pension on the basis of movements in the consumer price index to apply only to the Government financed element of the pension. As I say, we on this side of the House strongly oppose the amendments. I do not propose to speak at any further length this evening because I believe this Bill has been thoroughly canvassed. No measure has come under a more microscopic examination than has the superannuation legislation. I do not propose to debate the measures at length because I feel that to do so would be a waste of our time. The legislation can stand on its own merits. I commend it to honourable senators.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– Tonight the Senate is discussing the Superannuation Bill 1975 and cognate Bills which deal with improvements to Commonwealth Public Service superannuation. It is a very complex matter and anybody taking the floor in this debate takes it, as I do, with some trepidation. But at least I can assert one thing, and that is the egregious error of Senator McAuliffe, who preceded me, when he stated that the proposals in this Bill involved no increased cost to the Government section of the scheme. I shall read from page 5 of the authorised memorandum of the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) which accompanies the Bill. It states:

Overall, the introduction of the proposed new scheme is expected to increase the capitalised cost of superannuation to the Government by 13.7 percent.

Senator Baume:

– That is the 1 972 figure, too, is it not?

Senator WRIGHT:

-I will come to that. Let me make the simple point and torpedo the previous speaker in the main thrust of his assertive argument. There it is in the Treasurer’s own language: Overall, the introduction of the proposed new scheme is expected to increase the capitalised cost of superannuation to the Government by 13.7 per cent. That is not as much as the inflation rate this year and is not equal to the inflation rate last year, but it is still a considerable increase in the overall capitalised cost, which is the cost projected during the next 80 years, assuming these benefits operate.

Having laid that bird to the ground, let me remind the Senate that we are dealing with the superannuation of public employees of the Commonwealth Government and its instrumentalities. The employees in this country who enjoy superannuation number only 25 per cent or thereabouts of the total wage earners of the country at present- that is, employees of State governments and of private firms- and all other wage earners who receive superannuation do not number more than 25 per cent of total wage earners in Australia. It is a unique situation in the blue collar field of wage earners to have any superannuation at all; rarely is there any scheme for their benefit. We of the Liberal-National Country Party Opposition approach this Bill with a spirit of appreciation of the Public Service. To the Commonwealth Public Service have been recruited men of dedication and great ability, but they are not the loudest advocates for unreasonable benefits; they are the men who are probably working tonight and not engaging in advocacy of their own interests.

Let us see what we are talking about. The Treasurer thoughtfully introduced the measure by pointing out that superannuation as at present provided consists of 2 measures, the pension scheme and the provident scheme. He pointed out that the scheme originated in 1922. The pension scheme is based upon a unit system whereas the provident scheme for those who were medically incapable of entering a superannuation scheme had benefits provided by way of return of capital contributions. That unit scheme has developed into a complete anachronism, a complete incongruity, inasmuch as we are told by the Treasurer that some officers early in their career may pay contributions which represent only 2 per cent or less of their salaries, but in later years, to maintain a superannuation on the unit basis that will be at all relevant to their retiring salary, some of them have got to the stage where they are paying 25 per cent or even more of salary to maintain parity. The main purpose of this Bill is to adopt a much simpler construction and to bring all Provident Fund members who have survived the risks of life for 20 years into the superannuation scheme, unprejudiced by their medical handicaps.

Secondly, its purpose is to construct a scheme in 2 parts so that the Government scheme will support 50 per cent of the final salary being paid straight from Consolidated Revenue; and the contributors will pay 5 per cent of their salaries from beginning to end of their membership of the Fund, thus constituting a fund the earnings of which will be distributed in benefits from time to time. Contributors will have the option of adding to that 5 per cent compulsory contribution another 5 per cent contribution if they so wish, and the benefits received from the Fund will be increased accordingly. If they do not exercise that option, and if they pay only 5 per cent of salary, they will receive the Government’s contribution of 50 per cent of their final salary in the year before retirement; but by exercising that option they can receive an additional 20 per cent, thus enabling the ordinary public servant to retire on a pension of 70 per cent of the salary he receives in his final year before retirement at 65 years of age. The simplification of the scheme will be of tremendous advantage to some public servants who under the present scheme, in the latter stages of their careers, have been subjected to extremely high imposts in order to maintain their superannuation on a unit basis.

In the House of Representatives my colleague Mr Garland had incorporated in the annals of the Parliament a statement showing the payments of some contributors under the present scheme. One such contributor is paying more than 50 per cent of his salary in superannuation contributions, and others are contributing at the rate of 25 per cent, 28 per cent and 1 3 per cent of salary. This scheme, in simplifying that part of the administration, is conferring a tremendous boon on public servants and also is relieving the Government of heavy administrative costs of great perplexity. The overall cost of the scheme, capitalised by the Government’s actuaries and accountants, represents an increased cost to the Government of 13.7 per cent. It has been said that the Liberal Party Opposition is being unnecessarily harsh in relation to people to whom Senator McAuliffe referred as needing bread and butter and being the poorer sections of the community. I think of private employees who rejoice in schemes in various commercial undertakings around the country, but not one of whom contributes to a scheme that could compare with the present one, let alone the improved scheme or the scheme as we would amend it.

If the undertakings which maintain private schemes for their employees were to undertake a scheme such as this one the increase in their annual salaries bills would be no less than 23 per cent. That would be to enable private employees in existing schemes to get benefits equal to those available from the scheme under discussion. That figure, too, comes from Government records. It cannot be controverted. It is no calculation of mine; it is printed in the records of the Parliament as a statement from the Treasury. The statement is that if employees were to be funded by the private sector method a contribution equal to 23 per cent of the salary of each member would be payable during the period of his contributory membership of the scheme. If we in the Public Service are getting less than bread and butter and if we are the poorer sections of the community, I can think of the many small farmers, the 75 per cent of wage earners who have no superannuation at all and other sections of the community who would rejoice if such benefits were bestowed upon them.

But we recognise that, to maintain the spirit, competence and skill of the Public Service, superannuation has been an adjunct to proper salaries for more than 50 years. We support the simplified scheme under which contributors will be required to pay 5 per cent of salary throughout their career, with the option of contributing a further 5 per cent, while the ordinary retiring age remains at 65 years with the option of retirement at 60 years of age. An option also is given to take lump sum benefits. I do not think I would be overstating the expectations if I said that in the general range of Second Division or Third Division contributors the benefits might be expected to be between $40,000 and $80,000.

We support also the great improvement of the scheme which is to bring in people who hitherto have been relegated to the Provident Fund section and whose benefits have been limited because of supposed medical risks at the beginning of their career. If they have gone through life with such risks and have served their time, as many of them have done, they still have been denied participation in the superannuation benefit. It is on record that the inclusion of the Provident Fund beneficiaries in the Superannuation Fund involves an increased capitalised cost of $534m.

Senator McAuliffe:

– And you are supporting it.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Of course we are.

Senator McAuliffe:

– And yet you are humbugging about what it costs the country. That is the point I made.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I am saying that a reasonable judgment is demanded in relation to the extent to which money is ladled out of the Consolidated Revenue which we hold in trust and which is collected in taxes mainly from the other great part of the community comprising 75 per cent of the wage earners, the small farmers and the small businessmen who, for the most part, have no superannuation at all.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Quote us the case of the postal worker.

Senator WRIGHT:

– If those private superannuitants who enjoy superannuation schemes outside the Government were to get benefits equal to those provided in the scheme under discussion, private enterprise would have to meet an amount equal to an increase of 23 per cent of the salaries being paid at present.

I come to the 4 main amendments which the Opposition will propose. The first amendment concerns the standard retiring age, and the Opposition proposes that it should remain at 65, in accordance with the ordinary retiring age in private schemes. The great majority of those schemes provides for retirement at 65. Over 60 per cent of the contributors in the Commonwealth scheme are paying now for retirement at 65 and slightly less than 40 per cent contribute at higher rates for retirement at 60 years, by their own choice. The Opposition’s proposal involves no injustice to them because it provides that they should have the option to contribute for retirement at the age of 60 on the present terms, that is, the terms on which they have been buying their units. They will have the option of maintaining the contract that they already have entered into or they can switch to the new scheme for retirement at 65, with a cash refund of excess contributions already paid. If anybody can tell me that there is any injustice in that proposition, I will pause for a reply. Those 60 per cent of contributors who are paying today for a 65 retirement will go on under the new scheme with the benefit of the new scheme for retirement at 65, but those who have been paying for the special concession of retiring early at 60 will have the option of carrying out their present contract and retiring at 60 according to the units that they have paid and the contributions that they have made, or coming into the more beneficial scheme for retirement at 65 with a cash refund of their contributions already paid.

The capital cost of the difference between the proposals of the Opposition and the Government on this issue, calculated on 1972 salaries, is estimated to be $459m. The capital cost involved in the difference between retirement at 60 and retirement at 65 is $459m, calculated on 1972 salaries. The records of the Fund are not up to date and that figure could not be brought up to date, but Public Service salaries in the year 1 972 were $ 1 ,234m. For the year ended 30 June 1 974, the nearest computation that can be made is $ 1,701m. That is to say, before the raging inflation of this year, the increase in Public Service salaries over that interval was 39 per cent, and without taking that multiplying factor of 39 per cent into account, the capitalised cost of reducing the retiring age from 65 to 60 is $459m.

The second amendment that the Opposition proposes relates to widows. At the present time they get 62.5 per cent of the deceased public servant’s benefit. It is proposed in the Bill that that percentage should go to 67 per cent, involving .. .

Senator McAuliffe:

– You are going to deny them that.

Senator WRIGHT:

– … a cost of $138m, and the finger of scorn comes pointing at me from Senator McAuliffe on the Government side. Do honourable senators know what his Government is offering under its miserable national compensation scheme to a widow on the most preferred basis if her husband is killed during his working life? Fifty-one per cent! And if she is capable of going to work, the Government offers her 51 per cent for one year. That is the miserable Government that would toady to a section who wants political votes at the expense of the national interest. They come here crying for the widows, and they have not yet produced their national-

Senator Poyser:

– What about the war widows? What did you give them? Nothing.

Senator WRIGHT:

– War widows are provided for on a comparable basis- a miserable pittance of about $41 a week, irrespective of the earnings of their husbands either in the Services or in civilian life. Government senators ought to go home and get on a chain and bark in a kennel where their advocacy is appropriate. Under the Opposition’s amendment the allowance for widows will continue at the rate of 62 per cent, and that accrues to a widow even though she herself may be working in the Public Service at a full salary and is in no way dependent. Then the Opposition denies a 5 per cent supplement for those people who go on from the age of 60 after 30 years service. That was not recommended by any of Senator McAuliffe’s experts. It has come unsupported from his expert argument, and on a capitalised basis it would cost a cool $338m.

Then the Opposition supports an adjustment of superannuation according to the consumer price index- the full consumer price index figure, not multiplied by 1.4, as provided in the present Bill-not by 1.5, as Senator McAuliffe erroneously stated. The Opposition would update the pension from year to year according to the consumer price index. For my part, I state quite clearly that the granting of that by the Opposition is altogether too generous if one is going to contemplate for long an inflationary government of this description, under which the consumer price index figure may be anything from 16 per cent to 20 per cent. But having regard to the fact that over the capitalised period it is reasonable to expect that Australia will regain responsible government and inflation will be brought down to around 5 per cent, then rather than have any humbug about it let us give the full adjustment according to the consumer price index, certainly for the Government section of the contribution. Because the Fund is invested at interest rates that Senator McAuliffe has increased from about 8 per cent to 1 3 per cent, it will be earning in inflationary times the full benefit of the inflation.

On that computation, the Government’s proposals are expected to cost the country and revenue an increased capitalised cost, as put before Parliament, of $ 1 ,043m. Adjusted according to the Opposition ‘s amendment, it would cost the country an increase of something like $400m. I have not worked out the sum, but having regard to the continuing adjustment of the consumer price index that is a just provision by way of superannuation for public servants because it is being financed by the public. Seventy-five per cent of the wage earners have no superannuation and as for the other self-earners of the smaller variety, their life policies, if they ever had any, have been depreciated almost to vanishing point. Therefore the Liberal Opposition claims that it is taking a most responsible view in adjusting this scheme by way of the improvements I have referred to and in not conceding the complete claims that the Government has submitted to us.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I do not want to try to emulate the intensity that Senator Wright exhibited in his rather effective address to the Senate but I would say that I find it difficult and disappointing that this superannuation scheme was presented and is being discussed in isolation from the general question of a national superannuation scheme. I think that is a reflection on all honourable senators, including myself, that we are not discussing a scheme for the Public Service which is aimed at meshing inhowever long it might be in the future, even if it is a 20-year plan- with a national superannuation scheme for all Australians. In fact the explanation by the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) went out of its way to emphasise the separateness of this proposal and how it stands alone. The Minister made no excuse for the fact that no arrangements are made for the removal of the means test and the effect it will have on recipients of superannuation under this proposal. Therefore the almost deliberate aspect of treating this Superannuation Bill as a separate identity makes the debate on it and the consideration of it more difficult in respect of those people to whom Senator Wright referred- the major group of taxpayers who will pay taxation in their working lives to fund this scheme.

There are 2 main factors surrounding an increase in expenditure under this scheme- the ability to pay for and the equity involved in this scheme in relation to the rest of the community. It is true today that the marginal rate of taxation for the average wage earner is said to be, I think, 44c. We are seeing in the community today the first real taxpayer revolt. The Government is aware of this in its consideration of tax indexation and other factors relating to cuts in the proposed Budget. They are all a direct result of revolt against the exorbitant tax rates which are now being paid by the community. As Senator Wright pointed out, this is not a fat cat consideration; it is the average wage earner who is paying in excess of 40c marginal tax rate. Therefore the ability to pay surely must be a very big consideration and merging with it is the matter of equity.

We are discussing this Bill in isolation. What are we doing for the general community in providing it with life benefits such as are available under this scheme? By this legislation we are doing nothing except, as the Minister said, giving a lead. The Minister clearly stated in his second reading explanation that the Government scheme is supposed to do this. He said:

When the present scheme was introduced in 1922 it was seen as a major advance in the superannuation field and the scheme has generally led developments ever since. There is no reason why it should not; indeed the national Government should lead.

One can take it from that that the Government expects the moves made in this Bill to modernise and increase the benefits of the Public Service superannuation scheme to flow through into the private sector, otherwise it would not plan to take a leading position and would say that it sees its beneficial effect in isolation. We can only believe that the Government wants the effects of this scheme to flow through and it must believe that the costs of the scheme also will flow through.

Having regard to the taxpayer revolt that I have mentioned, I find it rather illuminating that Senator Mcauliffe, in interjecting when Senator Wright was speaking, should say: ‘You are humbugging about what is costs the country’. Those are his exact words. May I correct the honourable senator and substitute one word and say ‘He is humbugging about what is costs the people’. It is all very fine to use a non-personal description of Australians in general by using the word country’. We are all involved in the costs of government. In this way, of course, the Government has set the strategic factors which surround all financial matters at this moment. The Government is involved in scaling down its programs to the available financial resources. No one in the Government will deny that. No one will deny that the great challenge of the next Budget is to effectively and fairly trim the programs of government to what is available from the entire Australian taxpaying field. So Senator McAuliffe, in his interjection, was simply adding to last year’s Labor attitude to finance. He is back in the days when Mr Clyde Cameron, the Minister for Labor and Immigration, said that he believed in getting what could be got from collective bargaining. He no longer says that. He has advanced one step further than has Senator McAuliffe in his attitude tonight when he says: You are humbugging about what it costs the country’.

I am the first one to applaud any modernisation of the superannuation scheme and I join Senator Wright in his commendation of those aspects of it. I too would like to see us pay as much as this country can afford. I would like to see a proper reward for those who have devoted long years of service- decades of service- to the Public Service of Australia which, of course, is to the public of Australia. Let us not use impersonal terms: The public servants are the people who work for all Australians. I would like to see them get the best, the fairest and most equitable scheme which this country can devise and afford.

The strategic situation which basically has been set by the actions of this Government does not allow this Parliament to pass the expensive scheme that the Government has presented to it. It is not the fault of the Opposition if this scheme is amended substantially. The Opposition is taking the only responsible financial attitude available in the National Parliament, and not only in regard to superannuation. The Government’s reaction last year to the Opposition ‘s recommendations on finance was to adopt them so it cannot claim that the Opposition has been irresponsible. I give full credit to the Liberal Party and I do not want to take anything from it in my single position here. The fact is that the Liberal Party presented its financial policy last year and it was endorsed by the Labor Government. Therefore tonight the Liberal Party can recommend on a basis of performance. What the Liberal Party is saying in fact is that it would like to give this sort of benefit to as wide a section of the Australian community as possible but the Government has set a strategic situation and has failed properly to manage the finances of this country. The failure of that responsibility will be admitted publicly on Friday when the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) announces a change of the stewardship of Australia’s finances and changes his Treasurer. He will not be announcing the removal of a successful Treasurer. So the strategic situation is set by the Government against the interests of the Australian Public Service. It is not set against the Public Service by the Opposition.

What the Opposition is saying, obviously, is that any increase in this field obviously has to come from deficit financing and therefore it has to be careful about what increases are agreed to. It is suggested that the scheme should be modernised and that a comparison exists. One of the amendments that the Opposition is to put forward is that if any of the existing contributors believe they may be disadvantaged by this scheme they may elect to stay with the present scheme. That is the competitive effect of the present and the proposed schemes. I expect to support most of the Opposition amendments but would like to know whether any of them have been altered since the Bill came from the House of Representatives. 1 studied those that arose in the House of Representatives and I will listen to the discussion to see whether they are still the same. I intend to support most of them. I do so only because the last amendment allows those who feel that they may be disadvantaged to stay in the old scheme. Those who have been paying large late payments under the old scheme will not feel that they have in any way -

Senator Poyser:

– You are ratting on jolly John.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– It is all very fine for honourable senators opposite to get down to the voting power. They know full well they have the votes in this situation. They know they have the votes, and they can laugh about it. If any votes are to be won, they have got them. Let me say this about the ex-Prime Minister: In asserting his support for the full superannuation proposals he is not varying his previous attitude. If he stands according to his previous attitude he cannot be charged with opportunism.

Senator McAuliffe:

– You will have to do better for him.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I am sure that Senator McAuliffe expects some additional votes out of this matter. That seems to be his level of approach. He is humbugging the country. He should not humbug the country because he wants some votes. One of the surrounding aspects of the discussion on this Bill which has been quite objectionable has been the threat made by some officers of associations representing public servants that if they did not get the full benefits of this Bill they would campaign against members of the Liberal and National Country parties. That is the first time I have experienced that sort of threat and blackmail. I have voted against the interests, as seen, of some big businesses in this country. I have voted against what some businesses have believed was their interests in restrictive trade practices. I have voted against the interests of a great number of individuals in the community. I have never previously been subject to that threat. It is the first time in my political life. I hope it is the last time. As the Prime Minister said on ‘Monday Conference’, such action is counter productive. From my assessment of individuals I would guarantee that no one on this side of the chamber would vote for the Bill because of those threats. I do not intend to over react and vote for the amendments because of those threats, any more than I intend to vote for the Bill because of them. I think honourable senators should realise that those threats have been made, when they glory in the voting effects which may come from opposing these amendments, because it does not do them credit in any way to be associated with the threats.

There is public concern. It cannot be wiped off by saying that the scheme is a different one and one which does not affect the public. It affects the public schemes, according to Senator Wriedt, the Minister who introduced the Bill in this chamber. He said that it is giving a lead. He cannot escape the consequences to the private sector by saying that it is not a funded scheme but that it comes from taxpayers’ funds. Private schemes are funded schemes. The comparison that Senator Wright made about the $452m, which I think is the figure he used, is a valid comparison because the lead which this scheme gives to the private sector funds will be seen to affect them in a capital way. So the comparison which Senator Wright made is a valid one.

If private funds have to move according to the provisions of this Bill, the funds which they may set aside will be affected very substantially. I am conscious of that fact. However, I must say that the comparisons which have been made by some leading accountants and representatives of business have in some ways been over emphasised. Certainly some of the critics have made comparisons on major aspects of the existing scheme and the proposed scheme which have been accepted by both sides of the political scene and which are not the subject of contention tonight. The effect of the consumer price index adjustments on the Government payments, is not in contention between the 2 sides of this Parliament; it is a fact of life. Yet some private actuaries argue as if there is contention- that this Bill will be more effective than the scheme which it is meant to supersede. Therefore I think that some of the private criticisms have been over emphasised and have not dealt with the specific issues which are under contention between the 2 major political parties.

I am certainly conscious of the effect of the adoption of age 60 as the official retiring age for full benefit and the effect it will have on the private sector. I am aware also of the general view that now is not the time, when inflation is running at anything from 1 5 per cent to 20 per cent, to enter into unknown commitments for an unknown future to the extent to which this scheme would lead the private sector. There are a number of optimists in the community who believe that inflation this year will be lower than 1 5 per cent. There are people, who still consider themselves optimists, who say that inflation will be below 20 per cent. There are plenty of pessimists who say that it will be above 20 per cent. On that basis it is not a time to venture. The Opposition surely is not saying that any contributor to the present scheme would be disadvantaged because of the amendment which has been referred to previously by other speakers and by me. No claim can be made that any existing contributor will be disadvantaged by the Opposition’s attitude. However, the Opposition is saying that it agrees to the modernisation of the administration of the scheme and to the new scheme competing for a while with the old scheme. It is a known fact that if there are faults in the scheme, if the community suddenly develops a much greater capacity to pay, if the financial aspect of the public management by this Government improves and if it is desirable to increase these benefits, they can be increased by another amendment at any sitting of this Parliament.

Therefore it is a cautious and a sensible procedure to look at a scene set strategically by this Government. The scene is one of financial failure. We are about to see the third Treasurer in the short life of this Government. That indicates a self-admitted failure in financial management. It is prudent at this time to say: ‘Let us adopt a scheme which will not be worse than the old scheme and which will give great advantages administratively but which at the same time will not place pressure on the private sector’. I believe that at this stage in the development of Australia it is in far worse condition than the Government even knows. It is not a matter of the Government admitting it; it is a matter of the Government even knowing it. It is not the big businesses in this community which will fold under pressures such as those which will be brought to bear by this Bill; it is the myriads of small businesses today which are simply going out of business without any publicity. There will always be big businesses such as the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. I think Australia should be thankful for that. It is not the solvency of BHP that we talk about; it is the solvency of the plumber who employs 6 people or the furniture maker who employed 8 people in Sydney.This case was referred to in an article in a recent edition of the ‘Australian Financial Review’. Those people cannot face the increased costs of benefits such as those envisaged in the Bill.

I believe the Opposition is basically right. I would like to consider one or two amendments. I would like to know whether they are different from the ones which were presented in the House of Representatives. I believe it might be best to apply the figure of 67 per cent to payments to widows. While the Opposition may justify the economy because it is in line with the rest of the improvements in the Bill, it involves an emotional response which might very well divert the argument from the general proposition which the Opposition is putting.

Senator Poyser:

– You are being pragmatic about it now.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I am sure that Senator Poyser is being pragmatic. He is already counting the votes. I am not sure that he has not a calculator there to work out the gain to his side of politics. On the basis of looking at the capacity to pay, the equity to others in the community, the failure of all members of Parliament- I include myself- to develop any logical argument for a national superannuation scheme, which is the only fair basis on which to develop superannuation in Australia, and even the failure to mesh in this scheme with the removal of the means test, I believe the Opposition’s amendments in the main should be supported. They are not unchangeable. They are properly cautious. They do not deprive contributors of their present benefits. Certainly, if the amendments are passed and the Government accedes to the Bill in that changed form, they still will represent an added administrative advantage and, in many cases, financial advantage to those in the Public Service.

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

– I have listened with great interest to this debate and particularly to Senator Wright’s reference to the widows of contributors. I rise now to speak on that one issue. I am concerned at amendment No. 37 proposed by the Opposition. This Superannuation Bill surely must have one claim to fame in that a total of 95 amendments are proposed, which almost equals the number of amendments moved to the Family Law Bill. While speaking on the matters of widows’ entitlements, I must confess that I am concerned that there has not been almost an uprising in our community at the injustices under existing schemes experienced by widows of superannuitants who receive only a portion of what their partner would have been entitled to if he had been able to claim full benefits.

As I understand the situation- I am open to comment from the Opposition if it can prove me wrong- all superannuation schemes accept the proposition that if the actual contributor dies his widow is entitled to something like 67 per cent of the maximum of 70 per cent of salary which he would receive if he qualified as a maximum recipient. Let me take the case of a man who is due for retirement and who is earning $200 a week. If he qualified for maximum benefits he would receive $140, but his wife would receive only 67 per cent of that $140, or a total of $94 a week, which is less than 50 per cent of the breadwinner’s earnings at the time he was employed. I find this a grave injustice. I am concerned that no one in the community has risen up and said that this is wrong. The contributions made to a superannuation scheme are made by a partnership between husband and wife. Yet we allow the insurance companies which bring down these rather marvellous schemes to say that one partner is entitled to more than another partner, even though the contributions which are paid reflect the life style in which those partners can live on the balance of the breadwinner’s money.

I find this rather confusing. It is even more confusing if we look at the Opposition’s proposed amendment, which would mean that the status quo would remain. The amendment refers to the contributor’s widow. I stress widow’ because no mention is made of spouse. Obviously the Opposition has not yet concerned itself with the widowers. The Opposition wants to reduce the amount of 67 per cent, which is proposed in this Bill, to 62 Vi per cent. So figures which I gave a moment ago, of $140 and $94, would become the $140 maximum if the qualification were there- I understand that that is a relatively rare occasion- and less than $87. The wife would then be entitled to less than $87 a week. She would be expected to adjust her life style which has been built up on the basis of a partnership contributing to a superannuation scheme which should determine the life style for her future as well as for his. Quite frankly, I cannot understand why the Opposition wants to have this reduction made. I look at the report of the Treasury Committee of March 1973 entitled Superannuation for Commonwealth Employees’. I appreciate that that Committee was set up under the Liberal-Country Party Government. This is what the Committee stated in clause 6.25:

The table shows a rising trend in the relationship of fixed costs to private final consumption expenditure since 1958-59 when the widows’ benefit was increased from Vi to % of the members’ entitlement. If a benefit of % (62.5 per cent) of the member’s entitlement was appropriate in 1959, then the rising trend shown by the table would suggest that a benefit of two-thirds or 67 per cent of the member’s entitlement could now be more appropriate.

That Committee was concerned in March 1 973 that there should be an increase in the benefits to be paid to widows of contributors. It was not concerned quite enough to realise that there should be equal benefits to both contributing partners. It was at least concerned that there should be some increase. But the Opposition is not concerned, even in June 1975. Quite frankly, I am shocked at this lack of concern by honourable senators opposite at this time. I must admit that I am appalled that they should propose such a measure as amendment No. 37 to clause 83 when women throughout the world are having to fight for recognition as equal human beings. The honourable senators on the benches opposite are the very people who will try, by fair means or foul, to turn all women back into pumpkins at the end of International Women’s Year. There will not be any equity. Senator Hall spoke of equity. I would like him to consider my equitable proposition.

I understand that the figures that have been put forward in the other place and by a number of speakers here are presumed to apply to widows’ benefits under State government superannuation schemes. Let me cite for the record the exact figures. New South Wales, Tasmania, South Australia and Victoria all operate on a 66.7 per cent or two-thirds benefit. Even Mr Hamer, when introducing the scheme in Victoria, stated:

Taken as a whole I believe it provides for as fair and as equitable a scheme as any in force or proposed in Australia.

In fact, the only 2 States not using the two-thirds benefit are Queensland and Western Australia. In Western Australia we have our own natural disaster in Sir Charles Court. When he was introducing a Bill on 27 March this year he stated:

I want to emphasise that this measure is purely a holding one. The authorities and experts involved are making a thorough study of the overall superannuation and family benefits provisions in this State. Of course, we have regard for the problems that are being experienced in the Commonwealth and in other States, because this situation is not peculiar to Western Australia.

I take that to mean that at least Western Australia is prepared or is preparing for change. At the moment that State and Queensland are the only 2 States in which the widow’s pension is 62.5 per cent of the husband’s entitlement. I think it is high time that we made provision for the changing society in which we live. No longer does the little woman sit at home and wait and hope that her husband will be able to provide well for her and himself in the now and in the future. At this time we are seeing more and more wives joining the work force. Sometimes this is a matter of necessity. This was acknowledged by the Treasury Committee on Superannuation which, in its report, stated:

The Committee recognises that within the community an increasing number of family units are becoming dependent for their continued support upon the joint incomes of husband and wife.

The Melville-Pollard report of 5 June 1974 also recognised that more and more wives are contributing; it recognised that there is a partnership. The authors must have felt some responsibility if only because they referred to the contributing members’ partners as spouses. They are no longer wives or widows; they are spouses. Even taking that small measure into account, it still would be necessary for a widower to prove a degree of dependence on the income of his deceased wife before he could benefit at all. So I return to the point I made earlier. Whether the member-contributor is male or female is entirely irrelevant. The contributions are still made from a joint partnership. The only difference is that one of those persons would be discriminated against, and the degree of discrimination would be much greater if the wife was the remaining partner. Whilst we stand here in our little ivory towers debating this Bill, even the members of the Opposition must take some comfort in the fact that the compulsory scheme to which we as members of this Parliament contribute provides for a five-sixths benefit payable to widows or widowers.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The Opposition’s attitude on this Bill should be quite clearly understood. There is a clear need for a change in the essential basis of the existing superannuation scheme. We recognise that changes must be made. We recognise that certain inequities and injustices have developed over the years. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that there is an improvement in the existing superannuation scheme and that many of those anomalies and injustices are rectified. The Opposition Parties support that aspect of this Bill. Notwithstanding the calculated campaign of misrepresentation in many quarters that position is indisputable on the record.

Equally the Opposition recognises that a government of this country has a responsibility to the whole of the community. The way in which our society is organised in terms of its government involves the pressure which various pressure groups can bring to the government of the country. Whilst one group of people urge upon government in varieties of ways the need for something to be done to augment a section of the community or to advance a particular cause, there are other groups who might urge in the opposite direction or claim that there other objectives which ought to have greater priorities. In that sense we are a pluralist society and our functioning as a democracy depends upon having a government which is able to balance the competing interests and is able to make the necessary decisions as to which interests should have priority over another interest. If there is a need at present in this country it is for government to accept the responsibility which it owes to the community as a whole.

We have seen in the space of 2 years a prosperous community with regularly increasing standards of living rapidly going downhill because of irresponsibility in government. We have seen in 2 years inflation rising at a rate which is averaging approximately 1 5 per cent each year and currently, on the March quarter figures, at the rate of 18 per cent. We have seen average weekly earnings increasing in this country by just under 50 per cent. We have seen productivity, the production of goods and services and the value of what is provided lagging a long way behind. This has occurred because we have a government which has deliberately used inflation to finance a massive increase in Government spending. Notwithstanding the somewhat belated efforts by various Treasurers in various Budgets to correct the pattern of 2 years, still we see no abatement in the processes which the Government set in motion when it took office. The need for government is to show responsibility and to show some restraint in terms of Government expenditure.

Everybody in the community must accept some restraints in the national interest. Some people have accepted very substantial restraints unwillingly but necessarily. I think particularly of those who are on a private superannuation scheme and those who have fixed incomes and who can do very little to improve their lot as they see their weekly or fortnightly superannuation cheque diminishing in value. There is a need to look after those people. There are the age pensioners and the invalid pensioners of this country who depend upon government cheques. Whilst the Government made great and bold promises in 1972 that it would ensure that the age pension was always 25 per cent of average weekly earnings, notwithstanding all the efforts that have been made and notwithstanding the half-yearly increase of $5 a week, they are still far from the target which was set.

Senator Gietzelt:

– They got 19 per cent under your Government, senator.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-The honourable senator must pick out one particular month about 7 years ago to justify that statement. But the fact is the pensioners are another group who are suffering. I believe that the wage earners generally must accept restraint. That is a view which the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) have been echoing in recent months. Equally the Commonwealth Public Service should exercise some restraint because the Commonwealth Public Service has been one of the beneficiaries of this Government in office. It was assured of and it received 4 weeks annual leave. It was assured of and it received very generous maternity leave. It has received the accolade of government in terms of various pay increases which have been awarded by the Public Service Arbitrator. It is about to receive, if the Parliament agrees, probably the most generous long service leave provisions which this country is able to provide. Under this superannuation scheme it would receive benefits which I think could not be equalled by any section of the private sector throughout Australia. These are facts.

A government which is conscious of its responsibilities will endeavour to share the burden and ensure that in the present economic conditions over-generous provisions are not made. We in the Opposition believe that there are some areas in which restraint can be exercised with regard to superannuation benefits. Essentially that is the attitude which the Opposition is following. Several features of the campaign which has developed around this new Bill ought to be stressed. I suppose the first aspect of it is the way in which the Government has sought to rush this piece of legislation through the Parliament without giving to the Opposition an adequate opportunity to examine the terms of the Bill.

Senator Gietzelt:

– You would have to be joking.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Let us look at the facts. I wonder whether Senator Gietzelt will be prepared to give an answer when I give him these facts: The Bill was introduced into the House of Represenatives on 15 May. It was debated on 28 May and in less than 2 hours the debate was gagged on the second reading. It came into the Senate on 3 June- yesterday- and we are expected to debate it today. In the intervening period the Opposition was expected to undertake the research necessary to enable it to give proper consideration to the terms of the Bill. If this not racing a Bill through, I would like to know what is. This Bill contains, as Senator Gietzelt knows, 196 clauses extending over 133 pages. To this day the Government has not stated what this scheme will cost or what the benefits which are provided by the scheme will cost. Is Senator Gietzelt prepared to say I am wrong on that? Can he say what the cost will be?

Senator Gietzelt:

– Yes.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Tell me.

Senator Gietzelt:

– It has been stated in the House of Representatives debate.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– What is it?

Senator Gietzelt:

– It is $560m, as stated by Dr Cairns.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I ask the honourable senator to give chapter and verse and to show whether that is the cost. That cost has been sought by the Opposition and it has not been possible to give it to us. I want to draw attention to the way in which a campaign has been developing, which campaign, if I might use an editorial in the Melbourne ‘Age’, is a matter of blackmail. The ‘Age’ editorial of 29 May states:

By exerting political blackmail in the guise of industrial pressure, the Public Service unions are destroying the traditional political neutrality of the Public Service.

I will not be intimidated, nor will the Opposition be intimidated, by the political blackmail which a few Public Service union officials are prepared to use. I have here an article- I think it is from the Melbourne ‘Herald ‘-headed:

PS warns Libs: We’ll fight you.

The article includes a statement from Canberra:

Australia’s largest public service body today vowed to campaign against the Liberal and Country Parties unless they dropped plans to oppose sections of the Public Service Superannuation Bill.

We will to a man campaign actively against them in any future election ‘, the President of the Australian Government Employee Organisations, Mr Ken Turbet, said.

And we will concentrate on crucial marginal seats ‘.

Further it states:

The AGEO has 22 affiliated unions and represents 1 60 000 federal public servants . . . ‘The Opposition’s proposals are a direct attack on more than-

I think he said- 250 000 public servants and their families’.

Mr Turbet said the Liberal Party; unless it dropped the amendments- would find it extremely difficult to win one of the new Senate seats proposed for Canberra.

There is no doubt they will feel the brunt of the public servants ‘ displeasure ‘.

I think that is a blatant appeal to self-interest and, as far as any pressure on the Opposition is concerned, we can rise above it because I think we demonstrated in 23 years of government in this country that we were able to look after the interests of all the people of Australia and to provide the conditions under which there were rising standards of living for all Australians. And all Australians know this, and in the past 2 years they have suffered an apprehension which destroys so much of the good will and sense of anticipation for a prosperous future that was built up in the years we were in government. A few public servants are not going to change the Opposition’s attitude by this sort of political blackmail. I think it is high time the people of Australia realised that if the Public Service is going to act in this way we are losing one of the vital factors in the way in which we govern in this country. How can the Public Service unions expect that if there be a change of government the same trust and reliance can be placed in the so-called neutrality and independence of the Public Service if this sort of attitude is to be adopted? I think it would be a helpful sign if the Public Service unions were to sack the officials who are resorting to this sort of political blackmail in the interests of one particular party.

I turn now to a third issue. A number of us have received letters, telegrams and phone calls and have engaged in discussions about the merits of this particular scheme. I think a lot of what has been said has been notable for its inaccuracy, its emotive overtones and its ability to put a case which cannot be justified on examination. I received an impressive, nicely worded letter from the Department of Manufacturing Industry with I do not know how many signatures- I suppose 300 or 400- attached to it. The frontispiece letter was simply signed ‘The Undersigned’, then all the names appear on separate sheets. The letter states the concern of the undersigned employees at the opposition -

  1. . to the proposed new superannuation scheme which has been passed through the House of Representatives.

The amendments suggested by your Party are, in fact, taking away benefits which have been part of the existing scheme for the past fifty years.

I challenge anyone to say where our attitude is taking away any benefit which is held by any existing member of the Commonwealth Public Service superannuation scheme. That statement plainly is incorrect and it has been part of the general program which has been generated through a lot of public servants to give them the idea that the Opposition is taking away something which public servants presently have. We are not. I am interested to find there is not an interjection suggesting the opposite from any member on the Government side. What we are doing is to accept the basis of this scheme but suggesting, fundamentally, 4 amendments. The first is that the retiring age should be 65 years, at which time the maximum benefits can be obtained. This, of course, accords with the general concept which was set out in Professor Hancock’s report. I know the new scheme provides for 60 years; we say it should be 65 years. What does the existing scheme say? The present Superannuation Act provides that the maximum retiring age is 65 years or such lesser age as is allowed by law. If you look at the Public Service Act you find that members of the Public Service may retire at the age of 60. There are people who have bought their units in the existing superannuation scheme under which they are planning to retire at 60 years. Some of these people are finding in their latter days that they are paying very large sums out of their weekly pay packet towards the superannuation units which they have bought. One example is that of a person receiving, I think, $192 a week, who is paying out something like $103 a week for his units- that is, 53 per cent of his salary. He has been in the Public Service since he was 38 years old and has a year to go. That is hard, I accept. For people in that circumstance there is a need for rectification. High rates of inflation and high income tax have made a situation which was able to be contemplated a few years ago totally unreal and imposing great hardship at the present time. Those things have to be changed. But anyone who at the present time is geared to retire at 60 years of age can continue under the existing scheme as a result of the Opposition amendments and he will be able to see throught the arrangements which he has made. That is not taking away existing benefits; it is maintaining them. What he would not be getting, of course, if he chose to remain on that basis, would be the additional benefits which he could get if he were to join the existing scheme. Yet, under the proposed scheme, if a person is geared to retirement at the age of 65 years, at which time he can get the uniform 50 per cent of salary from the Government contributions plus the other 20 per cent or a lump sum, can retire at 60 years if he chooses to do so. But if he chooses to retire at 60 years he will not get the full benefits which he would get of he remained until 65 years of age. Under a new scheme I fail to see why that is not a reasonable proposition. It may be that in better economic conditions- after a change of govenment and conditions in this country improve- the matter could be looked at again. A scheme can always be changed to improve it, but it cannot so readily be changed to take away benefits. That is the way the Opposition is looking at the matter.

The second proposition is one which I know

Senator Steele Hall had some doubts about: That is that the pension which is payable to a widow should not be the 67 per cent which is contemplated, or two-thirds of the pension, but should be the proportion which it is at the present time- five-eighths. The Opposition believes that, in view of the savings in costs which that would involve, it is a reasonable change to make. We believe likewise that there should be the basic 30 years of service which provides the uniform entitlement of 50 per cent of salary and we should also make the saving involved in not having the benefit going up by one-half per cent a year for each year over 30 years of membership. But there again, in better economic conditions these things can be looked at. I do not think it is an unreasonable position when the basic benefit which people are to get for a uniform 5 per cent contribution from their salary is to be 50 per cent of the final salary they are receiving at retirement plus either the 20 per cent increase of pension which they buy from their contributions or, as we would see it as a more desirable scheme, the lump sum entitlement which they can receive. That is not an unreasonable proposition.

The fourth amendment we are suggesting is that the consumer price index increase should be related not to the total contributions but to the Government contributions. We believe it to be in the interests of the scheme and of the people themselves that they should take a part of their pension as a lump sum at the time of their retirement. I have been concerned because there have been so many opinions said inconsistent with what the Opposition is proposing. When one considers the record of this Government and its ability to twist the facts, to falsify and to misrepresent- leaving aside the outrageous lies which they engage in at election times- I think there is something deplorable in the fact that this misrepresentation is engaged in by a few union officials connected with the Public Service unions.

We want to nail the position and to make our position quite clear. Fundamentally we are concerned about 2 things: Firstly, we want to ensure that the community is managed responsibly and that money is not spent on over-generous schemes when the need is to exercise restraint and to show an example right throughout the country; and, secondly, we want to avoid the pace-setting example that must inevitably have its effect upon the private sector. I have received a responsible letter on this subject from the Australian Industries Development Association. I want to read just one section of it. The Association is opposing in their entirety the proposals that have been put forward by the Government. The letter reads:

It is necessary however to totally oppose the changes now proposed, because if adopted they will generate a further serious cost explosion in an economy already racked by costpush inflation, lt is no exaggeration to say that many business undertakings will not be able to bear the additional costs when equivalent benefits or something near to them flow through to the private sector, as they inevitably must, lt must also be understood that most companies already are under strain in endeavouring to accommodate their existing pension schemes to the effects of inflation in the last few years.

The Opposition is acting responsibly. We trust that the Senate will accept the amendments that we will be proposing. The people of Australia have the assurance that we will not bow to political blackmail and that we will act as we believe that the national interest requires.

Senator BUNTON:
New South Wales

– I rise to add my contribution to this debate, which, up to this point, has in the main followed party lines. I feel that it is incumbent upon me to make my comments in the light of the position as I see it as an Independent. Might I say in the first instance that although I have received a very full mail box over the last week- I have received in excess of 500 telegrams, I have met many deputations and I have received many letters- I have not received any letter of abuse. I have received advice and requests of me to give full consideration to the Bill which is before the House. That I have endeavoured to do.

In the main I am prepared to support the Bill. I say that with some reservations because I have not as yet been informed- the debate tonight has not provided the necessary information on this matter, which is very important- as to what is the difference in the cost structure between the Government’s proposal and the percentage increase involved in the Opposition’s proposal. I have heard much in this debate about the necessity for restraint in the wages area and I have heard much said from time to time about the necessity for restraint in the cost structure area, but nothing has happened. Indeed the Senate was given the opportunity quite recently of showing restraint in relation to salary increases but it did not do so when it granted increases to members of Parliament and public servants. Surely we are not going to see a state of affairs in which there will be restraint in connection with superannuation. I make my position very plain. That is the last area in which I would like to see restraint introduced.

The present Superannuation Fund came into being in 1922. There have been some amendments to it since then. Most of them have been of a quite minor nature. This year a mandate was given to specialists in the field to devise a new superannuation scheme for presentation to the Parliament. That scheme has been worked out on an actuarial basis. In the main I am prepared to accept it. I look upon those who have done the work as being specialists in the field. But I repeat that I have some reservations. I sincerely trust that in the Committee stages of this debate it will be possible for me and for the Senate generally to be advised of the difference between the cost of the Government’s proposal and the cost of the Opposition’s proposal. In this year of 1975 I desire to see a liberal superannuation scheme affected.

This matter has come before the Senate after a deal of review. The superannuation scheme is a scheme in which the employee and the employer have a part to play. Under the superannuation scheme there is a necessity for the employee to make his contributions, for the employer to set aside funds to meet the requirements on maturity and for the investment of the contributor’s funds. So, in a period in which we have a very heavy borrowing government, the money that is contributed by the contributors is an important factor in the country’s economy. I emphasise that it is incumbent upon any employer, particularly a government employer, to make certain that at the end of a man’s working life security will be provided to stand him in a good stead.

In my early days in the private sector I was a strong believer in life assurance. I happened to start my own account at the age of 17 years. By the time I was 23 years of age I had put every spare penny I had into life assurance with a view to retiring at the age of 60 years. I scrimped and saved, with my wife’s assistance, to do it. But at the age of 60 years, on the maturing of those policies, there had been such a change in the economic position and such a change in the value of the pound that I had no hope of retiring. I would not like to see the employees of the Government- the public servants who mean so much to the prosperity of our country- being placed in the position of having to retire without a sufficient retiring allowance.

There is no doubting the fact that there was an implied condition attached to the terms of reference of the specialists who reported on the superannuation scheme that the Government generally desired a more liberal scheme to be brought into operation. The position is that we have such a scheme before us tonight. I know that some amendments are to be moved to the scheme in very good faith by the Opposition. I am prepared to support the Opposition in some of those amendments. But, let me repeat, I would like to be in the position of knowing the differences between the cost of the 2 schemes. We are building a Public Service kingdom and we have to make provision for it. The Public Service kingdom is being built not by the Government alone but by the Parliament. We are today governmentally a community of boards, corporations, authorities and commissions. We have found that we have to have a much larger scheme than was the case a couple of decades ago or even a decade ago.

Reference has been made to the conditions that apply in the superannuation scheme of the Public Service and that of the private sector. As one who is closely associated with the private sector let me say that its superannuation schemes are reviewed from time to time. In most of the larger companies throughout this country one > finds that only the executives are covered but they are covered on a very liberal basis. I think I am right in saying that a little less than 50 per cent of members of our working community are covered by superannuation schemes.

Much has been said about inflation. This Bill must not be considered in isolation from inflation. Let us analyse our current national economic situation. What do we find? We are always saying that we have a very high standard of living, and that is very evident, but that high standard of living has to be paid for. What do we find? We find that high salaries and wages are being paid. We find that professional people charge very high fees. We find that trade and commerce are charging very much increased costs. We find that we pay very heavy taxes. We find that we have liberal pensions, that we pay high land rates and that the price of our amusements is high. Generally people are encouraged to spend their money on the totalisator and, in the State of New South Wales, on poker machines.

As a result it is necessary that a very high rate of superannuation should be provided for a person when he retires. The contributor’s share of that superannuation is paid for by the person concerned during his lifetime. That is the current state of affairs, and it is going to remain with us for all time. Just as throughout the last 30 years people have found that insurance policies on maturity were not worth as much as they had expected, we will find that the superannuation payment made at the end of an employee’s working life will not be sufficient to accord with the times unless we adopt a very liberal approach to this scheme at the beginning. So we find that it is quite a problem. I was very pleased to hear Senator Wright make reference to the rural sector. That is the only sector in the community which is currently disadvantaged, and it is unfortunate that that is the case.

In dealing with matters such as a superannuation scheme, I think the position of the rural sector should be made very clear. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case. The Public Servise has a vast responsibility and is engaged in a wide spectrum of services. One realises the value of the Public Service when there is a breakdown in the provision of those services. It has been suggested in some quarters that a government has no right to give its Public Service conditions of employment which the community could not afford to give itself, for example, under a national superannuation scheme. Public servants have a special employee-employer relationship with the Australian Government which does not apply to the rest of the community and they have also well organised unions. Their terms of employment- leave, superannuation, security, fringe benefits- must be of such a level overall that the Government can attract sufficient skilled staff to carry out its functions and maintain satisfactory employer-employee relations. This requires establishing approximate parity with conditions offered by other major employers. It seems clear that the existing superannuation scheme for Australian Government employees has, in fact, always matched at least the major private schemes in its level of benefits. The actuaries have said that in their report, and that comment which has been made by the actuaries is a very potent: one. The only private schemes offering better benefits would be the small ones for top executives. I happen to be associated with a public company which has a very favourable superannuation scheme for its executives. Indeed, business can provide such schemes, provided it has executives of ability and executives who are going to remain with the firm for the length of time they are required.

I wish to refer now to a document which has been handed to me by a member of the Opposition. It is as well that I should point out at this stage those advantages of the new scheme which are being supported by the Opposition and which also are part of the Bill introduced by the Government. The Opposition supports a uniform contribution of 5 per cent of salary for all members. That is a major step forward. The Opposition also supports these advantages of the new scheme: The option for retirement between the ages of 60 to 65 to continue under the new scheme with pension adjusted proportionately; the option to take part of the benefit as a lump sum introduced in the new scheme- I understand that is encouraged by the Opposition- comparable benefits provided for members of the Provident Fund; improved benefits for temporary public servants; improved benefits for widowers, children and orphans; and greatly simplified administration.

I conclude by again saying that when we are considering the Bill in Committee I would very much appreciate being put in a position of being informed. I have endeavoured without success to get information, but it may be that those members of the Government or those members of the Opposition who have taken a keen interest in discussing these Bills will be in a position to point out what the Government scheme will mean in terms of cost and what the amended scheme as suggested by the Opposition will mean in terms of cost. I will be quite satisfied provided that the present scheme is greatly uplifted to meet the current position. Until those figures are available it is very difficult to make an accurate assessment.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– I thank Senator Bunton, who preceded me in the debate, for his rational approach to this matter. His contribution stands in stark contrast to the very emotional and illogical remarks presented by most of the other speakers in the debate on the Superannuation Bill 1975. I found their arguments rather miserable and lamentable as they endeavoured to justify their opposition to this piece of legislation, having regard to the attitude taken by the Opposition when it was in government and during the time in which the Labor Government has been in office. It is not a matter in relation to which a great deal of emotion should be engendered. It is a question of the Government facing up to its responsibilities in relation to its own employees, setting in train legislation which will rectify the gross abuses and injustices which exist in the present scheme, and particularly, of course, putting into a much more favourable position the low income group which is very much disadvantaged under the present scheme. Nothing, of course, has been said about the fact that the great bulk of Commonwealth Public Service employees come within that category.

I commend the Government for taking the initiative to bring this legislation to fruition after a great deal of debate. We have been criticised by honourable senators opposite for doing so. I think it was Senator Hall who suggested that the

Government was acting rather improperly in not bringing before the Houses of Parliament legislation for a national superannuation scheme under which all employees would enjoy similar benefits.

I want to tell Senator Hall and the other honourable senators opposite who have taken what I believe to be a rather one-sided and maybe immature attitude to this piece of legislation that all of these factors were considered by the Government’s own economic commitee. We had to have regard to the circumstances of the economy and to the question of resources to which Senator Cotton referred when he opened this debate earlier today. It was our considered judgment that, having regard to the conditions which obtain in all of the Western countries, now was not the time to proceed with our Bill for a national superannuation scheme and that the heavy public funding involved could not be justified in the current circumstances.

However, we had to have regard to the criticism that was being levelled at us by the then Opposition Leader and spokesmen who were criticising us in Press statements for our failure to proceed with our Commonwealth superannuation scheme. It is interesting to hear Senator Greenwood repudiating the sentiments in what his then Leader, Mr Snedden, and other spokesmen for the Opposition Parties said at various stages over the last two or three years, and even repudiating, I suggest, the policy statement on national superannuation which Mr Chipp issued on 21 April 1974 which, of course, was during the period of the last election campaign. What did Mr Chipp say? He was the Opposition spokesman on social security; so honourable senators opposite have to accept responsibility for what he had to say. He said:

The Liberal Party and the Country Party await the report of the Commonwealth scheme on national superannuation before any decision can be made on the complex issue. We do, however, consider any such scheme should protect the entitlement under all existing superannuation schemes to ensure that no one will be disadvantaged if it is considered such a scheme should be introduced.

What are the facts so far as this piece of legislation is concerned? Whilst it can be said that in certain respects this is a pacesetting piece of legislation, substantially it takes into account all of the existing superannuation schemes as they relate to the State public services. For the time being, I merely draw the attention of honourable senators opposite to some of the statements that were made by their own leaders. Mr Snedden, on 8 March 1972, when he was the Treasurer in the McMahon Government, said:

The Government is, of course, aware of problems with the present scheme and honourable members will recall that the introduction of non-contributory units in 1969 was designed specifically to ease the burden on older contributors to the scheme.

Is it suggested that the legislation which is now before the Parliament does not overcome the criticism that even Mr Snedden accepted at that time? On 12 September 1974, two and a half years later, but before he was deposed by the coup leaders in the Senate, Mr Snedden said: 1 deplore the continuing procrastination and delay by the Labor Government in introducing a new Commonwealth superannuation scheme for Commonwealth public servants. I am most concerned for those public servants experiencing personal hardship because of anomalies in the present scheme.

Mr Snedden continued:

The Liberal and Country Parties have long recognised the serious anomalies in the present scheme which places unnecessary burdens on a large number of public servants and their families … I have received a large number of representations on this matter. Instances have been brought to my notice where employees are losing a very substantial portion of wage increases granted because of the amount of superannuation they are required to pay. In one case brought to my attention the superannuation payment amounts to 28.S per cent of salary after deduction of tax. Superannuation and income tax payments combined left the person 3 1 c of the $16 rise recently granted. Introduction of a new scheme must now proceed as a matter of urgency. Preparation of the necessary legislation should receive very high priority. The Liberal and Country Parties will be anxious, that the legislation receive prompt attention once it is introduced.

What did Senator Greenwood have to say? Despite the fact that the Australian Government presented this scheme and laid before the Parliament almost a year ago the report from the officers who had been considering this matter, together with the actuary’s statement, Senator Greenwood had the temerity to suggest in his contribution that we were introducing this Bill in a rushed way and not giving the Opposition Parties any opportunity properly to consider it. On the other hand we have a section of the Liberal Party attacking the Government for its failure to bring forward the legislation. I publicly admit that we had many party discussions on this piece of legislation. This piece of legislation represents a compromise in respect of the demands of those employed in the Public Service and represents the financial responsibility that we considered the Australian people should accept for the new benefits suggested.

The Opposition having taken its decision in the party room- away from this place- and having complied with the instruction given to it by Mr Fraser and Mr Garland, who publicly said that they would use their numbers in this place to see that the legislation would not pass, has prepared 95 amendments which substantially alter the basic character of the legislation, emasculate it and reduce the benefits that ought to be forthcoming to all Commonwealth employees. The inconsistency of the Liberals is borne out on this legislation as it is so often on other pieces of legislation brought to this Parliament. Opposition members speak with 2 tongues. At one time they say that they believe that the widest benefits ought to be extended, and then when the legislation comes before the Houses of Parliament they seek by any means of procrastination, delay and humbug to suggest that the Bill should be amended substantially to the detriment of the legislation itself.

It is never time to introduce social legislation. Every time governments endeavour to introduce legislation which seeks to expand benefits for people there are those conservatives in our community who say that it should not be done for this reason and for that reason. I can recall, for example, that when I first went to work just prior to World War II the persons at my place of employment received no holiday pay at all, except for the 3 statutory holidays of the year. There was no such thing as annual leave. When the trade unions advocated and agitated for the recognition of 7 days annual leave as an entitlement, it was said: ‘We are just coming out of the depression. We cannot afford it.’ Of course, in the 1950s, when we had a period of inflation the same parrot cry was uttered by the conservatives and by those who run our mediaour newspapers and so on. Now, when the Government seeks to put into legislative form that which it promised twice, in 1972 and 1974- to give its own employees benefits which most State governments have given- it is suggested that we are irresponsible and are not having regard to the public interest, not having regard to resource allocation and not having regard to the economic situation of our country. I put it to honourable senators that we cannot allow the private sector to be the pacesetter in this; that in 1922 when the Australian Government first introduced its superannuation scheme it was a pace-setting operation- there was very little superannuation in the private sector then. After all, when we talk about the private andublic sectors, are we suggesting, as someonourable senators have suggested, that the taxpayers are going to pay for this and that that is any different from the consumers paying for it as members of the community; that if the private sector introduces any benefits for its work force, whether in the form of increased annual leave, long service leave, workmen’s compensation or increased superannuation benefits, that cost does not pass to the consumer?

Of course, the consumer or the taxpayer pays for everything. To suggest otherwise is to deny the basic economics of our free enterprise society. The Australian Government does not have to be afraid of giving some sort of lead to the Australian community just because there happens to be a downturn in the private sector of the economy. Dr Cairns has been quite right in pointing out that it is the inherent contradiction within the free enterprise society itself that creates the downturn in the economy, not the result of Government activity or Government legislation, but in fact the same contradictions as exist in all the developed countries of the world. It is within the private sector itself that these defects exist. If we are to wait until these defects are remedied within the private sector, our Commonwealth superannuated employees will never be able to enjoy any increases in their benefits.

Should we accept what is obviously the principle of the Opposition Parties, that a person on retirement has to suffer a dramatic decrease in his living standards? The Australian Government says no. It does not believe that there should be any reduction in living standards, and we do not regard this piece of legislation as some sort of manna from heaven, some son of treasure trove or bonanza for public servants. We regard it as their just entitlement and it seems that some members of the Opposition are at least prepared to acknowledge that. At least their leaders have said that, even though they are taking the narrower and more prejudiced view in this place while this legislation is being debated.

We have a philosphical difference with the Opposition Parties. They do not believe that the Australian Government should lead on any subject whatsoever. They want to keep the public sector in a position subordinate to that of the private sector. We disagree with that concept. We believe there is a place for the private sector and that it must act jointly in co-operation with an expanding public sector. This legislation will seek to rectify the maladjustments in the existing scheme and will seek to encourage the private sector to extend its range of benefits. I am told that about 2 600 000 Australians are in receipt of superannuation or pension benefits.

We are talking of less than $250m in this legislation, and most of those who will benefit from it will be those in the lower income groups. What is the scheme seeking to do? It seeks to provide on invalidity retirement full pension for our employees, a pension for widows and children on the death of the member, and the facility of purchasing full pension on normal retirement at the age of 60 years. I find it difficult to understand the Opposition approach to this, because only 6 weeks ago the Liberal Party Premier of Victoria, Mr Hamer, saw no difficulties in introducing legislation substantially in line with the Australian Government’s legislation. An article published in the ‘Age’ on 11 April stated:

Victorian public servants who want to retire after reaching 60 but before reaching 65 will go out on superannuation of nearly 67 per cent of their salary under legislation introduced in State Parliament yesterday.

The ‘Sun Pictorial ‘ of the same date states:

State public servants will get 70 per cent of salary when they retire, under legislation introduced in the State Parliament yesterday.

We see that the Liberals in that State are prepared to extend to State employees benefits similar to those that the Australian Government wants to introduce here. Why is it wrong here and right in Victoria? That is another indication of the contradictory position of the Liberal Party and the National Country Party in this Parliament. In the ‘Mercury’ on 30 May, only a few days ago, a statement was published to the effect that a move had been initiated within the Liberal Party in Tasmania to try to talk the Federal Opposition into compromising on the proposed new superannation scheme for Commonwealth public servants. The article states:

It is being spearheaded by Mr W. M. Hodgman, the Liberals ‘ endorsed candidate for Denison, and a member of the Party’s Federal policy committee.

It was not certain last night how much support Mr Hodgman would get from other Tasmanian Liberals.

What did he want to do? I quote further from the article: . . Reduce the retiring age in the Commonwealth Public Service from 65 to 60; give pension increases from 62 & per cent to 67 per cent for spouses of deceased public servants.

Yet we are accused by Senator Steele Hall and others of pandering to the lobbying activities of Commonwealth public servants. Here is the endorsed Liberal candidate for the seat of Denison, which I think it may be argued is one of those seats the Opposition hopes to win back, who is prepared to identify himself publicly with this legislation. Is that not vote gathering? Is it not the right of the candidate to express that point of view, just as it is the right of Commonwealth public servants to assemble in protest outside Parliament House and express themselves in letters, telegrams, and resolutions?

I agree entirely with what Senator Bunton has said. Every letter I have received, every telegram, and every representation, not only in respect of the current piece of legislation but also when the committee of which I was vicechairman was considering this legislation over the past 18 months, was proper and courteous, and in no circumstances could it be described as a piece of blackmail, vote gathering, or what have you. I was one who sought within the committee of my Party to get a scheme that met both the public interest and the views of those who wanted substantial increases in benefits. The scheme we propose now seeks to embrace new areas for Commonwealth employment. Statutory officers, employees of Australian Government statutory authorities and long serving temporary employees who have hitherto suffered disadvantages are now brought into the scheme for the first time.

Provision is now being made for updating all pensions annually- surely in a period of inflation a very vital ingredient for improvement, and surely Opposition senators are not going to say that the Labor Government invented inflation. On this subject Mr Snedden is on record several times, while Mr Lynch is on record on a number of occasions. On 18 September last year Mr Lynch stated:

In considering legislation on a new superannuation scheme for Commonwealth Public Servants the Opposition will be anxious to facilitate its passage.

That statement was made only 8 months ago. Mr Lynch said:

Until the Government produces legislation and each aspect of a new scheme is made public we cannot state a precise attitude.

We intend to ensure that wherever possible, existing contributors and more particularly existing pensioners are not disadvantaged on transferring to a new superannuation scheme.

Of course, Mr Chipp was speaking for the Opposition Parties at the last election- when obviously he was vote catching; he was seeking to get support from Commonwealth public servants- the Opposition pledged itself to support a scheme that was in advance of all existing superannuation schemes in Australia. Yet when the legislation is brought before the Parliament it is opposed vigorously in the House of Representatives, and in this place it is opposed emotionally but pathetically by members of the Opposition Parties as they attempt to justify on specious grounds the reasons the scheme should be opposed.

There is no justification in Senator Greenwood ‘s criticism of the Australian Government ‘s handling of this piece of legislation. Two years ago Mr Crean tabled a departmental committee report on the present scheme. The report showed that there were considerable problems, and Mr Crean stated that that scheme was not adequate and recommended that a new scheme should be devised. Almost a year later, on 12 March 1 974, he tabled in the House of Representatives a new scheme for Australian Government employees. There is absolutely no justification for the criticism that this Government has delayed the legislation. It has paid due regard to its responsibilities in relation to public interest so far as the economy is concerned and in relation to the rights of the employees. It has given the Parliament adequate time to consider that report, even though the precise form of the Bill may not have been available for the same period of time.

It is interesting to read the reports of the debate in the other place. The Opposition said that a review of the superannuation scheme was long overdue. The Opposition had its opportunities. After all, it was in office for 23 years, and yet that tired and inept McMahon Government failed to carry out its responsibilities. I find it rather hypocritical that former Ministers of that Government have the audacity to criticise the endeavours of this Government to bring to fruition the policies which it enunciated in 1972 and 1974. 1 find it hypocritical that members of the Opposition Parties should say that the Government should work out how the private sector can afford to pay for superannuation benefits. That is not what the Government is concerned about: It is concerned about its responsibilities to its employees. How can the Government estimate the ability to pay of the private sector? Certainly, there are private sector groups that are very affluent and able to pay greater benefits to their employees. I concede that there are other groups in the private sector that are inadequate in terms of their funding and profitability and therefore cannot meet the same demands from their employees. But how can one have an average position here? Surely it is a matter for negotiation between groups of employees and employers in respect of private sector activity. It has never been the yardstick of the Labor Government that it should tune its needs and its demands to those of the private sector, and the Government does not intend to do that in this particular case.

To that extent, the Government does not believe that any credence should be given to the substantive amendments that have been proposed by the Opposition. They destroy important fundamental principle in this Bill. That is, they reduce the retiring age from 65 to 60, a provision in this Bill which exists in the New South Wales State Public Service, is proposed to be introduced in Victoria and I understand applies also in a number of other States. How inconsistent it is for Liberal and Country Party senators and one Independent senator to suggest that the Australian Government should not follow suit. In fact, the Australian Government should be and will be the pacesetter in this sort of legislation, and every member of the national Parliament ought to be proud of the fact that this Government or any government in the national sphere, has the courage to set a standard and a lead for all other employers throughout Australia. In point of fact, this legislation is in line with practically all of the advanced benefits given by all other States in the Public Service area. Each of the new clauses in this Bill is substantially in line with the legislative effects of all other States, with the exception of New South Wales. But even on the question of reducing the retiring age from 65 to 60, New South Wales is in accord with this piece of legislation. I do not believe, therefore, that there is any justification for the Senate to support the amendments that are proposed. I do not think there is any justification for the Senate rejecting this very important and fine piece of social legislation.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture and Leader of the Government · Tasmania · ALP

– in reply- The more detailed matters which have been raised in this debate and which are the subject matter of the various amendments can probably be left to the Committee stages. Therefore, I will confine my remarks in reply to the second reading debate to the general observations that have been made. I take up a point that was made by Senator Gietzelt during the course of his contributions; that is, that it is never time for a government to take initiatives in the area of social welfare. Every time that this Government has been an initiator in so many fields it has been the subject of criticism and has been told that the country cannot afford it and there is no need for it.

We had the spectacle again tonight of Senator Greenwood berating this Government for its efforts to ensure justice to the age pensioners of this country when his own Government allowed the age pension, widows’ pensions and so on to fall to their lowest percentage of average weekly earnings for 20 years. This Government made a commitment before it came into office that it would do something about that. It has done something; it has increased that percentage from 19 per cent to 24.5 per cent in the last increase given. One has to go back to the days of the Chifley Government in the postwar years to get a comparable performance. Exactly the same criticism is now being levelled against this legislation, despite the fact- and Senator Gietzelt just made this point, as did others during the course of the debate- that the Opposition is on record in the past as saying that it would support the Bill when it eventually came before the Parliament. Despite initiatives which have been taken in other States, including Liberal governed States, along the lines of this particular legislation, we find members of the Opposition opposing it in this place. There seems to be a contradiction which I find very difficult to understand. Why is it that members of the Opposition see justification for benefits being provided to State public servants under State schemes but for some reason they do not believe that federal public servants are entitled to the same benefits?

I come back to some of the earlier comments, particularly those of Senator Cotton, who I believe made, as usual, some thoughtful statements about the generality of this legislation. He said he believes there is a tendency to create 2 classes in our society. He used this legislation as an example of one particular section of the community being given benefits which were not being received by others. There is an element of truth in what he says, and it would be foolish to deny it. It is a fact that ever since the first federal Public Service superannuation scheme came into effect it has given better benefits than other schemes and has been a pacesetter generally in the Australian community. That state of affairs has not been created by this legislation. It applied during all the years of previous Labor and Liberal governments, when it was an accepted fact that if a person was a member of the Commonwealth Public Service he had better conditions than obtained generally in the State public services and almost certainly better conditions than if he worked in the private sector. I do not know whether that is an indictment of the free enterprise system but it is an established fact. All that this legislation is aimed at doing is maintaining the standards which have been set over the years by both Labor and Liberal governments. I cannot see that that becomes any great crime on the part of this Government.

I want to come back to Senator Cotton’s argument about 2 classes. We can think back to 1939 and the time of an anti-Labor government, the

Menzies Government of the day, when the matter of a national superannuation scheme was the cause of some bitter differences in the then United Australia Party, the forerunner of the Liberal Party. Mr Menzies, as he was at that time, was right at the centre of all the disputation that took place within his own Party. Then we had the war years and the difficulties associated with the war. In the 23 years that followed, when the Liberal-Country Party Government was in power, it was not until the very late stages of the rule by those parties that any effort was made to look again at the question of national superannuation.

I agree wholeheartedly with the point made by Senator Cotton that we ought to be able to devise in this country a superannuation scheme which will not create any forms of privilege or advantage to any one section of the community. But this Government has been in office for 2Vi years only and already we have set about an inquiry in order to implement the very thing which I am talking about and which has been talked about in this debate, a national superannuation scheme. In the ultimate that is the answer. Admittedly, it would be a difficult thing to implement and it would take years, but it is something that must be started by some government some day. This Government has taken the initiatives to do so in the brief time that we have been in office. I suggest that that is the only way to eliminate the class differences- if we like to call them that- that gradually will develop, and to some extent have developed, as a result of the multiplicity of superannuation and pension schemes that operate in this country. Even in the Federal sphere there are no fewer than 26 separate superannuation and pension schemes operating. In the private sector, believe it or not, I am informed that there are no fewer than 50 000 schemes. A whole range of them are operated by private companies. Obviously these have developed over many years. In the case of the schemes operating in the Federal sphere, they mostly came into existence during the term of our predecessors in government.

Comments were made during the debate about the economy generally. I expected that Senator Greenwood would use this debate as an opportunity to make some derogatory remarks about the general state of the economy. He always takes every opportunity to get away from the Bill that is before the Senate in order to make those comments. I am not going to respond to them. The opportunities will come again.

Senator Mulvihill:

– He is a political assassin.

Senator WRIEDT:

– Yes, that is a fair description. Everybody he speaks about is a liar, or is deceitful, or is a communist, or is described by some other absurd expression. That has become the normal language for him to use in this place. His argument was anything but convincing to anyone who was listening to it. I want to refer now to 3 or 4 of the individual points raised by speakers to the Bill.

I think Senator Hall was quite right when he said that we all should be ashamed about the fact that there is no national superannuation scheme. I do not know whether he was in the chamber to hear the comments I made a few minutes ago, but the opportunity has been there for many, many years for something to be done, and it is certainly time it was done. I take particular exception to the remark that the Government is trying to win votes by this legislation. To win votes from about 5 per cent of the work force? Really, it is not a proposition to suggest that we are going to be patronising to 5 per cent of the work force if in fact it is to the detriment of the other 95 per cent. Of course not. We introduced this Bill because we believe that this scheme ought to be upgraded in line with some of the State schemes. The pattern has been set over the years and the Government is quite justified in taking the steps it has taken.

Senator Bunton requested some specific information concerning costs of the scheme. With the permission of the Senate I will incorporate the documents I have in Hansard. One is an extract from the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated. I believe that it should be placed in the Hansard record so that the whole debate can be seen in context.

Senator Wright:

– Are you referring to page 33 of the explanat ory notes?

Senator WRIEDT:

– I am sorry, I cannot tell the honourable senator the page but the extract covers paragraphs 90 to 93 inclusive.

Senator Wright:

– Does it include the tables?

Senator WRIEDT:

– Yes. I seek leave to incorporate also the estimates by the Treasury of the cost of a new superannuation scheme, if amended as proposed by the Opposition. We will see then the comparisons of the respective costs under the 2 proposed schemes. I seek leave to incorporate those documents in Hansard.

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

Senator Cotton:

– Leave is granted, but we would have preferred to have had them circulated. However, we will be debating the Bill tomorrow.

Senator Wright:

– We want them tonight.

Senator WRIEDT:

– The documents are available tonight for circulation to honourable senators.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I am advised by the Minister that they are available. There being no objection, leave is granted for the documents to be incorporated in Hansard. (The documents read as follows)-

EXTRACT FROM THE EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM ON THE SUPERANNUATION BILL 1975 CIRCULATED BY THE TREASURER, THE HON. J. F. CAIRNS, M.P.

Estimated Capital Costs of the New Superannuation Scheme Compared to the Costs of the Existing Scheme

The estimates of the cost of the proposed new superannuation scheme for Australian Government employees contained in the table that follows paragraph 93 are the estimated capital values as at 30 June 1972 of the future cost to the Government in respect of pensioners and contributors in the present scheme at that date. June 1972 was the occasion of the last valuation of the present Superannuation Fund and detailed statistical information was compiled for that purpose. The estimated capital values show the present value of the liabilities to be met by the Government under the present scheme with adjustments for changes to be incorporated in the new scheme. The liabilities relate to the period covered by the lifetime of contributors and pensioners as at 30 June 1972 and their dependants, a period that could extend for perhaps 80 years more.

The main assumptions on which the estimates have been based are those that were adopted in the Report by the actuaries Mr G. L. Melville and Professor A. H. Pollard on the Treasurer’s Proposals for a New Superannuation Scheme for Australian Government Employees, which was tabled in the House of Representatives on 1 0 July 1 974. The main assumptions are:

The interest discount factor over the period during which the costs would arise would be 516 per cent per annum.

The increase in the Consumer Price Index over the period during which the costs would arise would be 3.9 per cent per annum.

In addition to a promotional salary scale based on average Australian Government service experience, annual increases in general salary levels of 5’A per cent per annum over the remaining working lives of existing contributors at 30 June 1972 have been assumed.

The rates of mortality, invalidity, withdrawal etc. are based on the experience of contributors to, and pensioners of. the present scheme.

Although based on data as at 30 June 1 972, the estimates serve to indicate the relative magnitude of the various changes listed.

Membership of the Superannuation Scheme at 30 June 1972 was as follows:

The total of 224 000 contributors to the Pension Scheme and Provident Account suggests that of the order of 60 000 Government employees and employees of Approved

Authorities, with one or more years past service are not members of the present scheme or of other superannuation schemes. Not all these employees would be eligible to become members of the new superannuation scheme as they would not, on 1 July 1975, have the prospect of three further years Government employment. Further, membership of the new scheme is optional for such employees and, based on past experience, not all those eligible would choose to join the scheme.

Senator WRIEDT:

– There is a significant factor about the calculations which are based on the amendments proposed by the Opposition. In the case of pension scheme contributors, the decrease in capital value on account of each group compared to the cost for that group under the present scheme would decline by 12 per cent whereas under the proposal of the Government it would increase in fact by 4.8 per cent. That figure is included in the explanatory memorandum. To illustrate that in this exercise we are not dealing with people who are inordinately wealthy, I refer the Senate to the answer given to Mr Garland in the House of Representatives in which it was said that at 30 June 1974 there were 214 000 persons paying contributions into the superannuation fund and it was providing an average salary for superannuation purposes of $6,832. That figure is only marginally above the average weekly earnings at that time. It is important to make the point that through this scheme we have not been paying inordinately high superannuation payments.

I believe that the other matters raised in the debate should be dealt with in the Committee stage. I want to complete my remarks by reemphasising the point that this legislation represents no more than an upgrading of the scheme which has operated for many years. I would almost invite members of the Opposition, if they think that the propositions under the legislation are too much for the community to bear, to agree that we might all jointly, as parliamentarians, accept reductions in our own schemes in order to bring them back to the level of the Public Service.

Senator Wright:

– Yes, join me.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I see Senator Wright raising his hand in exclamation. I am not quite sure whether he is not feeling well or whether he is wanting to make a point.

Senator Wright:

– I invited you to join me in reducing our salaries and allowances.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I hear his interjection at last. He said: ‘Join me’. We had a debate on that matter about 3 months ago. I can remember some of the things that were said by Senator Wright and many of the things that were said in reply. I will not reopen that debate tonight, because if I did so I would be bringing up some very unpleasant facts.

I did not intend to attack Senator Wright. It is not my practice to do so. I ask the Senate to consider one of the points that he made during his speech tonight. He said that under the National Compensation Bill this Government sees fit to provide only 5 1 per cent of salary to the widow. He said that that was a measly amount, or words to that effect. He overlooked the fact that the superannuation benefit is only 67 per cent of the member’s pension. So it works out at only 47 per cent of salary; that is, if the member’s pension is the maximum 70 per cent of salary, the widow’s pension is 47 per cent. That would rather suggest that it is the opposite of the point which Senator Wright was making.

Senator Wright:

– Your arithmetic would not get you a pass in second class.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Senator Wright’s arithmetic obviously means that51 per cent is less than 47 per cent. They are the figures. Under the National Compensation Bill the Government is not showing less generosity than it is under this legislation. I hope that honourable senators will use their good judgment in relation to the amendments. I am sorry that Senator Hall has indicated that he will be supporting some of the Opposition’s amendments. A great deal of work has been done in drawing up this legislation. The Government has relied on very competent persons. There has been a great deal of discussion with the industry to bring this legislation to its present stage. It will be unfortunate if some of the best points of the legislation are taken away by amendments to be moved by the Opposition.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clause 1 (Short title).

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– I do not propose a change in the title of the Bill. I merely offer some observations which I believe will be helpful to the Committee. Those colleagues who remain at the moment will have the great joy of having put before them pages and pages of amendments to be moved by the

Opposition. They add up to 95 amendments. I think it will be useful if I indicate to the Government, as I did in the broad debate, that there are really only 5 substantial amendments to be moved by the Opposition and the last one of them would be dependent upon the first amendment being carried.

Our principal amendment relates to the general item of retiring age. The following amendments are the consequential amendments that are dependent upon that amendment: Nos1 to 14, 16 to 28, 33 to 36, 42 and 43, and 74 to 90. The next amendment of substance which we will be moving deals with the deletion of the extra percentage for more than 30 years service. Dependent upon that amendment would be the following subordinate amendments: Nos 15, 29, 30, 31 and 32, 94 and 95. The next substantial amendment deals with widows’ benefits and children’s benefits. Dependent upon that substantial amendment there are the subordinate amendments, namely, Nos 37 to 41 and 44 to 73. The fourth substantial amendment in its own right relates to the limitation of indexation. Dependent upon that as subordinate amendments are Nos 9 1 and 92. Depending on the success of the Opposition’s general amendment in relation to the retiring age, there is an amendment which provides for an election to remain in the present scheme. That is covered by amendment No. 93.

I have made that announcement to try to make it possible for us to come out of this debate with some semblance of sanity. I have some general observations to make.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:

– Order! Senator Cotton has this information been circulated?

Senator COTTON:

-No, Mr Temporary Chairman, it has not. It was drawn up only a little while ago. I could give you a copy, which could be circulated.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I have a copy, but I was thinking of other senators.

Senator COTTON:

– I do not have copies at the moment. I might get somebody to run off copies. The thought struck me this evening that if we did not do something like this the debate would be much more difficult. There is one substantial defect. The copy is in my handwriting. I wish to advert generally to one or two things, either under clauses 1 and 2, taken together, or under clause 3. I suggest that we deal with clauses 1 and 2 now. Clause 3 is the beginning of the substantial amendments in relation to the retiring age. It depends upon your wish, Mr Temporary Chairman.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– We will dispose of clauses 1 and 2 now.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3.

  1. 1 ) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears- maximum retiring age’, in relation to a person who is, or has been, an eligible employee, means the age of 60 years or such lesser age as, under the regulations, is the maximum retiring age applicable to him or a class of persons in which he is, at the relevant time, included; period of prospective service’, in relation to a person who, before attaining the age of 60 years or, if his maximum retiring age is less than 60 years, before attaining his maximum retiring age, ceases to be an eligible employee by reason of having been retired on the ground of invalidity or by reason of death, means the aggregate of-

    1. a) his period of contributory service: and
    2. the period commencing on the day immediately following his last day of service and ending on the day on which he will, or but for his death, would, attain the age of 60 years or his maximum retiring age, whichever is the earlier; retiring age’, in relation to a person who is, or has been, an eligible employee, means the age of 60 years or such lesser age as, under the regulations, is the retiring age applicable to him or a class of persons in which he is, at the relevant time, included; but, where the deceased person was, at the time of his death, a retirement pensioner, does not include(e) a person who was legally married to the deceased person at the time of his death if the marriage took place after the deceased person had become a pensioner and after the deceased person had attained the age of 60 years unless-
    1. the marriage took place not less than 5 years before the deceased person ‘s death; or

    2. the marriage took place less than5 years before the deceased person’s death but(a) the person had, immediately preceding the marriage, for a continuous period that commenced while the deceased person was a retirement pensioner and not later than5 years before the deceased person’s death, lived with the deceased person as the person’s husband or wife, as the case may be, on a permanent and bona fide domestic basis;

    3. a person who was not legally married to the de ceased person at the time of his death if the person commenced living with the deceased person as the person’s husband or wife, as the case may be, on a permanent and bona fide domestic basis after the deceased person had become a pensioner and after the deceased person had attained the age of 60 years unless the person had so lived with the deceased person for a continuous period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the deceased person’s death;
Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– I will be speaking to this clause for a little while. The principal purpose will be to say some things about it, but I wish to give the copying machine some time to work. This is the definitions clause. The relevant part of it states: maximum retiring age’, in relation to a person who is, or has been, an eligible employee, means the age of 60 years or such lesser age as, under the regulations, is the maximum retiring age applicable to him or a class of persons in which he is, at the relevant time, included . . . pensioner’ means a person who is entitled to pension under this Act . . .

The Opposition believes that there is nothing to justify a retirement age of 60 years. I was fascinated to listen to the observations of the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) about the need for a national superannuation scheme and about the initiative taken by his Government to pursue this very desirable end. I wish to observe 2 things: If that were the case, perhaps the whole thing could have waited for the findings on a national superannuation scheme, and then all of us would have been much better off. I understand that Professor Hancock has recommended a retiring age of 65 years.

The existing members who are contributing to retire at 60 have the option, under these amendments, of remaining in the existing scheme on the present basis or of switching to the new scheme on the basis of a retiring age of 65, with a cash refund of the excess contributions paid. The option can be exercised under the present scheme to retire at 60, and the scheme continues. Those contributing to retire at 65 under the present scheme can switch to retirement at 60 and pay contributions accordingly. If present contributors do not stay with the present scheme they take up the new scheme, with retirement at 65. All future members would retire at 65. They would still have the option toretire between 60 and 65, with pensions adjusted accordingly.

Professor Hancock recommended 65 in his report on instituting a national superannuation scheme. As I said earlier, it is a pity that the Government did not wait until such a scheme was introduced before legislating specifically for Public Service employees. We have the view that the last 5 years of a person’s working life are often the most valuable to him and to the community in which he serves. In that time there is also a loss of the contributions. This has yet to be calculated accurately on later figures, but the best estimate one can apparently obtain is a Treasury figure of 1972 which is an additional cost of $459m. Our best guess, which is all we have at the moment, is that it is now more likely to be double that amount. The statement which we were given late in the day needs to be checked by one or two of our people during the evening to see whether it represents any updating to 1 975 and to consider the resemblance one statement bears to another. I must say at a quick glance that it seems to me there are inconsistencies which need to be examined. My concern is: Why has it taken all this time to get the 1975 figures, if that is what they are?

Senator Wright:

– They are not for 1975.

Senator COTTON:

-I do not think so, but that is not at all clear. A statement on the bottom of the figures is: ‘Treasury, 3 June 1975’. From this one might assume that they are the 1 975 figures but, as I say, I doubt this. We will have some more time on this matter. There is also an additional social cost in earlier retirement. No medical grounds are available to the opposition which could advocate this course of action. So the opposition takes the view that here we have a matter which ought to be brought to a resolution either at this time or at a time which is illuminated by a later debate. The Opposition’s amendment relates to clause 3.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:

- Senator Cotton, on reflection may I make this suggestion? I suggest we take the Bill as a whole from clause 3 onwards. You could then put the amendments in groups. This would facilitate the procedure and it would not in any way deny you, or for that matter any other honourable senator, the opportunity to obtain full explanation. The proposal is that we complete clause 3 and then take the Bill as a whole. You can place your amendments in groups.

Senator COTTON:

-With respect to you, Mr Temporary Chairman, this seems to me to bring about a state of confusion. I have done all this work to overcome a state of confusion at the table with the clerks. Therefore I am not in agreement with your proposal.

Senator Wriedt:

- Mr Temporary Chairman, with great respect to you I am inclined to agree with Senator Cotton. Here I must be guided by you, but is it possible to take the clauses as they have been set out on the sheet which has been circulated by Senator Cotton? If that is possible could we proceed along those lines?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I will here what Senator Wright has to say.

Senator Wright:

– I suggest it is quite easy for Senator Cotton to select the 5 crucial clauses, postpone the other clauses and take the amendments on those 5 clauses, it being understood that consequential amendments will be moved, as Senator Cotton has enumerated, on the passage or the rejection of each of those amendments. That is the clearest way. There are five, or maybe six, crucial clauses. If the Opposition was to specify those clauses and to put up the amendment relating to those clauses there would be a determining vote for the whole group of amendments in each case.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Cotton, would you seek leave to do that?

Senator COTTON:

-What I am seeking to avoid happening in the Committee is the individual passage of 95 amendments; that seems to me to be a desirable course to pursue. I am attracted to Senator Wright’s proposal, provided he will guide me through the legislative and administrative amendment morass as we go forward, as long as you and the Leader of the Government feel that that would be better than the original proposal.

Senator Wriedt:

- Mr Temporary Chairman, I can only say that if you are happy with the suggestion which has been made, I am prepared to accept it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I concede to Senator Cotton who is moving the amendments. We shall proceed as he wishes.

Senator COTTON:

-I move:

In that process I have some further comments which, it seems to me, need to be made. Some queries were raised earlier in the debate which I need to take up now because this is my best opportunity and it seems to be to be the most sensible area in which to do so. It has been suggested that public servants are largely paying for the scheme. The fact is that the Government Actuary says that the Government’s contribution- if the scheme were funded- would be 23 per cent of the salary with the member paying 5 per cent. Pollard and Melville indicated higher costs. We are told that the new scheme will cost no more than the existing scheme for existing contributors. The Government Actuary says that the cost will be 4.8 per cent higher. When we look at some of these figures which have been given to us, I think we need to do a little bit more work on them to make quite sure that they are fully accurate.

Dealing with the amendment which relates to age of retirement, there are some further facts which might help my colleagues and myself to see this matter more clearly. This evening the Public Service Act has been referred to. It has also been referred to in a number of telegrams which have been received and in discussions which have come about between ourselves and other people. The Act is concerned with conditions of service. It provides for retirement between 60 and 65. What we are concerned about in these superannuation Bills is the amounts of benefits to be received on retirement at various ages. They are quite distinct. It is noteworthy to the Opposition that we were told that after the passing of these Bills the Public Service unions were to begin a campaign for retirement at the age of 55. In practice it was found that those who were paying contributions to retire at 60 years of age were finding them tremendously high. Many could not afford them. To say that the current proposal does no more than to make retirement more readily available is another way of saying that there will be a tremendous cost to the taxpayer. With current membership of the scheme it could be of the order of $ 1 ,000m. Professor Hancock has stated that there are no studies, world pressures or other indications which favour reducing the retiring age to 60. It is beyond the capacity of the community as a whole to pay for everyone. The scheme taken as a whole is extremely generous because the Government makes a large contribution and because it guarantees index-linking at a high inflationary period. This is a feature which nobody outside the Government could possibly contemplate or achieve.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I am at a very great disadvantage due to the late supply of this table. Therefore I rise to take advantage of the few minutes which are available before we adjourn to let the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) know the difficulties. I ask him to compare the new table which has been computed and which was given to the Committee only 10 minutes ago with that which was given by the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) when the Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives. In relation to the item which reduces the age, it will be found in the original statement by the Treasurer that the cost of providing full benefits at age 60 was stated to be $45 9m. In the statement provided tonight which, we are told, was computed on the basis that the age limit is 65, we have a new item. It is the second item on the list. It appears against the words: ‘Less adjustment of the present retiring age provisions to retiring age 65’. A minus is inserted against the figures in a bracket. In other words, it is said that that represents an advantage to the scheme- a saving to the Government- of $32 lm. Then we come to the item labelled (a) providing full benefits at 65 years of age. That corresponds with the Treasurer’s initial item providing full benefits at 60 years. The Treasurer costed the figure as $459m to provide full benefits and the statement that Senator Wriedt gave us tonight gives a figure of $79m. So if one combines the 2 figures in Senator Wriedt ‘s statement, namely, the advantage of $32 lm with the comparison between the figures of $459m in Dr Cairns’ statement and the $79m in Senator Wriedt ‘s statement, that is to say, an advantage of $390m, it would seem to indicate that the present figures would result in showing that this amendment would be an advantage to the scheme and would reduce the cost to the Government by $7 lim. I regret that this matter is so complicated but if we had the statement provided by Senator Wriedt set beside the comparable items in Dr Cairns’ statement we would be able to arrive at the result much more clearly.

I have set the matter out because I believe that the result of Senator Wriedt ‘s statement tonight- that is to say if one takes a new figure of advantage, a minus figure from the point of view of cost of providing an adjustment of the present retiring age provisions to retiring age 65- is to give an advantage of $32 1. Then if one takes the item A in Senator Wriedt ‘s tabulation providing full benefits at age 65- the cost is put down at $79m which is compared with Dr Cairns’ $459m- it represents a reduction in cost of $390m which, with the $32 lm, shows a total reduction in cost of $71 lm. I put that before the Committee so that the Minister can say whether that result is correct on this item because that is one of the specific inquiries that Senator Bunton made in the course of his speech, as I understand it. That is to say, this item represents a saving of $71 lm according to these computations. Let me say before I resume my seat that I do not see anything -

Senator Poyser:

– It is about time you did.

Senator WRIGHT:

-I beg your pardon?

Senator Cotton:

– I think he is being very helpful.

Senator Wriedt:

– His mathematics are not too good.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Do not start to provoke me. When I have been handed this haystack of confusion I think I deserve the gratitude of the Minister for elucidating it for him. Let us see whether he still understands it. I will give him 5 minutes to explain himself and test his understanding. As I would read this revised version of the Treasury figures per Senator Wriedt, it is still based upon salaries of 1972 and has nothing to do with the 39 per cent increase in salaries up to June 1 974. That too is put forward for comment by the Minister.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I do not know why Senator Wright has no sense of humour. I was trying to instil a little humour into the debate, but it seems he has no humour left in him these days. The point I was making about his mathematics is that he made a small error of $ 10m and instead of being $71 lm the figure should be $70 lm. It may be that Senator Wright’s mathematics are better than mine but my calculations make the figure $70 lm and not $71 lm. We are not going to argue over $10m. That was the point of my interjection and it was not intended to be a criticism of the point that Senator Wright was making because it is quite right that these figures -

Senator Wright:

– I agree that it is $70 lm.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Then my mathematics are better than the honourable senator’s. The purpose of circulating the figures is to reveal the point that has been made and I would assume that it would be highlighted. That is the purpose of the comparative tables being distributed. Of course under the proposal one will get a significant difference on paper but one should bear in mind that we are talking of calculations over approximately 80 years of the scheme.

Senator Wright:

– It is capitalised cost though.

Senator WRIEDT:

– We are not concerned about capitalised -

Senator Wright:

– Of course we are.

Senator WRIEDT:

– If the honourable senator would not mind I will finish my remarks as he asked me to do. A cost is laid down in both these schemes- the proposal of the Government and the proposal based on the Opposition amendments. We do see a difference indicated in the figures given by Senator Wright. It is not the complete difference because in the 2 tables there are other elements which are also different. However it does constitute the bulk of the difference. It must be borne in mind that as far as the contributor is concerned, whereas under our scheme the increase in the capital value is 4.8 per cent under the amendment proposed by the Opposition it is a reduction of 1 1.9 per cent. Of course there will be a difference along the lines indicated by Senator Wright. One does not need to be an Einstein to work that out. That is why I said at the beginning that it would be better if we had the tables in front of us so that we could see the differences.

I suppose it is a matter of opinion as to whether the scheme ought to be interfered with to the extent that one will deprive the contributors over that period under the Opposition scheme of 1 1.9 per cent or under the government scheme increase the capital value by 4.8 per cent. I suppose it is a matter of judgment as to which one we consider to be more important. But we come back to a point that was made during the debate on the second reading which was that it is never time to initiate this sort of legislation. If we were to do what the Opposition is suggesting we may just as well not introduce the legislation at all. We may as well have a new Bill because this amendment takes out of the Bill one of the very important elements. I hope that the Senate has sufficient good sense to reject the amendment.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– I want to observe, in order to maintain the spirit of humour which Senator Wriedt has engendered in the Senate, that Senator Wright made an error of $10m in $71 lm and by my quick mathematics that gives him an accuracy rating of approximately 98.7 per cent which in my considered view is an honours pass in mathematics. I have listened with care to Senator Wright and with great care to the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) and I have been looking at the tables that have been given to us at this late stage. I would not feel myself able to analyse either of the sets of tables without the evening hours and tomorrow to make some comparisons. But we have, as Senator Wright properly mentioned, a memorandum from the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) in which the most up to date figures given to us to analyse the scheme are for the year 1 972.

We were told earlier that the implicit inflation rate assumed in the calculation is 3.9 per cent. We know that salaries alone have increased by 39 per cent to 1 974. An inflation rate of 20 per cent is something that children will be taking in with their mother’s milk in about 2 decades. How can one get accurate comparisons in 1975 on 1972 figures and expect a rational and proper answer to the question asked by Senator Button. He asked: What will this scheme cost totally and what will be the savings if the Opposition amendments are adopted? Senator Bunton needs that information. I am indebted to him for his question because it is something we all need to know. We are working on figures which are 3 years out of date- that is, if the figures given to us now are not more up to date- with the most massive changes in wage rates and therefore with massive changes in the inflationary scene. In my view it is not good enough.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:

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

That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the Chair and report to the Senate.

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

page 2261

ADJOURNMENT

Admiral’s Cup Entrant -Country Party Members- Western Australia -Parliamentary Staff

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

-I do not want to delay the Senate for too long but I want to raise a matter which I believe warrants the urgent consideration of the Government. I did give notice to Senator Douglas McClelland that I wanted to make reference to this matter tonight. I notice he is not in the Senate at the present time.

Senator Cavanagh:

– He did not think it was important.

Senator JESSOP:

– I believe it is important because it concerns the plight of a Mr Grubic from South Australia, who is the owner, builder and skipper of a South Australian yacht, ‘Anaconda II’.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That does not impress me.

Senator JESSOP:

-I should have thought that Senator Cavanagh, being a South Australian, would be interested in this particular matter. I understand that this yacht is the only Australian entrant in the London ‘Financial Times’ Clipper Race to be conducted in August.

Senator Poyser:

– What was the name of the yacht? I did not catch it.

Senator JESSOP:

– In order to inform my friend from Victoria, the yacht is called ‘Anaconda II’. I am informed by a prominent yachting man from South Australia that in order to participate in this race it is necessary for this vessel to be equipped with a world range radio transmitter. I am told the capacity of this transmitter should be from 2 megawatts to 1 8 megawatts. The cost of this radio is between $7,000 and $8,000. I am also informed that the ideal radio is the Marconi Bravo which, I understand, is available in Australia. I am told that Mr Stewart has been approached, as Minister for Tourism and Recreation, to determine whether it is possible to attract a grant so that this particular radio can be purchased and installed.

The Government seems to be able to find an extraordinary amount of money for other sporting organisations throughout Australia- I gather to attract votes for a possible election in the future. It seems to be that there may be some motive behind this refusal to give favourable consideration to this particular request. I think that as this race has the blessing of the Australian Yachting Federation the Government ought to give some consideration to providing what appears to me to be a very insignificant sum of money so that Australia can be represented in this world recognised race. Mr Grubic suffered an unfortunate accident not long ago when the yacht slipped and crushed his legs, resulting in 2 broken legs and, I understand, some minor head injuries. Being a courageous person, he intends to go to London for this race and join the yacht, which will be sailing from Adelaide, I believe, on Sunday 15 June.

My suggestion is that the Government, through the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, ought to give a grant to this gentleman so that he can purchase the radio. I believe that Mr Barnard was approached at one time about this and no action was taken on the matter. If it is not possible to make a grant, I suggest that the Government could lend a radio from the Royal Australian Navy that would help this person out of his troubles. I know that the Minister is a man interested in sporting activities, and I believe that he is also one who would recognise the importance of having Australia represented in this race. I ask him whether he will make some urgent representations to see whether a radio can be provided.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– Last month Senator James McClelland quoted in the chamber Marx’s dictum that history repeats itself for the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce. An observer of the continuing upheavals in the coalition Government of Western Australia would no doubt conclude that the first leg of Marx’s prophesy was correct. History is indeed repeating itself and in particular the history of the Country Party from 1 9 1 7. In 1916 the Country Party Western Australian

State conference carried the following resolution:

That conference confirms the unanimous resolution of (general) conference that no alliance could be thought of with any party, and, therefore, no member of our Parliamentary party could accept a portfolio in any government except that of the Country Party.

The following year, 1 9 1 7, the then ruling Liberal Government of Western Australia lost its absolute parliamentary majority. A government was formed under Lefroy, and 3 members of the Parliamentary Country Party were offered and accepted ministerial positions in that Lefroy Government, two of them being Ministers without portfolio. Of course this was done clearly in blatant contempt for and defiance of the unanimous resolution of their conference carried in the previous year. In the ensuing confrontation between the Parliamentary Country Party and its organisational wing which came about 2 months later, the organisational wing caved in to the opportunistic parliamentary wing of the then Country Party. Last week the farce was repeated when 3 members of the Parliamentary Country Party signified their intention to sneak back into the State Government coalition in defiance of a 5-day-old so-called final resolution of the Party’s joint governing council. Of course there has always been and still is a fundamental conflict of interest between the Country Party’s political welfare and the economic welfare of the farmers it claims primarily to represent, the Country Party’s political welfare being of course largely dependent upon maintaining the greatest possible number of farmers assisted at the margin quite substantially by electoral gerrymandering, while maximising the economic welfare of farmers by having the lowest number of farmers. This is a simple enough economic axiom. When superimposed on that innate contradiction the parliamentry group puts the personal prestige and power lust ahead of all commitment to policy or ideals, the original conflict of interest is exacerbated.

Nineteen days ago the Country Party withdrew from the Western Australian coalition Government pursuant to a series of disagreements over policy and objection to the autocratic rule of the Premier, Sir Charles Court. Whatever the merits of the policy differences may have been, the then Country Party leaders, Mr McPharlin, and Mr Stephens at least made a decision on a point of principle and they stuck to it. The decision was pretty quickly followed up by an orgy of reciprocal vilification. For example, on the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s radio program ‘A.M.’ on 20 May the Premier, in describing the Country Party, said:

  1. . they’re just being so dishonest and so unfair that it’s unbelievable.
Senator Poyser:

– Who said that?

Senator WALSH:

-The Premier of Western Australia, Sir Charles Court, in describing the Country Party in Western Australia. The Federal Leader of the Country Party was quoted in the West Australian’ of 20 May last as saying:

It is quite obvious that Sir Charles made life impossible for Mr Ray McPharlin . . .

The Premier of Queensland, following some other events that I will comment on briefly in a minute, described Sir Charles as being inflexible, unbendable and a bad politician. But the most caustic indictment of all in this campaign of reciprocal vilification came from the State President of the Country Party, Mr David Reid- exsenator David Reid. Mr Reid initially accused Sir Charles of deliberately setting out to split the coalition Government and destroy the Country Party. He added:

I know just how totally bloody-minded he-

I interpolate to say that the ‘he’ referred to is the Premier, Sir Charles Court- can be- so much so that he will cut the nose off the State and endanger its vital industries to win a personal point.

Mr David Reid went on to say:

The present attitude-

That is, Sir Charles Court’s attitude- completely precluded our supporters having their voices heard at all in a coalition government.

So the campaign of vilification proceeded for nearly a week in Perth with reciprocal vilification. In the meantime, at the instigation of the Canberra meddlers, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Leader of the National Country Party of Australia (Mr Anthony), who were terrified, of course, lest the bitter division between their coalition subsidiaries in Western Australia should spill over and break or set asunder the cosmetic alliance that was holding the federal coalition together, prevailed upon Queensland’s Kissinger to fly in and set things straight in Perth. The Premier of Queensland promptly hatcheted the existing Country Party leaders- Messrs McPharlin and Stephens- and installed in their stead Messrs Old and Jones.

Senator Poyser:

– Old is only a young member, is he not?

Senator WALSH:

- Mr Old is a very new member. Sir Charles remarked upon that later, Senator Poyser. Both of those gentlemen reputedlyone of them certainly- had a long standing and only very recently severed association with the Liberal Party. The reconciliation achieved by humiliating the former leadersMessrs McPharlin and Stephens- was, however, short lived. Sir Charles Court would not allow the Country Party to hold the Deputy Premiership in a re-established coalition. On that vital point of policy and principle the Country Party declined to rejoin the coalition. Following thatover the weekend period between 22 and 24 May- the Country Party joint council was locked in an intra-party wrangle reminiscent of the vicious inter-party wrangle of December 1971 in Canberra concerning the Australian dollar exchange rate. But ultimately the so-called final decision emerged- the Country Party was out, and it would stay out. Then the Canberra heavies moved in. The Federal President of the Country Party, Mr Solomon, and the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr Nixon) moved in. The custodians of political decentralisation, of State autonomy and of grass roots democracy, sent their Canberra heavies to Perth to straighten out the Western Australian deviants. Following the flying peanut’s westward corridor they then proceeded to whip the Western Australians into shape.

According to Mr Old, the Canberra heavies provided vital new information which persuaded members of the Country Party’s Joint Council that due to circumstances and facts of which they were not previously aware, they should reestablish the coalition Government. But according to Mr Stephens, the former Deputy Leader of the Country Party, they provided no new information. As a result of those contradictory versions, I suppose one is entitled presumably to believe whatever version one pleases about the substance of the Nixon-Solomon revelations. But the most credible versions, of course, is that these emissaries of the Canberra custodians of State autonomy, grass roots democracy and political decentralisation- that is the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) and the right honourable member for Richmond (Mr Anthony) in the House of Representatives- portrayed to the Western Australians a terrifying picture of a Liberal-Country Party national explosion and therefore ordered their immature western followers to cease playing with detonators. However, whatever fantasy or forecast of impending Armageddon was thrust upon the Western Australian Country Party, it did succeed. The Parliamentary Party announced its unconditional surrender to the Premier and its impending return to the coalition on 30 May in flat contradiction of its Joint Council decision and in defiance of the Party’s constitution. So the history of 1917 had repeated itself replete with farce.

The farce, however, was not yet quite complete. The former Country Party member for Moore in the House of Representatives unsuccessfully sought an injunction to restrain the Parliamentary Country Party from rejoining the Government, and in the process poured scorn on the Parliamentary Party, the State President Mr David Reid, Sir Charles Court, the Liberal Party and the meddlers from the east. Mr Maisey ‘s indignation may well have had less to do with his reverence for the Country Party’s doctrinal purity than with his own personal ambition to make a comeback in the Senate, and the consequent need to demolish such obstacles to his comeback in the Senate as Mr David Reid, the State President of the Country Party, who has been endorsed in the No. 1 position for the Country Party Senate team for Western Australia. However, whatever his motives may have been, he was supported in the court in his actions by Mr Stephens, the former Deputy Leader of the Country Party.

So the next final decision will be made at another Country Party Joint Council meeting next Monday. Whatever the outcome, the Country Party of Western Australia clearly faces either a major Party split, the loss of any remaining shred of credibility, or both.

Senator McLaren:

– Do you think Court will recognise it as a political party after Wednesday? He does not now.

Senator WALSH:

– It is not a political party now under the laws of Western Australia because it does not have enough members, for reasons which I am about to develop. The trouble goes back almost 2 years when Mr Anthony, the Country Party Leader in the other place, desperately seeking to preserve his own political prestige and from the ravages of a shrinking electoral base, persuaded the Western Australian Branch of the Party to enter into an alliance with these politically stone-age men, the denizens of the Democratic Labor Party. Within a year, as a result of accepting that brilliant strategic manoeuvre conceived by the false prophet from Canberra, the Country Party of Western Australia lost half of the State and Federal seats it had previously held. As a result of further meddling by the emissaries and hatchet men of Mr Anthony from Canberra, which is on the other side of the continent, and from Queensland, which is in another world, the Country Party of Western Australia is on the brink of selfannihilation. Along with Sir Charles Court and many others, I will not regret its passing. I do, however, regret that those of its members who were sincerely committed to certain beliefs, however misguided they may have been, should have been publicly humiliated by people who were recruited from other parties and imported from other States and who are dedicated to nothing but selfish ambition and the fulfilment of what they see as their divine right to rule.

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

– It is very seldom that I utilise the opportunity provided by the adjournment debate to air a grievance, but I do so tonight as a matter of public interest. Over the last few months we have had an information desk installed in King’s Hall. It concerns me more than a little that it does not appear to be adequately staffed so as to provide a service to the people who come to visit us here at Parliament House. On making a few inquiries today, 1 learnt that in fact only 2 people are employed to man the information desk and to operate the bookshop which is located next to the post office on the lower floor. Apparently, with the book shop open from 9 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. on a 7 days a week basis, the information desk can be manned by only one person from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. or 5.30 p.m. on the days on which the Parliament is sitting. One of the problems, of course, is that at least up until now the House of Representatives has been increasing its days of sitting, and the staffing situation at the desk is quite inadequate.

I walked into King’s Hall at about 7.30 tonight and saw 2 people standing at the information desk. I can only assume that they had some vain hope that eventually someone would come along to give them some information. But, of course, no one is going to do that after 5.30 p.m. because nobody is available to do it. The same situation applies at weekends. I think honourable senators would have to agree that Parliament House is one of the major tourist attractions in Canberra. Let us not lay claim to it being the major tourist attraction, but it is, at least, one of the major tourist attractions in Canberra. I understand that some tens of thousands of people visited Parliament House last year. My concern is that, even though we have provided an information desk in King’s Hall and a bookshop on the lower floor, information on the workings of the Parliament still is not being provided to the members of public who come to visit us. We may say: ‘AH right; we do not cater for anybody who comes after 5.30 p.m.’. But up until a little while ago there were people in the public gallery. I think that we may have some people in the public gallery even at this point of time. People are still entering Parliament House at as late as 9 o ‘clock at night.

What happens on weekends? Only one person works then and she works in the bookshop downstairs, because we have got to get the money in. But we do not provide a service at the information desk. People stand at the desk at weekends because the House is open to the public and they want someone to tell them what Parliament is all about. I suggest that perhaps the Joint House Department, which I understand is responsible for these things, could be instructed to look at the situation. As we are selling the publications of the Australian Government Publishing Service in the bookshop downstairs, perhaps officers of that Service should man the wretched bookshop so that we will be left with at least 2 people working 7 days a week from 9 a.m. until 9 p.m. at the information desk.

Senator Poyser:

– They should put Hillyer on one of the shifts.

Senator COLEMAN:

-Mr Hillyer might volunteer. But we should have people at least from 9 a.m. until 9 p.m. from Monday to Friday. Also we should be providing a service to the public by staffing the information desk at least from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. at weekends. I do not expect that a great number of people will come to see the workings of Parliament on Saturdays and Sundays.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I enter this debate to make it known that the Joint House Committee of which I am a member has had discussions on this matter. If I had not risen tonight to speak it may have been thought that the members of the Committee had been neglecting their duties. I want to refer to a motion which was passed by the Joint House Committee on Thursday 17 May 1973.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It is not motions but actions that we want.

Senator McLAREN:

– There were actions and I think that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) may see that when I have finished. A motion was passed at the meeting of the Joint House Committee on 1 7 May 1 973 in relation to female attendants in King’s Hall. I point out also that it was a lady member of the Senate who raised it first- Senator Guilfoyle. After some discussions, this motion was moved:

On the Motion of Mr Bourchier, seconded by Dr Jenkins it was resolved- That action be taken to appoint two female Attendants Grade 1, on the staff of the Joint House Department, to work in the King’s Hall area and to be available in particular, to provide assistance to female visitors.

Like Senator Coleman, I have been disturbed for some time past at the lack of staff in King’s Hall since the opening of the bookshop. When many people are in King’s Hall, if there happens to be a lady or a child in distress they have to close up either the information desk or the bookshop down below. After the opening of the bookshop, we had 2 female attendants in King’s Hall and a lady member of the staff to look after the bookshop. I raised this matter at the Joint House Committee meeting on 10 April this year. I will quote from the minutes, which state:

Senator McClaren drew attention to the Joint House Committee resolution of 1 7 May, 1973, namely:

That action be taken to appoint two female Attendants Grade 1, . . . to work in the King’s Hall area and to be available in particular, to provide assistance to female visitors’. and asked why a female attendant was now on duty in King’s Hall only on three days per week. The Secretary undertook to provide the information at the next meeting.

Senator Coleman:

– What date was that?

Senator McLAREN:

-That was 10 April of this year. The information was provided. I think that for the information of the Senate, seeing that the matter has been raised here, I ought to read the document which we had before us at that meeting. The document is headed: ‘Joint House Committee: Female Attendants- King’s Hall’. It reads as follows:

The following report is furnished pursuant to Senator McLaren’s request made at the Meeting of the Committee held on 10 April, 1975.

On 13 May 1973 the Joint House Committee resolved that two Female Attendants should be appointed to work in the King’s Hall for the particular purpose of assisting female visitors to the building. At the same time as staff were being recruited for this duty the Department was also organising the staffing of the Bookshop, the construction and setting up of which was nearing completion. Because the work in the Bookshop was also suited to females, and because it was economic in the use of staff, two full-time and one part-time Attendants were employed to staff both functions. This provided a staff of females that were inter-changeable, which had administrative advantages, and who serviced both the King’s Hall post and the Bookshop on 7 days per week.

This arrangement worked quite satisfactorily but though public interest in the Bookshop increased all the time, reports were that enquiries made by the public of the female Attendant in the King’s Hall were not except at peak periods such as sitting days, public holidays, etc. sufficient to keep the staff interested.

I interpose here to say that in making inquiries I found that this information was not given to the person who made the inquiries. So I disagreed at that meeting with that part of the report. The report continues:

In October, 1974, one of the staff appointed to this work sought a transfer to another Department and this was agreed to. At this time the Joint House Department in common with others had applied to it a staff ceiling that limited any increase in staff to no more than 1 Vi per cent of its full time strength. In order to implement this instruction it became essential in making new appointments to allot priorities based on the urgency attaching to the work involved. In view of the fact that in the King’s Hall the most important days were being covered, and in view of the lack of enquiries by the public -

I questioned this statement- the appointment of a replacement was deferred in favour of a Technician whose services were judged to be more urgently required.

I sought information as to why a motion which was passed by the Joint House Committee was disregarded in favour of appointing a technician. I was informed that the secretary of the Joint House Department in his wisdom thought that the priority rested with appointing a technician who could service the air conditioning of Parliament House. Of course there were some words about that. The letter continues:

The staff ceiling limit that was imposed was later eased and accordingly some months ago one of the two women remaining, who was previously on part-time only, was advised that she would be appointed permanently to the vacant full-time position. However, she was also informed that, so as not to place her in a more favourable seniority position than the other Attendants who had given longer service, her appointment would not take place until administrative action could be taken that would allow these other Attendants to also be made permanent Officers. This action is now in hand and it is anticipated that the permanent appointment of this female Attendant will soon be possible which will then also make it possible for an appointment to be made to the position she will vacate. (Sgd.)R. W. Hillyer Secretary, Joint House Department.

6.5.75

I am disturbed to hear Senator Coleman say tonight that as yet that position has not been filled. I am of the opinion that ample staff are in the Joint House Department to carry out these functions. I put question No. 549 on the notice paper on 14 May addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It reads:

  1. 1 ) What is the present numerical strength of the administrative staff of the Joint House Department.
  2. What are the names, in order of seniority, of personnel in the Department.
  3. 3 ) what are the duties performed by each such person.
  4. What are the salary ranges of each officer.
  5. What was the date of the establishment of the Joint House Department in its present form.
  6. How was the work of the Joint House Department administered before its establishment in its present form and what was the numerical strength of the staff at that time.

My object was to ascertain how much it costs the Parliament to have the Joint House Department function, how many people were employed, what were their duties and what work was carried out by whom before the establishment of the

Joint House Department. Apparently the Joint House Department must be suffering the same way as is Kings Hall. It must be understaffed. Although the question was asked 3 weeks ago, the answer still has not been provided to the Leader of the Government so that he can pass it on to me and I can make further inquiries.

I think it is high time that an investigation in depth was made by the appropriate authority into the functions of the Joint House Department to see whether it is an overriding body to the members of the Parliament who are members of the Joint House Committee. We were told at the last Committee meeting when I raised questions that we, as members of the Parliament who are elected to the Joint House Committee, have very little power at all. My attitude was: What is the use of having a Joint House Committee and what is the use of members of Parliament giving their time to sit on it to look at problems? It appears that the Joint House Department could be a dictatorial body. It is time that some very serious consideration was given to whether that Department can be reoriented or restructured or whether in fact it is really necessary. I hope that we can get an answer to my question and that we can resolve these other problems before the Senate rises at the end of next week.

Senator Steele Hall:

- Mr President-

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Steele Hall, do you wish to speak on the same subject?

Senator Steele Hall:
The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Steele Hall.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I want to say very briefly how much I welcome the change of heart of Senator McLaren in advocating service after normal office hours. In agreeing with Senator Coleman -

Senator McLaren:

– Change of heart? What are you talking about?

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Of course it is a change of heart. I compliment Senator McLaren and ask him to take his views back to the South Australian branch of his Party and try to instil similar views in their beliefs and their advocacy. In South Australia the Labor Party has been the greatest stumbling block in extending shopping hours. We have tried to extend shopping hours in South Australia to bring conditions up to those which exist in some other States. If only the Labor Party, of which Senator McLaren is so publicly a member, had advocated a positive proposal instead of hiding in a cowardly fashion behind public opinion and then manipulating to obtain a no vote, the position would have been different. If Senator McLaren had influenced his Party to his present attitude South Australia would be a much more enlightened State instead of being the restricted part of Australia which it now is. So I compliment Senator McLaren on his new attitude and ask him to prevail upon his colleagues in his own State.

Senator McLAREN (South Australia)-I claim to have been misrepresented by Senator Hall. At no time have I been opposed to the staffing of the front office at Parliament House. In his usual style, Senator Hall has tried to draw a red herring across the path. He has claimed that I have had a change of heart. I have pressed for the matters I have raised tonight ever since I have been a member of the Joint House Committee. Senator Hall stoops to very low action in misrepresenting me, and I will take him up on the matter in an adjournment debate at another date.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am very concerned that this matter regarding the administration of the Joint House Department has been raised in the adjournment debate by Senator Coleman and Senator McLaren. The Presiding Officers are responsible for that Department. We sit jointly in committee. The joint public relations activities of the Parliament, in Kings Hall in particular, are a very important part of the administration of the Parliament. Facilities should be provided for the 750 000 people who are interested in this Parliament and who feel they want to participate by visiting the Parliament. The provision of a guidance or information officer in Kings Hall to answer the questions of people who come here should be of prime importance. As one of the Presiding Officers I have put to the Joint House Committee over the years the question of the importance of having female attendants. The job of female attendants should be equal to that of the male attendants. The job should be open to anyone in the community according to his or her ability.

I hope to press this matter. As a matter of fact, I have already presented it to the administrators of the Joint House Department, and I expect them to implement the proposition that the job of attendant in this Parliament should be open equally to males and females. I hope that this Administration will be known as having implemented the equality of opportunity for the attendants of this Parliament.

The other point I would like to make, for which I feel partly responsible, relates to the provision of an information officer and a female attendant- separately from the bookshop- who can look after the tourists. I do not think there should be any division of responsibilities. If the Australian Government Publishing Service wants to man the bookshop and use the Parliament as a place to disseminate information and literature I approve of that and want to promote it. But it is separate altogether from the matter of having an attendant in Kings Hall not only during the time Parliament is sitting but also throughout the whole of the year. Such an attendant fulfils a very important function in being able to answer the questions of the people who are interested in participating in the Parliament of this country. I will draw quite forcibly to the attention of the Joint House Department the matters that have been raised by the 2 honourable senators. I hope that there will never be another occasion when these matters have to be raised in the adjournment debate in the Senate.

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

– As Minister representing the Minister for Tourism and Recreation I respond briefly to the remarks of Senator Jessop. He spoke this evening about a yacht, ‘Anaconda II’, going to compete in the Admirals Cup. He suggested that in order to compete in the race it would be necessary for the vessel to be equipped with a world-range transmitter, ranging from 2 to 18 megahertz, I think he said. He suggested that the cost of the radio to be installed in the vessel would be between $7,000 and $8,000, and he thought that the Government, or the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart), should make a grant to the yacht’s owner so that the radio could be installed thus enabling the yacht to compete in the Admirals Cup. The honourable senator also stated that my colleague Mr Stewart, the Minister, had been approached to see whether it was possible to attract a grant for the installation of such a radio but that nothing had been heard from him. I think the honourable senator went on to suggest that there may be some motive behind the failure of the Minister or the Government to respond to the alleged request.

I think it is fair to say that, until this Government came into office, the subsidising of sport and sporting events by previous Federal governments had been completely overlooked and indeed ignored. It is fair to say that not one cent was spent by the Liberal-Country Party Government in its 23 years of office in the Australian Parliament in subsidising or financially assisting sport or sporting events generally. It is to the credit of this Government and of the Minister for

Tourism and Recreation that practically every sport, including yachting, has been substantially assisted. The financial assistance for sport generally has run into million of dollars and the assistance has been given according to guidelines laid down by the Government and strictly adhered to by the Minister.

I have made inquiries of my colleague the Minister for Tourism and Recreation and he informs he that his Department has received no request for financial assistance to be given to the yacht ‘Anaconda II’, and that in any event under the present guidelines the Government does not give assistance for equipment such as radios. However, so far as the Admirals Cup is concerned and the involvement of the Australian Government in giving financial assistance and in ensuring that Australia is represented in the Admirals Cup, the Minister has in fact approved fares assistance to the amount of $13,750 to the teams competing in the Admirals Cup. He assured me that this sum represents about 50 per cent of the cost of the fares.

Senator Jessop:

– Are you sure you are talking about the same event?

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

-The honourable senator was talking about ‘Anaconda II ‘and about the Admirals Cup.

Senator Jessop:

– That is right.

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

-When these matters were mentioned I talked with my colleague the Minister, and I can only speak on his behalf. He assures me that no request for financial assistance has been forthcoming to his Department in relation to the yacht ‘Anaconda II ‘, that under the present guidelines the Government does not give assistance for equipment such as radios, that he has approved fares assistance to the amount of $ 13,750 to the teams competing in the Admirals Cup and that that sum represents about 50 per cent of the fares involved.

Senator Cavanagh:

– If you had approved this grant, by how much would it improve the standard of living of the people of Port Augusta?

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

Irrespective of that, the simple fact is that the Australian Government’s assistance towards Australia competing in the Admirals Cup is most substantial, and certainly it is to the credit of this Government and of the Minister for Tourism and Recreation that we have been of such assistance to sport and sporting events generally.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 1 1.45 p.m.

page 2268

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Wave Hill Station (Question No. 522)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the holder of Northern Territory Pastoral Lease No. 529, Wave Hill Station, pursuant to relevant provisions of the Northern Territory Crown Lands Ordinance 1 93 1 - 1 972, applied to the Administrator of the Territory for permission to surrender that lease in exchange for a new pastoral lease of the whole or a specified part of the existing lease; if so, (a) has the Administrator referred the application to the Land Board of the Northern Territory for consideration and recommendation as to the specified part and area of the existing lease to be included in a new lease; (b) what has the Land Board recommended with regard to the granting of a new lease; and (c) what action has been taken by the Administrator on the Land Board ‘s recommendation.
  2. What conditions as to development work and improvement and annual rental are to be imposed under the new lease.
  3. What will be the terms of the new lease.
  4. Does the Minister intend to resume part of the lease for the benefit of the Gurindji Aboriginal Tribe located in the Wattie Creek area of Wave Hill Station; if so, (a) what is the location and area of the land intended to be excised from the lease for that purpose; and (b) what, if any, compensation will be awarded to the holder of the lease in respect of the land to be excised.
  5. When was Wave Hill Station originally acquired by the present holder, Vestey Interest.
Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

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

  1. ) The lessee of Pastoral Lease No. 529 has not applied for permission to surrender that lease in exchange for a new pastoral lease and the various parts of question (1 ) relating to reference of matters to the Land Board and the Administrator acting upon any recommendations from the Land Board do not arise. An application has been made to the Administrator, however, for the subdivision of the lease using a subdivision line lying generally one mile east of the Victoria River, pursuant to section 25c of the Crown Lands Ordinance.

  2. The conditions relating to the development work and improvements and annual rental for each of the resulting leases, are as follows:

    1. in respect of the lease over the western sector the rental will be approximately $1,354.62. The other covenants over and above those required by the Crown Lands Ordinance and Regulations are as follows: that it will, on or before 30 June 1977, stock the leased land with not less than 2500 head of branded cattle and it will keep the leased land so stocked until the date mentioned in the succeeding covenant; that it will on or before 30 June 1 980 stock the leased land with not less than 6250 head of branded cattle and it shall therefore keep the leased land so stocked; provided however, that if a notice is served on it under section 14 or section 17 of the Soil Conservation and Control Ordinance it will comply with the requirements of that notice; that it will on or before 30 June 1978 erect on the leased land a homestead with usual and necessary outbuildings to the value of not less than $20,000; that it will on or before 30 June 1 977 erect a cattle drafting yard capable of working at least 500 head of cattle with a cattle dip or spray attached; that it will, in addition to any fencing existing at the commencement of the term of this lease-
    2. on or before 30 June 1 977 erect not less than 40 kilometres of internal stock-proof fencing;
    3. b) on or before 30 June 1 980 erect at least a further 40 kilometres of internal stock-proof fencing so that a total of not less than 80 kilometres of stockproof internal fencing shall have been erected; and
    4. on or before 30 June 1982 erect at least a further 80 kilometres of internal stockproof fencing so that a total of not less than 160 kilometres of stockproof internal fencing shall have been erected. that it will clear a vehicle inspection track along the full length of all fencing erected on the leased land; that it will in addition to any bores or other made waters existing at the commencement of the term of the lease-
    5. on or before 30 June 1977 equip the 3 existing bores on the leased land known locally as ‘L’ , N’ and ‘O’ bores situated in the north-western portion of the lease;
    6. on or before 30 June 1980 sink and equip not less than a further 3 additional bores or equip 3 other made waters each capable of watering at least 500 head of cattle; and
    7. on or before 30 June 1985 sink and equip a further 3 bores or provide 3 other made waters each capable of watering at least 500 head of cattle so that in addition to equipping ‘L’, ‘N’ and ‘O’ bores, 6 bores or other made waters each capable of watering at least 500 head of cattle shall have been provided; that it shall maintain and repair and keep in repair all improvements existing at the commencement of the term of this lease, viz all boundary fencing adjacent to Pastoral Leases Nos 680, 528, 550 and the Hooker Creek Aboriginal Reserve, 16 kilometres of internal fencing, Burtawurta bore, and yards located at Montain Springs, McDonald, Neave Creek, 7 Mile, Seales, Gill Creek and Bobs Gully; that it shall, at all times, take resonable precaution to the satisfaction of the Northern Territory Commissioner of Soil Conservation in order to prevent accelerated soil erosion occurring as a result of stocking, clearing or cultivation of any of the land or the construction of fixed improvements including fences, firebreaks, roads and airstrips.
    8. in respect of the lease over the eastern sector the annual rental will be approximately $8,256.90. The other covenants over and above those required by the Crown Lands Ordinance and Regulations are as follows: that it will on or before 30 June 1980 stock the leased land with not less than 34 356 head of branded cattle and it will thereafter keep the leased land so stocked; provided however, that if a notice is served on it under section 14 or section 17 of the Soil Conservation and Control Ordinance it will comply with the requirements of that notice; that it will, in addition to any fencing existing at the commencement of the term of this lease, erect, on or before 30 June 1976 a stockproof fence along the boundary between the subdivided portions of Pastoral Lease No. 529, that is the boundary along the eastern side of the Victoria River; that it will clear a vehicle inspection track along the full length of all fencing erected on the leased land; that it will sink and equip, in addition to any bores or other made waters existing at the commencement of the term of this lease, not less than 10 bores or provide 10 other made waters each capable of watering at least 500 head of cattle on or before 30 June 1977. These waters are to be provided in the country adjoining the western boundary of this lease, along the Victoria River; that it will maintain and repair and keep in repair all improvements existing on the leased land at the commencement of the lease, viz 14 yards, 38 equipped bores, structural improvements to the value of $300,000 and 640 kilometres of internal and boundary fencing; all to the satisfaction of the Administrator; that it will at all times take reasonable precautions to the satisfaction of the Northern Territory Commissioner of Soil Conservation in order to prevent accelerated soil erosion occurring as a result of stocking, clearing or cultivation of any of the land or the construction of fixed improvements including fences, firebreaks, roads or airstrips.
  3. The term of the new leases will commence on 1 July after the offer made by the Administrator with the consent of the Minister has been accepted by the lessees and the expiry date of the leases will be the same as that of Pastoral Lease No. 529, that is 30 June 2004.
  4. The Minister for the Northern Territory has no intention of resuming any of the land comprised in Pastoral Lease No. 529. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and his Department have had correspondence and discussions with the Wave Hill Pastoral Company Pty Ltd regarding the possible purchase of the western sector of the lease once the subdivision has been finalised and two new resulting leases registered with the Registrar-General. At this stage the Administrator, with the consent of the Minister, has approved the subdivision application and the necessary steps are being taken towards finalising the matter. By way of compensation, the Government will pay approximately up to $600,000 which covers such items as the value of land and fixed improvements, the cost of erecting a subdivision fence, the establishment of 10 waters in compensation for the loss of access to river waters and the reasonable costs of removing the Company’s cattle from the western lease area.
  5. The present lease, that is Pastoral Lease No. 529, has been owned by the Vestey Interests through its company, Wave Hill Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd, since its inception in 1954. The general area however has been held by the Vestey group since 1917 and included a number of old South Australian pastoral leases.

Consular Assistance: Rev. Ronald Marstin (Question No. 540)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Have any Australian Consulate officers in the United States of America been approached by the Rev. Ronald Marstin, a Marist Brothers Father from Sydney, who is in dispute with the Rhode Island State penitentiary on the definition of his duties as a Chaplain.
  2. Has any action been taken by the Governor of Rhode Island, Mr Philip Noel, or ecclesiastical authorities to seek the curtailment of Father Marstin ‘s current visa.
Senator Willesee:
ALP

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

  1. Rev. Ronald Marstin has not approached the Austraiian Consulate General, New York nor are we aware of any approaches to other Australian Consular Offices in the United States.
  2. The United States immigration authorities have no record of any approaches seeking curtailment of Father Marstin ‘s current visa.

Overseas Loan

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On 22 May 1975 Senator Guilfoyle asked me the following question, without notice:

What commission will be paid by the Australian Government for the negotiations undertaken in regard to the $2,000m loan for which Executive Council approval was granted to the Minister for Minerals and Energy, which approval the Prime Minister now states has been revoked? To whom will the commission be paid? Under what head of expenditure will the commission be paid?

The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

I refer the honourable senator to the Prime Minister’s reply to the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives on 26 May 1975, as recorded at page 2755 of Hansard.

Vietnamese Refugees

Senator Willesee:
ALP

– On 13 May 1975, Senator Baume asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the following question, without notice:

I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs:

Was an approach made recently by Mr Michael Darby for Australian Government assistance in obtaining travel to Guam for a medical team? Had Mr Darby assembled, for the purpose of assisting with the care of the refugees, several tons of pharmaceutical goods, dried milk and other foodstuffs, together with teams of doctors and nurses? Was the plan to establish an Australian presence to serve humanitarian objectives for the large number of Vietnamese refugees in Guam and, as such, was the proposed mission one of which all Australians would approve? Had cables been received from the senior American officer on Guam welcoming the proposed help? Did the Department of Foreign Affairs decide not to assist the expedition to obtain the transport which it required to get its members and assembled goods to Guam?

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

Mr Michael Darby informed my Department early in May that he had collected 1000 kgs of drugs plus 4 tonnes of other unspecified supplies for Vietnamese refugees. He also stated that he had assembled a number of doctors and nurses who were available to work with Vietnamese refugees. In recent weeks Mr Darby has approached a number of officers in the Department of Foreign Affairs, in the Australian Development Assistance Agency, in my office and in the Defence Department, as well, apparently, as the honourable senator, concerning his desire to send this team to various pans of Asia. Mr Darby has also been in touch with the American Embassy. The American Embassy indicated they would be happy to accept the proposed offer, but that they could not provide accommodation on Guam for the team nor could they provide transport to Guam. lt is essential if humanitarian assistance is to be effective and efficient that it should be well co-ordinated, and that this assistance is in response to known needs and not needs sought out in order to utilise available assistance. The Australian Government itself has acted on this principle in making available in the current financial year $3.7m for humanitarian relief throughout Indo-China, which is channelled through various United Nations agencies who have themselves co-ordinated their activities in the area.

The Australian Government also welcomes the offer of aid and assistance by private bodies and organisations. The Australian Development Assistance Agency co-ordinates such activities in conjunction with the Australian Council for Overseas Aid (ACFOA), which includes such organisations as AUSTCARE, Australian Council of Churches, Australian Catholic Relief, Federation of Jewish Welfare Societies, Freedom from Hunger and Vietnam Orphans Fund. ADAA and ACFOA worked together most successfully to ensure the delivery to Vietnam of a number of supplies collected by various bodies for humanitarian relief in Vietnam. ACFOA performs a most desirable co-ordinating role and itself recognises the need for coordination. The Disaster Emergencies Committee of ACFOA believes that all medical teams should operate under the auspices of the Red Cross Society. Mr Darby was informed of this by the ACFOA, but I understand that he stated that he did not wish to work with the Red Cross Society. This was the background against which no decision was taken by the Australian Government to provide assistance to Mr Darby’s enterprise, although it was made clear that if the group wished to proceed they were free to do so,

I take this opportunity to draw attention to the important co-ordinating role of the Australian Council of Overseas Aid and commend it to all private individuals and organisations who wish to provide assistance abroad. This will ensure that a co-ordinated approach, which is more effective and more efficient in meeting the real needs of any situation, is followed. It will also avoid the confusion created by uncoordinated activities and approaches to different bodies by various private individuals and organisations.

Sportsmen and Sportswomen: Grants (Question No. 563)

Senator Rae:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Tourism and Recreation the following question, upon notice:

  1. In view of the Minister’s remarks about the circumstances surrounding the election of the Olympic Gold Medallist, Miss M. Wylie, of Sydney to the International Hall of Fame, what are the names of individual sportsmen and sportswomen who have received direct Government assistance since December 1972.
Senator McClelland:

– The Minister for Tourism and Recreation has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator’s question:

  1. The Australian Government provides assistance by way. of fares subsidies for approved Australian competitors and’ officials to attend bona fide national and international events.

Payments, in this respect, are made to national associations only who pass the grants on to competitors and officials involved. It is not the policy of this Government to provide this assistance direct to individuals.

Sporting Bodies: Grants (Question No. 595)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Tourism and Recreation, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What guidelines were established when the present Government first began making direct individual grants to sporting associations and groups.
  2. Have the guidelines been modified; if so, what are those modifications.
  3. What mechanisms are employed to ensure that such grants are utilised for the purpose for which they were initially made.
Senator McClelland:

– The Minister for Tourism and Recreation has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator’s question:

  1. The sports assistance program introduced in 1973-74 provided assistance for: fares of approved Australian sportsmen, sportswomen and officials to attend bona fide national and international events. fares of eminent overseas sportsmen, sportswomen and coaches who visit Australia for approved purposes. administrative costs of conducting international events in Australia.
  2. Yes; in 1974-75 the program was expanded to provide assistance for: competitive recreation. fares for approved competitors attendinginterregiona events where State/Territory teams have not attained national championship standard. fares for annual general meetings of national associations. fares for Australian delegates to attend meetings of international associations. costs of transporting equipment to approved events. administrative costs of approved national events. administrative costs of improving the administration of approved national associations. coaching programs. special projects involving sporting exchanges which are considered to have value to Australia over and above the benefits to the sport concerned.
  3. After payment of a grant, national associations are required to certify that the expenditure and distribution of the funds was in accord with the grant. This must be supported by an audit certificate given by a qualified public accountant having no office with the Association other than that of Honorary Auditor. In addition, national associations are required to submit copies of their annual reports and financial statements.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 4 June 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1975/19750604_senate_29_s64/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant