Senate
18 October 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1467

PETITIONS

Red Army Choir

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 6 1 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:

That the Red Army Choir is a military propaganda unit glorifying the Soviet regime which is still hostile to the democratic way of life. The Red Army is the main instrument in keeping formerly free people under subjugation, and its presence enables blatant violations of Human Rights to be perpetrated. The support, therefore, of such instruments of a totalitarian regime can only harm the development of free and liberal thought under it.

Your petitioners humbly pray that the Australian Government assert its support for the aspirations of subjugated people by denying entry into this country to the Red Army Choir.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

National Women’s Advisory Council

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the National Women’s Advisory Council has not been democratically elected by the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is not representative of the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is a discriminatory and sexist imposition on Australian women as Australian men do not have a National Men’s Advisory Council imposed on them.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the National Women’s Advisory Council be abolished to ensure that Australian women have equal opportunity with Australian men of having issues of concern to them considered, debated and voted on by their Parliamentary representatives without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council’.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Martin (2 petitions).

Petitions received.

Mr Igor Ogurtsov

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Federal Government exert Diplomatic pressure on the Soviet Authorities to secure release from detention of a

Soviet citizen Mr Igor Ogurtsov, a Graduate of the University of Leningrad, who was sentenced to seven years gaol, eight years hard labour and live years internal exile- a total of twenty years, in accordance with Articles 64a and 72 of the USSR Criminal Code.

Mr Ogurtsov, now aged 40, has already served eleven years of his sentence and is currently held in Concentration Camp No VS 389.35- Permskaya Oblast, Stanitsa Vsehsviatskaya.

His health has deteriorated to the extent, that he is not expected to live long enough to see his release from dentention.

Mr Ogurtsov ‘s only ‘crime’ is, that he is a Christian, and has participated in a discussion group on the future of a Christian-Democratic System in Russia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Senator Jessop.

Petition received.

page 1467

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1467

QUESTION

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION LEGISLATION

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations and refers to the amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and to the reports about a meeting between the Minister, Mr Street, and the President of the Commission, which has now taken place. I ask the Minister whether it is now the understanding that a report of the discussions will be a matter for a ministerial statement in the Senate today.

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The position is that as a result of discussions Mr Street had last night with Sir John Moore, Mr Street will be making a statement in relation to those matters. I do not know whether he has yet made it, or whether he is going to make it in answer to a question or at the end of Question Time. At all events, it would not be proper for me to anticipate what Mr Street wishes to say. However, it is most important that the Senate should be informed of the statement before we resume debate on the amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I propose to seek leave to make the statement in the Senate after I am assured that Mr Street has made it in the other place.

The Government has considered the situation arising out of the discussions between Mr Street and Sir John Moore. As will appear from the statement, there are no reasons why, in the Government’s view, amendments are required to the Bill in the light of the matters that were discussed. The Government intends to proceed with the Bill and does not propose to move any amendments to it arising out of the discussions.

page 1468

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed also to the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. I refer to today’s industrial disputes which range from selective bans by merchant service pilots, who are earning over $24,000 a year, to the New South Wales railways strike involving intrastate trains and to total transport strike in Victoria. Can the Minister tell us the approximate cost to the nation of these disastrous strikes?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The strikes to which Senator Lewis refers are of great concern and will have serious effects on costs to the community. I do not have an estimate of the figures. I will refer the question to the Minister for Industrial Relations to see whether particular figures sought by Senator Lewis can be obtained.

page 1468

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF REGION: JAPANESE FISHERMEN

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Science and the Environment: Is it a fact that under the proposed restrictions Japanese longline fishermen will be able to fish up to 30 kilometres inside the Great Barrier Reef region, as defined by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act, in the waters between Innisfail and Lizard Island?

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · VICTORIA · NCP/NP

– If the honourable senator is anxious for a response he may put the question on notice and I will get accurate information relating to the core of the point that he raises, which is whether the pact will allow the Japanese to fish within the boundary of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park region.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Twenty miles offshore.

Senator WEBSTER:

-The fact, as I understand it and as I think the honourable senator understands it, is that traditionally for the last 20 to 25 years the Japanese have been entitled and have been able to fish up to the 12-mile limit. Before 1975, as I understand it, the Japanese were capable of fishing up to the three-mile limit. The honourable senator, with his interest in this matter, would acknowledge that this Government has taken a great step to protect the fishing interests by excluding the Japanese, basically under the agreement, from an area of over 80,000 square miles which was available to them previously. That cannot but be accepted as quite an achievement for Australia.

The honourable senator raises the point that the region controlled by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is defined by a line drawn on a map. I am uncertain of the outer limit of that line. That is why I said to the honourable senator that he may put the question on notice if he wishes an answer. The fact is that the Japanese now will not be able to fish within the limits of the Great Barrier Reef. They are unable to come inside the Great Barrier Reef. The honourable senator has a point when he queries what is the region. The region may come within the line defining the responsibility of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, under its charter, which is not necessarily drawn along the outer edge of the reef.

page 1468

QUESTION

VIETNAM: CHINESE ETHNIC MINORITY

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Government aware of reports which indicate that Vietnamese Government authorities recently started requisitioning small boats, presumably for a new forced expulsion of the Chinese ethnic minority in Vietnam, and which are reinforced by other reports that numbers of Chinese within Vietnam have disappeared, presumably to some sort of staging point for their expulsion from the country? Of course, this is in flagrant breach of the undertaking given at the recent Geneva conference that Vietnam would halt the organised export of Chinese nationals from that country. Will the Government convey to the Vietnamese Government Australia’s repugnance of its racist policies and forced expulsion of nationals and indicate that we expect Vietnam to continue to observe some standards of human decency in its treatment of its ethnic Chinese minority?

Senator CARRICK:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

- Senator Martin has asked an important question which I think is of very great interest to all Australians. In response to the first section of her question I can say that I am aware of media reports that a new exodus of ethnic Chinese refugees from Vietnam is about to begin. I remind Senator Martin that at the international meeting on Indo-Chinese refugees which was held in Geneva in July of this year Vietnam undertook to reduce the disorderly outflow of refugees for what was quoted to be a reasonable period of time. Senator Martin has acknowledged that in her question. Since then the Australian Government has continued to monitor the outflow of refugees from Vietnam and has helped to focus international attention on Vietnam in an effort to ensure that Vietnam adheres to its undertaking. The Government will continue along that course. The Government is not aware of the imminence of any new exodus of refugees or of any hard evidence to suggest this. However, the situation will continue to be watched closely for any sign that the Vietnamese Government is not fulfilling the undertaking it gave at Geneva.

page 1469

QUESTION

YOUNG UNEMPLOYED

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education. I refer to the telexes which were sent by the Minister and the permanent head of his Department to their State counterparts and which were evidently leaked to Mr Laurie Oakes as the basis for his story in this morning’s Melbourne Age. As there is much confusion amongst the young unemployed and their families after Mr Viner’s barely concealed threats to take away their unemployment benefit, will the Minister for Education explain his reference in the telex to ‘a process of early identification of “at risk” students, devising meaningful alternatives for them’? Who will decide which students are at risk? Will their parents be consulted? ls there a danger that there will be a stigma attached to them?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have read the article in the Age this morning. I want to make it perfectly clear that neither directly nor indirectly has any such information or correspondence originated from me or my Department. Let me make that perfectly clear. I am not in business to do that at all, even though I think one would acknowledge that the substance of the telexes will have been of considerable interest and assistance to a wide number of people. It would not be my normal process to acknowledge the accuracy or otherwise of telexes because they are an exchange of confidential information between governments. However, short of checking the telexes, I acknowledge that the substance of what is contained in them is the substance of the policy that I have been advocating for some two or three years.

The question of which students are at risk is one that I think Senator O ‘Byrne rightly homes in on. The fact is that the Williams committee has indicated, as I have repeated here, that some 25 per cent of 14-year-olds in Australia are incapable of independent reading and some 15 per cent of them are incapable of independent figuring and that for those who leave school at 15 years of age, a 28 per cent unemployment risk is inherent. Equally, the Employment Program for Unemployed Youth has given us some identification of the quite sad characteristics of people who move into the field beyond school without being employable according to the measurement used by employers today. I have discussed this matter at length with the State

Ministers. We will be discussing it at length next week in Perth. I have gone further and had very lengthy discussions with the Australian Association of High School Principals, that is, the actual principals of the 1,300 high schools. They all acknowledge that they can identify such students who are potentially at risk, that there are people who, for some reason or other in the course of their journey, lose the sense that school is for them, lose a sense of motivation, lose a sense that the generalist stream of education will benefit them, and therefore tend to switch on”. That is a term that is quite readily used by teachers and headmasters.

We will be enormously sensitive to the kind of dangers to which Senator O ‘Byrne has referred. Indeed, EPUY itself has found that it is as much an attitudinal situation as it is a basic skills situation. In other words, EPUY is devoted mostly to uplifting dignity and self-esteem. We are very conscious that a significant number of people, in their families or in their schools, have lost some degree of self-esteem. Therefore, we will be highly aware of the fact that pastoral care of a very special kind is necessary if these young people are to walk with equal dignity alongside others. It is a complex question.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. I appreciate the answer that I have already been given by the Minister for Education but I would like him to explain to me how the Government proposes to cope with the extra work load that government schools will have to deal with following the cut backs suffered in the Budget. Also, who consulted the Minister about the scheme? Did the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs consult him?

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. At what stage does a supplementary question become a new question or at what stage is a question supplementary to that previously asked? The honourable senator is introducing new and separate material.

Senator O’BYRNE:

-It is not new material at all.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am listening attentively to the question.

Senator Carrick:

– Would Senator O ‘Byrne repeat his question?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– How will the government secondary schools be able to cope with the extra work load imposed by the new scheme in view of the cut backs suffered in the Budget? Was the Minister consulted about the scheme before the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs floated it at the recent youth conference? Does the Minister admit that the scheme is just a short term measure to improve unemployment figures in an election year and that its success will require a job creation program?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator’s supplementary question must not deviate from the thrust of the original question.

Senator CARRICK:

– Had Senator O ‘Byrne read the full article- assuming that the full text of the telexes was printed- he would have understood that consultations between the Commonwealth and the States are proceeding in order to examine what additional resources will be necessary to cope with the work load. Senator O ‘Byrne referred to cut backs. In the recurrent resources of schools there have been no cutbacks.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Is it going to private schools?

Senator CARRICK:

-No, and do not let us have that kind of interjection. The fact is that in real money terms, the recurrent resources from the Commonwealth to the States will remain the same, even though there has been a falling off in the total enrolment of students. In fact, there has been no cut back. There has been some decline in capital funding, but that would not influence this situation. The honourable senator also asked whether I was consulted before the scheme was floated. The elements of the scheme originated from my Department and me. Over some two or three years, as honourable senators will be aware, the basic pilot scheme- EPUY- was an evolution from within my Department to bring situations such as these to the surface. I would reject any suggestion that it is a short term scheme for election purposes. If that were so one would have to assume that the report of the Williams committee is for election purposes. That is nonsense to the degree, as indeed would be any claim that Mr Cliff Dolan, Vice-President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, connived in a report to the Williams committee to provide short term benefits for the Government. The Williams committee has recommended that the elements that we are now putting forward are vital for the long term good of this community and for the youth of this community.

page 1470

QUESTION

ROAD SAFETY

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs to a recent report of the Department of Transportation in the United States which showed that 65 per cent of American cars and 25 per cent of imported cars tested would not protect the front seat passenger from fatal injuries at a speed of 60 kilometres an hour and the subsequent recommendation of the head of this department and the head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that a rating system be introduced which would allow consumers to assess at a glance a particular vehicle’s measure of safety protection in the event of a crash. In view of the mounting road toll in the nation and the needless waste of human life, could the Minister give consideration to a similar scheme of safety rating being introduced into Australia?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I will refer that question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. In general terms it raises the question of consumer protection. As Senator Bonner would be aware, the Ministers for Transport in Australia meet regularly. They have assumed particular responsibility for safety in vehicles and they develop various rules and regulations in relation to these matters. I think that the particular matter Senator Bonner has raised is of great concern generally but of particular concern to the Ministers for Transport. I will refer the question to the Minister for Transport and suggest that he may like to raise the matter at the next meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council.

page 1470

QUESTION

OIL SUPPLIES FROM IRAN

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for National Development: Does he recall the question I asked yesterday concerning the position of oil supplies from Iran to Australia? Has he now any further information on that subject?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I have some material as a result of Senator Wriedt ‘s question yesterday. The Government receives regular reports on international developments from a variety of sources, including the International Energy Agency and its own representatives overseas. Apart from pricing moves which have been announced by some countries, reports of production cuts or limitations can be regarded only as speculation at this stage. In the last quarter of 1979 supplies of oil for the Australian market are expected to be adequate to meet demand. Current developments cannot affect this outlook. The outlook for imported oil supplies in early 1980 will be assessed in November. It should be borne in mind that imports supply only 30 per cent of our total demand for crude oil. We are 70 per cent self-sufficient. The outlook for oil supplies is kept under review. The Oil Supplies Advisory Committee and the National Petroleum Advisory Committee have been formed to review and advise on the allocation of priorities should these prove necessary.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I wish to ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister saying that supplies of oil from Iran are simply a matter of uncertainty? Is the Government saying that it has received no information recently which would cause it much greater concern than it had before it received such information? Is that a correct interpretation of the answer?

Senator DURACK:

– It is true that the specific matter that Senator Wriedt asked about yesterday and also in his supplementary question today as to whether there is any specific information emanating from Iran which causes the Government in any way to reassess its estimates is not actually dealt with.

Senator Wriedt:

– No, it is not. But I want to know.

Senator DURACK:

– I will remind the Minister of that point and seek to have it dealt with as well.

page 1471

QUESTION

URANIUM

Senator TEAGUE:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and is asked in the context of this week’s renewed energy crisis following world oil price rises. Is it true that the United Kingdom has announced this week plans to build 20 new nuclear reactors and that this is part of a pattern of new reactors being built in over 25 countries? Is it also true that updated assessments show that world stocks of uranium may in fact run out sooner than world stocks of oil? What is the Australian Government’s estimate of the world market for uranium, and what are the implications for Australian uranium sales? Also, however difficult this may be, what steps can the Government take in a practical way to win a more bipartisan and responsible policy approach in this Parliament to the mining, milling and selling of uranium in order to give firmer confidence to the industry and to Australia’s international trade relations?

Senator DURACK:
LP

- Senator Teague has asked a question relating to the market prospects for uranium. In general I can say that the Government closely assesses this matter and that the market for uranium is dependent upon the need for uranium for nuclear reactors generating electricity. There are over 200 nuclear reactors operating in 22 countries, and a similar number is under construction in 29 countries. If the reactors now being built have on average around 70 per cent greater capacity than those now operating, and even if the 400 or more additional reactors either firmly ordered or planned are excluded, this will represent a three-fold expansion of uranium requirements over the next 10 years. The production of uranium from Australian mines will, of course, find a very ready market in this situation. Indeed, after 1990 the question is not whether there will be a market for uranium but whether there will be productive capacity in place to meet the requirements of the reactors then in use. That is in general terms the answer to the question relating to the market for uranium.

As to Senator Teague ‘s other question in relation to the development of a bipartisan approach to this matter, of course it would be most desirable if there were a bipartisan approach to this problem. I think the electors of South Australia have indicated pretty clearly that this is what they want.

page 1471

QUESTION

OIL SUPPLIES FROM IRAN

Senator WRIEDT:

– Again my question is to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and concerns oil supplies from Iran. Does the Minister recall saying yesterday in response to my question:

I will refer that question to the Minister for National Development and possibly also to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It raises a very important matter and I think the Senate should have the benefit of any relevant information that may be in the hands of Ministers.

I ask the Minister: Did he refer my question to the two Ministers mentioned? If so, is the Senate to understand that the specific matter to which I referred both yesterday and today was not referred to in the answers from either of those Ministers?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I have already indicated, and I regret, that the answer that I had for Senator Wriedt today did not deal specifically with the Iranian situation. I personally have not discussed the matter with either of the Ministers concerned. The answers to questions that I refer to other Ministers, as Senator Wriedt will be aware, are processed through staff and I would have to inquire as to what has been done. I assure Senator Wriedt and the Senate that, in view of the very great importance of this subject and as Senator Wriedt clearly regards it as a matter for urgent consideration, I will use my best endeavours, today if I have time, to speak to both Ministers concerned to see whether I can obtain the information that he is seeking.

Senator WRIEDT:

– May I ask a supplementary question? I realise the difficulty of a Minister in this chamber. It is certainly not his fault if he is not being kept fully informed by his colleagues in the House of Representatives but he is accountable for those matters. I advised him that I would be following up this matter. I ask him: Is it not reasonable to expect that his colleagues would in fact refer to matters which he himself has admitted, quite properly, are very important? Is he not concerned that information legitimately sought in this chamber is obviously being withheld by two of his colleagues?

Senator DURACK:

– I must completely repudiate that suggestion. I think we dealt with 39 questions in this place yesterday. We deal with a large number of questions every day in this place. It is quite absurd to suggest that the Minister who is responsible- I admit to a responsibility here- can obtain these answers, even by using the processes of Government, just as quickly as the Senate or senators may desire.

Senator Wriedt:

– I am not getting at you. It’s them. They are leading you up the garden path.

Senator DURACK:

– I know you are not getting at me, but the fact of the matter is that a large amount of information is being sought. It is a problem for everybody, not just me. It is a problem for the Ministers I represent, for their staffs, their departments and so on. All I can say is that we do try as best we can to get the information as soon as we can.

page 1472

QUESTION

TELECOM AUSTRALIA: MANUFACTURE OF SUBSCRIBERS’ APPARATUS

Senator PETER BAUME:

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. There are five parts to the question. Firstly, are Telecom Australia workshops throughout Australia taking steps to equip themselves for the manufacture of subscribers ‘ apparatus on a production basis notwithstanding the ready availability of these goods from Australian manufacturers? Secondly, is Telecom purchasing overseas components for this type of unit on a duty free basis while other manufacturers presumably pay the duty? Thirdly, are the units produced by Telecom being sold or leased to subscribers? Fourthly, should these units be regarded as goods produced for purposes of trade? Fifthly, does it follow that the duty-free purchase of such components may be in breach of the Customs Act requirement that ‘Goods imported by the Commonwealth are duty-free but not if they are intended to be used for purposes of trade’?

Senator CHANEY:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I understand from the Minister for Post and Telecommunications that no special steps have been taken by Telecom Australia workshops to equip themselves for the manufacture of subscribers’ apparatus. Ever since the Second World War the policy has been to equip the workshops for a limited manufacturing capability which allows skills to be retained for the reconditioning of equipment, which permits cost evaluations of equipment and supplies tendered by private industry and products which were essential to new equipment proposals, which provides a manufacturing source when tenders for products or equipment are not forthcoming from industry and which allows capacity to correct supply difficulties should they arise. So, there are very limited areas in which the workshops are used. The Brisbane workshops were commissioned recently to manufacture a secretary-executive multi-phone in the absence of suitable public tenders from private industry. Over 50 per cent of that work has been subcontracted to private industry.

The second part of Senator Baume ‘s question related to whether certain components were being purchased overseas on a duty free basis. The answer is that they are because the components are not available from manufacturers in Australia. These units are only available for limited customer trials. Customers will have a choice of paying a term rental or the capital cost together with the annual charge for servicing. The fourth part of his question related to whether these units should be regarded as goods produced for the purpose of trade. My advice is that the answer to that question is no. It does not follow that the purchase of these goods duty free is a breach of the Customs Act because section 80 of the Telecommunications Act 1975 states that the Commission is not subject to taxation under any law of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory.

page 1472

SOCIAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, refers to the Social Services Amendment Bill shortly to be debated by this Parliament. I refer particularly to the provision in that Bill which provides that an individual will be refused unemployment or special benefit if he is out of work as a result of industrial action by others. Will the Minister provide for honourable senators and members details of the guidelines which will be used for making decisions as to who is or is not in a union, on whom will lie the onus of proof and what proof will be accepted by the Director-General or his delegates as to who is or is not in a union? I ask for this because I think it is important in considering this legislation that we also consider the associated guidelines which will be used by the Minister’s officers in applying the legislation.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I thank Senator Grimes for asking the question. I will ask the Director-General to release details of what arrangements the Department has in mind to verify the membership of a union when unemployment results from strike or industrial action. I will see that early advice is given to the Senate on this matter.

page 1473

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

– My question concerns an area of possible underpayment of unemployment benefit where the recipient’s earnings exceed $6 a week. It is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. Will the Minister give consideration to revising the form of earnings accompanying the fortnightly unemployment benefit cheque? Currently a person on unemployment benefit may be at a disadvantage since the dates of working are required to be shown on the form but not the amount of earnings for each day’s work. All that is required is a total figure for the fortnight’s earnings. For example, $4 may be earned in one week and $46 in the second week, making $50 for the fortnight. I understand that the calculations are now worked out equally over the relevant days stated rather than on the amounts of earnings related to those particular days. Will the Minister examine ways of overcoming this problem?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I will see that consideration is given to Senator Watson’s question on this matter. It would be understood that the income test operates in such a way that income in excess of set limits reduces on a dollar for dollar basis the amount of unemployment benefit otherwise payable. The limits for married and single people, I think, are well known. As was said by Senator Watson, beneficiaries are required to state on a form each fortnight whether they did any casual work during the relevant period or whether they had any income during the period and, if so, the days on which they worked. As I understand it, there is provision not for separate totals to be shown but rather for one total. I will ask my Department to look at this matter and consider the question raised by Senator Watson.

page 1473

QUESTION

DAYLIGHT SAVING

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. It is prompted by the impending adoption of daylight saving in three of the eastern States. The Minister will be aware that in recent years Queensland has suffered because it has adhered to Eastern Standard Time. In particular, the Australian Broadcasting Commission has sometimes completely disregarded the needs of Queensland residents. I therefore ask the Minister whether he will use his good offices to ensure that the Australian Broadcasting Commission continues to broadcast its programs in Queensland at the normal time during the forthcoming summer months.

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-I have a great deal of sympathy in the matter raised by Senator Colston. My own State, like his, does not change to daylight saving. I am aware of the considerable inconvenience that that causes when one is moving from one jurisdiction to another. As far as Australian Broadcasting Commission programs are concerned, I am sure that all honourable senators who have visited the Northern Territory will have been struck by the inconvenience that they suffer there because the radio programs there are not in the time slots to which they are accustomed. I can imagine that that would be a matter of considerable inconvenience in Queensland, which I understand places great reliance on the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I will therefore ask the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to raise this matter with the Australian Broadcasting Commission to see whether Queenslanders can be given a more convenient service than apparently has applied.

page 1473

QUESTION

HOME-MADE AIRCRAFT

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

-I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Transport to an Age article of 10 September which alleges that there are virtually no government controls over home-made aeroplanes, the only regulations being that they do not fly above 300 feet, that they keep away from buildings and stay over private property. I ask: Is it correct that these aircraft do not even require certificates of airworthiness or their pilots a licence because their operation is classified as an air sport? Does the Government agree that the present controls are grossly inadequate? Is it likely that some of the 10 victims of the series of sports aviation plane crashes in the past two years may have been saved if stricter controls had been enforced? Will the Minister assure the Senate that a full investigation will be made into ways of increasing the air safety, maintenance and flight training regulations for home-made aircraft?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

- Senator Missen raises a matter which is obviously causing him concern. I must say that I do not have a full reply to the series of questions which he has asked. I understand that many home-built aircraft are required to meet airworthiness standards specified in the Air Navigation Regulations. They are required to have a certificate of airworthiness and must be operated by licensed pilots. Hang-gliders, some small sporting aeroplanes and gyroplanes, which may be either home-built or factory produced, are exempted from complying with certain air navigation regulations, including those requiring a certificate of airworthiness and the licensing of pilots. The attitude adopted by the Department of Transport has been that requirements without the means of enforcement are ineffective in safety control. I suppose that that is self-evident, but it does not really go to the heart of the question asked by the honourable senator. The particular sorts of aircraft to which he has referred lend themselves to weekend and holiday activity on private property in remote areas, and effective control and enforcement is very difficult in those circumstances. I understand that the Minister for Transport would wish to assure the Senate of his concern about any aircraft accident and that his Department is taking steps to minimise the risks in all forms of flying.

page 1474

QUESTION

MEDIA OWNERSHIP

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to a question I asked him on 13 September regarding the Minister’s intention to direct the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the problems of the concentration of media ownership in this country. I have had no reply to that question. In view of reports of an intended takeover of Channel 0 in Melbourne by Rupert Murdoch, a development which would greatly increase concentration of media ownership, I ask: Does the Government now intend to have the Tribunal inquire into this matter and change the broadcasting and television ownership provisions according to its findings or will the Government yet again allow a takeover by a major media proprietor to make a mockery of its own stated policy of diversity of ownership in the media?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I will seek a reply from the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to the questions asked by the honourable senator.

page 1474

QUESTION

SUB-ANTARCTIC FISHERIES

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. A report in the Hobart Mercury of 17 October stated that several foreign countries had offered to provide at no cost information not already available about subAntarctic fisheries. Can the Minister advise which countries to date have made these offers, when those offers were made and whether there are any strings attached to them?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I think that the questions on this subject that have been raised in the Senate previously have brought to our notice the fact that several countries have either entered into agreements or have negotiations under way with some private industries and are seeking feasibility fishing approval from the State governments and the Federal government. I am uncertain as to whether the honourable Senator’s question asks which countries have applied for this approval. I am unable to say exactly which countries have made these offers. I will seek that information from the Minister for Primary Industry whom I represent in the Senate and attempt to supply an answer quickly.

page 1474

QUESTION

KAMPUCHEA

Senator MCINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, follows the question on Kampuchea that I asked yesterday. I am rather concerned about the lack of clarity on the situation in Kampuchea and what appears to be the lack of moral principle. What realistic proposals does the Government see for a solution to the Kampuchean crisis? Does it regard the prospects of a United Nations sponsored peacekeeping force and supervised elections as realistic? If not, is it responsible to call for the immediate withdrawal of Vietnamese forces when the only real alternative on the ground is the discredited and brutal Pol Pot forces?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Government has made it very clear that it regards the essential cause of the present trouble in Kampuchea as being the substantial invasion by some 20 divisions of Vietnamese forces into what is a neighbouring and a foreign country. I would have thought that, consistent with all the arguments on the Indo-China area put forward in the past by the Labor Party, it would have been totally opposed to any country putting a foreign force into a neighbouring country.

Senator Wriedt:

– That was said at the time by me. There was a Press statement.

Senator CARRICK:

-I am delighted that Senator Wriedt acknowledges that, and it would be consistent with what has been said. Basically, the main solution for this very unhappy and devastated country is to withdraw the elements of war within the country and therefore to relieve the innocent embattled civil population of one regime or another. The Australian Government is very active within the world community in seeking to achieve solutions which will bring about relief there, not only in the short term by providing food and medicines but also in the longer term in the saving of lives. As to any specific or immediate initiatives which may have been contemplated by the Foreign Minister, I will refer that section of the question to him.

Senator MCINTOSH:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. My question had nothing to do with the withdrawal of forces or anything of that kind. I asked what the Government’s position is and whether the Minister saw it as a realistic solution to have United Nations forces in Kampuchea. I also asked whether there was any sense in withdrawing Vietnamese forces and leaving the brutal Pol Pot forces without something else being there. I did not ask what the Labor Party thought or whether it was consistent or inconsistent. It is the Government’s consistency we are looking for.

The PRESIDENT:

– I thought the Minister had replied fully to the question.

Senator CARRICK:

– As I understood it, Senator Mcintosh earlier asked: What does the Government see to be the major elements that would result in an easing of the situation in Kampuchea? I answered that very clearly by saying that the Government sees the major element as being the withdrawal of the aggression from outside, that is, by the Vietnamese army. In fact, the honourable senator did ask the question and did get a direct answer. Incidentally, Mr President, if I may say so the habit of the Opposition of continually using supplementary questions which are not supplementary questions at all- virtually all of them this morning- needs to be restrained.

Senator Georges:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. I think it is outrageous for the Leader of the Government to read you a lesson on this matter. You are in control of the Senate and we have given to you the authority to apply the Standing Orders as you see fit. It is outrageous for the Leader of the Government to read you that lesson.

The PRESIDENT:

– I assure honourable senators that I shall conduct the affairs of this House entirely as Condor Laucke and nobody else.

Senator CARRICK:

– Far from reading you a lesson, Mr President, I was rebuking sin. Nobody has protested more than the Labor Party and the same senator about the lack of ability to spread questions evenly over the whole of this chamber. What has been demonstrated today is that the Labor Party has been denying its own members the opportunity to ask questions because of the number of supplementary questions being asked which you, Mr President, have indicated infringe the rules. I underline and emphasise that point.

page 1475

QUESTION

QUARANTINE LAWS

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health by drawing the Senate’s attention to the recent Australian Broadcasting Commission television program in which a scientist from the Research School of Biological Sciences at the Australian National University stated that many of our quarantine laws are framed in biological ignorance. Can the Minister say whether this is fact or whether expert advice is obtained in the framing of our quarantine laws.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have no knowledge of the matter raised by Senator Walters. I will need to refer the question to the Minister for Health and obtain an answer for her.

page 1475

QUESTION

AVGAS

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

– The Minister representing the Prime Minister will be aware of the critical shortages of avgas in various parts of Australia. Has his attention been drawn to Press reports today which state that the United States Government is refusing to allow shipments of aviation gasoline from Texas to Australia? If this is the case, may I assume that the Public Service and the appropriate Ministers have been unable to get a response from the United States Government officials? Therefore I ask whether the Prime Minister will take up directly and personally with President Carter the release of these supplies of avgas, given the importance of avgas to our great agricultural industries and to the general welfare of people in Australia living outside the great urban centres.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– One part of the question concerns supplies of avgas and relates to national development, and therefore to the representative capacities of my colleague the Attorney-General. The other part contains a much broader question to the Prime Minister. My understanding- my colleague can correct me- is that some difficulties are involved. The Government understands that with the development of refining capacity by, I think, the Shell Co. of Australia Ltd in 1980-1 hope early in the year- the threatened shortages of avgas will be relieved by local production.

That is the long term situation. I have no information on whether what Senator Tate said is true. I will refer that part of his question to the Prime Minister and seek a response.

page 1476

QUESTION

ENERGY USERS

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. I understand that appeals for assistance have been made- to the Government by local authorities because of the steep increase in gas prices which will mean that they, and ultimately the ratepayers, will have to pay a large amount of money to convert from gas to electricity. During its consideration of this matter, will the Government also consider the situation of energy users who are remote from electricity distribution grids and do not have any alternative to bottled gas and dieselene?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I will refer that question to the Minister for National Development.

page 1476

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH SERVICE

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is directed to you, Mr President. Can you advise the Senate whether it is correct that you and the Speaker of the House of Representatives are considering a proposal to move the Legislative Research Service section of the Library away from Parliament House? If so, what is the basis of the proposal? What stage has been reached in those negotiations?

The PRESIDENT:

– The matter of adequate and reasonable accommodation for honourable senators and honourable members and for staff operating here is a complex one. Mr Speaker and I approached the Government for the use of West Block to meet the needs of Parliament. We want extra accommodation prior to the completion of the new Parliament House in 1988. The Government has declined to provide West Block for parliamentary use and, as an alternative, has offered the former Hotel Kurrajong in exchange for the Hotel Canberra. Mr Speaker and I have asked the five permanent heads of the parliamentary departments to have the matter evaluated and to consider, in particular, which parliamentary staff they would recommend to occupy the Kurrajong, the extent of renovations required to convert the hotel space into suitable office accommodation, and any other difficulties associated with the possible relocation of staff to the Kurrajong. The matter raised by the honourable senator no doubt will be covered in this evaluation. No decisions have yet been made on this matter and they will not be made until Mr

Speaker and I have had the opportunity to examine the permanent heads’ report. I expect this report to be presented to us in the very near future.

page 1476

QUESTION

PROGRAM FOR ABORIGINAL EMPLOYMENT

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of a conference that was attended at Port Augusta on Monday by Mr Ian Viner? I understand that the object of the conference was to launch a program for the training of Aboriginals in that area. Can the Minister give any details of the training program envisaged? I understand that similar programs are in operation in Australia. Can he indicate whether they are operating successfully?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am aware of the conference which was held at Port Augusta and which was for the launching of a new Aboriginal employment campaign in that centre. It follows a very successful first campaign at Dubbo in New South Wales which was launched by Mr Viner in July of this year and which is an attempt to meet the very significant problem of Aboriginal unemployment. Honourable senators would be interested to know, I think, that the eight-week campaign in Dubbo resulted in the reference of 145 Aboriginals to employers and the actual placement of 79 Aboriginals in employment. Bearing in mind the significant levels of unemployment in many country areas of Australia, particularly among Aboriginal people, it is obviously a significant result.

Mr Viner announced that an essential part of the campaign in South Australia is for Aboriginals to impress on their own people that to obtain skilled jobs one has to be prepared to train and to put time and effort into learning skills. Port Augusta was chosen in part because of its high unemployment rate, which is estimated at somewhere around 50 per cent of the Aboriginal work force, but also because there is now potential for new employment in that area because of the possibility of the Redcliff and Roxby Downs projects and so on getting off the ground. Because of the chance of new development in South Australia and the creation of new jobs, the Government has seen it as sensible to try to prepare the Aboriginal community to take advantage of those new opportunities. I am sure that all honourable senators would join me in hoping that the success which we achieved in Dubbo will now be repeated in South Australia.

page 1476

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence whether it is a fact that the Government is considering the reintroduction of national service. Has a series of guidelines been laid down as to how the new system of national service will be implemented? If the new system is introduced, which age groups will be involved? Is the new system being investigated as a possible alternative to or complementary to the scheme to withdraw unemployment benefit from people under the age of 2 1 years?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I will submit Senator Keeffe ‘s application for consideration, under literary and imaginative effort, to the Nobel Prize judges. His question lacks any merit at all, except for its creativity. There is no basis at all for his question, but I give him two points for neatness and imagination.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I ask a supplementary question. An investigation is now happening within the Defence organisation to see what can be done in this regard. There is positive evidence of it. I suggest that the Minister should answer the question with some dignity.

Senator CARRICK:

-I have given an unqualified answer, but I now invite Senator Keeffe to give me, in detailed form, the evidence on which he bases that second, but not supplementary, question.

page 1477

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE: ACCOMMODATION FOR BICYCLES

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– My question is directed to you, Mr President. What have you and Mr Speaker been able to achieve in recent times to meet the needs of cyclists who work in Parliament House and who have sought better facilities for the parking of their bicycles during working hours?

The PRESIDENT:

-Representations have come forward on that matter from your good self and from Senator Ryan. The Speaker and I have discussed it with the Secretary of the Joint House Department and provision is now being made to meet the requirements of those who come to this place on bicycles. As soon as firm details are available, I will provide them to the honourable senator.

page 1477

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION: TWO-AIRLINE POLICY

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport: In the event of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd passing from the control of the present directors as a result of share raids on the stock exchange and substantial changes in shareholding, will the Government consider renegotiating the current two-airline agreement in the interests of true competition between Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett in respect of price, flight times and service to commuters?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-The two-airline policy is not related to who may be holding the shares in Ansett Transport Industries Ltd and I do not believe that a change in shareholding would alter the Government’s attitude to that policy. Of late several questions relating to the two-airline policy have been asked. I believe that they have all been responded to in the same way. The Government received a report on this matter which it has effectively adopted. It has at this stage reaffirmed the two-airline policy as being appropriate for Australia’s needs. At the same time, the Minister for Transport has been taking action to try to ensure greater competition under that agreement.

page 1477

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– My question, which is directed to the Attorney-General, relates to allegations made yesterday in the House of Representatives by the honourable member for Hindmarsh concerning the raid on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation by former Senator Murphy, which this morning have received wide Press coverage. I was not present when the allegations were made and do not know whether the honourable member for Hindmarsh was serious or was sending the whole thing up in his inimitable, whimsical fashion. Would the Attorney-General, based on his knowledge of events in 1973, respond to the specific allegations that Croatians had intended to put cyanide in the air-conditioning system of the Lakeside Hotel, that an interdepartmental committee had told the late Senator Greenwood to lie to the Senate and that Senator Murphy had found it difficult to obtain a seat on a plane to travel to Melbourne to raid the ASIO headquarters because ASIO had booked all of the empty seats by making phantom bookings?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– Apart from noting some general reference to the matter, which I did not read carefully, in a newspaper I do not know what Mr Cameron said about the matter. I do not propose to say anything about it, one way or the other, until I do, except to comment that, as I have said previously, these alleged events occurred in 1973 and have nothing to do with anything for which I am responsible today as Attorney-General.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. It is directed to the

Attorney-General in respect of his responsibility for ASIO. Is he indicating by his answer that he is permitting the continuation of the slander against the Croatian people that has developed since the time of that raid?

The PRESIDENT:

– The Minister has replied to the honourable senator’s question in the manner in which he desired. It is within the competence of any Minister to reply in that way and I will not allow the supplementary question.

page 1478

EGG INDUSTRY

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I seek leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

Senator McLAREN:

- Mr President, as I said to you this morning the reason for my wanting to make a statement is because of a misleading article in today’s Canberra Times attributed to Senator Knight. The article is headed ‘Attack over egg industry’. I quote the words attributed to Senator Knight in today’s Canberra Times:

Senator Knight, Liberal ACT, said outside the Senate yesterday that ‘Senator McLaren seems bent on ensuring the destruction of an industry in the ACT that employs 60 or 70 people.’

You will be well aware that a debate took place in this Senate last night apparently after Senator Knight made that statement outside the House. On three occasions he accused me of the very thing which he is now reported in the Canberra Times as saying. Mr President, because the statement in today’s Canberra Times imputes an improper motive to me, I would like to say that at no time during my many speeches on the poultry industry, both in the Senate and in the public forum, have I ever said that I was bent on the destruction of the poultry industry in the Australian Capital Territory. A reading of my speeches will clearly show that all my efforts have been directed at maintaining a viable Australia-wide egg industry through the orderly marketing system which can be achieved only by all egg producers complying with the law applicable to the industry. Because the statement in today’s Canberra Times attributed to Senator Knight is misleading and a distortion of the truth, is defamatory and imputes a highly improper motive to me in my efforts to secure justice for the whole of the Australian egg industry, I seek from Senator Knight an unqualified withdrawal of his misleading statements in the Canberra Times today.

page 1478

QUESTION

MEDIA OWNERSHIP

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

- Senator Ryan earlier today asked me a question about the intention of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, Mr Staley, with respect to an inquiry by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. I have since had advice from Mr Staley that the answer which I gave her on 18 September 1979 and which is reported in the Senate Hansard at page 760 is Mr Staley ‘s reply to her question today.

page 1478

QUESTION

MR TOMMY WHITE JAGAMARA: COMPENSATION

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– On 16 October Senator Keeffe asked me a question which was, in fact, a series of questions about a coroner’s inquiry relating to the late Mr Tommy White Jagamara. The answers which I have now been provided with are as follows: The coroner’s inquiry took place on 25, 26 and 29 June; 8, 23, 27 August; and 14, 20, 26 and 29 September. The coroner’s finding was accidental death. No charges have been laid arising out of the death. I am advised that no compensation has been paid to this date. It is however, intended to claim compensation but the matter is in the hands of the Aboriginal Legal Service and that is a private matter on which I am unable to get any precise information. But the claim is being pursued.

page 1478

QUESTION

SUB-ANTARCTIC FISHERIES

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Victoria · NCP/NP

- Senator Archer asked me a question today relating to countries that may have been involved in some fishing interests in the area south of Tasmania. I have been advised by the Minister whom I represent that the countries involved are Poland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the German Democratic Republic and Romania. It must be noted that there has been no dialogue with any of the above countries. Discussions have taken place between Australian commercial partners and fisheries interests of those countries. I understand that those representations have been made by companies such as Henry Jones (IXL) Ltd, Craig Mostyn & Co. Pty Ltd and the Commercial Bureau (Aust.) Pty Ltd. In the case of the Poles it concerns only Mauri Bros and Thomson Pty Ltd.

page 1478

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Leave granted.

Senator KNIGHT:

– I wish to refer to the comments made a moment ago by Senator McLaren.

In doing so I would like to point out that I am quoted in the Canberra Times this morning as saying:

Senator McLaren seems bent on ensuring the destruction of an industry in the ACT-

This morning Senator McLaren has given an unqualified assurance that that is not his intention. I take his word for it.

Senator McLaren:

– I gave it to you last night.

Senator KNIGHT:

-We will see whether actions bear out what he said. In making this personal explanation I should like to refer to an exchange which occurred in the debate last night and which I think would help clarify the situation.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I raise a point of order. Senator Knight has made his point of order. Now he wants to tell us something that we can read in the Hansard tomorrow. We put up with an hour of this last night. We were all egg-bound by the time we went home. I called a quorum at half past midnight. Unfortunately, we had a quorum. But let us not rehash it. Let the hens settle in contentment, for God ‘s sake.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point of order. You may explain in a personal way, Senator Knight.

Senator KNIGHT:

– I quite agree with Senator Cavanagh, but I would simply ask for his indulgence. I appreciate his deep concern with this matter. I want to clarify what occurred last night, because it is important in responding to the charges that Senator McLaren has made against me. I believe that I should have the opportunity to do so.

The PRESIDENT:

– Do not debate the matter.

Senator KNIGHT:

– I have made it clear that in the Canberra Times I said that he seems to be bent on the destruction of the ACT industry. He has said he is not, and I have said that I accept his word on that. I would simply like to point out that I was saying something to that effect last night. I quote from page 1461 of the Hansard of 17 October 1979:

It seems from what Senator McLaren has said that, firstly, he is completely out of tune with his Labor Party colleagues- I hope he is- and that, secondly, he would destroy this industry in the Treasury or would stand by and see it destroyed by others.

Senator McLaren:

– I did not say that.

Senator KNIGHT:

– I am sorry. The honourable senator may not have said that directly, but he might as well have because he clearly implied, in everything he said, that he would be quite happy to see the egg industry in the Australian Capital Territory destroyed.

Senator McLaren:

– I have never said that at all. I made a personal explanation last night.

Senator KNIGHT:

– I did not say that the honourable senator said that. I am saying that that seems to be what he is prepared to acceptthat is what I said in the Canberra Times; that is what I said in Hansard- but the honourable senator has said that he is not prepared to accept that happening. I will take his word for it.

Senator McLaren:

– I want an unqualified apology in the Press tomorrow.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

page 1479

STUDENT ASSISTANCE ACT 1973

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 35 of the Student Assistance Act 1 973 1 present a report on the operation of the Student Assistance Act for 1978.

Notice of Motion

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave -Mr President, I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That the Senate take note of the report on the operation of the Student Assistance Act for 1978 tabled in the Senate on 18 October 1979.

page 1479

INSURANCE ACT 1973

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 125 of the Insurance Act 1973 I present the fifth annual report of the Insurance Commisioner 1979.

page 1479

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on passenger motor vehicles import restrictions.

page 1479

TOBACCO INDUSTRY ACT 1955

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Victoria · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 7 of the Tobacco Industry Act 1 955 1 present the annual report of the Tobacco Industry Trust Account.

page 1479

HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Victoria · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of the Department of Housing and Construction 1978-79.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1480

REPORT OF THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE ON DUAL NATIONALITY

Ministerial Statement

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– by leave- I seek leave to have the text of the statement incorporated in Hansard. Where the first person pronoun is used it should be understood that it refers to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Peacock.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows-

On 14 October 1976 the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) presented to the House on behalf of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence the Committee’s report on ‘the International Legal and Diplomatic Aspects of the Situation of Australians Possessing Dual or Plural Nationality’.

The report of the Joint Committee was presented on a realistic note by the honourable member with the comment that the problems of dual nationality are well nigh impossible of unilateral resolution by Australia. Further study has unfortunately confirmed that view. The difficulties that arise for Australian citizens from their dual nationality are however of continuing concern to the Government.

The House will recall that in my statement of 26 May 1978 on Consular Services I dealt with the problems of dual nationality. Briefly, I indicated at that time that many migrants who are naturalised Australians, or in some cases their children who are natural born Australians, may be regarded by their countries of birth, or of the parents’ birth, still to be citizens of those countries. Such ‘dual nationals’ can be subject to the laws of the country of their first citizenship, who may claim jurisdiction over them in such matters as military service or taxation. My Department and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs attempt to make dual nationals aware of the problems they might encounter on return to their country of birth or ethnic origin.

The requirement for assistance to dual nationals has inevitably grown as more foreign born Australians return to visit their former homes. The problems of dual nationals cannot be overcome by citizens simply asserting that they do not accept their other citizenship. In some cases formal acts of renunciation are possible, but in other countries no such provisions exist; the requirements should be carefully established in advance. It is for the individual to ascertain and bear the consequences of coming within the jurisdiction of another country which claims his or her citizenship, whether the individual or the Australian Government recognises that claim or not. I take this opportunity to repeat my earlier advice that consular officers can advise, but beyond a strict limit they cannot assist when in these circumstances the jurisdiction of another country is being asserted.

My Department publishes a booklet Hints for Australian Travellers, which is issued free with all Australian passports, and which is available from any office of the Department of Foreign Affairs in Australia and from any overseas Australian mission. This booklet contains information and advice on the problem of dual nationality.

The report of the Joint Committee was referred to an Interdepartmental Committee drawn from the Departments of Foreign Affairs, the Attorney-General and Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The Interdepartmental Committee ‘s conclusions were endorsed by the three Ministers concerned. The Committee report and conclusions by Departments have most recently been given consideration by the Government.

The long-standing policy of the Australian Government of avoiding wherever possible the creation by its legislation of instances of dual nationality, while at the same time giving recognition to such status wherever it occurs has been reaffimed. The Government thus accepts the over-riding conclusion and recommendation of the Committee. As I have indicated, responsible Ministers and Departments are also active in disseminating information on dual nationality problems- another recommendation of the Joint Committee Report. On the other hand, our conclusion is that there is no requirement as proposed in the Report for new or additional machinery to investigate complaints by dual nationals. The recommendation that consideration should be given to replacing particulars of place of birth in Australian passports with particulars of place of residence has been dealt with in detail in my second reading speech on the Passports Amendment Bill.

There remain two recommendations of the report calling for constructive action: that Australia should initiate relevant action in the United Nations and should give high priority to negotiating bilateral agreements to overcome dual nationality problems. Formidable difficulties of a political, legal and practical nature stand in the way of progress on dual nationality problems, either by way of bilateral or multilateral agreement. This cautious, and I might add, common assessment needs to be emphasised.

Nevertheless the Government has decided, with respect to the report submitted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee, to study the prospects of negotiating bilateral agreements with certain countries. The Government also proposes to examine further the possibility of having the question of dual nationality examined in an appropriate forum of the United Nations.

A further statement to the House will be made at a future time on this subject in the light of these studies.

Whilst speaking about this question of dual nationality I should mention that the Government is keenly aware of the concern felt by certain Australian citizens about the new Soviet Law on Citizenship which came into force on 1 July this year. The implications of this Law are the subject of an urgent study in Departments concerned, and the Australian Embassy in Moscow has formally sought clarification of certain points from the Soviet authorities. I hope that the Government will soon be in a position to provide guidance to those people who have made inquiries about this new Law. In the meantime I can give an assurance that nobody will lose Australian citizenship through the operation of a law of another country.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave -I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1481

REPORT OF THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL WELFARE ON ETHICS IN WINE PROMOTION

Ministerial Statement

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– by leave- In November 1978 the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare presented a report on ethics in wine promotion. The report arose from the production of a promotional film for the Australian Wine Board. The Senate Committee concluded that the film breached several clauses of the voluntary codes for advertising of alcoholic beverages.

It made recommendations concerning future promotional activities of the Wine Board. More generally it recommended the introduction of guidelines to cover all promotional material produced by Commonwealth departments and statutory authorities. The Government has considered this report and I now present its reponse. Firstly, I am pleased to record that the Australian Wine Board has adopted the voluntary code of advertising of the Australian Wine and Brandy Producers’ Association. Moreover, the Chairman of the Board has given an assurance that the Board is strongly conscious of the need to maintain acceptable standards at the same time as the Board fulfils its statutory responsibility to promote the sale of Australian wines and brandies.

In fact, as from 1 August 1979, advertisements for wine and all other alcoholic beverages have been required to conform to the advertising standards laid down by the newly formed Alcoholic Beverages Advertising Council. An announcement to this effect was made on 9 July last in a joint press statement by the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) and the Australian Associated Brewers. The Australian Wine and Brandy Producers’ Association is a foundation member of the Alcoholic Beverages Advertising Council. The Council has been formed by both media and and the alcoholic beverages industries to monitor liquor advertising standards. On the more important general issue, the Government will require all Commonwealth departments and statutory authorities to adhere to advertising standards used in industry. This, of course, is in addition to the existing obligation of Commonwealth departments and statutory authorities to ensure that all their advertising conforms to the standards of the Trade Practices Act. It has been pleased to note that the Australian Advertising Industry Council keeps these standards under review. The Government will seek to influence the development of these standards as community opinion requires. I take the opportunity to thank the Senate Standing Committee for bringing this matter to the Government’s attention.

Senator PETER BAUME (New South Wales -by leave- As the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare I would like to welcome this response from the Government and to thank the Government and the Australian Wine Board for the way in which they have responded to the Committee’s fairly modest recommendations. The Committee’s report arose out of a complaint made to the Senate Standing Committee by an interested community body. It brought to light a number of anomalies in the way in which standards were set and the way in which they were observed or not observed by bodies including some government statutory authorities. I imagine that the response the Government has given has met the four recommendations of the Committee in a very satisfactory way. I thank the Government for its response.

page 1482

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATIONS

Ministerial Statement

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I seek leave to make a statement relating to the sixth special report of the Joint Committee on Publications.

Leave granted.

Senator CHANEY:

– The statement is quite lengthy. As it is a matter of great detail, I seek leave to have the text of the statement incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows-

During 1977 and 1978 the Joint Committee on Publications conducted a comprehensive review of the operations of the Australian Government Publishing Service- AGPS- since its inception in 1 969. In its report, presented to Parliament on 23 November 1 978, the Committee concluded that the concept of a central government publishing office is sound and has led to a vast improvement in the standard of Commonwealth publications and their availability to the public.

Whilst the Committee commented favourably on AGPS achievements in applying standards in the design and style of publications, in bringing a new expertise to the central procurement of printing and in effecting a wider and more efficient distribution of publications through government bookshop and mail order services, it was critical of a number of matters. In presenting the Committee’s report to the House of Representatives its Chairman, Mr Hodges, expressed concern that the application of staff ceiling controls throughout the Department of Administrative Services, in which AGPS is located, had led to a reduction in its services or their decentralisation to other departments. He proposed that AGPS be re-established as a semi-autonomous and commercially independent body.

It is true that AGPS has been experiencing difficulty through continuing growth in business volume at a time when the Government has been following a general policy of restraint in staffing. I can, however, assure the Committee that the

Government has no intention of abandoning or decentralising to departments those AGPS functions which are most efficiently performed centrally. AGPS is already a separately identifiable organisation within the Department of Administrative Services. Honourable senators will be aware that even statutory authorities are subject to staffing restraints and I see no particular purpose being achieved by providing greater autonomy for AGPS at present.

The Committee also suggested that AGPS operations should be placed on a more commercial footing. The Publishing Service, however, does not operate in a completely commercial environment. Because of the special nature of government activities it is subject at times to demands not encountered in the private sector and must act within government policies and procedural arrangements. Nevertheless some scope is seen for adopting more commercial methods and the Government is arranging for these possibilities to be explored.

The Committee devoted a good deal of attention to the operations of the Government Printing Office, which has since 1970 functioned as a branch of AGPS. The Government believes there is a need to define more precisely the role of the Government Printer and his relationship with other elements of the Publishing Service. It accepts the Committee’s suggestion that a charter of printing and publishing responsibilities be drawn up and approved. It does not, however, agree in all details with the statement of responsibilities included in chapter 18 of the Committee’s report.

It is the Government’s belief, for example, that the Government Printing Office is an agency of the Government, not the Parliament. It could not be contemplated that the Parliament could direct the Government Printer to give priority to all parliamentary work at the expense of crucially urgent government tasks. Satisfactory arrangements already exist with the Presiding Officers for the printing of parliamentary publications and the Government Printer allocates priorities during parliamentary sittings to ensure that documents required for Parliament are produced within the required times.

The suggestion that departments be compelled to place general printing orders valued at more than $500 with or through the Government Printing Office has been rejected as likely to add to delays and costs. It follows that the Government sees no advantage in separating the Government Printing Office from the other elements of AGPS. Alternative means will be found of ensuring that, following a review of its plant and equipment, the productive capacity of the Printing Office is adequately utilised, including allowing the Printing Office to compete on an appropriate commercial basis for general printing work.

Finally, the Government is unable to accept the Committee’s proposals for a board of review with supervisory responsibilities over Commonwealth printing and publishing, including power to direct departments and statutory authorities on matters associated with their publishing programs. Such a body would cut across the executive responsibilities of Ministers and permanent heads. The Government, however, recognises the need for a broader base in developing policies and procedures connected with printing and publishing and has decided to establish a standing interdepartmental committee to act as a point of reference for AGPS and to advise its Minister.

Many other matters were covered in the Committee’s report. Of the 108 recommendations requiring a response from the Government, 42 have been accepted fully and 21 with some modification. A further 8 have been deferred until reviews have been completed. The Government’s response to each of the Committee’s recommendations is set out in the attachment to this statement.

Senator CHANEY:

– I seek leave also to have the attachment to this statement incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The attachment read as follows-

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATIONS: INQUIRY INTO THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING SERVICE AND ITS ROLE IN COMMONWEALTH PRINTING AND PUBLISHING 1964-78

Government Response

Recommendation 1

That at the commencement of each Session of Parliament, a Resolution be agreed to by both Houses of Parliament similar to the following:

That the Government Printer be responsible to the Presiding Officers for the printing of all Parliamentary publications and be provided with the necessary resources to meet Parliamentary printing requirements. That at all times, the Government Printer give priority to Parliamentary work.

Response

The Government believes that the Government Printer is an agency of the Government, not the Parliament. It observes that the longstanding arrangements with the Presiding Officers for the printing of parliamentary publications have proved satisfactory. The Government Printer allocates priorities during parliamentary sittings to ensure that the documents required for Parliament are produced within the required times. The Parliament will appreciate, however, that there will be circumstances when the Government Printer would need to give priority to urgent Government printing. The Government also believes that it would be preferable for parliamentary as well as departmental publications to continue to be arranged through the AGPS Publishing Branch.

Recommendation 2

That the Government Printer carry out such confidential and urgent work of the Government as may be determined from time to time.

Response

Accepted.

Recommendation 3

That the Government Printing Office be made operationally independent of the AGPS and all administrative support necessary for its operation be placed within the responsibility of the Government Printer.

Response

The Government does not accept this recommendation, believing that there is a close relationship between printing and publishing and that separation of these functions would be inefficient. The present arrangement, which was proposed by the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary and Government Publications (the Erwin Committee) in 1964, has worked effectively.

Recommendation 4

That the Government Printer be administratively responsible to the Secretary of the Department administered by the responsible Minister.

Response

In line with its response to Recommendation 3, the Government does not accept this recommendation. An appropriate organisational structure for both printing and publising functions will, however, be drawn up when details of the Charter (see the response to Recommendation 92) have been determined.

Recommendation 5

That all factors involved in calculating the rates of charge used by the Government Printer be reviewed after taking into consideration the practices followed by State Government Printers, commercial printers and Government Printers of comparable overseas countries with a view to ensuring that a ‘user pays’ principle is instituted.

Response

Accepted. The basis of rates of charge used by the Government Printer will be reviewed by the Department of Administrative Services.

Recommendation 6

That the policy of allocating a fixed proportion of printing and publishing work to the public and private sectors be discontinued.

Response

The Government’s long-term objective is to direct as much work as possible to commercial printers, while maintaining the Government Printer’s capacity to carry out urgent and essential parliamentary and government printing. The proportion of printing and publishing directed to either sector is not allocated inflexibly as the recommendation suggests.

Recommendation 7

That a review of Government Printing Office plant capacity and equipment be undertaken to ensure that capital equipment employed by the Government Printer is not excessive and is basically directed towards meeting the printing requirements of Parliament and the urgent and confidential printing needs of the Government.

Response

Accepted. The Government will arrange for an independent review to be undertaken.

Recommendation 8

That the equipment employed in the Government Printing Office be examined to ensure that it is the most efficient and economic equipment available to fulfil its intended purpose.

Response

Accepted. An examination will be made in conjunction with the review referred to in the response to Recommendation 7.

Recommendation 9

That, before the Government Printing Office undertakes any significant expansion of its printing plant, approval be obtained from the responsible Minister after consultation with the Board of Review.

Response

It is current practice each year for the Minister for Administrative Services to approve proposed expenditure on Printing Office plant as part of the annual estimates of his Department. Insofar as the Board of Review is concerned see the response to Recommendation 94-97.

Recommendation 10

That the Government Printing Office, wherever possible, operate its plant and associated personnel in such a way as to achieve the most effective utilisation of these resources.

Response

Accepted. Difficulties can be expected to arise from time to time, however, through changes in Government policies, workloads and priorities.

Recommendation 1 1

That responsibility for print procurement of general printing needs of departments estimated to cost more than $300 become the responsibility of the Government Printer (responsibility for arranging the printing of items estimated to cost less than $300 to remain with the originating department).

Response

The Government intends to continue the present practice whereby departments are required to offer all general printing jobs valued at between $300 and $5,000 to the Government Printing Office. Above this threshold they must continue to approach the Publishing Branch of AGPS. The Department of Administrative Services will, however, be examining means of ensuring adequate utilisation of Printing Office plant and manpower, once the independent review referred to in the response to Recommendation 7 is completed. These may include allowing the Printing Office to compete on an appropriate commercial basis for such additional work as is necessary to maintain an even flow of production.

Recommendation 12

That officers from the Publishing Branch, AGPS, the Government Printing Office, and the Department of Finance review the procedures by which procurement of government printing is achieved, including the possibility of reducing the time taken to allocate printing contracts: such review should include consultations with the Auditor-General and give consideration to the practices of the States and comparable overseas contries

Response

Accepted

Recommendations 13/14

That, where a department lodges a general printing job with the Government Printer to arrange printing, and which job is subsequently completed by a commercial printer, the account be settled direct to the commercial printer from the Government Printer’s Trust Account and that the Government Printer subsequently recoup that amount, together with any handling charge considered appropriate, from the author department.

That the Department of Finance determine an appropriate handling charge for print procurement services provided by the Government Printer.

Response

These recommendations are not accepted, in line with the Government’s response to Recommendation 1 1.

Recommendation IS

That the remuneration paid to the Government Printer in relation to his responsibilities be reviewed as a matter of urgency.

Response

Accepted. The Department of Administrative Services will ask the Public Service Board to review the salaries of both the Government Printer and the Director (Publishing) when responsibilities have been re-determined as outlined in the response to Recommendation 4.

Recommendation 16

That urgent consideration be given to the creation of the position of Deputy Government Printer.

Response

Accepted. The Department of Administrative Service will refer this matter to the Public Service Board, following the re-determination of both the printing and publishing functions as outlined in the response to Recommendation 4.

Recommendation 17

That the Government Printer prepare guidelines:

  1. to cover the type of work which should be undertaken by departmental in-house printing facilities;
  2. along the lines suggested in paragraphs 9.8 of this Report; and
  3. submit them to the Board of Review and to the responsible Minister for their respective approvals.

Response

Accepted. Appropriate guidelines will be prepared by the Government Printer for approval by the responsible Minister (see also the response to Recommendations 94/97).

Recommendation 18

That departmental submissions requesting the purchase of in-house printing equipment be examined by the Government Printer prior to their consideration by the Australian Government Stores and Tender Board to ensure that such requests are consistent with the in-house printing equipment guidelines; and that within any such examination the Government Printer ensure that existing departmental facilities are in accordance with the in-house printing equipment guidelines.

Response

This has been standard practice for some years in accordance with Finance Direction 31/53. The Government agrees that the guidelines prepared in accordance with Recommendation 1 7 be used, when available in the examination of such departmental submissions by AGPS as required by the Finance Direction.

Recommendation 19

That, wherever statutory provisions permit, prior to purchase of printing equipment, statutory authorities consult with the Government Printer to determine appropriate equipment which would meet their printing requirements.

Response

Accepted. Ministers will be asked to arrange for those statutory authorities financed substantially from the Budget to do this.

Recommendation 20

That, in the event of the Government Printer and a department or statutory authority failing to reach agreement on in-house printing requirements, the matter be forwarded to the Board of Review for its consideration and appropriate action.

Response

The Government does not accept this recommendation; any such disputes will be resolved by Ministers (see also the response to Recommendations 94/97).

Recommendation 2 1

That consideration be given to assigning the responsibility for the Department of Defence printing establishments at Brunswick and Bendigo in Victoria to the Government Printer.

Response

Accepted. A review of the operations of these establishments will be undertaken by a working party comprising representatives of the Departments of Defence and Administrative Services, chaired by a representative of the Public Service Board, and a report prepared for Government consideration.

Recommendation 22

That the position of Controller (AGPS) be re-established and be directly responsible to the Secretary of the Department which is under the administrative control of the responsible Minister.

Response

In determining appropriate organisational arrangements for printing and publishing, as discussed in the response to Recommendation 4, the Government agrees that the need for the position of Controller and the question of lines of control be considered.

Recommendation 23

That the procedures by which printing is procured be reviewed to reduce the time taken to allocate printing contracts.

Response

Accepted (See R. 12)

Recommendation 24

That AGPS consult with the client department in relation to the print procurement process prior to the selection of a printer, and where practicable permit direct contact between the client department and that printer, but that AGPS retain final authority in these matters.

Response

The Government considers that selection of printer and supervision of print contracts are essential functions of the publisher. It believes that AGPS must retain control of these tasks, but accepts that circumstances may sometimes require client/printer liaison.

Recommendation 25

That on appropriate occasions, as determined by the Board of Review, departments may arrange print procurement of their publications.

Response

The Government does not accept this recommendation in full. AGPS as the responsible publisher must continue to have complete control over the letting and supervision of print contracts, although exemptions will continue to be allowed in legitimate circumstances. See also the response to Recommendations 94/97.

Recommendation 26

That the AGPS prepare circulars which contain instructions appropriate to the standards and procedures necessary to undertake the publication of Commonwealth publications and that such circulars and alterations thereto be submitted to the Committee for its consideration.

Response

Future circulars will be prepared by AGPS and submitted to the Standing Interdepartmental Committee on Government Printing and Publishing, (see response to Recommendations 94/97), for consideration. The Government agrees, however, that those AGPS Circulars whose subject matter touches on the responsibilities of Parliament will be referred either to the Joint Committee or the Presiding Officers as appropriate, for clearance before issue.

Recommendation 27

That a consolidation of AGPS circulars be undertaken in a style similar to the Treasury Manual, and that, when amendments are made to a circular, these be forwarded to departments and appropriate statutory authorities in the form of replacement or additional sheets.

Response

Accepted

Recommendation 28

That the AGPS advise departments and, where appropriate, statutory authorities of the requirement to adhere to AGPS circulars.

Response

Accepted

Recommendations 29/30

That significant or consistent departures from AGPS circulars by departments and, where relevant, statutory authorities be referred by the AGPS to the Board of Review for its consideration and appropriate action.

That in the event of a disagreement between the AGPS and a client department over the application of AGPS circulars, the view of the department shall prevail, but the AGPS shall refer the matter to the Board of Review for its consideration and appropriate action.

Response

The Government does not accept these recommendations. It considers that serious disagreements between AGPS and client departments should continue to be resolved by Ministers. See also the response to Recommendations 94/97.

Recommendations 3 1/33

That when accounts for printing services are received by the AGPS from a contract printer, these be met directly from the Publications Trust Account.

That the AGPS recover contract printers ‘ charges from the client department, together with any charges considered appropriate for arranging print procurement, design and other AGPS services.

That the Department of Finance determine appropriate handling charges for print procurement, design and other serviher ces provided by AGPS to its clients.

Response

These recommendations propose fundamental changes to the way in which AGPS and departments arrange for the payment of printing accounts. The Government envisages that the present arrangement whereby accounts are checked by AGPS and paid by departments will continue; however, the Departments of Finance and Administrative Services will be consulting with a view to determining whether any improvement in these arrangements is possible.

Recommendations 34/36

That design responsibilities for departmental publishing programs be transferred progressively from departments to the AGPS.

That following receipt of departmental requests for additional design staff and prior to the consideration of such requests, the Public Service Board consult with the Board of Review.

That the Board of Review progressively review departmental design requirements to ensure that, wherever possible, the responsibility for these functions are transferred to the AGPS.

Response

The Public Service Board has agreed to review the design staffing arrangements of departments. The Government has consequently decided to defer consideration of these recommendations until the Board’s review is completed. (See also the response to Recommendations 94/97).

Recommendation 37

That the decision to print a publication and its content, including the possibility of a publication containing libellous or defamatory material, be the responsibility of the author department.

Response

The Government accepts that primary responsibility for ensuring that official publications do not breach the law rests with author departments. Nevertheless the Government would expect its publisher to bring under notice any doubtful material submitted for publication.

Recommendation 38

That either the AGPS Bookshop be re-established in Darwin or one of the recommendations relating to paragraph 13.24 be implemented, namely a joint selling facility or the establishment of an agency.

Response

Agency arrangements were completed last year under which Commonwealth Government publications have been placed on sale in the Northern Territory Government Information Centre, Darwin.

Recommendation 39

That the method of calculating Bookshop notional profit and loss accounts and items appearing in the Publications Trust Account be reviewed by the AGPS and the Department of Finance with a view to making their accounting procedures more in line with commercial practice and thereby reflecting a more accurate picture of AGPS financial operations.

Response

The form of AGPS accounts is currently being reviewed by AGPS and the Depanment of Finance. The basis on which notional profit and loss accounts for the Bookshops are prepared will be examined during the review.

Recommendation 40

That the Depanment of Finance and the AGPS, in consultation with the Auditor-General’s Office, examine Finance Directions governing the operation of AGPS Bookshops with a view to introducing procedures more in keeping with the operations of a commercial outlet.

Response

Accepted. The Department of Administrative Services will pursue this matter with the Department of Finance.

Recommendation 4 1

That a small pool of officers be established within AGPS which can be drawn upon, when necessary, to alleviate staff shortages in Bookshops.

Response

The Government acknowledges the need to make arrangements to alleviate the periodic staff shortages in Bookshops. The Department of Administrative Services is examining ways in which this might be accomplished.

Recommendation 42

That a mail order service for Members of Parliament be introduced and operated by AGPS Bookshops, excluding Canberra.

Response

The Department of Administrative Services is examining the possibility of providing the staff required for such a service from other areas within the Department. The recommendation will be implemented when staff are available. (Commenced June 1979).

Recommendation 43

That urgent consideration be given to the feasibility of introducing a mail order service for account customers, operated locally by the staff of AGPS Bookshops.

Response

While the Government accepts that this is a desirable long-term objective, it cannot provide the required resources at the present time.

Recommendation 44

That negotiations directed towards establishing shared Bookshop facilities between the States and the Commonwealth be undertaken where it is considered that such arrangements would be economically and administratively viable.

Response

The Government does not accept this recommendation; past experience has shown that shared facilities are not administratively viable.

Recommendation 45

That where it is not possible for the AGPS to combine its selling facilities with those of the relevant State bookshops, future decisions on re-location of bookshops should take into account the possibility of establishing Commonwealth and State selling facilities within the same building, or within close proximity to one another.

Response

Wherever possible, AGPS bookshops will be sited close to State bookshops. Efforts to improve liaison and exchange of information will continue.

Recommendation 46

That a task force of officers be formed to reduce to approximately ten working days:

  1. the backlog in mail order requests; and
  2. the present backlog of correspondence in the mail order section.

Response

The Government does not accept this recommendation, noting that a ten day turnround is not in line with normal commercial and government practice. However, the Department of Administrative Services is exploring means of redeploying staff* to this area in an effort to reduce the present turnround to a more satisfactory level.

Recommendation 47

That the Public Service Board investigate AGPS procedures (taking cognisance of recent reviews which have been made in this area) with a view to recommending an adequate staffing structure to fulfil a ten working day turnround for mail order sales.

Response

Not accepted, in the light of the response to Recommendation 46, the Government does not believe a review to be appropriate at this time.

Recommendation 48

That consultations take place between the AGPS, the Department of Finance and, where appropriate, the AuditorGeneral ’s office, to vary Finance Directions to place mail order sales on a basis more in keeping with a commercial operation, wherever possible.

Response

Accepted. The Department of Administrative Services will pursue this matter with the Department of Finance.

Recommendation 49

That the AGPS devote greater attention to increasing wholesale sales to retail outlets, in particular by:

  1. a ) the increase of stocks held by existing agents;
  2. b ) investigating the possibility of increasing the number of its commercial selling agents and taking whatever action is necessary to effect further expansion in this area;
  3. investigating the possibility of establishing shared selling facilities with commercial bookstores, and taking whatever action is thought necessary to effect the establishment of such facilities; and
  4. the employment of sales representatives to support AGPS sales outlets.

Response

Official publications are available for purchase and resale by interested commercial booksellers. Special promotional efforts to increase such sales could, however, cause operational difficulties with present levels of staffing.

Recommendation 50

That, wherever possible, the AGPS follow commercial practices when undertaking wholesale selling activities.

Response

This is current practice.

Recommendation 5 1

That departments which carry out sales of their departmental publications to the public be authorised by the Board of Review, wherever appropriate, to act as a selling agent of the AGPS.

Response

The Government believes that it is neither desirable nor practicable for departments to act as a general selling agent for AGPS. As a rule, sales by departments are limited to their own publications and others which are essential for user convenience. (See also the response to Recommendations 94/97).

Recommendation 52

That where the Board of Review considers that the retail activities of a department are inappropriate and could be more effectively and economically carried out by the AGPS, the Board of Review shall recommend to the responsible Minister and the Minister concerned that the responsibility for such activities should be transferred to the AGPS.

Response

Not accepted. See the responses to Recommendations 5 1 and 94/97.

Recommendation 53

That departmental selling agents provide the AGPS with all necessary bibliographical information on their publications, including whether they are available for free issue or sale.

Response

Accepted, Departments and authorities will be instructed to advise AGPS of all publications available to the public.

Recommendation 54

That the AGPS draw up guidelines to be approved by the Board of Review and the responsible Minister, for the setting of prices for internally produced departmental publications, and the basis upon which free issue of such publications should take place.

Response

The Standing Interdepartmental Committee on Government Printing and Publishing, in consultation with relevant departments, will be asked to endorse AGPS guidelines for the setting of prices. The question of free issue of publications is dealt with in the response to Recommendation 67. See also the response to Recommendations 94/97.

Recommendations 55/56

That retail prices for AGPS publications be set at a rate which will recover all costs associated with the selling function.

That, while recognising that the price of publications should be kept within reasonable limits to enable wide availability and circulation of documents, the AGPS be permitted to vary its pricing formula after agreement is reached with the Board of Review.

Response

The Government has a review of the AGPS publications pricing policy in hand. See also the response to Recommendations 94/97.

Recommendations 57/60

That departments be permitted to subsidise the selling price of a publication from their departmental appropriations.

That the AGPS draw up guidelines governing the application of selling price subsidies for departmental publications and that such guidelines be submitted to the Board of Review for its consideration and approval.

That if departments wish to subsidise the selling price of a publication by more than 20 per cent of the AGPS retail price, agreement must be obtained from the Board of Review; provided that if insufficient time is available for the Board of Review to consider the departmental request, the department be permitted to subsidise the publication to an extent deemed necessary.

That wherever a department subsidises a publication, the instance shall be reported by the AGPS to the Board of Review for its consideration and appropriate action.

Response

The Government accepts that subsidies will on occasion be required. Guidelines will be drawn up by AGPS, but the Government sees no need for the detailed procedures proposed by the Joint Committee (see also the response to Recommendations 94/97).

Recommendation 6 1

That the AGPS retail discount rate and its application be revised and made more in keeping with commercial practice.

Response

See the response to Recommendations 55/56.

Recommendation 62

That the AGPS undertake negotiations with departments and statutory authorities with a view to assuming a greater AGPS responsibility for the distribution of departmental publications.

Response

The Government accepts this recommendation in principle but considers that further rationalisation of departmental distribution arrangements should be undertaken only where it is practical, economical and efficient to do so.

Recommendations 63/64

That the Board of Review regularly review the distribution activities of departments and, where appropriate, recommend that elements of departmental distribution be undertaken by the AGPS.

That, where a depanment is unwilling to relinguish distribution responsibility following a recommendation of the Board of Review, the matter be referred to the Committee for its consideration.

Response

The Government does not accept these recommendations and considers that these are matters for AGPS to resolve in consultation with departments. Where disputes arise, the issues will be decided by Ministers (see also the response to Recommendations 94/97).

Recommendation 65

That the Public Service Board investigate the equipment needs of the distribution sub-section of the AGPS with a view to recommending the replacement of unsuitable equipment or providing new suitable equipment, where necessary.

Response

Accepted. The equipment needs of this sub-section will be examined by the Public Service Board with a view to providing appropriate capacity.

Recommendation 66

That the AGPS remain the authority responsible for preparing guidelines governing the official and free issue of departmental publications in accordance with government policy.

Response

Accepted

Recommendation 67

That official and free issue guidelines drawn up by the AGPS be revised to draw on the experience gained in the two years since free issue guidelines were introduced and that these be submitted to the Board of Review for its consideration and appropriate recommendations to the Government, and that this Committee be notified of such recommendations.

Response

Accepted. Guidelines governing the official and free issue of departmental publications will be prepared by AGPS and submitted to the Standing Interdepartmental Committee on Government Printing and Publishing for consideration (see the response to Recommendations 94/97). In accordance with established practice, the Joint Committee on Publications will be provided with copies.

Recommendation 68

That where a depanment wishes to undertake a distribution of one of its publications which is in excess of the guidelines, such distribution be permitted, but the additional copies required to meet the excess distribution be acquired from the AGPS at the recommended retail price less 40 per cent.

Response

In the interests of economy, the Government has required AGPS to decide the level of official and free distribution. It does not intend to vary this arrangement at present. The Government accepts, however that departments may on occasion wish to undertake a distribution in excess of the guidelines. Each case will be decided on its merits by AGPS m consultation with the client depanment and charges arrived at accordingly. Disputes will be resolved by Ministers.

Recommendation 69

That where official and free issue distribution of depart.mental publications is in excess of AGPS guidelines, the matter be reported by the AGPS to the Board of Review for its consideration and appropriate action.

Response

Not accepted; see responses to Recommendations 67/68.

Recommendation 70

That the Parliament undertake an investigation into the requirements of a complete inquiry and information service for the general public and that the results of such an inquiry be laid before the Parliament as soon as possible.

Response

The Government considers this to be a matter for Parliament to determine, but notes that the Task Force on Departmental Information Activities is considering such issues.

Recommendation 71

That steps be taken by the appropriate authorities to revise and improve the information section on government services provided in the front of telephone directories.

Response

That Government accepts that this should be examined, but notes that it is difficult to incorporate much additional information in telephone directories. The Government will refer the matter to the Task Force on Departmental Information Activities.

Recommendation 72

That the AGPS compile a directory containing information on the services provided by government departments and statutory authorities; such directory to be complete, simple to read and understand and updated on an annual basis.

Response

A directory of Commonwealth Government services, titled Service Guide will be published shortly following a direction by the Government in 1977.

Recommendation 73

That AGPS thoroughly investigate the methods it uses to assess likely public demand of publications.

Response

Accepted

Recommendation 74

That any proposals which might arise from the AGPS examination of its methods employed in assessing marketing requirements be approved by the Board of Review.

Response

Not accepted. See the response to Recommendations 94/97.

Recommendation 75

That the Board of Review ensure that departments provide suitable information to the AGPS upon which a satisfactory marketing assessment can be carried out.

Response

Accepted. AGPS will request departments to provide the additional information necessary to enable a satisfactory market assessment to be made. See also the response to Recommendations 94/97.

Recommendation 76

That, within normal commercial business constraints, the AGPS advertise the existence of its Bookshops, mail order services and the range of publications which are available through these sources by consistent advertising campaigns in newspapers, journals, and, where appropriate, the broadcasting media.

Response

Accepted

Recommendation 77

That AGPS encourage the reviewing of its publications in suitable news media.

Response

Accepted; however, it must be borne in mind that only a small proportion of government publications lend themselves to review.

Recommendation 78

That computer lists of relevant and topical publications be prepared and issued to target user groups.

Response

Accepted. Lists will be prepared by the most appropriate means for distribution to relevant target groups.

Recommendation 79

That attention be directed towards advertising titles of interest in a particular State in that State ‘s media.

Response

Accepted

Recommendation 80

That regular evaluations of AGPS promotion methods be undertaken to ensure that the most effective and economic means are employed.

Response

Accepted

Recommendation 8 1

That AGPS surplus sales stocks be disposed of only after first offering copies to the National Librarian, the Australian Archives and the author body.

Response

The Government agrees that wherever administratively practicable AGPS will attempt to re-deploy surplus stocks along the lines suggested by the Committee.

Recommendation 82

That two copies of each AGPS publication be retained by the AGPS within its records.

Response

This is normal practice.

Recommendation 83

That with the approval of the Board of Review, AGPS be permitted to undertake its own publishing program either singly or in conjunction with other departments or statutory authorities.

Response

Accepted. AGPS, with the approval of its Minister will undertake its own publishing program. See also the response to Recommendations 94/97.

Recommendation 84

That whenever the AGPS seeks authority from an author body to reprint a publication the author body advise the AGPS of its decision, without delay, with regard to the request.

Response

Accepted. AGPS will remind departments of the need to give prompt responses to AGPS requests for reprinting action.

Recommendation 85

That-

  1. where AGPS requires a reprint of a publication, the establishment costs of reprinting be met by the AGPS (departments may acquire copies at run-on cost);
  2. where a department requires a reprint of publication for its internal purposes and no ‘for sale’ copies are available through the AGPS, the establishment costs of reprinting be met by the department (AGPS may acquire’ for sale ‘ copies at run-on cost);
  3. where there is a joint AGPS and departmental requirement for reprinting, the establishment costs be shared between the two bodies on a mutually agreed basis; and
  4. where disagreement occurs in (c) above, the matter be referred to the Board of Review for resolution.

Response

The Government accepts in principle the arrangements suggested in (a), (b) and (c) which reflect existing practice. It does not accept the mechanism proposed in (d) as it believes that resolution of disputes of this nature is more properly a matter for Ministers. (See also the response to Recommendations 94/97 ).

Recommendation 86

That responsibility for the Gazette Office be transferred to the Government Printer.

Response

The Government does not accept this recommendation. It believes that there is a need to retain the existing arrangements to enable the Government to be provided with advice on the broader policy issues involved in the publishing, editorial and distribution aspects of government information publications, of which the Gazette is one of the most important.

Recommendation 87

That any losses to the Government Printer Trust Account arising out of the publication and distribution of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette be met from Consolidated Revenue.

Response

This is present practice.

Recommendation 88

That this Committee continue to have an oversight of the Ministerial Document Service to ensure that it continues to be an information source and does not develop into a propaganda instrument.

Response

This is a matter for the Committee to determine.

Recommendation 89

That any losses to the Publications Trust Account arising from the operations of the Ministerial Document Service be met from Consolidated Revenue.

Response

This is present practice.

Recommendation 90

That a management services section be re-established within the AGPS to support its activities.

Response

The Government considers that centralisation of management services functions within the Department of Administrative Services has not substantially altered the arrangements for the provision of or control over day-to-day support services for AGPS and the Government Printing Office. Nevertheless, the adequacy of support services for both printing and publishing operations will be considered when the examination of these functions, referred to in response to Recommendation 4, is completed.

Recommendation 9 1

That a specialist in the field of printing and publishing be appointed on a limited period contract to the position of Controller.

Response

The Government believes AGPS to be well served by officers at both senior and middle management levels who have commercial and technical experience and have developed considerable parliamentary and government publishing expertise. Consideration will be given to the need for and choice of an appropriate person to lead AGPS when the review of its functions and responsibilities is completed.

Recommendation 92

That a Charter of Responsibilities be established by way of Cabinet decision to cover the responsibilities and functions of the Parliament (after consultation with the Presiding Officers), the AGPS, departments and statutory authorities in the printing and publishing of Commonwealth material.

Response

Accepted. An appropriate Chaner will be prepared for approval by the Government, as a priority task of the Standing Interdepartmental Committee on Government Printing and Publishing (see the response to Recommendations 94/97).

Recommendation 93

That the responsibilities of the various printing and publishing agents be as set out in Chapter 1 8 of this Report

Response

The Government cannot accept this recommendation in its entirety but the views of the Joint Committee as expressed in its Report will be taken into account in framing the Charter.

Recommendations 94/97

That a Board of Review be established on an interdepartmental basis to meet as often as may be deemed necessary to undertake a supervisory role over Commonwealth printing and publishing as described in the Charter of Responsibilities and as has been referred to from time to time in this Report.

That the Board of Review comprise an officer from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet or the Department of Administrative Services, the Public Service Board, the Australian Government Publishing Service, the Government Printing Office and such other members as may be determined from time to time by the Government.

That a position of permanent secretary to the Board of Review be established and that this position and such other support staff as may be deemed necessary be provided by the AGPS.

That the proposed Board of Review report to the Joint Committee on Publications annually, and on such additional occasions as the Board of Review may deem appropriate, on:

  1. significant departures from AGPS circulars; and the Charter of Responsibilities by departments and, where appropriate, statutory authorities;
  2. differences between Commonwealth publishing agents which, within its own powers, the Board of Review is unable to resolve (together with brief comments on the matter from the respective parties involved);
  3. matters concerning its function and powers where the guidance of the Committee is desired; and
  4. such other matters as may be determined by the Board of Review or the Committee.

Response

Not accepted. The Government believes that a Board of Review with executive powers as proposed by the Committee would cut across the responsibilities of Ministers. The need for policy participation by client departments and central agencies is, however, recognised. The Government will set up a Standing Interdepartmental Committee on Government Printing and Publishing, chaired by the Department of Administrative Services. This Committee will have no executive, enforcement or arbitral role and therefore the Government does not see it taking the place of the proposed Board of Review in Recommendations 9, 17, 25, 34/6, 51, 55/6 and 75. It will instead provide a central point of reference for AGPS and will advise its Minister. It priority task will be to frame a Charter covering the responsibilities and functions of Parliament, departments and statutory authorities, which will be established by way of Cabinet Decision.

Recommendation 98

That each publication produced by departments and statutory authorities be notified to AGPS upon its release, together with details as to the status of the document, whether it is for sale or free, and from where it can be obtained.

Response

The Government accepts this recommendation in principle, but notes that with certain categories of publication, difficulties may arise and it will be necessary for exemptions to be provided.

Recommendation 99

That the AGPS initiate discussions with representatives of the Australian Advisory Council on Bibliographical Services and the State Library Boards on the desirability of establishing an advisory board similar to the HMSO Services Working Party.

Response

The Government has reservations as to the need for an advisory body representing only one group interested in official publications. Nevertheless discussions will be held with AACOBS to explore the matter further.

Recommendation 100

That steps be taken to ensure that departments and statutory authorities comply with the requirements of the Copyright Act 1 968 in relation to library deposit.

Response

Accepted. AGPS will remind departments and statutory authorities of the requirements of the Copyright Act 1968 in relation to library deposit.

Recommendations 101/102

That all government departments and statutory authorities provide to the AGPS sufficient copies of each of their publications (which are not published through the AGPS) to meet authorised overseas exchange commitments.

That the AGPS, in conjunction with the National Library, meet authorised overseas exchange commitments from its own stocks of publications or from those forwarded by departments and statutory authorities.

Response

These recommendations raise issues which the Government wishes to put to further study. It is asking the National Library to convene a working party and report to the Government on these matters.

Recommendation 103

That where departments or statutory authorities fail to meet bibliographic, copyright, deposit or exchange requirements, such failure be reported to the Board of Review by the AGPS.

Response

Not accepted. See also the response to Recommendations 94/97.

Recommendations 104/ 105

That as a matter of urgency the Government resolve outstanding questions of copyright of Commonwealth government publications.

That when the questions concerning the copyright have been resolved by the government, all necessary information be printed in the appropriate position in each government publication.

Response

The Government agrees in principle that a statement should be made describing the nature of Crown Copyright in order to clarify understanding of it among the community generally and to indicate where inquiries concerning Copyright can be made. The Government also agrees in principle to an appropriate imprint being placed on Commonwealth publications setting out necessary information concerning Crown Copyright. The Government is not aware of any other outstanding questions of copyright in Commonwealth publications. As has been announced, the Government proposes to introduce legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Copyright Law Committee on Reprographic Reproduction. Two of these recommendations touch on the question of Crown Copyright.

Recommendation 106

That the Presiding Officers continue their examination of the most suitable computer information retrieval system for introduction into the Commonwealth Parliament.

Response

This is a matter for Parliament to consider.

Recommendation 107

That all necessary resources be provided to ensure that the introduction of a suitable computer information retrieval system is introduced into the Parliament at the earliest practical time.

Response

The Government will consider the proposals arising from the Presiding Officers ‘ examination of this matter when they are put forward.

Recommendation 108

That the Standing Orders of both Houses of Parliament be amended to enable the Joint Committee on Publications to:

  1. move from place to place; and

    1. form itself into a sub-committee when considered necessary.

Response

It is a matter for the Parliament to determine the powers of Parliamentary Committees to form themselves into subcommittees or to move from place to place. The Government, however, sees little justification for the Joint Committee on Publications to sit outside Canberra. Other Standing Committees of this type are not so empowered.

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

-by leave- 1 have not had the opportunity to study fully the statement incorporated in Hansard by Senator Chaney. It is important that the purpose of the exercise should be fully understood. It really can be broken up into four areas. The Joint Committee on Publications examined the matter for some considerable time. It considered that the requirements were, firstly, to meet the requirements of the Parliament as expeditiously and economically as reasonably possible; secondly, to get the best utilisation as possible of resources, both physical and mechanical; thirdly, to ensure the most reasonable and harmonious operation possible; and, fourthly, to assess the coordination that existed between the various departments and within the various areas of the bureaucracy. This inquiry continued for some time and went into all these matters very thoroughly. At this stage I would have to express some disappointment at the fact that more of the important recommendations that were made by the Committee were not accepted.

I believe that many of these recommendations should remain under consideration and that they warrant more attention from the Government in due course. For instance, it was recommended that the operations of the Australian Government Publishing Service and the Government Printer should be separate to some extent. Whilst complete commercial independence may not be possible- it may not even be desirable- I believe that some move towards this end would certainly add to the efficiency of both organisations. The agreement by the Government to the proposal that a charter of responsibilities be drawn up is appreciated by the Committee. I feel sure that the Committee will willingly assist in working on that project if it is called upon to do so. I seek leave to move a motion to take note of the statement.

Leave granted.

Senator ARCHER:

– I move:

Senator McINTOSH:
Western Australia

– The presentation of the report on this complex subject followed a most thorough investigation by the Joint Committee on Publications. The Committee concluded that the Australian Government Publishing Service had made a significant contribution to Commonwealth publishing and recommended that the AGPS should be retained but with greater independence from the Department of Administrative Services. The Committee also concluded that, in turn, the Government Printer should be given more independence from the AGPS and that he should be under the administrative control of the Secretary of the Department of Administrative Services, not the AGPS. The Committee felt that the responsibilities of both the AGPS and the Government Printer should be defined in a character of responsibilities set down by the Cabinet. It is a good thing that the Government has accepted that there must be a charter of responsibilities. However, it is disappointing that the charter that the Government envisages is different from what the Committee as a whole has recommended.

The Government has accepted many of our recommendations, which is gratifying. Nevertheless, it is disappointing that some of the major recommendations relating to the AGPS and the independence of the Government Printer have not been accepted or have been modified. I am pleased that the salary and status of the Government Printer will be improved. I trust that this increase will be one that is befitting the position of Government Printer and at least equal to that of his State counterparts. I have not had an opportunity to study the Government’s response in detail but I am sure that the Committee will want to go through the details of it at a meeting. I am also quite sure that it would be happy to take part in further discussions with the Government on this matter.

Senator ELSTOB:
South Australia

-The Joint Committee on Publications worked extremely hard to produce this report. It made 108 recommendations to the Government. The decision was a unanimous one made by members from both sides of the Parliament. The recommendations were looked into thoroughly and I am disappointed about the large number of recommendations that have not been accepted by the Government. I do not believe that the Government looked into the real reasons the Committee made the recommendations. For instance, recommendation 6 states:

That the policy of allocating a fixed proportion of printing and publishing work to the public and private sectors be discontinued.

In response to that, the Government stated:

The Government’s long-term objective is to direct as much work as possible to commercial printers, while maintaining the Government Printer’s capacity to carry out urgent and essential parliamentary and government printing. The proportion of printing and publishing directed to either sector is not allocated inflexibly as the recommendation suggests.

The Government Printing Office is not operating as efficiently as it should. It is quite ludicrous that the Government Printer does not have a continuation of work. Members of the Committee from both sides of the Parliament looked into all these questions, including allowing contracts to go out to public enterprise. I do not believe that the Government has given full consideration to the recommendations of the Committee. I have just received a copy of the report and the responses from the Government. There are 108 recommendations, too many to go through all of them. I record my objections because, after looking at the responses that the Government has made, I do not believe that the work the Committee put into this, has been acknowledged. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1492

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION LEGISLATION

Ministerial Statement

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) I seek leave to make a statement in relation to a meeting between the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Street, and the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, Sir John Moore, yesterday evening.

Leave granted.

Senator DURACK:
LP

-Following Sir John Moore’s meeting with senior presidential members of the Commission and the executive of the Commissioners’ Association, he requested a meeting with Mr Street to discuss the consultative proposals in the legislation currently before the Parliament. Mr Street then made arrangements to see Sir John Moore last night. Sir John told him of concern within the Commission about the autonomy of the commissioners and asked specifically whether the consultative proposals in the legislation would enable a deputy president to direct a commissioner, or whether commissioner’s decisions would require the approval of a deputy president. Mr Street assured Sir John that under the proposed legislation, commissioners retained the right of final decision on a case they had heard. They would not be subject to direction by a deputy president, nor would their decision be subject to approval by a deputy president. The requirement was to consult, and it would be up to the deputy president and commissioner concerned to work out arrangements suitable to them and the circumstances.

Sir John then raised the question of the working of the Commission itself. He pointed out that the proposed consultative procedures could result in delays in getting final decisions in some instances, and asked whether the requirement to consult might be limited in order to lessen this problem. In reply, Mr Street pointed out that the object of the consultative procedures was to get the maximum possible consistency in principle in the decision making of the Commission. While decisions inconsistent in principle were not frequent, they had resulted in great industrial disruption and inconvenience to the public. The government believed it had an obligation to make every effort to reduce to a minimum the chance of this happening. Any qualification on the need to consult would obviously carry with it an increased risk of inconsistency. Sir John acknowledged this point.

Finally, Sir John said that he would expect the consultative requirements would put an extra work load on the Commission. If the Commission were to carry out its work effectively, and with minimum delays to the parties before it, more people would be required on the Commission. Mr Street said that he could see the logic of this point and the Government would await advice from Sir John when he had an opportunity to make an assessment of the situation. Sir John asked when the legislation was expected to be passed through the Senate. Mr Street replied that the legislation would be dealt with in the normal way, but that the actual timing was of course in the hands of the Senate.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

-by leave- Such as it is, the statement made by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) on behalf of the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) simply reinforces and strengthens the attitude put yesterday by the Opposition that the matter should be adjourned and reconsidered after the experts, including the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, have made some sort of deliberate report about it. We have before us a statement by the Minister for Industrial Relations. As far as I am aware- the AttorneyGeneral might correct me- it is not a text which has been agreed upon by the President of the Commission and by the Minister. It is the Minister’s own opinion. Is it an agreed text?

Senator Durack:

– Yes, it is.

Senator BISHOP:

-If it is an agreed text, it would seem to me to differ slightly from what the Minister said this morning in the other place. In answer to a question from Mr Hayden, he used the words: ‘The President discussed the question of limiting section 22a’. That may be a small point. Nevertheless, initially the report raises the question that an understanding between the President of the Commission and a Minister of the Crown cannot affect the law if it is passed. It is still a question of the law; it is still a question of whether the objectives of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act are being observed in regard to an amendment which might be passed in the Senate and in regard to the prescription in the legislation. Whatever understanding there might be, even if there is agreement, it can have no reference at all in law. It may be that the Government has told the Commission that it wants consistency or that its view is that there should be consistency in relation to wage matters. We know that that is exactly what the Government has tried to do. It has tried to lean on statutory authorities and departments to achieve that aim. That may be the objective of the Government, but it can have no real meaning in regard to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

As the Minister well knows, and he would be more competent to speak on it that I because I am not a lawyer, these provisions, if they are passed, will oblige the President in his own terms, in his own way, and at his own speed, to require a commissioner in particular circumstances to seek advice before he makes a determination. The Government wants that because it wants consistency. The Minister said in his statement, in reply to Sir John Moore: . . I pointed out that the object of the consultative procedures was to get the maximum possible consistency in principle in the decision making of the Commission.

That raises a very important point. It would seem that in the agreed text, if that is what it is, Mr Street deals with Sir John’s concern about the consultative process impeding the Commission’s independence and efficiency by saying:

I assured Sir John that under the proposed legislation, Commissioners retained the right of final decision on a case they had heard. They would not be subject to direction by a Deputy President.

I hope that the pace at which we proceed will not be such as to conclude this matter tonight, and I put to the Government the same arguments that the Opposition has put before. As to the assignments of industries, at the present time each presidential member covers some 20 different industries and some cover 50 different industries. A commissioner, having heard a case and being obliged by the Act to settle the dispute, in every case would be obliged to go to the presidential member and report what he wants to do. That also raises the question of whether the principles of the Act in regard to conciliation and arbitration are being confounded. The last matter that is astounding is what the Minister says in the last paragraph:

Sir John asked when the legislation was expected to be passed through the Senate.

That indicates to me that the commissioners collectively- the association- are still concerned about what might happen and when. For that reason, I trust that the debate might be adjourned or will proceed slowly to allow more consideration. There is also an extra point to consider. Obviously, apart from the question of principles, the Commission has raised the question of workloads. There seems to be implied a promise that the Government will appoint more commissioners. I do not know, but if I read the relevant paragraph honourable senators can draw their own conclusions. It reads:

Finally, Sir John said that he would expect the consultative requirements would put an extra work load on the Commission. If the Commission were to carry out its work effectively, and with minimum delays to the parties before it, more people would be required on the Commission.

Senator Harradine:

– And more opportunity for inconsistency.

Senator BISHOP:

– Absolutely. It went on:

I said that I could see the logic of this point and the Government would await advice from Sir John when he had had the opportunity to make an assessment of the situation.

It is clear that Sir John is still to respond to what has been put.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I think that refers to presidential members.

Senator BISHOP:

– That may be. I am making the additional point that it must be clear to all of us that there is still to be a response from the President, or from the Commission collectively, to what took place last night. For that reason too it would be wise to proceed slowly and not to determine the matter. The final point I raise concerns what I have been told this morning, and I understand a question was raised in the House. Mr Hawke, the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, has repeated a call- or has made a fresh call, I am not sure whichasking the Government to consider the deregistration amendments proposed in this Bill. Because of the different position that has been taken up, I understand- I am not sure whether it is true- that the Minister has refused to accept it. At this stage he refuses to consult with the ACTU and the unions about the deregistration section, section 143a. For those reasons I hope the Minister will not be so foolish as to gag the debate and expect the legislation to be passed today. I am convinced that the Government is getting into a very woolly situation, that what is proposed is very loose. I trust only that, because of the words of the President of the Commission on the need to consult with him and the commissioners, there may be second thoughts about the legislation and possibly some modification of what is now proposed.

page 1494

HOMELESS PERSONS ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Motion (by Senator Guilfoyle) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Homeless Persons Assistance Act 1974.

Bill presented, and read first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

1 move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to secure the future of the homeless persons welfare program by removing from the enabling legislation reference to a ‘prescribed period’. All honourable senators will know that the ‘prescribed period’ limits the period in which a project can be approved and in which rental subsidies and grants for fixtures and furnishings can be approved and paid. The allocation of funds for new capital projects will, of course, be decided at the appropriate time. Other subsidies under the Act, in relation to salaries, food and accommodation and meals, continue independently of this Bill.

The Homeless Persons Assistance Act was introduced in 1974 for a three-year period. The Act provides for capital grants to be made to eligible organisations, which are defined as nonprofit organisations, local governing bodies and charitable or benevolent trusts, towards the full cost of purchasing, constructing or renting buildings, including the purchase of furniture and equipment. It also enables the Commonwealth to pay 50 per cent of the salary of a social welfare worker employed at a homeless persons assistance centre. Approved organisations may also be paid a daily subsidy at prescribed rates for each homeless person to whom both food and accommodation are provided at a daily rate of 75c and a subsidy of 25c for each meal supplied to nonresident homeless persons.

The introduction of the legislation in 1974 followed the 1 973 report of the Working Party on Homeless Men and Women. The report’s recommendations highlighted the need to concentrate assistance on upgrading existing facilities for permanently and chronically homeless men and women. It also suggested that the program be reviewed after its initial three years. The prescribed period’ has been extended on two previous occasions. In each case, the extension has been accompanied by evaluation and review of the program. A report entitled ‘A Place of Dignity’ was tabled in the Senate on 9 June 1978. Further, honourable senators will recall that when the ‘prescribed period’ of the Act was extended last year, it was indicated that the program was sufficiently well established to warrant discussions with State governments on their views about the sharing of responsibilities in this area. Following correspondence between the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and State Premiers, discussions have been held with State representatives nominated by the relevant Ministers. The Commonwealth has decided to maintain its commitment to the program, while working as closely as possible with the States.

Since the program commenced, capital grants totalling $9.668m have been approved to upgrade, replace or construct facilities such as night shelters, reception and assessment centres, hostels, day centres and detoxification units. Of this amount, some $5.028m had been spent in the four years prior to 30 June 1 979 on facilities in all major cities. Further, an amount of $4m will be made available this financial year to build two major replacement hostels for homeless people in Brisbane. As I have indicated, the Government will be determining the provision of funds for new capital projects at the appropriate time.

In total there are 113 centres approved at present. These provide overnight accommodation for 3,600 men and women. During 1978-79, a total of 947,380 persons were accommodated while 1,056,832 meals were made available to non-residents. Rental subsidy of some $160,000 is being made available for 37 centres. Subsidies valued at $320,000 are also being provided for 44 social welfare workers at 40 centres.

The program, by assisting with rental subsidies and social welfare worker subsidies, has been able to contribute to the development of the halfway house concept. Presently, there are 19 such houses in inner city suburbs approved as homeless persons assistance centres under the program. This allows for placement of clients in a residential setting while they are assisted in adjusting to the many demands of a different life style by social welfare workers funded under the program.

It should be noted also that the program is not directed exclusively towards chronically homeless men and there is a number of centres which cater exclusively for single homeless women; some agencies in developing new hostels have taken the opportunity to provide accommodation for both men and women. These measures provide conditions which are in line with those of the community generally and thus assist in the rehabilitation of clients.

In this regard, the definition of ‘social welfare worker’ has been interpreted in the widest possible sense under the program- the main criterion being that a worker provides a personal welfare service to homeless people. Although workers are attached to particular centres the mobility of homeless people does ensure their regular contact with workers. This makes available to homeless people a wide range of skills and expert assistance.

We must not, however, lose sight of other programs which can provide assistance for homeless people. Honourable senators will be aware of the Youth Services Program under which $3m has been offered to State governments on a dollar for dollar basis for a pilot scheme over a three-year period. Amongst other things, that program will provide emergency accommodation for young people, concentrating on services which require recurrent funding, such as referral and counselling services. In addition, there are the Family Support Services Scheme, the Community Health Program and the welfare housing programs. Each of these programs in its own way provides assistance for various categories of people in need.

In determining the future of the homeless persons assistance program, all State Advisory committees have presented their views to the Government. This direct advice highlighted the need for securing subsidy arrangements. Further consultation with these advisory bodies and with the State authorities will undoubtedly improve the co-ordinated delivery of services.

Against this background of assistance to homeless people of all categories, the advice of the advisory committees, and the valuations of the program, the deletion of the ‘prescribed period’ from the Homeless Persons Assistance Act is a further demonstration of this Government’s commitment to those in need. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 1496

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

Ministerial Statement

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– by leaveToday the Senate will resume the debate on the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1 979. The Government proposes that the debate should be completed before the Senate adjourns this evening. As I advised the Senate on Senator Carrick ‘s behalf last Thursday, we now face a full program of legislation. Next week 10 Bills or groups of Bills will need to be considered. These include: Two migration amendment Bills; overseas student Bills; the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill; capital assistance for the States; the Homeless Persons Assistance Amendment Bill; the social security-repatriation package; a sales tax exemption Bill; the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill; the National Labour Consultative Council Amendment Bill; and the Remuneration Tribunals Amendment Bill. A program for the week will be prepared as usual later today.

There will be a further 1 8 or 20 debates to be completed next month. These include a number of Bills concerned with matters in the Budget such as the two Appropriation Bills, the usual States grants education Bills, the income tax Bills and the air navigation charges Bill. The Parliament will be able to adjourn for the Christmas break when the necessary legislation has been fully considered.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave -I do not know the purpose of presenting the program to us. I think we are well aware of the program. We are given documents from time to time which show how many Bills are intended for discussion in this place and the other place. The program is not one- if we compare it with previous years- that ought to give us any cause for concern, that we will not finish in a reasonable time. Because the Government would like to get Parliament up early this year- some comments have been made that we will be getting up as early as 15 November- I do not see any reason why we should be altering our program either to extend the hours of sitting or in some way limit debate. Much of the legislation that has been mentioned will be taken conjointly or cognately. We have introduced a variety of devices in this place, such as the incorporation of statements and second reading speeches in Hansard, which has speeded up our procedures. I cannot understand why we should be laboured with these warnings unless the Government has other ideas in mind for an early rising of this place which it has not disclosed to us.

It must be apparent to the electorate at large that we are sitting less and less. If I recall correctly, we came back a week late, we got up early, we had a longer winter recess, the Budget session started a week late and it seems to me that we are going to be getting up a month earlier. For that reason I do not think the Government ought to be very concerned about getting through its program. I will not speak on another proposition that the Government is to put before us. All I will say is that there ought not to be any attempt to truncate debate on the program that is before us and to take away members’ rights, otherwise the co-operative arrangement between both sides of the chamber will start to break down and leave will not be granted as easily. We might pick up an hour today and lose 10 hours next week. If the Government wants to sit until the early hours of the morning, as we did last session, perhaps we might do that. I give a warning here that any time the Government wishes to go beyond 12 o’clock we will almost certainly sit for at least a couple of hours. That is not a threat.

Senator Peter Baume:

– It is a threat.

Senator GEORGES:

-Is it a threat?

Senator Peter Baume:

– Absolutely.

Senator GEORGES:

-Oh, I am sorry. A threat is generally made in a different sort of way- ‘If you do this, we will do that’. I am just saying to the Government in a quiet way that it is useless for the Government to try to force legislation down the throat of the Opposition, because that never works. Would the Government please refrain from giving us dire warnings of the amount of legislation we have to get through? If we look at the program we can see, as we warned the Government previously, that there is not much at all on the plate. The Government has introduced all the legislation that it needed to introduce to dismantle all the good things that the Labor

Government introduced. It has dismantled practically everything, as Senator McLaren said yesterday when he listed a whole lot of the dismantling that has taken place, including Medibank. A whole series of good measures has been destroyed. That legislation is now apparently at an end and a whole series of innocuous matters is dribbling through, with the exception of the one we have before us today. I am surprised that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) is reiterating that the Government needs this legislation today. For the life of me I cannot see why. However, we will take up that matter a little more fully in the debate on the next item on the business paper.

Senator CHANEY (Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs)- by leave- The speech which has just been made by Senator Georges is a poor reward for courtesy. Although he said that the Opposition is fully aware of what the program for the rest of the session entails, I draw his attention to the fact that at least one honourable senator opposite, Senator McLaren, has seen fit to ask questions about the balance of the program. The Government meant no more than courtesy to the Senate in making clear what it had in mind for the balance of the program. The statement which I read is now in the hands of the Hansard staff, so I do not have it. But it certainly included towards the end words to the effect that the Parliament would be able to get up when the legislation before us had been fully considered. It is not the intention of the Government to truncate the consideration of legislation.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

-by leave- I am surprised that a few minutes after I, on behalf of the Opposition, had appealed for consideration of the amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to go ahead more slowly or to be stood over until next week because of the statement that Senator Durack made in this place and the other new matters that were put before us, Senator Chaney came out and said that the Government has to put the legislation through today. I would have thought that in those circumstances Senator Durack would consider my proposition and reply later in the day. I would have hoped that the Government would take a more realistic view of the arguments that the Opposition has put up and of my request to Senator Durack. I expected Senator Durack rather than Senator Chaney to reply to that request. Am I to understand from the words of Senator Chaney that no consideration has been given to the request from the Opposition that the gag should not be applied tonight in respect of the Conciliation and

Arbitration Amendment Bill? Leaving aside the general question, what is the reason for the urgency in respect of that Bill?

Senator CHANEY (Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs)- by leave- I have nothing to add to the statement I put down a few minutes ago. The Government has indicated that it would like the legislation to be completed this evening and that is where the matter rests.

page 1497

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Precedence

Motion (by Senator Chaney) proposed:

That, unless otherwise ordered, Government Business Order of the Day No. 1 (Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1 979) take precedence of General Business after 8 p.m. this day.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– I would like to speak to this motion. I seem to remember speaking to a similar motion last year, and I will speak to this one in much the same terms. The Australian Democrats naturally oppose this motion. We seem earlier and earlier to be getting into the habit of having all matters, other than Government Business, thrown out of this place, no matter what they are and how many members of the community might be interested in them. According to the list of sittings that I have on my desk it will be some six weeks before we are due to rise. I had hoped that the four sitting weeks listed for November would provide enough time for the Government to get through its legislation without having to butcher General Business five or six weeks before the end of the session. We will soon get to the stage at which the tiny allocation we make to General Business- the minute bone that the Government throws under the table to private members- will be removed completely. At the beginning of sessions the Government will say: ‘Government business is so busy, we have so much legislation, that we cannot have such a thing as General Business’. The role then of this place as a House of Parliament will have disappeared forever, as it is now well on the way to disappearing. I have found that out in my short time in this place. I assure the Government that this motion is another nail in the coffin. If the Government does not see it that way but sees it merely as a matter of convenience to itself, I suggest that it should have another hard look at it.

I hope that the Government, as Senator Georges suggested, is not proposing merely that we are to go home a week or two earlier in November and that because of that it proposes to throw out matters of General Business which are on the Notice Paper. I have one notice of motion on the Notice Paper which I would have liked to get on perhaps as early as tonight. It is not of importance that it is a motion that I have brought forward, but it is significant that I have brought it forward and that nobody on the other side did so, although it is a matter of crying public importance.

Senator Peter Baume:

– What do you mean by the other side’?

Senator MASON:

– I am referring to the Government. This is a matter which the Government should have dealt with years ago, as the honourable senator knows perfectly well. It is a matter which concerns and affects the rights of close on half a million people in this country who I believe have been affected unjustly. If it is not the job of honourable senators opposite to look after injustice, I do not know why they are sitting there.

The point is that those members of the community who feel that, through General Business, they can put forward matters which do not necessarily have to be vetted through a party machine- that is, the party machines of either of the major parties; honourable senators can take that whichever way they like- will not be particularly pleased if these matters, having been raised as serious notices of motion and with good justification, are to be destroyed simply because the Government says that it wants to get a Bill through today. The Government will not get that Bill through today. It knows that perfectly well. It has had a clear notice served on it by the Opposition that its cancellation of General Business tonight will not make a tittle of difference. That time will be occupied in another way when it could have been used to bring on notices of motion. We do not have many of them. They could have been disposed of reasonably quickly.

I cannot see how Senator Chaney ‘s statement that the Government wants to get its Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill through today has anything to do with whether General Business should be cancelled at this early stage in the session. I cannot canvas and do not want to canvass why the Government should want to get it through today. It does not seem to be a matter of such urgency that the Government might want to drop on the unions or prevent certain things tomorrow. Is the Government wanting to do all that tomorrow? Are we to expect dramatic consequences on the industrial scene over the weekend? I assume not. Therefore, why can we not continue in a normal way and retain the meagre privileges which are available to those members of the Senate who wish to bring forward matters of General Business. Why can we not allow discussion of them to proceed in a reasonable way? I do not think that any of us present these motions in a flippant way; rather, we do so because they involve something that is of importance to this community.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– On behalf of the Opposition, I indicate that we also will oppose the motion. We have been through this debate many times, when consideration of items of General Business of which notice has been given, has been deferred. In this case, consideration of General Business is being deferred to allow debate on the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1979. One can understand a government’s desire to get its legislation through the Parliament, but a government should not expect to be able to do so when it sees fit to bring down in these circumstances a Bill that is undoubtedly one of the most significant pieces of legislation to have come before the Senate for a long time. It was interesting last night to hear Senator Evans recite the various measures dealing with industrial matters that this Government has introduced in the last couple of years and his comment that this one was the daddy of them all. He used words to that effect. Certainly, it is probably the most contentious, and it creates greater grounds for industrial disputes and problems in this country than any of the Bills of this nature that have come before the Parliament during this Government’s term of office.

Quite apart from the valid points that Senator Mason made, the discussion of General Business items is a prerogative of the Senate. Some years ago the concept of General Business was introduced for the purpose of allowing honourable senators to bring forward matters which they considered to be of public concern. Yet, today we are being asked to support a motion which not only will take away that right but also will mean that this major piece of legislation almost certainly will not be given the consideration which is its due.

I know the Government will argue that there have been two days in which the Senate has had time to debate the measure. But the fact is that there are 64 honourable senators, allowing for those who are not present today. This is the sort of Bill on which almost certainly all honourable senators will want to have something to say. They are entitled to do so. The same is true of any Bill that is of major concern. The Government would be well advised, if need be, to allow the debate to continue next Tuesday. I say that particularly in the light of events and of the statement that the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) has put down today after the discussions yesterday between Sir John Moore and the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street). It would be prudent to allow the debate, if need be, to flow on.

The question arises as to the Government’s motive in wanting to ensure the passage of the Bill tonight. It must have an ulterior motive. We know that social security legislation is to be brought down also. The scenario is being set for bigger events to take place. Is that why this Bill is being forced through this chamber tonight? Let it be said very clearly- I am glad that the Australian Democrats take the same view and I hope that the independent senator will do likewisethat the issues are too big for us to be shovelling legislation of this nature through the Senate tonight. Certainly the members of the Australian Labor Party will want the Bill to be fully debated. If that means that we will have to debate it next week, we will certainly do that.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am concerned that Senator Chaney, on behalf of the Government, has moved this motion at this point in the parliamentary session. Frankly, I am now convinced that the Government could not even run a tart shop, let alone the nation. When Labor was in government, as those honourable senators who were here in 1975 will remember, despite the record number of legislative processes in which we were engaged, the Senate rose at 5 p.m. on Thursdays in order to enable Senate committees to meet. The then Opposition was given the opportunity to discuss General Business at 2.30 p.m. Now, despite the fact that the Senate has been sitting for three days each week, the Government, a month before the Parliament is to rise- which in turn is a month earlier than normal- is taking the unprecedented step at such an early stage of moving that after 8 p.m. Government business take precedence of General Business.

I address my remarks particularly to the back bench members of the Government, who, as much as members of the Opposition, have an interest in preserving the General Business time. Not only did Senator Chaney move that after 8 p.m. Government business should take precedence of General Business; he also indicated that the Government wanted the Conciliation and Arbitration legislation passed today. That indicates that if it has not been passed at 10.30 p.m. the Government will negative the adjournment question. If that happens we will lose not only the opportunity to debate General Business but also to participate in an adjournment debate. Thus, the Government will set out to achieve the passage of this legislation by exhaustion if need be.

I refer honourable senators also to the ministerial statement made by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) on the result of the discussion between the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) and the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I will repeat the last paragraph of the statement that was read to us not an hour ago:

Sir John asked when the legislation was expected to be passed through the Senate. Mr Street replied that the legislation would be dealt with in the normal way.

An hour after making a statement of that nature, the Government has moved that Government business take precedence of General Business at 8 p.m.

Senator Bishop:

– It was a misleading statement.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-As my colleague remarks, that statement to the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and to members of this Parliament was misleading. Under the heading ‘General Business’ on the Notice Paper we find that Notice of Motion No. 2, in the name of Senator Rae, provides:

  1. 1 ) That, in the opinion of the Senate-

    1. Senators should no longer hold office as Ministers of State, with the exception of any Senator holding the office of Leader of the Government in the Senate, who, in order adequately to represent Government priorities to the Senate, should remain a member of the Cabinet; and
    2. Chairmen of the Senate’s Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees should be granted allowances, staffs and other entitlements similar to those currently granted to Ministers other than Ministers in the Cabinet.

Therefore, not only does the Government seek the passage of this legislation today. It also does not want debate to take place on Senator Rae’s proposal. I am very concerned about the arrogance of this Government in its approach to Parliament. We have seen many instances of it in the Senate today. We heard the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Wriedt, ask you, Mr President, whether arrangements would be made to move the research section of the Parliamentary Library away from Parliament House. You gave an honest response and said that you and Mr Speaker had been negotiating with the Government for more space for the use of the Parliament but that the Government could not see its way clear to give the Parliament the West Block offices and that other arrangements to provide accommodation almost a mile away in the Hotel Kurrajong would have to be considered. It is about time that we put on the record of the Senate a motion that in the opinion of the Senate and the Parliament, West Block should be made available for the administrative use of the Parliament. Again I say it is so typical of the Government’s arrogant attitude towards this Parliament.

We had a report presented by the Joint Standing Committee on Publications. We all recall that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) about 12 months ago said that in future reports of parliamentary committees would be considered by the Government and a report would be made to the Parliament on those recommendations within six months of the tabling of those reports in the Parliament. As I said, the Publications Committee chaired by Senator Archer made a report in November 1978. Eleven months after that report was tabled we received a condescending reply from the Government in response to the first recommendation, namely, that the Government Printer be responsible to the presiding officers for the printing of all parliamentary publications and be provided with the necessary resources to meet parliamentary printing requirements and that at all times the Government Printer give priority to parliamentary work; bearing in mind the preeminence of Parliament in our system I would have thought that that would have been a recommendation automatically accepted by the Government. We find that the Government believes that the Government Printer is an agency -

Senator Missen:

– May I take a point of order? This is obviously a time-wasting exercise. I speak as the former Chairman of the Committee that presented that report. The honourable senator is reading down the recommendations of a Committee which are not on the Notice Paper at this stage and would not be debated tonight under any circumstances. I submit that this is a timewasting exercise, and the honourable senator should be stopped from doing it.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am setting out to show the arrogant attitude of this Government towards the Parliament and the parliamentary system. It is exemplified by Senator Chaney in moving his motion today. I am now taking advantage of matters that have come before this Parliament in the last two hours to illustrate the arrogant attitude of the Government towards the Parliament. In the response that the Government made to that first recommendation it has said that the Parliament will appreciate, however, that there will be circumstances when the Government Printer would need to give priority to urgent government printing.

The requirements of this Parliament are to be placed second to the requirements of the Executive of this nation. I suggest that this Government is taking away one of the few rights of back bench members of this Parliament to express themselves and to propose motions to the Parliament during the general General Business period. I think it is a travesty of justice. It makes a mockery of this place that the Government, contemplating the rising of Parliament on 15 November, about a month earlier than is the normal requirement, at this early stage of this Parliament is proposing that Government business take precedence over General Business. Because we as members of the Parliament have to stand up for our rights in this place, I am delighted to know that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) has indicated that the Opposition will strenuously oppose the Government’s proposals.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

-I was not going to speak but the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) has mentioned that he hopes that I will support the Opposition in voting against this proposition. I will support the Government’s proposition provided that the Government is able to ensure that there is no gagging of the debate and that it is able to assure the Senate that the understandings reached between the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) and Sir John Moore are upheld. I have a speakers’ list before me. If every one listed speaks for only half an hour- there are some lawyers on the list and I cannot conceive of their speaking for only half an hour- we are going to get to the second reading vote at 11.15 p.m. tonight. Either the Government intends to truncate the second reading debate and leave sufficient time for detailed consideration in committee or it intends to truncate the committee stage. In either event, unless the Government can give a guarantee that that will not happen, I will vote against its particular proposal. I believe that the Government does have the right to submit to the Senate that there is legislation which it wants to get through. It has the right to suggest to the Senate and to the members of the Senate that Government business take precedence over General Business. I am third last on the speakers’ list. I will be saying something about this legislation which has not been said in the House of Representatives, publicly or in this chamber. I will be able to speak that as the only officer of a major national union of over 150,000 members who has daily contact with either the judicial, arbitral or the administrative organisations established under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I will be pointing out that I understand the motivation of the Government. I understand that there are problems that have arisen in respect to consistency of decisions, but the Government has not got the moral courage to precisely state those to the community and to bring legislation here in the light of that public revelation.

Mr President, whether I am able to say that in the Senate will depend on whether the Government intends to truncate the second reading debate. I would like to know whether the Government intends to do that. If it does intend to truncate the debate I say that it is acting inconsistently with the understandings reached by the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Street, with Sir John Moore. I quote from the last sentence of the Minister’s statement. He says:

Sir John asked when the legislation was expected to be passed through the Senate. I - that is the Minister- replied that the legislation would be dealt with in the normal way, but that the actual timing was of course in the hands of the Senate.

Senator Missen:

– That is fair enough.

Senator HARRADINE:

– Okay. I presume that Sir John Moore would have understood the normal way of debate in this chamber to be that any senator who wishes to speak on a second reading debate would normally be allowed to have his say.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– And in the committee stage too.

Senator HARRADINE:

– And as Senator McClelland said, ‘in the committee stage too’, or particularly in the committee stage with a piece of legislation like this. I do not know whether the Minister is going to retreat from the indication given by the Minister for Industrial Relations to the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on this most important matter. If he is not going to do that I see no reason why he should not stand in his place and say: ‘Yes, this matter will be dealt with by the Senate in the normal way. There will not be a truncation, a gagging of the debate’. If there is a gagging of debate there is only one conclusion to which people can come, that is, that the Government intends that its normal way of operating in this chamber will be by gagging debates. No honourable senator ought to allow that to occur.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– in reply- As is so often the case when the Senate is concerned about time -

Senator McLaren:

– Is Senator Chaney closing the debate?

Senator CHANEY:

– Yes, I am.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am sorry. Your speaking, Mr Minister, having introduced the subject, would close the debate.

Senator CHANEY:

-That is right.

Senator McLaren:

– I was on my feet when the Minister was called, as was Senator Cavanagh.

Senator CHANEY:

– I got the call.

Senator McLaren:

– I wanted to contribute to the motion. Am I being debarred from speaking to the motion before the Senate?

The PRESIDENT:

– There having been three speakers on my left, I gave the call to the person who rose first on my right.

Senator McLaren:

- Mr President, you are acquiescing with the Government. You are gagging the debate on a motion that is before this Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am not gagging a debate.

Senator McLaren:

– I was on my feet before Senator Chaney, and you called Senator Harradine. Senator Cavanagh also was on his feet at the same time. By rising Senator Chaney is depriving members on the Opposition side from contributing to the motion that he has already put to the Senate.

Senator CHANEY:

– I have the call, I think?

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes, Senator Chaney.

Senator CHANEY:

– As is so often the case when senators put forward in great indignation complaints about a lack of time which might be available in which to consider legislation, we witness a series of speeches the main purpose of which seems to be to utilise the time which might otherwise be used for debate. Honourable senators opposite have used expressions like ‘a traversty of j justice ‘ and ‘ a mockery of this place ‘. I can only say that I hope we are not witnessing a lot of mock indignation in this place. I would remind honourable senators opposite that the Government was ready to debate this Bill on Tuesday. At the request of the Opposition, to meet the convenience of the Opposition, the debate was postponed until Wednesday. That was done to meet the convenience of the Opposition, and we now face this debate which is suggesting that the Government is in some sense improper in wanting to conclude the legislation this week.

Already about three hours have been spent on the debate, after several hours of messing around yesterday in the Senate, and there is time for 6½ hours of debate tonight, even if the Senate rises at its normal time of 10.30.I would suggest that it is a gross exaggeration and an attempt simply to throw up a smokescreen to accuse the Government of arrogance when the Senate has had virtually the whole week- two full days- available for this legislation, and in any event it lost Tuesday because of the request of the Opposition itself. I am also tickled mightily bythe suggestion by Senator Harradine that I should stand at this stage and give some firm undertaking with respect to gags or other measures which might be taken by the Government. Honourable senators know that it lies within their capacity to impose almost endless delay on the passage of a Bill if they choose to use the forms of this House. Honourable senators would know that with an hour’s speaking time allowed on a nonbroadcast day, with the forms of the House available to them during the committee stages, this Bill could be postponed indefinitely if the Opposition so wished. To seek some sort of unqualified assurance from the Government before the debate has commenced or run its course is absolute nonsense. That is not an undertaking that I can give on behalf of the Government.

What is normal in dealing with legislation depends in large part on the behaviour of honourable senators, and if honourable senators behaved in a way which was unreasonable obviously the Government would have to use the forms of this chamber which are available under the Standing Orders. I am also less than impressed by the complaints of Senator Mason. I would suggest that his devotion to General Business might be measured not by what he said in this debate but by the amount of time he has devoted to General Business in the evenings that we have set aside for that purpose. All honourable senators might note the relatively low level of interest which has been shown in General Business over this session. Again I believe that the indignation which has been displayed sits very ill with the actual level of interest shown by honourable senators, which might be a matter of regret for some of those senators who have shown more interest. There is time available for the consideration of this legislation, and I suggest we should use that time accordingly.

Question put:

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

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke)

AYES: 30

NOES: 24

Majority…… 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

page 1502

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator Guilfoyle) agreed to:

That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to Tuesday, 23 October 1979, at 3 p.m., or such other time as the President may take the Chair.

page 1502

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill 1 979.

Telecommunications (Interception) Bill (No. 2) 1979.

Telecommunications Amendment Bill 1979.

CustomsAmendmentBill(No.2) 1979. ( Quorum formed).

page 1502

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 7 October, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I said last night that this legislation, the Conciliation and

Arbitration Amendment Bill 1979, is not only a crude piece of union bashing of the kind which has become all too familiar during this Government’s term of office but also that it represents a more subtle attempt to undermine the status and authority of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and reduce it to a kind of cipher for the implementation of Government policy. Nothing which has emerged from the Ministerial statement which was tabled this morning about the meeting between the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Street, and Sir John Moore leads me to withdraw that assessment. It seems that there has been an exchange of views- as the diplomats would describe itbetween the President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and Mr Street. The President of the Commission has stated the concerns and fears that his members have about this legislation. Through Mr Street the Government has responded by asserting that those concerns and fears are unfounded. There is no indication in the statement that we heard today that the assurances and assertions of the Minister were in fact regarded as satisfactory and accepted by Sir John Moore. The statement put down may have been, in a sense, an agreed statement, but it was not an agreed statement which contained any explicit suggestion that Sir John Moore had accepted the assurances that were given to him by the Minister or that Sir John Moore was thereby withdrawing his or his commissioners’ objections to the legislation. The situation has not changed. The reality of the matter is that there are still fundamental objections to this legislation, in particular to the consultative provisions in it, which have been the subject of most attention, and they have not been in any way overridden or undermined by the recent course of events.

I now turn to deal with the various provisions of the Bill. If one looks for a start at the consultative provisions one will see the requirement that a commissioner consult with a deputy president of the Commission before bringing down anything in the nature of an award variation. If consultation is to mean simply, as we have been assured over and over again by the Minister and Government spokesmen, an exchange of views and information, as it were, between the commissioner and the deputy president and the Commissioner, if it is not meant or proposed to amount to some substantive new procedure, if it is not proposed to create some substantial new obligation on the individual commissioner not only to consult with the deputy president but in fact to accept explicit specific guidance from him, if it is not to do any of those things and is simply a legislative implementation of the kind of tea and muffins chat notion that we have been told it is by the Minister, then why is it being introduced into this Bill at this time?

We have been told it is being introduced because there have been examples of inconsistency of decision by individual commissioners from the general tenor of the Commission’s approach in the past. Surely that acknowledgement, that assertion, that giving of a reason by the Government is support for the claim that the Opposition and the individual commissioners have been making. The Government’s objection to those earlier cases of variation from the norm was not that there had been no consultation as such; the nub of its objection and concern about this was not to the failure of consultation as such,- if indeed there was a failure of consultation- but rather the actual substantive decision made by Commissioner Deverall and the other individual commissioners whose judgments have been called into question by the Government in defending this legislation. It is obvious that this consultative provision in the legislation, which is intended to be a consultative provision on its surface, amounts in practice and in substance to something more than that. As such, it is a provision which is objectionable. It is bad in legal principle if this is to be the nature of the obligation that is imposed because, as has been said by numerous speakers, particularly in the debate in the other place, you would then have a person who had not heard the arguments in a particular matter participating, de facto, in the decision, in the resolution of that matter. Again, it is bad in constitutional principle.

The implementation of a provision of this kind would represent a clear shift from the operation of this legislation, and the constitutional provision on which it is founded, as being directed to the conciliation and arbitration of individual cases. It would represent a shift, a twist which this Government has been trying so hard in so many ways to accomplish, towards making the Arbitration Commission simply an agency, an implementor of Government economic policy, with the decisions of individual commissioners being called into question to the extent that they vary from the norms laid down by the Government in the pursuit of its own wrong headed economic policy. I regard it as incompatible with the whole constitutional position of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, as it has evolved over the last 70 or 80 years, for the position of individual commissioners to be forced into that particular mould in the way which the Government is intending.

It is bad, of course, so far as the authority of individual commissioners is concerned and in terms of the respect that henceforth they will be able to command from the parties who appear before them. How can they expect to retain the respect and credibility that they need in order to perform their function if the parties know that the individual commissioner has no decision making role of his own but has to run off to his appropriate deputy president, if, indeed, the matter is not taken from him by the President himself- I will come to that in a moment- before he can bring down a decision in any particular case? Finally, insofar as the procedures of the Commission are concerned, it is bad for the speedy resolution of disputes. Faced with this obligation and given the disparate and scattered nature of the commissioners and deputy presidents round Australia and the difficulty with job inspections and so on of contacting people and getting people together even over the telephone at short notice, it is obvious that this will represent a whole new procedural hindrance and obstacle to the effective resolution of industrial disputes. For all of those reasons, those consultative provisions are objectionable.

But the consultative provisions are not the only provisions of the Bill, although they are the ones that have attracted the most attention. Let me take the Senate through some of the others. The second area that the Bill focuses on is the conferring of a power in the President of the Commission to take a matter entirely out of the hands of some individual member of the Commission in order either to deal with it himself or to enable it to be referred to and dealt with by a Full Bench. At the moment, under the existing operation of the Act in terms of both its formal provisions and its informal operations, there are a number of avenues and ways in which the President can exercise a degree of supervisory and coordinating control. He can exercise it by way of the determination by him of the composition of the various panels in the Commission at any given time. He can help to shape it in terms of his allocation of particular cases. He can help to shape it in terms of his own availability for consultation with individual commissioners. Moreover, in addition to those informal considerations, it is the case that appeal provisions exist whereby matters can in that way be brought before the Full Bench. Indeed, even before a matter is resolved and reaches the stage of any decision being made about it, there is provision in the present Act for matters to be referred to the Full

Bench if they satisfy certain threshold public interest criteria.

Why is it necessary to go further than that? Why is it necessary to go as far as this legislation now proposes? Why is it necessary to put into legislative form provisions like this which amount, quite apart from anything else, to such an obvious and direct humiliation of all the nonpresidential members of the Commission, all the deputy presidents and everyone else except the President himself? Why is it necessary to vest this vast range of additional powers in the President? Why is it necessary to do so in particular when one considers that in order for him to be able to exercise these powers properly, he would need to be something of an industrial superman, not only physically in terms of the numbers of eyes, ears, arms and legs he would have to have in order to be able simultaneously even to begin to monitor the potential trouble spots round the nation within his jurisdiction, but also in terms of the discretion and the sensitivity that he would need to exercise in order to ensure that the personal jurisdiction that it is proposed to vest in him did not get completely out of hand.

It may be that those talents are all there now in the person of Sir John Moore. It may be that he is an industrial superman of this kind in terms of his tact, sensitivity, sensibility and physical stamina. It may be that that could have been said also of Sir Richard Kirby, his predecessor as President of the Commission. But will it be the same again always for the future? What would happen if some political appointment were made by this Government to replace Sir John Moore? What would happen if as has been mooted- God help us- someone like the present Speaker of the other place were to become the new President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? How much tact, sensitivity and discretion could one expect in the operation of these jurisdictional provisions under those circumstances? The real difficulty with these presidential discretion provisions is the enormous discretion and the enormous opportunity for political manipulation of cases before the Commission that they vest in the presidential authority. I think the argument was best stated by Mr Justice Staples in- as inevitably is the case with Mr Justice Staples- a fairly colourful passage in his now famous letter but one which nonetheless strikes very exactly at the point in issue when he said:

Nothing is more calculated to strike at the independence and authority of any member of the Commission than that he be under threat of becoming disentitled to act if he does not please. By what corridor of power may complainants hope to reach the ear of the President and to induce him to defrock a colleague? What pressures may we expect to be brought against a recalcitrant President if he fails to respond to insinuations, subtle or overt, against one judge in favour of another? How will the President satisfy himself that there are special reasons’? With whom is he to consult? With the parties? Severally, or altogether, or shall strangers be consulted? Or shall the President be left to act with all the appearance of caprice?

The third area of the Bill and one that is quite startling in its draconian quality- nauseatingly so because, not least, of the total lack of sensitivity and understanding which it demonstrates on the part of this Government towards basic industrial relations considerations- is the proposed provisions in relation to deregistration. What is proposed here is a quite fundamental change to the existing law. At the moment, and as will continue to be the case, deregistration is the ultimate sanction within the conciliation and arbitration system. It is a penalty of outlawry. It is now a penalty which can be imposed only by the Federal Court. Of course, with this legislation it is proposed that it be able to be applied jointly by the resources of the Full Bench of the Commission followed more particularly by a role- an essential role- for the Executive Government.

The magnitude of the sanction of deregistration and what it means to an individual union and its members has to be appreciated for the full effect and character of clause 16 of the Bill to be understood. What it means for a union to be deregistered is that all the awards to which it has hitherto been a party and which it has gained on behalf of its members will immediately become inapplicable. It means that the membership of that union is immediately vulnerable to being poached by every other rival union with a finger in that industrial pie. It means that the union, the organisation, no longer has, among other things, any kind of access to industrial tribunals to resolve problems of various kinds as they arise on the job. Unions that are deregistered become outlaws in the full medieval sense of that word. Because it does represent such a substantial sanction to deregister a union it has always- in the whole history of the conciliation and arbitration system- been thought appropriate that that deregistration power be vested in the courts and in nobody else but the courts. The courts have jealously guarded their responsibilities and have exercised this function with a great deal of caution and care over the decades that this has been part of the system. Originally, it was vested in the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration itself and then, following the split of functions in 1956, the power of deregistration was vested very specifically by legislation in the Federal Court.

It is now proposed to vest that power in the Executive itself. The court will have no role at all.

The Commission will have a very limited role. It will have a threshold role of making a declaration if an application is made to it- a declaration which can be satisfied in really the most extraordinarily trivial circumstances- for example, if there are but two or more individual unionists engaged in some form of industrial action which could be taken by the Commission to constitute and to amount to some substantial interference with the health or welfare of the community. Words like ‘substantial’ may appear to lend that clause some colour and some weight as a threshold hurdle, as an obstacle, but that is just not so. When one considers- I am afraid that I do not have the text of the clause before me at the moment- the precise language and the way it is put together one will appreciate that the key word pivots in that clause on the notion of the welfare of the community; indeed, not the community as a whole, but a part of the community. I am indebted to Senator Cavanagh for finding me a copy of proposed new section 143A. The only tests the Commission has to satisfy itself on- they have been established by the Minister- before it makes this declaration are:

  1. an organisation has been or is, or two or more members of it have been or are, engaged in industrial action -

Honourable senators know how wide the definition of industrial action is since the recent amendments to this legislation- and (b) the industrial action has had, is having, or is likely to have, a substantial adverse effect on the safety, health or welfare of the community or of a part of the community . . .

A strike by two milkmen in a country town of 35 people could constitute a substantial threat to the health and welfare of a part of the Australian community. In that situation, what then happens is that once such a declaration is made, after the raw elements of that provision are satisfied, it is open to the Executive government at any time in the next six months to make its own declaration to deregister the whole union concerned, not just that part of it which may have prompted the seeking of the declaration in the first instance and not just if that deregistration decision is relevant to the particular facts or circumstances on which the original declaration was obtained. Once a declaration has been obtained it is a situation of open sesame for the Government at any time thereafter, if the mood so strikes it, without satisfying any additional criteria to proceed unilaterally and ruthlessly to the deregistration of the whole union.

In order to impose any kind of limitation on the width of this section, one has to say that some kind of braking or common sense role will have to be exercised by the Full Bench of the Commission, which just will not find a substantial adverse effect on the community or part of the community if it does not regard it as an appropriate case to justify ultimately the deregistration of the union. But, to read the law in that way and say that it will operate as a threshold test or filter to ensure that the legislation is not abused is to misread completely the responsibilities that this law, as it is explicitly written, vests in the Commission. It is to demand of the Full Bench of the Commission more than any community can demand honestly of its judiciary. It is to demand that the Full Bench perverts its function which, after all, is a very straightforward and explicit one under this legislation.

The reality is that the declaration provision is no brake on the potentially perverse operation of this legislation. The detaining of the declaration will be a simple formality and the Executive government- this Fraser Government- will thereafter have up its sleeve for a remaining six months the opportunity to deregister that particular organisation at any time for any reason it may choose. The language of Mr Justice Staples has been criticised as being extravagant in a number of respects, but he was not extravagant when he described some provisions- in particular this deregistration provision- as appropriate to totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. This point is made in this morning’s Australian Financial Review by an impeccable authority, Mr C. P. Mills, the joint author of standard industrial law working textbook, Federal Industrial Law. In a letter to the Australian Financial Review, Mr Mills stated: (t was encouraging to see in your editorial of 16 October the broad support you offered for the arguments of Mr Justice Staples against the Fraser Government’s Conciliation and Arbitration Bill.

Your one reservation was with respect to the judge’s comparison of the bill with the laws of ‘totalitarian and authoritarian regimes’.

The bill is not as drastic as some laws in force in pre-war Germany, but the technique is the same.

The commission is to be asked to establish a certain factual allegation in relation to a union, and that may be only that a few members of the union have behaved in the way described in the bill.

Then the Government is able to do as it pleases with the union, even to the point of deregistration. Once deregistered, it is not to be allowed to register without government permission.

These powers are absolute.

There are no guidelines for their exercise. There is no right of recourse to a court or to any arbitration tribunal.

The order of the Governor-General will be final, and it is the Governor-General who decides whether the conditions he has laid down for the union have been complied with.

This is the essential mark of a totalitarian, authoritarian regime, even though there is no provision for gas chambers, at least in the present bill.

That is the comment of an objective and highly respected industrial authority about this piece of legislation, and how apt it is. How apt it is for us to pause for just a moment longer in relation to the deregistration provision and note that it contains not only the ultimate sanction of deregistration but also it contains a series of other provisions which vest in the government of the day, once this preliminary easy threshold declaration has been made, a whole series of other powers to do a variety of quite extraordinary things by way of the manipulation of the union’s property and the requirement that it not spend money on particular purposes- for example, particular publications or particular people’s salaries. The government of the day, once this declaration has been made, can unilaterally restrict the rights of any individual member of that union, any group of members or the membership of the union as a whole. It can deny them individually or in groups. It can pick and choose the right to vote in union elections and the right to nominate the position of an office bearer within a union.

There is an enormous range of potential interferences in the domestic conduct of the union which is completely within the competence of the Government to apply at its own discretion if the mood strikes it without having to satisfy any criterion other than its own discretionary whim. I do not think this point has been made by anyone else, but this whole clause raises acute problems of constitutionality for this legislation. It seems to me that it is strongly arguable that these powers- both the threshhold declaration powers by the Commission and the subsequent Executive level powers by the Government- are, in fact, by their very character, powers of a judicial nature and as such are unconstitutionally invested in non-judicial bodies as they are here. I will leave that point for the Government to ponder.

The next aspect of the legislation which demands certainly some reference is the question of back pay and the provision in the Bill which says that the Commission is not to be empowered to make any award or any determination conferring pay on someone for the duration of that person’s having engaged in industrial action. It is this provision which has aroused the greatest rhetorical enthusiasm from the various backwoodsmen and backwoodswomen on the Government benches who have been so anxious to describe and think of all unionists as some kind of industrial gangsters. They are joyous that at least this is one provision which says that the gangsters will get their comeuppance, and here is at least one bit of unjustified enrichment they will not be able to get in the future. Despite its superficial attractions to those who do not think carefully or thoughtfully about its implications, this provision also is wholly bad and unsatisfactory in its operation. It may be that in particular cases it would be wrong, unfair or inappropriate to grant back pay to a striking union as a condition of the settlement. But there are a number of other circumstances where that just is not so. Some of them have been spelt out by Senator Bishop and Senator Douglas McClelland in their earlier contributions to this debate.

The situation is illustrated most classically where there is some industrial safety issue involved which has led the workers on the job to strike, and which issue subsequently has been resolved by the Commission wholly in the union’s favour. Who on the Government benches would stand up in those circumstances and say that that strike was not justified and that the workers should not be entitled to get their full pay for the duration of the strike? Will the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) say it? Who will get up on the other side and say that? Yet, that is what this legislation denies. It is absolute in its scope. It says that the Commission shall not under any circumstances anywhere at any time make an sward or endorse an agreement containing this kind of provision.

There are other circumstances, quite apart from the industrial safety context, in which one could envisage its being appropriate as part of a package settlement that some provision be made for the payment of back pay or a proportion of it. One such instance that comes to mind is a situation where a limited ban has been imposed by the workers in question but where their pay has been wholly stopped on the adoption of this fashionable new no-work no-pay principle. If a worker continues to do 99 per cent of his ordinary job, imposing a ban which represents physically about one per cent, then in the past it has seemed to the Commission, and it seems to me and to the Opposition it is wholly desirable that in the future the Commission should have up its sleeve as one element in the potential armoury of the resolution of that industrial dispute the possibility of paying the workers for the overwhelming proportion of the time they have spent on the job.

The other point to make about the back pay provision is that it is legally absolutely nonsensical. A provision of this kind in the Act will not stand any kind of constitutional challenge to its validity- a point that was made very vigorously by Sir Richard Kirby, a point that has been denied ever since with equal vigour but with a great deal of wrongheadedness by the Government spokesmen. The reality of the matter is that we cannot direct the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission as to what it can or cannot do so far as issues such as this are concerned. To do so is no longer, on any view, to be making a law with respect to the process of conciliation and arbitration. To pass a law in the terms in which the Government here wants to pass it, limiting the power of the Commission to make awards or determinations of this kind, is to make a law directly with respect to the subject of wages. It is not to make a law with respect to the subject matter of the arbitration process.

That can be tested very simply by imagining what would be the status of, let us assume, some further clauses were they to be inserted in this legislation at some future time. What would be the status of a provision which said: ‘The Commission is not empowered to make an award in respect of a claim for additional pay for skill or for working in confined spaces or at heights or for working in heat or dirt or any other disabling condition’? What would be the situation if it were said in legislative form: ‘The Commission shall have no power to make an award in respect of any claim for payment of wages in respect of public holidays worked or in respect of travelling time to or from work or in respect of absence from work for so many days a year for reasons of sickness, or in respect of additional rates of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 a week’? What would be the legal situation were the Government to have the hide to introduce legislative provisions of that kind, saying to the Commission: ‘You shall not make decisions with respect to this situation, that situation, some other situation’? What would be the status of a provision which said: ‘The Commission shall not bring down any award in respect of a claim for an amount in excess of a dollar sum specified from time to time in the regulations’? What would be the status of that? Obviously it would be unconstitutional.

Obviously it would not be a law about conciliation and arbitration but a law directly about wages and conditions, and that is exactly that status of this back pay provision in clause 4 of the Bill, proposed new section 25a. That is exactly why Sir Richard Kirby said that it was a constitutional piece of nonsense and that is exactly why the Attorney-General should hang his head in shame that he should have the folly to bring in such a childishly incompetent piece of legislative drafting containing a provision of that kind. The final provision in this legislation that needs to be mentioned relates to stand-down clauses, and again that is an innocuous looking provision on its face. It says that stand-down clauses in awards shall be determined expeditiously. ‘Expeditiously’ is not a word that has been regarded as innocuous by some tribunal chairmen, in my experience. Mr Gyngell of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal regards his obligation to deal with broadcasting matters expeditiously as justifying his limiting the time for cross-examination by the parties before him, denying rights of reply, and God knows what else. It may be that the conciliation and arbitration commissioners are a little more sensitive to their legal responsibilities.

Senator Mulvihill:

– You don’t think they will transfer him to that other job, do you?

Senator EVANS:

– I do not think I am making any suggestion to that effect. The word ‘expeditiously’ conceals the real significance of this provision. Stand-down clauses are draconian clauses when they appear in awards. This is not something that white collar middle class and professional workers understand very well. When there is a fuel strike, a power strike, a transport strike, or a delay or difficulty in obtaining supplies of raw materials for a particular factory, it is not the white collar workers or the professionals who are stood down, it is the blue collar workers. They understand very well the kinds of disabilities that are associated with a stand-down. A stand-down means that not only is one not working and not getting any pay, but one is also consigned to a kind of limbo land where there is no right to unemployment benefits, no right to take any other employment because the contract of employment with one’s own employer is still on foot, and no right even to treat the period in question as part of one’s leave period or something of that kind. It is a very significant business when a stand-down clause is inserted in an award. The potential injustice and unfairness of a cavalierly inserted stand-down clause has been adverted to numerous times, and I think nowhere more sharply- no pun intended- than by Mr Deputy President Sharp in the case of the distilleries award in 1976. He expressed his view about the pros and cons of stand-down clauses in the following terms:

I do not accept the contention which, in fairness, was not advanced by Mr Park, that standing down employees without pay should be an employer’s right if that were the most convenient way of avoiding economic loss.

That, of course, is the familiar employer’s argument that stand-down clauses ought to be available as of right whenever any potential economic loss is about to be incurred by an employer through industrial action somewhere else or through a failure in supply or something of that kind, that all that should be involved is the right of the employer to rush before the Commission, for everybody to drop everything as fast as possible, for the matter to be dealt with expeditiously- as this legislation will now have it- and for the employer to get his men off his payroll as fast as possible. However, that is not Mr Justice Sharp’s view of the matter. He went on:

The concept that it was managements’ prerogative to use labour at will has had no place in western society for many decades. It has been replaced by the concept that the use of the labour of human beings is a privilege accorded to management on defined terms. One of those terms is that reasonable security of earnings be assured to the labourer. This is the purpose of the notice clause in awards and very substantial grounds must exist for this Commission to include any provision which would enable it to be abrogated, even temporarily, by unilateral action.

There may, however, be circumstances when both the employer and those employed would want to avoid the extreme measure of terminating employment. It is for this situation that stand down provisions should exist and should contain adequate safeguards. If that consensus is not present then, as I have already indicated, this Commission must be persuaded that there are exceptional and substantial reasons based on the facts of that occasion, for its intervention.

That is the key point about stand-down clauses. Because of their very serious nature, there must be exceptional and substantial reasons justifying their insertion. That is the reason why those considerations should be far more important and far more significant than considerations of mere rush and expedition such as will be the case if the legislation is redrawn, in the way that the Government now wants and the employers now want, by the insertion of the proposed new provisions in relation to stand-down.

It is a most unhappy piece of legislation when one looks at it. It is ill drafted, ill thought out, draconian in its implications for unions, and thoroughly nasty in its implications for the independence of the whole conciliation and arbitration system. The present Government’s approach to industrial relations, which once again is revealed in this piece of legislation, is thoroughly unhappy and thoroughly unacceptable, not just to the Labor Party and to the union movement but to any fair-minded person in the community as a whole. The right approach to industrial relations was put by a very prominent Australian in 1 975 in the following terms:

Our view is that satisfactory industrial relations depend ultimately on the attitudes of mind of people in industry.

Attitudes of mutual respect, of willingness to listen, to understand, to reason and to discuss in an informed way are essential.

That, I suggest, is an admirable statement of what industrial relations and the implementation of new industrial relations legislation ought to be all about. The statement was made by none other than Malcolm Fraser, the present Prime Minister, in August 1975. He was making a preelection address to an industrial relations convention in Perth. It is a great pity that here as elsewhere the reality of the performance has been so different from the promise and the pretended understanding.

This piece of legislation represents a complete negation of respect, a complete negation of willingness to consult with those in the community who will be hit hard by this legislation and a complete negation of any willingness to cooperate in the rational solution of industrial problems. The only way they can be solved- as we have said over and over again in this chamber- is by co-operation and not confrontation.

Senator WATSON:
Tasmania

-I rise in support of these amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act with a deep sense of concern that some individual members of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission are acting in such a way as to require legislative enactment to ensure that, amongst other things, they indulge in a normal consultative process. One of the main reasons for industrial disruption in Australia is, naturally enough, demands for wage increases. In addition to the many disputes about the conditions of employment, the demands are often linked with the wage fixation principle. All disputes have an economic cost, but not all have the same impact, direction, consequence, scope or effect. The final outcome of disputes may even be a lessening of employment opportunities because the economic wage increase impact on the employer could induce him to introduce further technology to replace workers or cause him to reduce the scale of his operations. It could even cause this provider of labour to go out of business altogether.

We also have to consider the impact of industrial disputes on such matters as the consumer price index and inflation. Inflation is the hidden thief of one’s life savings, the destroyer of sound long-term decision-making and of business confidence, the conjuror of stable economic relativities, the tax man’s opportunity to bite even deeper into the wage earner’s pocket, and the disappearing opportunity for the average Australian to own his own home. Thus, industrial disputation directly and indirectly affects consumers and investment confidence. It affects also our international trade, capital movements and, ultimately, the balance of payments.

Let us look at the effect of some strikes on the community. Let us look firstly at the effects on the consumer price index. These can be gauged by taking some examples. The two months strike by 600 brewery workers in Queensland who sought service grants and a laundering allowance added 35 points to the December CPI. In another case rural workers were seriously affected by strikes at the Grain Elevators Board in New South Wales. This dispute involved 1,500 members of the Australian Workers Union and caused serious disruption to harvesting, duplication of handling facilities and put at risk a substantial proportion of the New South Wales wheat harvest for that year. Consumers have been inconvenienced by strikes by the Storemen and Packers Union at Woolworths stores which involved superannuation implications and resulted in wage increases ranging from $6 to $10. The nature, frequency, duration and timing of disputes have a significant impact upon the economy.

Why should unions be above the law? As some of the resolutions adopted at the Labor Party Conference recently held in Adelaide tend to suggest, the majority of the Opposition detests, and rightly so, monopoly influence and monopoly power, but not when it is the sole preserve of the union movement. Unions in Australia have acquired a monopoly power over the supply of labour similar to that which the 1 9th century industrialists had on the demand side for labour. However, this unique position of a monopoly power over the supply of labour must never place the unions above the law. Some communist-led union bosses often use their power in pursuit of social and political changes; they use the benefits and privileges afforded by industrial legislation which is designed to protect the economic interests of their members.

Regrettably I foresee a great increase in industrial disputation toward the end of this year. ^Quorum formed). The departure from the union scene of such moderates as John Ducker is an indication of the growing influence of the far Left. Bob Hawke ‘s leaving the Australian Council of Trade Unions can hardly be seen as a unifying or moderating influence on ACTU policy.

Senator Georges:

– I raise a point of order. The honourable senator has been a member of this chamber long enough to be able to make his speech without reading it. If he intends putting forward that sort of material he should give it to us straight and not read from a prepared statement.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Jessop)- There is no point of order. It is the custom in this place to allow reference to notes. I draw the attention of Senator Watson to that point and ask him to refrain from reading from notes that are too copious.

Senator McLaren:

– It is also the custom to table those copious notes at the end of the speech.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I have made my ruling. I call Senator Watson.

Senator WATSON:

– I believe that there is such great community focus on what we may refer to as the national wage cases that frequently we lose sight of the fact that significant wage increases occur outside the ambit of national wage case increases. I refer to the overaward payments and over-award rates that apply. In Australia we are moving increasingly to what might be referred to as a centralised wage fixing system. We often find that exceptional or particular circumstances in one area soon become exceptional or particular circumstances in other areas and thus flow across industry boundaries to quite a marked extent. On the other hand, I acknowledge that there has been a substantial reduction in payments for margins of skills that apply to skilled tradesmen, and this I regret. All too often we find highly trained technicians and tradesmen in situations where they are getting less money than those who are occupying positions in more sedentary occupations. I think there is some merit in the system which operated some years ago in which we had a basic wage concept and a margin for skill. I believe that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission must give greater attention to this aspect of rewarding skill. The claim by many wage earners -

Senator Gietzelt:

– Are you now in favour of increased wages?

Senator WATSON:

– I believe it is appropriate that we take a balanced approach.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Are you going to tell the court what to do?

Senator WATSON:

-If the honourable senator will permit me time he will hear me cite figures which are actually in favour of certain claims for which he is arguing. There are many claims that wage earners are losing their relativities. For example, it is well known that the consumer price index rose by 7.9 per cent in the year ended 31 December 1978. But average wage earnings increased by 8.8 per cent in the relevant year and average weekly ordinary time earnings increased by 9.3 per cent.

At present we appear to be very much in the grip of a continuous series of industrial disputations which have caused serious economic disruption. I submit that the number of these industrial disputations is very much greater than the official figures reveal. Information which is provided by and available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that there is an upward movement in the number of disputes. In 1976 there were 2,055, in 1977 there were 2,090, in 1978 there were 2,277 and the provisional figures for the 12 months to 30 June 1978 indicate that the number of industrial disputes will be even higher. However, the statistics issued by the Bureau refer to disputes involving 10 or more man days lost. There are literally hundreds of disputes which do not fall within that category and of which no particular record is taken. Not all disputes are picked up by the ABS collection techniques. For example, stoppages which occur at different times and in different establishments but which have a common cause are recorded as one dispute. Workers who are protected in jobs or sectional groups which form a small segment of a total industry are often in a position to press for wage increases which the remainder of the community can ill afford, especially in these times of high unemployment.

We find that precedents set by members of the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association of Australasia or by unions working in such industries as the oil industry or the transport industry often give rise to monetary increments that workers in other industries naturally feel they are entitled to receive. Consequently, as I mentioned earlier, we have a spreading right across industry boundaries. The result of the 1 978 transport dispute was a scenario of disputes before, during and following the hearing which in December last year granted $8 per week to drivers and $5.50 to all the other classifications. On the very day that the increases were granted they flowed through to other State transport awards, for example, in New South Wales. Other awards were increased either by consent or by arbitration as a result of this federal precedent. The figures suggest that a further 12 federal awards, including the mixed industries transport award which applies across practically the whole ambit of the manufacturing sector in Australia, were increased by amounts similar to those awarded in the airlines settlement.

Senator Georges:

– Why not?

Senator WATSON:

– As I mentioned earlier, we often have particular or exceptional circumstances in one industry which do not necessarily apply right across the spectrum.

The first part of the Bill before us today concerns compliance with principles or guidelines which are set down by the Full Bench. The purpose of this is to prevent the inevitable industrial turmoil which will take place as a result of commissioners making independent decisions or leap-frogging decisions made by their associates. I believe that through the procedural mechanism of a commissioner’s consulting with his deputy president we must inevitably get a situation of far greater uniformity in commissioners’ decisions. I believe it is blatantly unfair that an employee who works under an award granted by one commissioner should receive a higher amount than that awarded by another commissioner. Unfortunately this sort of decision is not checked. I cannot see any reason why it has not been checked within the Commission’s proceedings. It can lead to discontent within the community. I believe that the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) in the other place had some problems with the term ‘consult’. Perhaps this is understandable, as I believe that during the Labor Party’s term of office it did not consult with the then National Labour Advisory Council. It did not do so even during 1974 when I understand something like six million days were lost through industrial disputes. So much for that lack of consultation.

There has been a cry from the unions that they had no input into these legislative amendments. I must remind them that they were invited to attend meetings with this tripartite National Labour Consultative Council at which the proposed amendments were discussed. I believe that on two occasions the Minister wrote to such bodies as the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations, but to no avail. The executive members of the unions simply stayed away.

I wish to draw attention to the consequences that arise from some of the disputes which have made this Bill necessary. I refer first to the action of Commissioner Deverall in the case of the Transport Workers (Airlines) Award 1978 under which a wide range of increases- as much as $23 a week- were granted. The Full Bench guidelines were circumvented by the expedient of restructuring the classifications in the award. Thus, compensation was paid for increases in what were referred to as flexibility of work arrangements. We not only have work value arrangements; we also have flexibility in work arrangements. That is how Commissioner Deverall circumvented the guidelines. The decision was appealed against and, as a result of the appellant body following the normal guidelines which Commissioner Deverall might have been expected to apply, substantial reductions in the increases were made. Naturally, widespread disputation followed. One cannot really blame the union members for that under such circumstances. If Commissioner Deverall had been required to consult, as is proposed under new section 22A, many of the problems which resulted could have been averted. The Bill does not provide for a direction to be given to a deputy president. It merely requires that to ensure a degree of uniformity, a certain consultative process shall be followed. Proposed new section 22A, as honourable senators should be made well aware, provides: 22a. Where-

  1. a Commissioner proposes to make an award,

    1. . making provision for, or altering, the rates of wages or the conditions applicable in relation to employees in a particular industry or group of industries; and
    2. that industry or group of industries, as the case may be, has been assigned under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 23 to a panel of members of the Commission, the Commissioner shall, before making the award or certifying the memorandum of agreement, whether or not he is a member of that panel, consult with the Presidential Member who is a member of that panel.

Presidential members of panels are effectively in charge. They have a close understanding of the awards and know the particular exigencies of the industry to which they apply those awards. They also have a full knowledge of the principles of wage fixation.

Another provision of the Bill relating to strike pay amends section 33 of the principal Act and emphasises that a commissioner shall act as expeditiously as is appropriate, noting all of the relevant circumstances and, further, that the matter may be referred to the Full Bench on application to the President. I emphasise the term ‘may be’. There are a few strikes- I underline the word few’- that enjoy a measure of community support or sympathy. An example was the air traffic controllers’ dispute in protest against a successful Public Service Board appeal which removed a $205 per annum allowance granted specifically to cover loss of licence through illness. That action appeared to be somewhat harsh and unjust. The air traffic controllers found certain difficulties with it and went on strike. One may argue whether that was the appropriate course to take, but that there was a grievance and an injustice was recognised. Lest it be said that I am a continual union basher, I state that I recognise that in every dispute there is some measure of genuine complaint. But quite often we find that, as the matter moves through the industrial spectrum, the initial problem is often lost sight of and other issues come to the forefront.

Let us consider two building industry cases which occurred in Victoria. One concerned Costain Pty Ltd and the other Lewis Construction Pty Ltd. They resulted in commissioners ordering payments for lost time as a result of stoppages. But let me emphasise that, as I see it, the purpose of the anti-strike pay provisions is threefold. First, they are designed to give employees protection against the termination of their employment contracts. Employers in this and other industries are increasingly likely in such situations to sack people, who thus lose their rights and accrued benefits. The second purpose is to minimise the loss to the employer. The third is to encourage unionists to exercise a degree of moderation. I must emphasise that these standdown provisions are not granted automatically, for example, to help an employer overcome a loss situation.

Senator Mulvihill:

– How long should a stoppage last before the employer should seek that stand down?

Senator WATSON:

-Obviously, as the honourable senator knows because of his industrial background, the circumstances will vary from case to case. The actual date of commencement of a dispute is often open to question. I propose to quote remarks of Chief Justice Barwick which I believe to be relevant to the question that the honourable senator has just raised. Chief Justice Barwick said:

Mere dissatisfaction with existing conditions and a desire for higher rates of pay do not give rise to a relevant dispute until that point of time at which the real and specific demands of members of the union have been denied by the employers. Nothing less in relation to rates of pay can give rise to a dispute which will warrant a dispute in the jurisdiction of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

Certain of these amendments do help to resolve the sometimes difficult problem as to when a dispute arises. To overcome serious inequities and problems that can be caused as a result of protracted discussions at the conciliation stage, these amendments provide that, to decide whether the proceedings are at the conciliation or the arbitration stage, the matter can be referred to a Full Bench. It is important to note that this provision has been brought down in response to the particularly severe Telecom dispute. Mr Justice Staples was one of the offenders. The proposed amendments have some relevence, to his actions. Unfortunately, he saw fit to make somewhat unprecedented statements and to draw an analogy with the situation in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Fortunately, not all of his associates agree with the depth of the criticism that Mr Justice Staples has levelled at this legislation. But I suppose that such criticisms are not surprising when one considers Mr Justice Staples’ very radical background. As my colleague, Senator Walters, mentioned last night, Mr Justice Staples is a former member of the Communist Party. He has continued to be a controversial character ever since he joined the Commission, I believe in 1975. It culminated in his -

Senator Chipp:

– I rise to a point of order. I do not like interrupting any senator’s speech. The references to a member of the Bench made by the senator could set a precedent which would be very hard to prevent another senator following in the future. I bring that to your attention.

Senator Walters:

– I wish to speak to the point of order. From what I can recall, Senator Watson just said that Mr Justice Staples was a member of the Communist Party. Some people may consider that a derogatory term; others may not. Some members of the Opposition may certainly not consider that a derogatory term. Senator Watson also said that he was a controversial figure.

Senator Chipp:

– With a radical background.

Senator Walters:

– And with a radical background. Again, that would not necessarily mean any detriment to Mr Justice Staples. Radical, in what sense of the word? Controversial, in what sense of the word? It is absolutely ridiculous to construe both those comments as being detrimental in any form.

Senator Grimes:

– On the point of order, Senator Chipp raised a matter which has been raised in this place many times in the past of comments made about members of the judiciary. I am one who believes that the debate should be free and open in this place and we should be able to say exactly what we want. Many times people on this side of the House in particular have been stopped from making almost any comments about members of the judiciary. I give Senator Walters and others fair warning that if that is the sort of tactic honourable senators opposite want in this place they will get it and they will get it back from this side of the House. I would suggest that Senator Walters sits in a fairly large glass house in this regard. I ask you, Mr Acting Deputy President, to consider seriously Senator Chipp ‘s remark, at least to the extent of warning members of the Government that there can be two sides to this sort of thing.

Senator Durack:

– I wish to speak on the point of order. I am not clear of the point Senator Chipp was taking or the actual gravamen of the point of order. If it is in general terms that there cannot be critical comments of the judiciary, it would be too wide. I refer particularly to the fact that Senator Evans, in an earlier speech in this debate, saw fit to incorporate in Hansard, into the record of these proceedings, the full text of Mr Justice Staples’ letter and comments that he has made. That has been introduced into this debate specifically by Senator Evans and, therefore, it is quite proper that the views Mr Justice Staples has expressed would be the subject of vigorous debate and obviously dissent on the part of a number of honourable senators. Therefore it is inevitable that that has been brought into this debate. Views may be expressed in relation to it and the sort of comments that Senator Watson has made, I would submit, have been quite well within the bounds of reasonable debate.

Senator Georges:

– May I -

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Jessop)- I think, Senator Georges, we have had enough discussion.

Senator Georges:

– I have a right to speak on the point of order.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I feel I have heard enough to make a determination and I ask the honourable senator to resume his seat. I have taken note of -

Sentor Georges- The point I wish to make has not been made.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I can interrupt the discussion on the point of order.

Senator Georges:

– You can read my mind now- is that it?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I have heard enough to make a decision. I recognise the concern expressed by Senator Chipp. The ruling in this place in the past has always been that one should refrain from making any derogatory statements with respect to the judiciary. References have been made on both sides of the House to the judiciary and it is difficult to avoid it in this sort of circumstance. I would like Senator Watson to continue and to refrain from any remarks that could be regarded as derogatory.

Senator WATSON:

-Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. With your permission I think it is appropriate for this chamber to consider some of the remarks that have been made by Mr Justice Staples and point out where at least one senator believes he is wide of the mark on matters of his interpretation. I point out an area of difference or discrepancy between Mr Justice Staples’ interpretation of these amendments and mine.

Senator Georges:

– There is nothing wrong with that but do not try to establish some previous bias of Mr Justice Staples based on his previous political affiliations.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-

Order! Your interjection is disorderly, Senator Georges. I want you to remember that. Senator Watson may continue his remarks but should bear in mind what I said about any derogatory remarks.

Senator WATSON:

-Mr Justice Staples was relating to governments’ requiring justices to fulfil the will of the state or the will of the Government. This is not the intention at all of this legislation. It is purely requiring a consultative process between a commissioner and a deputy president. I think it must be remembered -and I acknowledge the fact- that the Commission is constitutionally independent of government matters. Let us proceed further in relation to deregistration. The Minister must apply section 5 1 of the Constitution which provides for reference of matters to the independent Full Bench for a declaration. So the emphasis is on the Full Bench. It has got to make the decision. There is no requirement, there is no pressure.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Where does the Constitution say that?

Senator WATSON:

-The Constitution provides for the independence of the judiciary and its function is to decide the legal matters. It is the interpretation of the Constitution to provide it, and this Parliament to legislate it. In relation to this matter of deregistration the words used must refer to a substantial effect on safety, health and welfare of the community or part of the community. On the other hand, the referral of an industrial dispute because of special reasons to the President is not unreasonable because, after all, he is the head of the show, the head of the organisation and must always be in a position to step in and take over when special reasons or occasion demands. Otherwise what is he? He is a head in name only.

It has also been mentioned that Sir Richard Kirby has questioned the constitutional validity of some of these amendments. These were made, I believe, at a very early stage in the proceedings. He may not have had the opportunity of studying the full details involved because they were made at a very early stage. Most of the amendments refer merely to procedural matters. I think this is important because none of the provisions are designed to control, they are merely procedural matters. They are not designed to control a commissioner by limiting his discretionary powers in relation to prevention and settlement of disputes. A commissioner is not subject to a direction; it is just a requirement that he consult with his presidential colleague before making a decision.

In 1976 the High Court examined this matter and stated that the legislature has the power to make laws directing the Commission with respect to procedural matters, but may not direct the Commission on how to settle disputes.

Let us go back a few years, which I think may assist us in understanding the present problems. The consensus of wages policy of the 1960s was no longer acceptable when we came to the 1970s because the 1970s saw a situation of wage increases with both State and Federal governments in many cases acting as the pace setters with the consequent flow-on to the private sector. We find that 1 974, the year of the Federal Labor Government, was the worst year for industrial disputation since statistics were first collected in 1929. To overcome the situation the Commission introduced wage indexation against quite strong opposition from the employers’ group, because this employers’ group regarded the move as quite inflationary. But the aim was to introduce a highly centralised system of wage fixation in Australia. It had the attribute of trying to ensure a maintenance of living standards and that increases were related to movements in the consumer price index. The extent to which the Commission has achieved these objectives must be said to be questionable to some extent.

Now, with the partial recovery of the Australian economy, we find the situation is that many unionists are trying to initiate wage increases outside the national wage cases. In some circumstances tribunals have used work value or work flexibility reasons to escape the Full Bench guidelines on wage restraint. As I mentioned earlier, a sectional victory can give rise to a flow-on across industry boundaries to other related industries. There is certainly a need for a wages policy which has general community support, but the first step will be to obtain a general consensus about a national wages policy.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I suppose I could have demolished Senator Watson’s address with a simple interjection, ‘in the 1972-75 era when the Labor Government sought to enact an incomes and prices policy, did he vote yes in relation to the proposals that were put forward?’ If he voted no he has to live with the society to which he is objecting. If I can take that point a little further, if anybody likes to go into a well-established library or museum, he would see what I suppose one could call wartime propaganda, which showed the difference between the Nazi ideology and ours. It showed two first-class machinists working at their lathes. One was working without any supervision and the other had behind him a German SS official with a pistol. I think most of us interpreted that to mean that the chap who did not have the SS man alongside his lathe had freedom to negotiate.

Senator Watson referred to the difference in wage gains between the 1950s and the 1970s. One of the things that he forgets is something that could have been epitomised in government instrumentalities. I am using the New South Wales railways as an example. I refer to the high ratio of apprentices in the metal trades. When they became journeymen, it was the pirating by private enterprise that enticed them to work for private enterprise which offered higher rates. The fact of the matter was that the ultimate flowthrough in the last decade, at least to public utilities and government instrumentalities so that they could maintain the skilled staff” that he talked about, helped to maintain wage parity. If the Whitlam Government tried to institute some wage restraint but did not get it, one cannot blame the Labor Government; the blame lies with the greed of private enterprise.

If we take the matter a little further and talk about the art of protest, it was conceded as a result of some interjections that generally there is some reason for a dispute. I wonder whether we can remain too meek? There is a massive inquiry in progress at the moment in regard to the latest mining fatality at the Appin colliery in New South Wales. This is significant, because it is one of the few occasions that the trade union movement has gone along with a situation in an industry which traditionally is militant. The trade union movement has been fairly easy going about coal production. But, as it is coming out in the evidence, when safety issues are sacrificed for production, there is likely to be a fatality. I commend to the Senate the story of representative Hatcher, a Kentucky congressman, who in some instances had to fight the United Mineworkers as well as the Mining Department in Washington over safety issues in the United States. We have always boasted that our trade unions were more militant than their counterparts in the United States. One of the reasons is that our trade unions have not been prepared to bargain with safety.

This is one of the matters that Senator Bishop was referring to yesterday when he mentioned these snap decisions, if they can be called that, to walk off the job because of greasy conditions in a marshalling yard or some unsafe practice in a chemical factory. On a number of those occasions- there are not a lot of them- we find that the Conciliation Commissioner makes an order that the particular employer has to pay wages for the shift that has been lost. But there is a salutary lesson in other ways. Take it a little further and let us talk about the right of the employee to involve himself in disputes. One matter that has not been touched upon by Government supporters is that these days we have a much better educated and a more highly articulate rank and file. Whether we refer to the golden tongue of Bob Hawke or to a paid trade union official, we are getting the type of young trade unionist today who is capable and well read. He probably does not want to be a shop steward, much less a paid union official on the receiving end of any trouble, as he so often is. I can assure the Senate that he is the stabiliser, the ballast, in union affairs, and when an interim agreement is produced he will not always buy it. There is nothing unusual about that. Within one’s own family circle, when the idea is tossed around of whether the family can afford a new room or a new roof on the house, the idea has to be sold to other members of the family. It always amazes me that when a trade union secretary comes back with an agreement it is expected that the rank and file should grab at it.

There is nothing new about this. If we go back to 1 926 we learn that it was not then the Pommy shop steward syndrome; it was the overseas-born officials, Johnson and Walsh, of the maritime industry who were in the public eye. Australia became involved in an international seamen’s dispute. That was not the cause of the Depression. When I came into this Senate there was a senator from Western Australia named Branson. He had an obsession about the Mt Isa strike and what it would do for evermore to our metaliferous mining industry. Within 12 months there was a violent fluctuation in world copper prices, since when I have not heard anyone say that we ruined Mt Isa for evermore. I know that Senator Cavanagh knows as well as everyone else here that the Australian Workers Union made structural changes in its union and the State Industrial Commission of Queensland was belatedly changed a little bit, too. There were mistakes, but let us not get this idea that we are doomed if we have incessant protests.

When I use the expression ‘trade unionist’ I use it in a very broad sense. I can assure the Senate that very few trade unionist traffic controllers or airline pilots could be called leftists. I am certain that they do not read the Tribune or the Vanguard for their trade union inspiration. I doubt whether very many of them even vote for my Party. But that does not stop them, if they have a grievance, from exploiting it to the full. I think all honourable senators know that. But I want to take this a little further. There is a history of uncertainty through every echelon of people who are working for an employer, and the reason is quite simple. The Government should have got the message when the Telecom dispute first started. A few people in the professions were pretty lucky, and probably honourable senators were too, but outside of that people began to wonder what their future might be. We have heard successive Ministers for Labour saying that by the time a person of 20 had reached 60 years of age he probably would have had to be retrained twice, if not three times. Let us go a little further and see how these clouds have developed.

The Opposition has been trying to get answers during Estimates committee meetings in relation to particular areas of employment and industrial relations and also immigration. I am talking now about rivalry for work and manifestations of bitterness, difficulties, or the attitude of ‘protect what you have got’. The Government is talking about restructuring industry. I struck this last week in relation to The Federated Rubber and Allied Workers Union of Australia. I pay tribute to Ian Viner for trying very hard. Seven hundred people were to be redeployed and they will be. They are people who have not done an apprenticeship and would receive a wage less than that of the normal metal trades worker. Some of them would receive wages fairly close to those of a tradesman’s rate of pay. I am referring to a tyre builder. In the case I am referring to, if one tried to get the workers to move from Firestone to Goodyear one may succeed in getting them accepted but they would be a lower grade. The Government would say: ‘Good, they have got a job’.

The Government espouses the private enterprise syndrome but if people cannot meet their hire purchase or home payments the economy will be further compounded. The Government has the quaint idea that if it downgrades people and abolishes penalty rates and this is accepted by the trade union movement things will be all right. But the trade union movement certainly will not accept it. If it did, does the Government realise the secondary effect when people get behind in home payments in this hire purchase economy? It will not gain what it is after. As a matter of fact, the Chilean Government tried to do this well ahead of this Government and the Chilean economy is now worse than that of any other Latin American country. I know that Senator Evans went to great lengths, rightly, to say that we have not reached the Hitler era yet. I know that some people are thinking about it and that some economists are looking at what is espoused in the Latin American countries. That will not work either.

Senator Watson said that he could not see a very pleasant and tranquil future in industrial relations for Australia over the next 12 months. I cannot either. This was manifest in Queensland when there was competition for jobs in canneries. I do not think Queensland senators helped in that situation. I can assure the Government that the Opposition will not argue as to whether a native born Australian, a refugee or a post-war migrant of 1 5 years is the best worker. Unless the Government can solve the restructure problem and provide jobs, people will not be giving up their jobs and they will argue more about severance pay. Consider the situation in Sydney at the moment of semi-skilled people in the printing industry. The situation has almost reached the stage where a score is kept on how many times a girl goes to the toilet or whinges about having to pick up a heavier than normal weight. We cannot have an army of labour and industrial inspectors visiting these places.

Government senators spoke about the flexibility of conciliation commissioners. Senator Watson spoke about the Grain Elevators Board in Sydney. I interjected and said that the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Wran- an extremely progressive Premier- had said that some people are still living in the 1 9th century. What I did not say was that by appointing a commissioner rich in trade union experience and giving him reasonable flexibility- I refer to Mr Commissioner William Rigby- a reasonable formula was reached.

I wonder if Government senators envisage what I see as a possible script for an industrial disputation in the future. It is something like this; the rank and file members of a union will say: Go back and try for something better’. This could take place in Melbourne or Sydney. The President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the federal secretary of the particular union, rank and file delegates and federal councillors could be present. By 1 1.30 p.m. everyone is tired and they are close to a settlement. Does the Government say that if the conciliation commissioner then has to try to reach half a dozen other people his credibility will not be on the line? Believe me, if the commissioner goes straight to bed the next day Mr Street or Mr Fraser will say: ‘That is no good’. The commissioner will be back to square one again. That is what the Government will get if it wants it that way.

Let us consider the duration of strikes. You can talk about the Waterside Workers Federation. It does not matter who you talk about. On one hand Government supporters argue about whether everyone participates in a decision. I think that the Government would find that does happen with waterside workers. But it does not matter whether it is the waterside workers, the operative painters or the bus and tram union employees. One cannot get away from one fact; it is good enough to have protracted discussions in the court but what about when everybody gets back to the local football oval where meetings are held sometimes? Those concerned have a second look.

I will give a classic case. The Government has the idea that because of some ill-fated strike there is a scar on the economy for evermore. Consider the dispute in Sydney over one-man buses. A conciliation commissioner, I think it was Mr Littleton, gave, I think, $3.50, and then somebody else had a go and the amount went up to $7. There was still resistance because enough people in the union realised that such buses constituted a severe hazard for travellers. Because the driver had bad rear vision facilities and there was no conductor a few fatalities occurred. Big compensation payments were made. Then, over a period of time the employer changed the manning. The message is that a dispute is not always over money. There can be disputes over manning.

In the manufacturing industry today there is competition and rivalry for jobs. As late as last night I spoke to one of the Government Ministers. I also spoke to a Labour Council official from Sydney this morning. There is intense competition and downgrading. If someone realises that his position will be restructured and he will go down two grades, he will look for someone to blame. I do not want to see any racialism evolve- I do not think anybody in this chamber does- but the Government should not run away with the idea that it will be able to confine the problem, that it will have a perfect blueprint.

I want to refer to Mr Justice Ludeke. He is not a pinko like one might sometimes think of people with a university background. I think that Mr Justice Ludeke had a very respectable right wing background but he debunked all that the Government said about these gigantic plots. Whichever way one looks at it, militancy is not something peculiar to any particular age group or trade union. In fact, the term ‘middle class militant’ is here to stay. I simply say: Various things were tried in 1926 and Senator Douglas McClelland referred to the situation in 1 929 but we cannot use the limitations of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act to overcome various unrest in the community. When it comes to innovation and gaining the confidence of people I immediately think of the 1946-47 area when the Chifley Labor Government introduced a large squad of conciliation commissioners. That system served its purpose for a number of years. There is no question about that. But that does not mean that what was good then should apply now.

The Government talks about featherbedding and small agreements that have been made but it cannot get away from the fact that in 1 947 the working week was reduced to 40 hours. There has been no reduction- official, anyway- in working hours since. The Government would admit, surely, considering the technological progress that has gone on, that at the time of the upheaval in regard to automation in Telecom Australia there was justification for calling on it to make some far reaching statement. As a matter of fact, the trade union movement has not been as militant as it may have been in regard to the shorter working week. The difficulty is that the Government is dealing with these problems piecemeal. Whether it be highly skilled technicians or people who are semi-skilled in manufacturing industry, they all ask: ‘What does the future hold for me?’

It amazes me that the Government and its Ministers are insisting on battling through, like Churchill at the time of Dunkirk, to get a decision on this Bill tonight. The Government did not show such insistence when the trade union movement argued about overdue reform such as union amalgamation. The more reconstruction of industry there is, the more secondary problems there will be. Trade unions, rightly, will be protecting their own planks. After all, there are often alternatives. The Government will not offer any alternatives. It has the punishment syndrome. It has to make people comply.

We talk about a changing industrial climate. I do not know whether honourable senators opposite have read Pat Huntley’s industrial newsletter. This is probably a free plug. He refers to the Pilbara syndrome and to interviews with rank and file members and their wives, and even overseers and their wives. He refers to loneliness and problems that arise with people in distant areas. Yet the Government continues this private enterprise syndrome. This syndrome is injected into the community by means of the television camera. Appeals are made to people who want to get money quickly for six months and then move on. One of our greatest problems is mobility of labour. Disputes are not the only problem. If the Government is going to argue and boast about a free society, well, that is it. All these chickens are coming home to roost.

Ever since the Monk era- it has continued in the days of Bob Hawke- the Government has been creating the idea that every trade union secretary is trying to con his members. The Government has created a Frankenstein monster. I do not dispute that Jack is as good as his master. The Government thinks that every time there is a dispute a trade union secretary can go back to his members, just blow a whistle and have everyone fall out on the football field. That is not on and it never will be. Of course this situation is intensified now because trade union officials are better educated.

I take the matter a little further. We look enviously sometimes at the trade union movement in Western European countries, but we cannot get away from the fact that the greatest injustice of all has been caused by the Fraser Government. In Western Europe the state picks up the tab, by taxation, for medical and health charges. The people there are not in the desperate position of the people here when it comes to health insurance. Whenever the Australian Medical Association goes in for its cut the people have to adjust their finances a little more. This causes uncertainty. Senator Watson talked about somebody getting an extra $2.50 and somebody else getting $5, but there is a steady nibbling away at what one gets. If this Government wanted to do something positive it would have kept its word when it was returned to office in 1975 and emulated Western Europe and the United Kingdom by having a set policy whereby the state provides universal health insurance via taxation. Let us take the situation of an unmarried girl aged about 37 years who is living in a flat in a capital city and who is earning a minimum amount. Perhaps she is a process worker or semiskilled worker in the printing industry. Each time the Government meddles with the health funds, as it does, it creates more and more uncertainty with her. That is why she is so concerned about her $2 or $3 margin, as are many other people. If the Government offered something concrete and stabilised the situation it may resolve a lot of these disputes.

Another rather deep-seated problem exists in the employment sphere and the Government does not seem to realise it. I refer to employment opportunities for refugees. We cannot get any detailed figures from the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs, much less the rank and file, about that. The Government has a commitment and I do not cavel at that. The Government is bringing in 14,000 refugees for whom jobs skills is not a factor, and lam not saying that it should be. The Government has to place them in employment. In doing so the Government is lining them up with school leavers and the surplus employees from the reconstructed manufacturing industries, including the clothing and textiles industry. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) and some honourable senators say that we have to lower tariffs. The Government is entitled to make such decisions, but if it thinks that it can expect the Opposition to tell the rank and file to be docile when they do not know in advance about some reconstruction schemes it is wrong. We will not have industrial harmony until they do. I know that in the Committee stage of this Bill my colleagues with legal know-how, such as Senator Evans, will certainly ram home all the other inadequacies of this legislation. I am simply giving a dose of workshop psychology and pointing out what the fears of the people really are. The Government has not come up with answers to these matters. For that reason, it cannot expect the trade union movement to remain docile. Quite frankly, if the trade unions do not move in and protect their flanks, nobody else will.

Senator WATSON (Tasmania)-Mr Acting Deputy President, I wish to make a personal explanation.

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

Senator WATSON:

-Yes, by Senator Mulvihill during his speech. I think that he associated my views with supporting a restructuring of industry. I wish to deny that most strongly.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

-On 22 March 1977, 1 resigned from the Liberal Party of Australia. That was not the end of the matter. I resigned from the Liberal Party not only because I was disenchanted with its policies and procedures but also because I was totally disenchanted with Parliament as it exists and performs today. I felt that it was a total and utter waste of time, a waste of a good life, to come here when the result of a most important debate or matter was already predetermined. No matter what sort of eloquence and logic is expressed in a debate, the result is already predetermined. I believe- I will speak to this briefly in a moment- that that classic situation exists with the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill.

As I understand it- I have been saying this for two years- four massive crises will hit Australia within the next four or five years. I predict and have predicted for some time that there will be one million unemployed young people by 1982. 1 predict that there will be industrial disputation of a kind that we have never seen in this country because of the erosion of the real wage, the vacuum left by the resignation of Mr Bob Hawke from the Australian Council of Trade Unions and other factors. That industrial disputation could well paralyse this country. I can see an energy crisis of catastrophic proportions coming upon this nation and a heroin problem which will be too terrible to contemplate.

I mention those four crises because this Bill impinges on two of them. None of those crises will be solved or prevented unless we can depoliticise some of the big issues that are coming before this Parliament. Drugs, industrial disputation and unemployment have to be depoliticised if we are to go anywhere at all. That is why for the last two years I have made the call, which I am pleased to know is now supported by distinguished Australians such as Sir Roderick Carnegie and Mr Bob Hawke, that the only way in which those crises can be prevented is by having an on-going national conference of all political parties, of employers and of the trade union to see whether some consensus can be achieved to prevent the unemployment which will be caused not only by the economic policies of this Government or a following government but also by automation and computerisation. The figures are there. Surveys conducted in Europe show that jobs will not be there for one-third of all the clerical work force four years from now. That computation and other factors show that we face the situation that in 1982 one million young Australians will be wanting a job that is not there for them. That, to me, is not a stable society. It is a society of haves and have-nots. That sort of society cannot be a stable one. This Bill is important because it impinges on both the employment situation and the industrial disputation situation. I believe that we need more conciliation and more consultation; yet this Bill provides less of both.

Let me dwell briefly on the circumstances in which the Senate is debating this Bill. I think that the circumstances are almost unprecedented for a major Bill going through this Parliament. First of all, we have a member of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission who is, as Senator Watson has said, controversial and who is not frightened to express himself using the most extreme language- I do not want to canvass whether he was justified in doing that- in taking the unprecedented step of condemning a Bill before the national Parliament. That condemnation has been made public to the extent that every member of the Parliament has received a copy of his letter to the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Street. Added to that mix is the fact that 25 commissioners have joined in the song and have expressed grave misgivings about this Bill.

Senator Gietzelt:

– That has never happened before.

Senator CHIPP:

– It has never happened before, to my knowledge, in the case of industrial relations. But it goes even further. Last night there was a meeting in camera between the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, Sir John Moore, and the Minister. Sir John Moore specially discussed matters of concern- we do not know whether they are matters of personal concern but they are certainly the concern of the Commission- with the Minister for Industrial Relations. In that scenario we were told this morning that the Bill must pass through the Senate today. Given the extraordinary circumstances, I would have thought that the government would give a reason to honourable senators on this side of the House as to why it must be passed today. The Government did not even attempt to dress-up a reason, such as the legislative program or some other thing. There was not a single word on it. I challenge the speaker who follows me in this debate, whoever he may be, to tell honourable senators whether he knows the reason why this Bill must be passed before the Senate rises tomorrow morning.

Senator Messner:

– Did you see Senator Durack ‘s statement earlier?

Senator CHIPP:

– Indeed I did. I am going to come back to that right now. Does the honourable senator mean the statement which was made by Senator Durack on behalf of Mr Street?

Senator Messner:

– Yes.

Senator CHIPP:

– Yes. I come to that now. That statement adds to my confusion, apprehension and disenchantment of this place as a forum for democratically elected senators to express a view verbally and in a vote. That statement was tabled this morning. I was very interested to read this morning on an Australian Associated Press telex that Mr Street told journalists outside Parliament that a full statement was likely later today following his meeting with the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, Sir John Moore. That is the only statement he made: therefore, one would imagine that this is the full statement surrounding discussions with Sir John Moore. I find it a most incredible statement. I would like Senator Messner, whose logic in debate I respect, to explain away some of my misgivings. The statement says:

I then made arrangements to see Sir John Moore last night. Sir John told me of concern within the Commission about the autonomy of the commissioners and asked specifically whether the consultative proposals in the legislation would enable a deputy president to direct a commissioner, or whether commissioners’ decisions would require the approval of a deputy president.

Sir John was expressing his concern. Mr Street continued:

I assured Sir John that under the proposed legislation, commissioners retained the right of final decision on a case they had heard. They would not be subject to direction by a deputy president, nor would their decision be subject to approval by a deputy president. The requirement was to consult, and it would be up to the deputy president and commissioner concerned to work out arrangements suitable to them in the circumstances.

That is the end of that paragraph. In the next paragraph, Sir John raises the question of the work of the Commission. I would have thought that this statement screams aloud for a reaction from Sir John Moore to Mr Street’s assertion and guarantee. Was he satisfied? What did Sir John say when Mr Street assured him that this was not the intention of the Bill? Good heavens, Sir John Moore is a distinguished jurist who would know the most complicated of all bibles, the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, like the back of his hand. He knows the implications of this Bill. Am I to be told in the Senate by a simple assurance, out of a full statement by a Minister, that Mr Street assured him that that was not the intention and therefore Sir John went away quite happy?

Does that make any real sense? With your indulgence, Mr President, I would be grateful if Senator Bishop could enlighten me as to whether this statement was a joint text.

Senator Bishop:

– The Minister says that it was. As you know, I doubt it. I have made some criticism of it.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Have a good look at the second last paragraph.

Senator CHIPP:

– I am coming to that. I am indebted to the second reading speech of Senator McClelland this morning. We do not know what Sir John’s reaction was. Does he still have misgivings? Did he take away information from Mr Street to assuage the objections of the 25 commissioners, Mr Justice Staples and virtually the whole of the trade union movement including the Australian Council of Trade Unions?

Senator Tate:

– And Sir Richard Kirby.

Senator CHIPP:

-And Sir Richard Kirby. Have their objections been met? If they have, I would be obliged to hear that from the Minister for Industrial Relations or from Senator Durack so that I can change my attitude to this Bill, which at the moment is outright opposition. I do not have those sorts of assurances in regard to that information. On the top of page 2 of the statement, the Minister said:

Any qualification on the need to consult would obviously carry with it an increased risk of inconsistency. Sir John acknowledged this point.

One must be very careful with the word ‘acknowledged’. If I were to be told that the Collingwood football team could beat the Carlton team in the grand final by 20 goals- forgive me, Senator McAuliffe. I am talking about the real game- I would acknowledge that that was said, but there is no way I would agree with it. So, the word ‘acknowledged’ can be a very clever one. It could be said that Sir John nodded his head, and acknowledged that the Minister had made the point. But there is no specific statement that he was satisfied about his misgivings. Then I found a nonsequitur, in the last paragraph of the statement. I think it was Senator Douglas McClelland who raised this point very well this morning. I quote from the statement:

Sir John asked when the legislation was expected to be passed through the Senate.

Let us dig a little deeper. It is rather a strange question to come out of the blue. Why did Sir John ask it, anyway? He knew that the legislation was before the Senate on Tuesday. Was he inferring that he was worried about the rapid passage of this legislation? Was he asking whether it could be held up? I have quoted what he said, and it comes out of the blue.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Or, ‘Can we have a look at the amendments?’.

Senator CHIPP:

-Yes. The statement continues:

I replied that the legislation would be dealt with in the normal way, but that the actual timing was of course in the hands of the Senate.

I ask you, Mr President: Would it be a proper reading or interpretation of the English language there that this Bill today is being dealt with in the normal way? I would have thought it is quite abnormal for a Bill of this magnitude, with its background and the objections that I have mentioned, to be raced through this House when almost every honourable senator wants to speak about it. Looking at the speakers’ list, one can imagine only one of two results: That the Bill will be gagged or guillotined, although I believe honourable senators do not use that instrument as fiercely as members of the House of Representatives. If the Government wants to get the Bill passed tonight or tomorrow morning, there is no way it can do so if the Opposition wants to delay it by talking on every single clause in the Bill. We can debate even its name and the page numbers. Those are the devices that can be and have been employed. There is no way the Government will get it through unless it uses the guillotine.

There is no way it will get through the second reading of the Bill by 10.30 p.m. unless the debate is gagged. Will the Government do that? If it is to do it, is that the normal way? If it is not the normal way, why did Mr Street assure the President of the Commission that it would be done in the normal way? Was Mr Street sincere- I believe him to be a most sincere man- in assuring Sir John Moore that things would be done in the normal way, or has something happened since Mr Street left Sir John Moore? Has he got instructions? Have Senator Durack or Senator Carrick received instructions that at all costs this Bill must be sent to the Governor-General tomorrow or on Monday? I believe that those are the sorts of questions that should be answered. I sometimes get tired of the Opposition filibustering and delaying. Who does not? Opposition senators probably get tired of it themselves. I believe that in this type of situation it is a reasonable way to behave. There are about 14 more speakers on the list, all of whom can speak for an hour. I wonder what the Government’s real intention is.

I wish to proceed from being critical to sympathising with the Government on one aspect of the legislation. In his second reading speech the Minister mentioned consultation with the National Labour Consultative Council. I make an appeal to the NLCC, particularly to the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations. I will now be very strongly critical of those two organisations for boycotting the discussions that the Government invited them to have when this controversial Bill was being framed. I do not think that there is any defence to that action. I say that while trying to be fair. I know why they boycotted it. That infamous Public Service Bill which we tried to oppose was before the Parliament. They wanted to show their objection in the strongest way by saying that they would not consult with the Government until it removed that threat to democracy. That is all good stuff but it is like saying: ‘I do not like this game; I am going to take my bat and go home’. When they are not at the conference there is not a damn thing they can do to persuade or dissuade the Government from a course of action. They have no right to complaint. I would have thought that, to put it at its least, it was an unfortunate circumstance because, although I may be naive, I have great confidence in the establishment of the NLCC. I believe it can provide a framework for proper consultation for compromise and for both sides to sit down and talk about matters before they reach legislative form.

We know another thing about this place. Once anything reaches legislative form with the polarisation of the political parties in this Parliament there is very little chance of having it amended, notwithstanding the value of the amendments. That happens on both sides, whether it is the Labor Party or the Liberal Party that controls the Treasury benches. I now come briefly to deal with the Bill. I promised the Government Whip I would not use anywhere near my full speaking time. I have absolutely no intention of going through the whole Bill. I have heard most speakers in this debate and I must say I agree almost entirely with what was said by Senator Bishop and Senator Evans. For that reason, the Australian Democrats could not possibly support this Bill. 1 would like to speak briefly to two questions. One that worries me is deregistration. I wonder whether the Government is fair dinkum about this. Does it really think this will solve anything? In general terms, in my 1 8 years in politics I have believed that there are two things that cannot be solved by legislation- industrial disputes and morality. We cannot legislate for people to be moral and we cannot legislate for relationships in industrial matters to be determined simply by some boffin in the department writing out a section of an Act which will bump heads together and solve everything. I know that the threat of deregistration was used effectively by Mr McMahon in 1965 against the waterside workers. Whether that threat caused a year’s peace on the waterfront I do not know.

On reflection, I believe that deregistration would be counter-productive. I believe that the people whom the Government has declared its avowed enemies, and rightly so- the extreme left wing communist, militant leaders of trade unions- would love section 143A. They would think it is fantastic. It is playing right into the hands of the big unions particularly. I do not know to what extent they would be trembling at the threat of deregistration. It would hurt the small unions, which can be manipulated and would then be without registration, but I should have thought that an extreme left wing communist-led union with lots of muscle, with the tiered system where power is vested in the top, would love to go back to the jungle of open bargaining, particularly in the big industries. As soon as this Bill is passed they will be sitting down working out ways and means of how to get deregistered. Is that going to help to solve any industrial problems? I do not know of any, in this country or elsewhere that have been solved by confrontation. I do not know whether people such as Senator Missen, who normally look at these matters very closely, have looked at the implications. I am not the best person in the Senate to interpret laws, I confess, but the Bill states:

Where, on application by the Minister, a Full Bench is satisfied . . . the Full Bench shall make a declaration . . .

Not ‘may’ but ‘shall’. We have the criteria where, on application by the Minister, a Full Bench is satisfied it must do certain things. What must it be satisfied about? That is the question. The Bill provides:

Where . . . a Full Bench is satisfied that-

an organization has been or is, or two or more members of an organization have been or are, engaged in industrial action; and

the industrial action has had, is having, or is likely to have, a substantial adverse effect on the safety, health or welfare of the community or of a part of the community,

Those are the two conditions. It passes my comprehension how a provision such as that can find its way into a Bill. I can think of so many areas where there could be a nationwide dispute involving two relatively small, unimportant, militant, mischievous trade unionists or members of the organisation. The national organisation might want to settle the dispute, but if the two planted members of the organisation continued with the sort of action that could prevent settlement the whole union could be deregistered. Is that the intention of the Government? Is that democratic? Is that the sort of thing that the Government believes legislation can fix?

I refer to the special reasons dealt with in clause 8. There are many offensive things in the Bill, but it will pass. Several members of the Liberal Party have mentioned to me their objections to certain aspects of this Bill. It will pass; they will not cross the floor. There will be the necessary filibustering delaying tactics of the Opposition, and quite properly so. If the Press sees the Opposition to be weak-kneed, that will not do. But where does that leave the country? It means that all honourable senators will stay here until four, five or six o ‘clock in the morning. The result at that time will be that they will be exhausted, shouting abuse at each other. The Government will have the legislation, and the result will be no different from what it is at this moment. I will have no bar of that. I will not add my name or my presence to that kind of farce which is this Parliament at the moment. If there were the remotest chance of persuading some members of the Liberal Party who are against this legislation to cross the floor, maybe it would be worth something. However, the result is a totally foregone conclusion.

Let me conclude by making this point about industrial relations, and perhaps industrial relations is a misnomer. I always thought it would be better styled personal relations, because that is what it is. It is the relationship between persons around a conference table who have a dispute and are trying to solve it. Let me give one example. Politicians are the first to jump in and try to exacerbate the problem and make people suffer. Last year, I think it was, the La Trobe Valley strike led to all of Victoria being paralysed by the strike of some 1,800 maintenance workers.

Senator Missen:

– It was 1 977.

Senator CHIPP:

-It was 1977. We had political speeches. I was unfortunate enough to be a member of the House of Representatives when the matter was debated. About 3,000 people were virtually starving. They had been out on strike for seven weeks and were being supported totally by their wives and families. The Salvation Army had run out of food and soup to give them. We were talking about a group of people in the La Trobe Valley, which is in my State. There are no more fiercely independent human beings in

Australia, yet we were told by people on the Government side in that other place that the workers really did not want to be on strike, that they were being led around by the nose by some little Pommie commo called Armstrong; that he was the cause of it and there was no real grievance. The people met for a long time and almost reached a settlement. Then, for political reasons, the politicians jumped in. The rumour was that Mr Fraser was prepared to send troops down to the La Trobe Valley to set the turbines going again, the dispute flamed again and people continued to suffer. When independent men and women are prepared to do without Christmas holidays for years, to see their bank savings totally eroded, virtually to starve and to allow their children to suffer, surely we can say: Is there not a basic reason? It just does not appeal to reason to think that the workers were simply being led by the nose by some little Pommie commo called Armstrong. I believe that all industrial disputes can be assessed on the personal relationships involved. That is why legislation, particularly legislation of this kind, is not going one dot further to solve those sorts of disputes. Indeed, it will hold back the settlement of the disputes which will occur more and more in this country in the next four years.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

-In view of the time I rise to speak briefly on this legislation. I hope that detailed consideration will be available to the Senate in the Committee stage of the debate. May I in this second reading debate recall to the Senate the proposed changes the Government seeks to bring about by this Bill for an Act to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The changes proposed by the Bill cover a requirement for consultation by commissioners, the jurisdiction of the Commission to award strike pay, the manner of dealing with stand-down applications, reference of matters to a Full Bench, the withdrawal of matters by the President from a single member of the Commission, and the deregistration of unions. There are some other changes relating to maritime industries, the Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal and so on. (Quorum formed).

First let me direct my attention to clause 3 of the Bill which seeks to insert proposed new section 22a into the Principal Act. That clause contains the requirement of consultative provisions. To my mind this clause represents an overreaction to the problems which all those of us in the industrial jurisdiction recognise exist. We do recognise that those problems exist, but this provision surely is an overreaction. There are industrial, legal and constitutional objections to the type of suggestion that is proposed in clause 3 to overcome the problem that we all know exists. The Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) stated in his second reading speech:

The proposed consultative process is designed to provide greater co-ordination and consistency in decision-making within the Commission.

Yet in the document which was tabled in the Senate today by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) concerning the meeting of the Minister for Industrial Relations with Sir John Moore, the Minister states that he assured Sir John that under the proposed legislation the Commissioners would not be subject to direction by a deputy president, nor would their decision be subject to approval by a deputy president. In other words this is a machinery process which the President himself obviously is empowered to initiate if he considers it desirable. As we all know, the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission regularly has discussions not only with his deputy Presidents and the heads of panels but also with the individual commissioners. These people do not have to consult with the President on wage indexation guidelines; they already know the policy of the Commission.

So, why is there this proposal requiring commissioners to consult in matters of wages and working conditions? The industrial objection is to be found in three areas. First of all I refer to the delays which would undoubtedly occur. On this aspect the document tabled by Senator Durack states:

Sir John then raised the question of the working of the Commission itself. He pointed out that the proposed consultative procedures could result in delays in getting final decisions in some instances, and asked whether the requirement to consult might be limited in order to lessen this problem.

In reply, the Minister for Industrial Relations pointed out that the object of the consultative procedures was to get the maximum possible consistency in principle in the decision-making of the Commission. The statement continues:

  1. . Sir John said that he would expect the consultative requirements would put an extra work load on the Commission. If the Commission were to carry out its work effectively, and with minimum delays to the parties before it, more people would be required on the Commission.

As I mentioned by interjection this morning when Senator Bishop was speaking- I commend him for his practical analysis of this piece of legislation- the very fact that more persons have to be appointed to the Commission opens the way for further inconsistencies. The first industrial objection to that proposal is the question of delays, as Sir John has pointed out. The old axiom, well known amongst industrial circles, of justice delayed is justice denied ‘ is one which we ought to keep in mind when we are considering this clause.

The second objection to the provision is that in the eyes of the practitioner the authority of the individual commissioner will be severely damaged and diminished. I am a national official of a major union which is in almost daily contact before either the arbitral or the judicial organisations created under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I have participated as a union advocate before members of the Commission. I have had to do so on some very interesting cases. I have had a number of witnesses- fellows off the job- who wanted to be sure that their case was heard and that their case was determined by the person who heard it. There is also an old adage that he who decides must also hear. If a matter concerning money is involved, this Bill requires the commissioner to consult with the deputy president, the head of the panel. Imagine what those fellows off the job would say. In negotiations with, for example, industrial officers I have known them to say: ‘If you cannot give us a decision, take us to the managing director. We do not want to see the cabin boy, we want to see the captain’. We will get this sort of confrontation on a practical basis and it will be the opening gambit. I know quite a large number of union officials who will make that the opening gambit.

Senator Mcintosh:

– There is nothing wrong with that.

Senator HARRADINE:

– Nothing at all. It will be a natural reaction. I believe that that provision is likely to impede the efficient and effective operation of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and to jeopardise industrial relations. I do not propose to go into the legal or constitutional objections to that provision. These have been canvassed elsewhere. I do not suppose any of us here would suggest that this Parliament is the body which will ultimately determine the legality or constitutionality of those provisions.

As I mentioned previously, the second point covered by the Bill deals with the jurisdiction of the Commission regarding strike pay. That is provided for in clause 4 of the Bill, which seeks to insert after section 25 of the principal Act the following new section: 25a. The Commission is not empowered to make an award, certify a memorandum of agreement, make a recommendation or take any other action, whether by way of conciliation or arbitration, in respect of a claim for the making of a payment to employees in respect of a period during which those employees were engaged in industrial action.

In my view, again there are industrial, legal and constitutional objections to that suggested proposal. Again I deal from a practical point of view only with the industrial problem. This has been mentioned previously. Many is the time that I, as Secretary of the Trades and Labour Council have been telephoned by a union official who has said: ‘I am out on the job. There is this problem of safety. What is going to be done about it?’ The immediate reaction is to say: ‘If the job is unsafe, you walk off. Your life is more important than your wage packet’. In some cases the Commission has even awarded payments in respect of lost time where it has been clearly shown that at all relevant times the employer was at fault. But this provision precludes even the certification of an agreement between the employer and the union. The employer might say: ‘On the face of it we were up the creek with that set of circumstances. There was an unsafe practice. It was all our fault. Right, we will see to it and we will pay you for the time lost’. This provision denies the Commission even the right to certify such an agreement.

What is meant by the words ‘industrial action’? These days the words ‘industrial action’ have a very broad definition in the Act. Section 4 of the Act broadly defines ‘industrial action’ to include bans, go-slows, work-to-rule campaigns and so on, as well as strikes. What does the provision mean? Let us say that a ban was placed on certain work which may be unsafe work and which takes up about 5 per cent of the time of the workers in a particular industry. That comes within the scope of the catch-all phrase ‘industrial action’. Is it competent for the Commission to make an award which would ensure that those persons are able to be paid if there is some dispute about it? That is another question which the Government should consider and which no doubt will be raised again at the Committee stage.

I come then to the question of the power in proposed new section 34a- clause 8 of the Billconcerning the reference of disputes to the Parliament. This again has an industrial objection, and the same objection applies here as applies to the first suggestion, that of consultation. But it applies even more so in this instance. Furthermore, that proposed new section will place an impossible work load on the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I appeal to the Government to recognise that only one person will have rights and responsibilities imposed upon him by that proposed new section- Sir John Moore. He has given dedicated service in the field of his appointment and I believe it is totally unfair of the Government to suggest that the type of work load that is envisaged by clause 8 of the Bill be imposed upon Sir John in addition to his already difficult task.

The other matter that I want to deal with is the deregistration of unions, but before I do that I want to raise a matter which has not been referred to previously either here or outside the Parliament. Every practitioner in the industrial jurisdiction knows about it and has known about it over a long period. The Government believes that for ideological reasons some appointees to the Australian Industrial Court, which is now the Federal Court of Australia, and to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, are not suited to those positions. The Government feels that those appointees take an ideological position which is contemptuous of the reformist approach to industrial disputes which the Australian arbitration system embodies. The Government has seen some of the results of those appointments and is aware of the reality, witness the fact that it has already amended the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to mitigate or limit the harm that a Marxist ideologue can do when clothed with the authority of a judge of the Australian Industrial Court or of a vice-presidential member of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

Senator Watson:

– Hear, hear!

Senator HARRADINE:

– The honourable senator will not say ‘hear, hear’ to what I am about to say. However, the Government has never had the moral courage to tell the truth to the Australian people. It has had to resort to rumour, innuendo and leaked documents to convey what it lacks the courage to say itself. The consequence has been that legislation such as this has been introduced without a frank statement being made as to the reasons why it has been thought necessary. In such circumstances the Government has only itself to blame if the reasons for the legislation become matters of suspicion and speculation in the minds of members of the public.

Additionally, the Bill is objectionable in itself. I have gone through its main points and outlined the industrial objections to them. I have even outlined the uselessness of the first consultative provision. But the principal objection to the Bill, one that has not emerged in the debate so far, is to the section which confers upon the Executive government the power to deregister organisations. This is given barely one year after this same Government introduced legislation in 1978 conferring that power, not on a single judge as had been the case previously, but on a full bench of three judges. I shall quote the remarks of Mr Street, the Minister for Industrial Relations, to the House of Representatives on 4 May 1978 in support of the proposal which the Government considered necessary to confer this power, not a single judge but three judges. Mr Street said:

A further matter which is to be reserved to a full court is proceedings under section 143 of the Act for the cancellation of the registration of an organisation under the Act. Cancellation of registration-

These are Mr Street’s words- is the ultimate and most serious penalty that can be imposed upon an organisation. For this reason, and because of the implications of cancellation for the effective operation of the conciliation and arbitration system, the Government considers it appropriate that jurisdiction in this matter should be reserved to a full court.

That was said barely one year ago, yet we have before us today a proposal which suggests that that was a lot of hogwash then and that now a political decision can be made. I remind the Government that the sanction of deregistration already exists and, indeed, has been exercised, for example, in the Australian Builders Labourers’ Federation case. It is available in any proper case for proceedings to be instituted by any ‘person interested’, who could include a Minister of the Crown. Proceedings can be instituted in a proper case by a Minister of the Crown or by a statutory corporation. In either event, the exercise of the power to deregister need involve no more than simple and expeditious proceedings under the Act in the Federal Court of Australia before a full bench of three judges. Their decisions would be seen as having the authority of law, but a deregistration by the Executive would not command the authority of law, it would set the scene for confrontation between the trade union movement on the one hand and the state on the other.

Senator Tate:

– That is the aim and the object.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I do not know. In the other place the honourable member for Hindmarsh, Mr Clyde Cameron, has stated that the state would win. I do not know who would be the ultimate winner but certainly, by design, the Communist Party has been working since 1969 to create such a situation. Ineptitude on the part of the Government in this vital matter may indeed facilitate that situation in 1979-80.

True, the state might have a victory, but it would be a pyrrhic victory at terrible cost to the Australian people, one for which the authors of the Bill would bear ultimate responsibility. I urge the Government to consider carefully what I have just said. I believe that I am the only federal official of a union with more than 100,000 members who is a member of the Parliament. I speak regularly with officers of major unions which are registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Not one of those has been consulted about these provisions. It has been said that the Australian Council of Trade Unions has not been consulted, the peak councils have not been consulted. That is true. That is shameful. Not even one of the major industrial organisations registered under the Act which are going to be affected directly by these proposals has been consulted in any way. I believe that the Government should take heed and chew over what has been said in the hope that it will further delay the passage of this Bill so as to have those consultations.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

-The Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill before the Senate forms an essential part of the Fraser Government ‘s economic strategy and, as such, it has to be seen in that light. The provisions of the Bill are the most serious in a long line of repressive industrial legislation brought forward by this Government. There has not been a session of this Parliament since the Fraser Government came to power in which we have not had legislation designed in some way or another to restrict the legitimate rights of the workers of this country and of the trade union movement. This particular piece of legislation is not hard to understand because it puts into legislative effect the Government’s long campaign of vilification against the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. On every occasion of a national wage case the Federal Government has placed evidence before the Commission and has argued through eminent counsel against the flow-on or the consideration of the inflationary trends of the time. When the judges, on the basis of the evidence before them from the employers and employees and on the basis of the Government’s own submissions, have rejected or in some way amended the Government’s propositions, we have seen members of the Government from the Prime Minister down- Mr Anthony, Mr Street and other leading members of the Government- vilify and criticise those who are charged with the responsibility of considering in an impartial fashion the reasons why some increase in salaries should be awarded to the Australian work force.

Having criticised the umpires and got nowhere, the Government is now about to put the umpires in a straightjacket and to interfere and intervene in the whole process of conciliation and arbitration that has been with this country since the Constitution was adopted at the beginning of the century. There is no doubt in my mind that this piece of legislation will be challenged in the court because the purpose of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is to act for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes, whereas this piece of legislation will, as has been so eloquently stated by the opponents of the legislation, do nothing but exacerbate them, widen them and create industrial chaos in this country.

It is a matter of great regret that despite the measured opposition by those who have been involved in the industrial movement in a full time capacity, those who have been involved in understanding industrial legislation and despite the attempts of the Opposition to suggest to the Government the unworkability of this piece of legislation, it goes without saying that the whole process of parliamentary democracy and those opposing voices will be unheeded. The Government will proceed, as it has on so many occasions, to fail to listen to the other point of view. We have this very unusual step of those charged with the responsibility of industrial relations in this country- I am talking now of the Commission itself- making representations, sitting around a table making protests. Then we have the words of the Prime Minister saying that regardless of what is being said, regardless of the submissions, the Government is still going to proceed on its way. It is no wonder that parliamentary democracy is under challenge in this country. 1 refer again to the last paragraph of this statement that was put down in Parliament today by Mr Street and which was referred to by previous speakers in the Opposition. Mr Street said:

Sir John asked when the legislation was expected to be passed through the Senate. I replied that the legislation would be dealt with in the normal way, but that the actual timing was of course in the hands of the Senate.

Senator Chipp has handled the expression ‘normal way ‘ quite adequately to show what a farcical situation we have reached in the parliamentary processes. Who does Mr Street think he is fooling? Does he think he is fooling Sir John Moore? Does he think he is fooling the Australian people? Does he think he is fooling the Parliament or the Opposition when he says ‘the actual timing was of course in the hands of the Senate’? Is the Senate to act in some way as a House of Review and present arguments that will alter the legislation, or will the Senate act in some way that will take into account the public feeling that exists outside the Parliament? We know that the Fuhrer has already determined that this Bill will be passed through the Senate today or in the early hours of tomorrow morning. The decision has been made by the Prime Minister in the usual dictatorial way. He has already said that he is not interested in the views of Mr Justice Staples or the views of the conciliation commissioners and he is obviously not interested in the views of Sir John Moore because, in fact, the Bill is going to be dealt with by the Senate in the normal way. The ‘normal way’ will be acts of attrition during the early hours of the morning with the guillotine and the gag as indeed happened in the House of Representatives.

What has actually happened in respect to this Government’s anti-union legislation? It promised in 1975 that if it was elected to office it would introduce proposals for tax and wage indexation. It has reneged on both those propositions. I will not canvass what it did in respect to tax. We have already had that argument with respect to the Budget. The Government committed itself to a policy of wage indexation in accordance with the upward trend of the consumer price index. Yet on every occasion, bar one, that it has made its submissions to the Commission, it has sought to have a reduction in the amount of wages to be awarded having regard to the level of the consumer price index.

What is the result of this? The result is that the trade union movement has had to act on occasions independently of the operation of the Commission itself. Why is it that the Fraser Government has come down with such a hard line on working people fighting for their living standards? Does it really believe that wages are too high? Yes, I think it does believe that wages are too high. That was said by some Government senators. We had, on the other hand, a statement by Senator Watson that there are certain skills within the Australian work force that are not adequately paid. This legislation will ensure that they will never be adequately paid. The processes that will be set in motion in respect of this piece of legislation will see that, when there is a proper work value case organised and considered in the judicial atmosphere of conciliation, steps will be taken, should this Government not like that decision, to see that the decision is not put into effect. Should industrial action then be taken in order to ratify or support the decision arrived at by the Commission, the processes will be set in motion for the deregistration of the union. This, in a period in which, beyond any shadow of doubt, real wages have declined on an average of about $ 1 7 a week as a result of the direct intervention by this Government in the wage fixing processes of the Arbitration Commission, by bringing pressure to bear upon the Commission on every occasion on which it has sought to deal with a national wage case or when it has sought to deal with a specific application, taking into account the changing values of the work force. Because the trade union movement wants to assert its right in these circumstances to withdraw its labour, a process which has been fought for and which it will continue to fight for, regardless of the repressive legislation, this Government will learn to its detriment that it cannot legislate to stop industrial disputes.

Let us look at what happened on the last occasion when a government sought to do this in a somewhat similar set of circumstances in the United Kingdom, when the Heath Government sought to intervene and interfere in the due processes of wage fixation. That Government was driven from office, as indeed this Government will be driven from office on this very issue if it attempts to put into effect the confrontation aspects rather than the conciliation aspects of our arbitration system. It is part of the so-called Liberal ideology that they support the right to strike, and they support the right of trade unions to operate. But I should like the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street), Senator Watson or any other Government member to tell me of the occasion or the issue in which they have regarded as legitimate any industrial disputation. They cannot show one occasion where they have accepted or understood the reasons why workers had to withdraw their labour and suffer in the process, a great monetary suffering as well as a personal suffering. We have never heard them say one word about other people who withdraw their labour. For example, there has never been any legislation to deal with doctors, and we had such a situation only this year when doctors went before Mr Justice Ludeke to establish a fee for service. The public was not privy to the evidence that was placed before the Tribunal by the Australian Medical Association, but a fee was fixed. But not one doctor out of 100 is now sticking to the fee that was fixed as a result of the decision of the Tribunal. There has been no word of criticism, no legislation, no attempt to control that irresponsibility. Yet we hear a lot about irresponsible unions, about the Pommy shop stewards, about workers holding the country to ransom, about wage restraints- all those phrases that flow so glibly from the lips of Government members.

The conservative forces in this country operate on the basis of developing some sort of bogy. If we look back over the last 30 years in which they have had, with one exception, uninterrupted sway, in the 1950s the bogy was the communists. It was the communists who were responsible for all of the ills of society. In the 1960s it was the hordes of Asia. It was the Chinese who were going to come down in their little boats across the ocean to Australia, and that was the justification for the Government’s immoral involvement in the war in Vietnam. In the 1970s, now that we have established good relations with the People’s Republic of China, it is the trade unionists. It is the workers that the Government seeks to try to portray as being the real enemies of the Australian people. The Government is trying to turn one section of the Australian people against another.

This piece of legislation is not only illogical, but also it is crude, it is unworkable and it is confrontationist. It is a dastardly piece of legislation which will do nothing to bring about any sort of understanding in the Australian community about the way in which our wage fixing processes should work. But we are going to be confronted with its passage because we have in the Parliament the tyranny of the majority, the inability of the minority of the members on that side of this chamber to do more than carry out the behest of their leader. It is no wonder that people have referred to it as Draconian and totalitarian in its overall presentation. The legislation seeks to change the emphasis on conciliation. It seeks to substitute confrontation for conciliation. It seeks to say that there is no legitimacy in the process of wage fixing. It seeks to say that there is no legitimacy on the part of those millions of people in Australia who belong to trade unions.

When we have this unique experience of a judge putting in writing his views about the constitutionality and the impropriety of the legislation- surely a process that is available to any member of the Australian community and to his fellow judges- we have the underhand activity of the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Street, and the Prime Minister, seeking to score cheap political capital out of a courageous attempt being made by one man to express a contrary point of view. That is all he has sought to do, to express a contrary point of view to this neo-fascist government, this dictatorial government which wants to criticise everybody in the Australian community except itself. The Government enjoys no support of the Australian community for this piece of legislation. Where is the editorial that can be quoted which says that the people give unqualified support to this piece of legislation? Where are the instances of judges who have said that they disagree with what Mr Justice Staples has said, or what Sir John Moore has said? Where is the conciliation commissioner who says ‘I do not want to be associated with the views which have been expressed to this Government’? Where is the trade union leader who says he supports this piece of legislation? Where is the community involvement in the process of representation to this Government, and where is the voice of the employers in this matter?

Will the Government produce the word or the support of the Employers’ Federation in respect to this matter? No. It cannot. It will not produce it because it cannot, because even the employers are mute about this matter. They know it is wrong as indeed they have said on so many occasions at seminars that I have had the opportunity to attend. I have read the speeches of employers’ representatives in which they have pointed to the need to maintain the conciliation and arbitration system and have said that no government legislation can overcome the areas of industrial disputation. That means that this Government is unable to produce evidence to back up the horrendous type of legislation which it has put before the Parliament, and it is unable to comprehend the lessons of history. So rather than turn to settlement of industrial disputes, we will go into the area of coercion rather than consent. We will see a situation develop where the whole trade union movement, whatever category we like to place it in, will stand together against this piece of repressive legislation.

If honourable senators know anything at all about the trade union movement- I do not like using labels; I do not like putting people into different sorts of categories in respect of their political position in the industrial movement- if they look at the disputes which have taken place in recent times in my own State, they would know the extent of those disputes. We have the tally clerks of the Federated Clerks Union of Australia in dispute. We have members of the breweries, who are members of the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union of Australia in dispute. We have members of the Australian Workers Union involved in the grain elevators dispute, and we have the strike that has taken place at the Water Sewerage and Drainage Board. No matter which union or class of workers is involved in industrial disputes, in no way can one put an idealogical label on that union or class of workers. In no way can one say that action by them is anything more than a spontaneous and justified endeavour on behalf of the workers in those industries- I picked out only three or four industries- for the purpose of determining their economic interest.

Because the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in its entirety, its justices and commissioners, knows and understands the process of industrial law- they know the scorethey have seen fit to make representations to the Government. The Parliament has been insulted by this mealy-mouthed one page statement from Sir John Moore through the person of Mr Street. Discussion took place for several hours and we have been given a statement containing half a dozen paragraphs. That is the way this Executive and this Government operates. The Government has no respect for the parliamentary institution and it has no respect for public opinion. No wonder the Government always has only about 40 per cent support from the Australian public. The Government has ignored the very measured advice of Sir Richard Kirby. I understand that in the last 20 years we have had two presidents of the Commission. We have had Sir John Moore making representations to the Government, and Sir Richard Kirby, a most highly respected former president of the Commission, has given advice to the Government, the Parliament and the Australian people. Sir Richard Kirby was appointed by a conservative government. As reported in the Age of 22 September this year, he said that the provisions which attempt to bind the Commission are probably invalid constitutionally. He also stated that he is quite certain that the new measures, far from moderating industrial disputation, will lead to greater industrial unrest. I will quote him so that I am not accused of stressing this point too much. He said:

Any legislation which requires the Commission to act in a particular way or prohibits it from acting in a particular way m the prevention or settlement of an industrial dispute is a very bad thing.

He went on to identify the prime motivation behind this repressive and undemocratic legislation. He said this:

The Government at the moment would dearly like to put a ceiling on wages but it has got no legal power to do so.

The Government is not game to go to the Australian people and ask for the power to set wages; it knows what the Australian electorate would say in a referendum. It has tried to stand over the Industrial Commission. Leading members of this Government have trenchantly criticised every determination made by the Commission. The Government wants to cut wages further despite the undisputed fact that real wages have declined substantially over the past few years.

Let us look at the main provisions of the Bill. Clause 3 requires commissioners to consult with the relevant deputy president before making or varying an award with respect to wages or conditions. Firstly, there is the problem of denning consultation. Are we to assume that commissioners do no discuss their work with one another? We have the commissioner’s own testimony that they do. It is to be assumed that in the Bill ‘consult’ means that a deputy president can override the decision of a commissioner? In this case we must assume that the deputy president, who has not heard all the evidence presented in a case, knows better than the commissioner who has been sitting on it. Consider the situation in an industrial dispute. Senator Harradine and Senator Chipp also made this point. The commissioner would sit in judgment and listen to the points of view of the parties in dispute. Sometimes the commissioner would have to listen to a third point of view. This might take days. Then when the commissioner is prepared to make a decision on the basis of the evidence given he has to consult with someone who has not been sitting in on the proceedings and who knows nothing of either the subjective or objective facts in the case.

Are we to believe this document laid down by Mr Street? He said that commissioners would be required to consult but would not be subject to direction by a deputy president. They are honeyed words, but that is not what the legislation says. Are there to be cases in the High Court of Australia every time there is a dispute to determine whether the word ‘consult’ means to say goodday or goodbye, or that there has to be consultation to the point where the views of the deputy president as against the determination or conclusion of the commissioner have to be considered?

What a hopeless position this Government has got itself into. What are its reasons? The Minister for Industrial Relations in the other place has stated that the purpose of this provision is to eliminate inconsistencies in various rulings by commissioners. How in the name of heaven will that take place? Can we assume that Commissioner Smith will talk to Deputy President Brown and they will make a decision, and that then Commissioner Jones will talk to Commissioner Johnson and they will make a decision? Or, as one of my colleagues said in another debate, will it come back to one man having to sit in judgment on all of these matters? That demonstrates the absurdity and the inconsistency of this Government. Is there to be some absolute standard established by which all subsequent rulings are to be judged? Is the first such decision always to be the correct one? If this were the case then the Commission would have to abandon the long held principle of adjustments for changes in work value.

Every day we talk about the changes taking place in our society and the technological changes that are on the horizon which, in a sense, will almost transform the whole industrial production process. Is the Government saying that ordinary people in Australia do not have the right to present their point of view about a dispute to a conciliation commissioner?

Senator Watson already has expressed his concern about the problems of relativity. He is concerned, as are many members of trade unions. Many skilled workers are not receiving adequate compensation for their long hours of study and the skills that they use in the work place. This piece of legislation will do nothing to redress that situation. In fact, it will worsen the situation. It probably will be the militant unions who will be concerned about the skilled workers who are currently underpaid, whether they be in the metal industry or in an industry where advanced technology and the skills associated with it have to be recognised, as we have seen in the recent dispute in the telecommunications industry, a dispute that has been with us over the past year or two.

This Government has to recognise that it cannot put people into straitjackets. It cannot put the judges into straitjackets. It cannot put the commissioners into straitjackets. Sooner or later the Australian people will say: ‘You are not going to put the Parliament into a straitjacket’. That is the message that one day the Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, will get from the Senate. What does clause 4 of the Bill seek to do? It seeks to amend section 25 of the principal Act to divest the Commission of the power to award wages to workers on strike. The Minister calls the idea of payment for time lost on strike an ‘outlandish concept’. A trade union official just indicated the circumstances upon which that concept and that process have been operative ever since there has been industrial relations. Every trade union official will tell us that.

Anyone who has had anything to do with the industrial movement will tell us that the employer, on the basis of logical argument, will agree not only to rectify the issue that has caused the dispute, but will also pay for time lost in the process. Yet we have the Minister for Industrial Relations, who stands abroad the political scene in Australia pretending that he is a Liberal in the real sense of the word, not in the sense in which honourable senators opposite masquerade- they are really Conservatives; they are not Liberals- Mr Street says that it is an outlandish thing that we should want that to be taken into consideration. It that an indication of how much he knows about his portfolio? That would be an incident- and I am sure that Senator Bishop would agree with me- that occurs probably every week in some part of our country. It is obvious that this Bill was presented in the party room with a whole heap of rhetoric that mesmerised those few members of the Senate who might otherwise be regarded as Liberals, not Conservatives, and who are not prepared just to sit and listen.

If we look at the way in which the debate has been conducted in this place so far we find that every minute of every hour the Opposition has had more members present in the Senate than the Government. Many times I have looked opposite and seen fewer Government members than there are fingers on one hand. Despite the eloquent and logical argument presented in this place and outside, the Government is not prepared to change its mind. The words of the Minister about outlandish concepts demonstrate the Minister’s total ignorance of the conduct of industrial relations. This highlights how little Government members know about industrial relations. Yet they sit in judgment and make decisions. They are part of the decision-making process. It is a slur on the actions of the Commission in making such awards when industrial agreements are reached. The sorts of considerations to which I have referred are written into awards. It was Sir Richard Kirby who said that this provision is probably unconstitutional.

Let us look at the facts about industrial relations. According to the figures on industrial disputes of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, wages caused a fraction more than 50 per cent of the disputes in 1978. Hours and conditions caused 7.8 per cent of the disputes. I ask honourable senators to note that managerial policy was the cause of 25.6 per cent of the industrial disputes. It is in the latter cases- that is, the cases where managerial policy has caused the disputes- that the Commission often rules that the workers should be paid for time lost while on strike. There is nothing wrong with that principle. This Bill ought to be rejected on that premise alone. But, of course, we know that it will not. This provision assumes that it is always the irresponsible action of employees that causes strikes and never the provocative actions of employers.

Anyone who has any knowledge at all of industrial practice will say that the bosses often adopt the most provocative tactics which compel workers to strike to protect their positions. Workers gain very little by going on strike capriciously. They lose money. They do not get paid for it if it is on a matter affecting their wages and conditions.

Let us look at another example- a coal mine which has just exploded, causing the loss of several lives. If the coal mine owners refuse to take precautions against further such occurrences and the miners go on strike, who is at fault? The passage of the clause to which I have referred will mean that miners will always suffer. There will be no way in which management can be penalised for its failure to deal with a safety issue. The clause forbids the Commission to award payments to workers engaged in an ‘industrial dispute’. An industrial dispute can include bans, limitations and go-slows as well as strikes. This amendment does not specify. For example, the shipping clerks in Sydney may decide to ban the handling of work related to the sending of enriched uranium to the rulers of Chile, but carry on the bulk of their work as normal. Although they put in a full day’s work, this clause could be used to deny them all remuneration. They may have a particular political viewpoint about the fascist regime in Chile. There is something pertinent in what Mr Justice Staples said when he stated:

The Minister seeks to enrich employers by saving them from paying for what is done.

There are many reasons why we should not be rushing this piece of legislation through the Senate. We have on numerous occasions been brought back to deal with industrial legislation. We were forced to sit for long hours a year or so ago during the dispute between Telecom Australia and the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association. What happened then? The Bill concerned was not proclaimed for months and months afterwards. Yet the Government is hell-bent on trying to push the Senate through a war of attrition, to deny us the right legitimately to debate this matter. The Parliament will be sitting until all hours of the morning. For what purpose? Neither the Minister nor any members of the Government has once suggested the reasons why it has to be dealt with today. Is something happening tomorrow? I am not aware of any major event taking place tomorrow, unless the Government is going to call an early general election. I would warn the Government about that. In the South Australian election, my side of politics made an immature judgment and the Japanese Government did exactly the same thing. Premature elections might cause the Government more trouble than it is worth. I do not know what the reasons are for pushing the Bill through the Senate at this speed. There has to be a purpose. Yet we are not told what the purpose is.

There is enough evidence to show that the Government has no more understanding about the ramifications of this Bill than it has about the ramifications of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill. The Government did precisely the same thing of rushing that Bill through the Senate even though we wanted to debate it for a longer period. What has happened? lt has only just been passed by the House of Representatives. It has languished for months. We were not given the right to debate the matter to its logical conclusion, even though we recotter gnised that it was a forlorn hope.

The Government’s tactics are open to a great deal of suspicion. Senator Chipp was quite right when he pointed to the absurdity of the way in which the parliamentary system operates in these matters of community concern. The matters are debated in the party room before being debated in the Parliament and the issues are predetermined so that, short of some major deficiency being discovered in the Bill, there is no honest or genuine attempt in the Parliament to try to listen to the other point of view in respect to important pieces of legislation.

This debate is an example of the pigheadedness of this Government. It is an example of the dictatorial way in which this Government operates. It is without any doubt a manifestation of the weaknesses in the Westminster system that we do not have the opportunity in this House of review to look at matters other than at a party level. Yet, we hear from time to time of the need for a non-party or bipartisan approach to matters. In 1974 and 1975 honourable senators heard of the need for the Senate to review legislation, to act as a house of review, and to protect the rights of the States. We heard all that rhetoric and malarkey. I could use harder words than those- one harder word, in particular.

Senator McAuliffe:

– You did in 1975.

Senator GIETZELT:

– I may have in 1975. That approach is never applied to these sorts of conditions. I would be the last to suggest that all the legislation should be dealt with in the way that I suggest this legislation and legislation such as the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill ought to be dealt with. But when there is clear community concern and views being expressed outside Parliament which suggest that there ought to be careful consideration, the Senate ought to act responsibly and not act at the dictates of the Prime Minister who just says, ‘We are not going to consider the other points of view of those outside of the Parliament’, and who then seeks to deny inside the Parliament the due processes of proper debate and consideration.

Finally, I want to quote from a letter published in yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald from Professor Mills, to whom my colleague Senator Evans has already referred. Anybody who knows him will accept that he does not take a partisan position in respect of industrial law. He occupies a senior position and he is accepted right throughout the Australian community as a person versed in industrial and commercial law. In his letter he fairly substantially endorses the view of Mr Justice Staples about deregistration, namely, that in the hands of the GovernorGeneral a trade union of 150,000 or 200,000 members can be deregistered. Honourable senators all know that the Governor-General operates at the behest of the Executive Council, and that the Executive Council acts at the behest of the Prime Minister. So one man- the Prime Minister- will be able to decide the future of a trade union. In his letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, Professor Mills stated:

By requiring the Commission to hear stand-down applications expeditiously and by allowing the employer to have such an application transferred at his request to the Full Bench of the Arbitration Commission, the Bill is encouraging private employers to stand down innocent people in case of unavailability of work.

Professor Mills also points out that under the proposed amendments to the Social Services Act, blameless workers stood down will also be denied unemployment benefits if they belong to the union which has striking members. So, here we have not only penalties being applied with respect to this piece of legislation but also penalties being applied to those in receipt of social security benefits as a result of the Social Services Act. Professor Mills also made the following comment:

There cannot be many countries of the world where membership of a lawful trade union will disqualify a person from social security benefits.

It does not matter where one looks in respect of this piece of legislation. It has to be said that the Bill has a totalitarian aspect about it; it is undemocratic and it flows from the warped minds of authoritarian people who do not accept the fundamental principle of people being able to engage in a lawful pursuit in respect of their trade union activities. It is a piece of legislation that enjoys no support from the employer or employee sections of the Australian community. It does not enjoy support from the judiciary and it is the sort of legislation that ought not get the support of the Australian Senate if it is a Senate worth its name as a House of review.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

-I have listened with interest to what Senator Gietzelt has had to say about the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1979. I heard him say that the Liberal-National Country Party Government was intent upon cutting wages. I do not think that is a proper statement and it ought to be cleared up straight away. The Government has a realistic attitude to wage increases and, in fact, I think I could almost agree with what Mr Clyde Cameron said at one time. He pointed out that one man’s wage increase costs another man his job. With these measures the Government is advocating a rationalisation of attitudes with respect to wage increases. I think that Senator Gietzelt also asked what was the urgency of this measure. That was also referred to by Senator Chipp during the course of his speech. I heard Senator Lewis make the comment by way of interjection that the country is faced with absolute turmoil at the present time.

Senator Gietzelt:

– We are under State awards; you are intervening.

Senator JESSOP:

-It is all right to say that, but if the honourable senator has any interest in Victoria he will know that the public transport system is paralysed.

Senator Elstob:

– This is defeating the purpose.

Senator JESSOP:

-That is okay, but New South Wales ought to start thinking about measures to introduce emergency services legislation similar to the legislation introduced by Sir Charles Court. I believe that is another area of great significance to the welfare of the workers of Australia. I get very cross when I hear people on the Opposition benches say that the Government is not interested in the welfare of trade unionists in Australia. That is totally wrong and false. The Government believes that the legislation it has introduced progressively since it came to power in 1 976 is in the interests of the people. We are concerned that the trade union movement has become discredited, simply because of the irresponsible attitude of a minor number of militant trade union leaders who choose to take the people they represent along a course of strike action in what quite often I believe to be unnecessary circumstances.

I recall three or four months ago when attempts were made to cause a strike in Western

Australia to flow into the national sphere. In South Australia the majority of the 160 trade union representatives committed 100,000 trade unionists to support a national strike. That was an irresponsible measure. It proved to be a failure, and that sort of thing has to be dealt with. The people of Australia, including responsible, genuine trade unionists, look to the Government. Many trade unionists come to me and ask what the Government will do to stop this crazy industrial disputation persisting in Australia today.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You are the one they would naturally go to with those representations.

Senator JESSOP:

-Of course they do. The responsible trade unionists would come to me because they realise that this Government has a responsible attitude to restoring the credibility of the trade union movement. That is why I believe this step we are taking tonight will be of some help to the people who are disadvantaged so often. Some of the statements in newspapers today- editorials and so on- point to the concern of the people. I was impressed with the editorial in today’s Australian. Under the heading ‘Backlash against striking unions’, the editorial states:

Some powerful trade unions seem to be intent on demonstrating the need for restrictive legislation to curb their reckless strike activity. No sooner is one wave of strife behind us than another rears up to disrupt people ‘s lives and strangle the economy.

For example, the port of Sydney is again in chaos, this time due to a pay strike by harbour pilots- bringing the number of harbour stoppages to 68 in the past 12 months for an average of more than one a week. The Port of Melbourne was little better last year with 36 disputes (one every 10 days) directly and indirectly involving 22,000 workers, obliterating 42,400 working days and costing $1.5m in lost wages.

I cannot be convinced that that sort of action by the trade union movement is in the best interests of the people it purports to represent. As far as I am concerned, the action we have taken as a Government has been in the interests of the welfare of the people about whom we are concerned. I thought Mr Street’s statement enunciating the industrial relations policy of the Government was so impressive that I want to reread it to the Senate:

In the face of industrial disputation the public are too often the losers. This Government represents the public and protects them in industrial disputes. All the initiatives I outlined have that consideration as their principal aim. Moreover, in order to protect the public all of the Government’s industrial relations policies have been developed in a spirit of consultation to promote understanding and consensus in the interests of employers, employees and the community.

I think I heard Senator Gietzelt refer to what the Employers’ Federation might think about this legislation. I do not know what their collective view is, but I have spoken to industrial relations representatives of large companies. The ones I have consulted say that they do not know what all the fuss is about because they can see no dangers at all in the legislation.

Senator McLaren:

– Who are they?

Senator JESSOP:

- Senator McLaren always encourages me by his interjections. One person to whom I have spoken happens to be in the airlines industry, and I could name others if Senator McLaren wished it. We embarked on a course of protection of the workers of Australia, and in 1976 we introduced the secret postal ballot. I hope that in the long term that will help to resolve a lot of the union troubles in Australia. Undoubtedly many trade union problems arise from the wrong type of leadership, and I believe that the trade unionists of Australia are very apathetic in that regard. I have a high regard for them as workers, but not when it comes to relinquishing a game of bowls in favour of going to a union meeting to elect a responsible leadership. Some of them are becoming a little tired of the way they are being manipulated, and the Government thought that secret postal ballots would be of some value to them.

We have introduced measures dealing with notification of elections, collegiate voting, accounting practices and financial reporting by employer and employee organisations, and many other measures, including the Industrial Relations Bureau, although unfortunately we have removed a few of its teeth. If it had continued in its original form perhaps it would have been more effective. In November 1978 we introduced legislation to prohibit certain conduct by members of trade unions where that conduct had the purpose and effect or likely effect of preventing or substantially hindering a third person from engaging in interstate or overseas trade or commerce. That is another area about which I have become particularly worried. A lot of organisations that are contemplating expanding their industries in Australia have the major worry that they may not be able to guarantee delivery overseas of their products.

Senator Mcintosh:

– Name them.

Senator JESSOP:

– One such company is Dow Chemical (Australia) Ltd, which is contemplating a large industrial petrochemical expansion in South Australia. It has great concern that delivery of its product may be delayed because of stupidity on the waterfront, and it ought to concern every member of this Senate, if we are interested in providing job opportunities. My friends on the Opposition benches often accuse us of creating unemployment. We are embarking on a program in South Australia that will provide at least 50,000 jobs over the next 10 years. For example, two mining projects can be started, one in nine months.

Senator Tate:

– Why don’t you talk about the Bill?

Senator JESSOP:

-I am talking about the problem of industrial relations and how it has an effect on the problems of South Australia. It seems to me that the question of industrial disputes involving the waterfront is of fundamental importance to us in this place. I am sure that the South Australian Government would also be worried that development will be inhibited because of action that may be taken by certain irresponsible sections of the trade union movement. ( Quorum formed). I was talking about the concern of companies who are going to expand their activities in South Australia about the disruption that constantly occurs on the waterfront and inhibits their capacity to guarantee delivery overseas of their products.

Senator Elstob:

– That is just not true.

Senator JESSOP:

– I have just read about disruption on the waterfront in New South Wales.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Interjections are disorderly. I ask honourable senators to desist from making further interjections.

Senator JESSOP:

– For the benefit of those who may not have been fortunate to hear what I have to say, I will repeat it. I cited the example that appeared this morning in the Australian editorial, which stated: . . the port of Sydney is again in chaos, this time due to a strike by harbor pilots- bringing the number of harbor stoppages to 68 in the past 12 months for an average of more than one a week. The Port of Melbourne was little better last year with 36 disputes (one every 10 days) directly and indirectly involving 22,000 workers -

Presumably some of them would vote for the Labor Party- obliterating 42,400 working days and costing Sl.Sm lost wages.

I use that as an example of the concern in Australia felt by companies that are rather hesitant to expand their activities here because they cannot be guaranteed a better deal on the waterfront. That is a very real problem in South Australia and one with which I believe we will have to deal in the future.

We will have to consider the development of South Australia very carefully. It appears that the Australian Workers Union and some other unions are anxious to develop the mining potential of the northern part of the State. It seems that there is a giant split in the Labor Party on that issue. I can envisage some problems for the South Australian Government. That is why I suggested earlier that the New South Wales and South Australian governments will have to consider some legislation similar to that which has been introduced in other States. I refer, for example, to the Essential Services Bill in Queensland. I have already sent a copy of Mr Bjelke Petersen’s legislation to Dean Brown, the South Australian Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment. I certainly would not advocate that we adopt it in-

Senator McLaren:

– We know that.

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask Senator McLaren to come to order.

Senator JESSOP:

-Thank you, Mr President. It is rather awkward to be interrupted in the chain of thought I am developing which is of great significance to the working people of Australia and particularly South Australia. The document I refer to is worth reading. I do not advocate that it ought to be adopted in its entirety. However, I suggest that some sort of legislation of this character is necessary to protect the essential services of the people of South Australia. The Bill we are considering is intent upon doing that. The Government seeks to require the commissioner to consult with his deputy president before making or varying an award relating to wages and conditions. We want to provide increased protection for the community by creating an alternative power to the deregistration of organisations, thereby removing delays in the deregistration process in cases where the safety, health or welfare of the community are put at risk by industrial action. I have made suggestions on one or two occasions. Not that long ago I asked the Attorney-General, who is at the table, a question concerning compulsory secret ballots to determine the attitude of union members to industrial action. The suggestion was put to me by members of the trade union movement who were concerned about the way they were being led by the nose by irresponsible leaders.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Senator, you say that but you never identify. Therefore you are a bit suspect.

Senator JESSOP:

-I think that if I identified the people they would become frightened. Identification may cause some embarrassment among the members of the Labor Party from South Australia. I have a letter which I received in reply to a question that I directed to Senator Durack on 1 May. I think that that was about the time of the Western Australian fiasco. It was also about the time when I received many representations concerning the subject. The letter, which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard, sets out some reason why secret ballots for strikes are not always satisfactory.

Senator McLaren:

– Read it.

Senator JESSOP:

– I am not going to read it. Do honourable senators opposite want me to read it? It is fairly lengthy. I do not want to keep honourable senators awake for too long.

Senator McLaren:

– Read it; we would like to hear it.

Senator JESSOP:

– I will read a section of it and then ask for it to be incorporated. I am not anxious to delay the House unduly. I know that other people want to speak. I do not want to deny them that privilege. I will read the section that has something to say about strikes and secret ballots. The Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Street, states:

This is not to say that there cannot be a useful role for officially directed ballots in connection with strikes. For instance, in September 1976 Mr Justice Ludeke ordered a secret ballot of members of the Plumbers and Gasfitters’ Employees’ Union employed as sprinkler pipe fitters to determine whether those members of the union were prepared to work normally in accordance with their award. Before the result of the ballot conducted by the Industrial Registrar was known, most of the members had returned to work. Of 812 ballot papers distributed, 368 were returned and 299 voted in favour of a return to work.

This is the sort of character-

Senator Cavanagh:

– But who is the author of that?

Senator JESSOP:

-The author is the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Street. I am afraid that Senator Cavanagh ‘s hearing is failing him. I seek leave to incorporate that document in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator Cavanagh:

– No.

Senator Georges:

– I want to raise a point. The document referred to is a letter written in answer to a question raised in this place. I would have thought that it would be contained somewhere else in Hansard. If it is not, it should be.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point of order. Is leave granted for the incorporation? There being no objection, leave is granted.

The document read as follows-

Minister for Industrial Relations 239 Bourke Street Melbourne 3 July 1979

Dear Senator Jessop

On 1 May 1979, in a Question Without Notice to my colleague Senator Durack, you sought information in respect of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and, in particular, the ordering of secret ballots to determine the attitude of union members to industrial action.

The Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act has, since 1928, contained provisions enabling the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to order a secret ballot of members of an organisation in relation to an industrial dispute. In 1972 the Act was amended by the Liberal-Country Party Government to enable the Commission, where a federal award applies, to order a secret ballot where it believes that the prevention or cessation of industrial action or settlement of matters giving rise to the industrial action would be assisted by ascertaining the views of the members concerned. The Commission may require the ballot to be conducted by Government officials. However, for a number of reasons, these secret ballot provisions have been used only rarely.

The Act requires members of the Commission to keep themselves acquainted with industrial affairs and conditions and they have intimate knowledge of the industrial relations aspects of the industries for which they are responsible. Within this context, it is for them to decide whether a secret ballot would provide, in particular situations, the most appropriate method of resolving the dispute. The fact that the provisions have been used so rarely indicates that those with the best knowledge of the indusrial relations situation do not necessarily agree that industrial disputes are likely to be more readily resolved by having secret ballots.

There are other considerations. For instance, where a ballot is ordered in relation to industrial action, the Commission’s flexibility to act to bring about a settlement of the dispute giving rise to the industrial action may be reduced. If, at the ballot, the members vote in favour of industrial action, settlement of the dispute could be unnecessarily delayed until such time as a further ballot results in favour of a resumption of work. Another consideration which must be taken into account is that where a ballot is held to determine the members’ attitude to industrial action and such a ballot endorses strike action, it would virtually guarantee that the strike would occur. Moreover, a ballot endorsing strike action would effectively limit the authority of the union officials to accept in settlement of the dispute something less than initially demanded.

This is not to say that there cannot be a useful role for officially directed ballots in connection with strikes. For instance, in September 1976 Mr Justice Ludeke ordered a secret ballot of members of the Plumbers and Gasfitters’ Employees’ Union employed as sprinkler pipe fitters to determine whether those members of the union were prepared to work normally in accordance with their award. Before the result of the ballot conducted by the Industrial Registrar was known, most of the members had returned to work. Of 812 ballot papers distributed, 368 were returned and 299 voted in favour of a return to work. There were special circumstances associated with this dispute, not the least of which were that the sprinkler pipe fitters had been engaged in intermittent industrial action over a long period and, at the time that ballot was ordered, had been on strike for some months. Again, in September 1977 Mr Justice Alley ordered that a secret ballot of builders’ labourers employed on the State Bank construction site in Melbourne be held to determine whether the men were prepared to accept the terms of settlement of the dispute proposed by Commissioner Brown. Of 69 ballot papers distributed, 60 were returned and 44 voted in favour of the proposal. A significant factor in this case was the union’s refusal to allow its members to vote on Commissioner Brown ‘s proposal for settlement of the dispute.

On the other hand, the recent experience in the Queensland brewery industry where a ballot ordered by the State Industrial Commission approved continuation of strike action by a 4 to 1 majority is evidence of the fact that officially directed ballots are not always effective in preventing strikes.

While experience indicates that under some conditions an officially directed ballot can be the means of bringing an protracted strike to an end, the fact remains that careful judgment must be experienced in selecting the time at which and the circumstances in which a ballot is to be held if the desired result is to be achieved.

Yours sincerely A. A. STREET

Senator D. S. Jessop Senator for South Australia Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

- Mr President, let me say first that, with very few exceptions, everyone deprecates strikes and is concerned that strikes occur. This applies not only to the trade union movement but also to the general public and to strikers. I will mention the exceptions during the course of my remarks. I think that the Bill has been canvassed with a fine-tooth comb and that there is very little more to say about it. Because of the statements made last evening by Senator Lewis I want to touch on the consultative clause to try to see whether we can get some rationale in an effort to stop strikes rather than to promote them. Last night I stated that clause 3, the consultative clause, is the main clause of the Bill. I did not say that for the reasons which Senator Lewis stated- that if I considered that the worst provision, I was not so much concerned about the deregistration provisions and the other clauses of the Bill.

To my mind clause 3 is the main clause of the Bill because I have taken cognisance of statements such as those made by Sir Richard Kirby, who had some doubts about whether this was a valid Bill and whether it could stand up to a test in the courts. We cannot ignore opinions which come from such high authority. Naturally I thought that clause 3 was the main clause because if the courts were to find that clause 3 goes beyond the power of the Commonwealth the whole Bill would be invalid. I was reinforced in this belief by the judgment of the High Court of Australia in 1930 in the case of the A.R.U. v. Victorian Railway Commissioners reported in volume 44 of the Commonwealth Law Reports at page 319. The majority decision of Mr Justice Rich, Mr Justice Starke and Mr Justice Dixon states:

Law which enables a body of persons to settle a dispute by issuing a decree arrived at by discussions amongst themselves without any hearing or determination between the disputants is, in our opinion, not a law with respect to conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes and is not authorised by Sec. S 1 (xxxv) of the Constitution.

The Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) stated today that the presidential member of the Commission has no power over what a commissioner may adjudicate on or what he may award. Therefore, it is a clause without meaning. In the face of that decision of the High Court, Mr Justice Moore would obviously know that the clause would have no effect and that the consultations could be no more than just consultations. I do not know why this learned justice, with that knowledge, would discuss this matter with the Minister and why the Minister should state that he gave him that assurance. As Senator Bishop said today, a Minister’s assurance is of no value to a court which is adjudicating on the right interpretation of legislation. On many occasions we have found that the actual wording of legislation means something that the legislature never meant it to mean. So the assurance is no good.

It seems ridiculous to me that Mr Justice Moore, with his legal knowledge, should seek an assurance about something which is so plain in the Bill. The statement which the Minister made as a result of the disclosure of Mr Justice Staples’ letter makes one very suspicious about the accuracy of the Minister’s statement and whether we should accept it. If we accept it we will be saying that Mr Justice Moore is incompetent- I do not believe he really is- in wanting an assurance about something which his legal knowledge must have told him would not happen and about which he could have assured his commissioners. If it is correct that the Bill contains a clause which is illegal and if, on further testing, it is found to be illegal, the whole Bill would be invalid. Although we were given the assurance today that there was nothing more than consultation on a question, I am concerned about Senator Evans’s good description of the legal position in which he said that there may be much more in this Bill which will necessitate testing it before the High Court of Australia.

The only argument for consultation is that it will bring about consistency in judgments. If we seek to achieve consistency in judgments we will be doing the opposite of what the Conciliation and Arbitration Act intends. It is an Act for the purpose of preventing and settling industrial disputes. That is the first consideration and the court has stated on numerous occasion that it is a consideration. If the Commission, of necessity, is to award different wage rates for different industries or for the same industry for the purpose of settling a dispute or preventing a dispute, it is the responsibility of the Commission to grant wages accordingly. Therefore, if we try to get consistency we will be defeating the very object of the

Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Of course, we must have different awards and different wage rates at such times as the commissioner who is hearing the dispute can see differences in the work values of different individuals appearing before him. Any attempt to give a uniform award in the Commission would be wrong and would be a denial of justice to which one of the parties is entitled when there is a difference between two applications.

As I stated earlier, with some exceptions, it is a concern and a sorrow to everybody that strikes occur. Let us look at some of the exceptions. I think that some governments must be under suspicion as to whether they really want to prevent strikes or whether they want to create strikes. The Federal Government, the Western Australian Government and the Queensland Government all have recently included drastic clauses in their industrial legislation which represent a policy which is not followed by the other governments of Australia, particularly the Liberal governments in Victoria and South Australia. I was much pleased when Mr Tonkin’s Government was elected to see that the first thing he did was to have discussions with the Secretary of the Trades and Labour Council, for the purpose of co-operation, if nothing else. But the three Liberal Party governments that are trying to create a dispute with the trade unions have served half of their elected terms. The State governments that have just had an election are trying to work with the trade unions. I repeat that the three governments that are trying to create a disturbance with the trade unions are those that must soon face an election. It is obvious that they are doing so for election purposes.

In past elections possibly the biggest issue has been that of unemployment. Unemployment defeats governments and there is sometimes a tendency to find some one to blame. A government seeking re-election often desires an enemy, a danger to the people that it must fight and put down. An attempt will be made to place the blame for unemployment on the trade union movement and to deprive members of the public of certain services or goods when election time comes around. The late Sir Robert Menzies pursued that course. Every time there was an election he had a communist waiting around the corner or a communist army about to invade the country. That device has outlived its usefulness. Now the trade union movement is accused of causing the very thing that people really believe has been caused by the policy of the Government. There is a certain group which, though professing to want peace in industry, really has no desire for it at all.

Let us face the facts. Ever since the industrial revolution we have had strikes in industry. Unions were formed even before that time. The Tolpuddle Martyrs, who were deported to Australia, were agricultural labourers who formed a union to better their conditions. I repeat that ever since the industrial revolution there have been strikes in industrialised countries. One follows the other. In Australia we have had a Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Act since 1904 to regulate wages and we had unions and strikes even before that Act. In the 1890s mostly agricultural workers- shearers- went on strike. We had strikes as early as that. Some way to curb strikes was sought. Machinery was devised to impose various restrictions on workers and unions.

The Conciliation and Arbitration Act is the most amended legislation in the Commonwealth. Everything possible has been done to attempt to place restrictions on the worker or his organisation. Despite all that, we still have strikes. Is the Government’s solution working? Should we not look at something else? I believe that Senator Jessop pointed out the trouble that occurred over union ballots which the trade unions resisted. They went on strike over them. Now that we have secret ballots, the unions are electing communist leaders. The system by which they are elected is beyond reproach. But we are still having strikes.

Senator Walters:

– What percentage of an industry elects them?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The percentage of the union that elects the leaders is that percentage which the Government of which the honourable senator is a member decided in its legislation had to vote. Even if the Government abolished or disfranchised trade unions, as it is seeking to do, it would not stop strikes. At one time the act of deregistering a trade union imposed hardships upon it and led to the formation of a scab union within the organisation. That no longer happens. When the Building Workers’ Industrial Union, the last union to which this happened, was deregistered, the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners functioned in its place and made inroads into the BWIU membership. The Government deregistered the Builders Labourers’ Union, but it has since fought even harder than it did before to get wage increases. The solidarity of the trade union movement which has been forced upon it by the Government’s legislation is such that today one does not find scab organisations forming in industry.

Senator Walters:

– What would have happened on the occasion of the national Medibank strike if we had not had scabs?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-The honourable senator’s lack of knowledge of industrial matters is such that she does not know that a scab is someone who comes in and takes the job of someone who is out of work. In the Medibank strike no one went in to do someone else’s job.

Honourable senators interjecting;

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Interjections must cease. We are listening to Senator Cavanagh.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-That provides no solution to the problem of strikes, however much the Government might dislike them. Let us consider the whole position. Men join an organisation for one reason- in order to make a collective effort to improve their conditions. Unions have one duty- to maintain or improve the conditions of their members, by whatever means. The more restrictions that are put upon thenactions, the more they have to revolt and use more drastic methods than they have used previously. Under this legislation, the Government may deregister a union but that will remove it from the ambit of all the penalties under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. They will continue to operate, as did the Builders’ Labourers Union, and in fact obtain bigger increases than they did before. The duty of unions is to improve the conditions of their members. The Government claims that pay increases defeat union objectives be creating inflation and worsening unemployment. It was once said that every pay rise costs someone else his job. If there is any validity in that, why are we not discussing it with the unions and saying: ‘The best protection and the best advantage you have is to do such and such’?

Senator Bonner:

– Why don’t you do that?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Because the Government is trying the other method, that of bringing down draconian legislation for the purpose of cowering the workers. The Government is doing that because it does not want peace in industry. An election is looming. Bob Hawke asked for an all-party conference but did not get it. My experience in the trade union movement has been a very long one. I have participated in many strikes, as the reports of the South Australian Industrial Court and the South Australian Supreme Court will show. I know that whatever the intention or desire of officials of unions might be, one cannot get men to go out on strike and lose pay unless they believe that they have a just cause. One of the greatest causes of strikes, of men leaving their work place, is the failure to provide comparable wage justice. Whether a working man feels well done by or ill-treated depends upon his comparison of his working conditions with those of someone else, possibly someone interstate who is doing a like job. We have departed from the concept of comparable wage justice. We must get back to it and arrive at a more equal sharing of the wealth of the community. It is hard for a man to realise if he works laboriously eight hours a day that he is not exploited by the boss who drives up in a Mercedes and has two or three more for his sons and daughters. It is hard for him to accept that the return in profits for an investment has justified such disparity in wages. The arbitration tribunals by percentage increases have ensured that there is a greater disparity in wages between the lower and the higher paid persons who are giving service to this country. We must sit down and be prepared to discuss what is a correct return for labour and what an industry can afford to contribute as a wage.

While we may say society is against strikes, trade unionists are not foreigners in their ideology or in their acceptance. They are the Australian community- one of the biggest sections of the organised Australian community. Just as you cannot get rid of strikes, you cannot get rid of the trade union movement either, because unions are here as a part of our industrial life. We have to meet with the unions; we have to seek and get some common ground on which talk to them. It is not going to be done by attempting to batter them over the head. Other than the Labor governments and the Liberal governments who are not coming up for election- Mr Tonkin called them in- we are doing very little about trying to get down and talk to them. It makes a difference when the Government does not have a justification for its return to power and it wants to find the enemy and someone to blame. We are trying to find a scapegoat for the Liberal Party to explain unemployment in Australia today. The Australian Council of Trade Unions may have been wrong by not going to the conference that was called, but does one seek to scrap it because of fault in someone else? Can we not try to get some alternative for them to meet and talk it over. Can we not consider the redistribution of wealth and the economy of Australians in talks wider than the trade union movement? Bob Hawke suggested that we should have organised sections of the Australian community contributing to the discussion on how we can boost the economy of Australia. There has been no joint discussion on it and there will not be.

During my time in the trade union movement in a secretarial position, when there were strikes I found that they were not all caused by wages claims, they were not all caused by the employees and were not always due to a decision of a union. Men out on the job can resent the actions of an employer. Men strike and put a ban on a particular job without any reference to the unions. Who is to say it is wrong? Do we know the conditions they are forced to work under and tolerate? Surely they have a right under those conditions to withdraw their service from an employer who has treated them so badly. If this is reported to the Arbitration Commission and the commissioner or a judge takes this into consideration and says, ‘Yes, you were justified in this because there was no alternative,’ surely they should be paid for the money they have lost as a result of the action that was forced upon them.

They have been paid in a few cases, but now that is to be forbidden. It is to be forbidden for a judge to order it but it was not forbidden for the Builders Labourers Federation, an unregistered organisation, to force it on the employers. Senator Walters complained of this today. The Government is making it desirable for trade unions to get out of the industrial system, but it is still going to have trade unions and still going to have strikes. I think it is worth considering a better approach.

Let me again condemn the rushing through of this industrial legislation. Generally such measures are brought in on the last day of the sitting so as to go through that day. What is the urgency of the Bill? Determination has to be achieved tonight; the Bill has to go through. What for? Where is the strike that is to be posed tomorrow? It may not be gazetted, it may not be proclaimed for some time, as happened with previous arbitration amendments. Can we not be quite honest about it? If my theory about an election is a correct one, where will it take place? Will it be in Western Australia, Queensland or the Capital Territory? Is the enforcement of an Act which has very little beating on the public justified when it causes the loss of untold man-hours in an industry? The citizens of Western Australia were meeting informally over many years and no one bothered about them. Now it is a breach of the Act when permission is not obtained. Up in the north-west somewhere near a mining site the miners had been out for seven weeks. They got together on the day of settlement and the metal trades unions organised a meeting in a vacant allotment for the purpose of selling to thenworkers the settlement terms that had been reached. Their names were all recorded.

Senator Walters:

– Because they did not ask for permission.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Let us examine it. The Commissioner of Police says no, they do not enforce it on every occasion. When three women are standing outside a Myer store in Hay Street and having a conversation it is illegal if the law is enforced. This has been justified as being the Crown’s job. It has been said in this House on many occasions that the Attorney-General does not believe he has to take action for every breach of law. If he did he could possibly imprison half the Australian public for some breach that occurred. It is his duty to prosecute for a breach of the law where, in his opinion, it is in the public interest for such a prosecution to take place; that is his job. Similar meetings had been held right through until the settlement of this dispute in Western Australia and then the law was enforced. I agree that there was a breach of the law, but it had not been enforced before. In view of the fact that there were hundreds and thousands of man-hours lost through that action, which has achieved nothing, do you think it was justified? Do you think there was any other intention, because a vital strike had been settled, than to create a position from which many more strikes would be created? In Queensland the only dispute in relation to street marches is whether there should be an appeal to a magistrate. That is the only issue and it is a vital issue. The dispute is not in relation to the position of the chief of police. Today in the north of Queensland 3,000 miners stopped work because one man was in gaol because he would not pay a fine. That was the president of the Miners Federation. The fine was paid. But what is the logic of this absolute enforcement of harmless law, refusal to alter a law because the trade unions want it altered to give a respected magistrate in Queensland the right to say whether the chief of police was right or wrong when the public suffers all this industrial disruption?

Senator Jessop:

– The workers suffered through loss of wages.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-The workers suffered. The Government’s plea is that others suffer. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) says that the community suffers. Every employer says that he suffers. Millions and millions of dollars worth of machinery stands idle, machinery that has been installed on overdrafts from the bank and which must be worked to enable the employers to pay the money back. Who is the sufferer from strikes? I think we all are. As I said, in my early time the employer was in a favourable position. Because of the suffering of the workers, he could shut up his plant and starve them into coming back without giving concessions. Today he cannot do that. Industry generally- the manufacturing industry, the transport industry- is relying on repayments of millions of dollars laid out in equipment and machinery and it must be kept going. The employee, with the assistance given to him, can stop out of work a lot longer than the employer can close down his factory, without going broke. This shows the force of the trade unions. I think Alan Reid wrote an article on this subject and shows the power of the trade union movement that the Government is trying to fight today. The trade unions cannot be wiped off lightly.

Senator Walters:

– What happens to the jobs? You are saying we can send an employer broke, but what happens to the jobs?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-The honourable senator asks what happens to the jobs? The goods that a firm was manufacturing will be manufactured to meet the demand. A skilled tradesman who cannot be replaced will find a job where vacancies are available. But the firm will not recover if it is up against the wall and is bankrupt. A government with any concern, and Liberal members if they have any concern about industry, should take this into consideration. It is an important thing. I think honourable senators should remember always that trade unions are here to stay and that strikes are here to stay. They have always been here, and it is something that the western world must write into its policy because it is something that it will have to meet in time. I suggest that the Government’s system has failed, and failed lamentably. Let us see whether we cannot make another approach and try to live with the trade unions, rather than fight them on every conceivable occasion.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-The Conciliation and Arbitration Bill is a very important Bill and a very contentious Bill. I think it is one to which all members of this chamber must give serious consideration. We must listen to the arguments and make up our minds about the things which have been said. I must say that I approach this particular subject knowing that I have not had a very great experience in the industrial relations area. When I was in practice as a lawyer I did not do very much at all in this field, and in the Parliament I would not say that I have become very familiar with the very complex legislation in this area. Nevertheless, I think it is our duty to try to get on top of this matter, particularly when we have before us legislation of this nature.

We have a position where this is a very important subject in the community. We live in a divided community where there is a great deal of feeling on the subject of strikes and losses. Our export markets at the moment are prejudiced by the inability to get goods away from this country and there is a great deal of feeling which arises, a great deal of feeling that we may not recover our economic position unless we can obtain a better industrial situation than we have at the present. We have a situation in which there are very considerable number of strikes taking place. I, for one, do not suggest that they in any way can be put down as the fault of one or other side in the industrial scene.

I have here a statement from the Australian Bureau of Statistics setting out the statistics concerning strikes in this community since 1974. I have shown this document to the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) and to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wriedt). I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Senator MISSEN:

– It is interesting to note, from the statistics, that between 1974 and 1978 there has been a considerable reduction in the loss of wages from strikes and the number of workers involved- a considerable reduction. The figure for 1974 for loss of wages was $128m. In 1977 the figure was $59m and by 1978 that figure had gone to $78m. So it stands at about two-thirds of the loss incurred in 1974. At the same time, and very significantly, the number of workings days lost has declined from 6,292,000 to 2,130,000- almost one-third. I think there are some significant features about that. We know that at the present time, in the course of strikes, there is use of industrial muscle which is probably more developed than it was before, and that there are people in key positions who strike. This has caused a change in the position so that a few people can cause a great deal of loss to members of the community. I believe that strikes by people who are strategically placed has caused all governments to be concerned.

Senator Jessop:

– Like the strike in the Latrobe Valley.

Senator MISSEN:

-Yes. The Latrobe Valley was a matter of concern a couple of years ago. We must look at our laws to ensure that they are adequate in the light of changed situations. I am very doubtful as to whether laws in themselves can cure industrial trouble. I agree with what has been said today, that there is a psychological aspect involved and it is a matter where merely changing the laws does not necessarily cure the problem. There is a great danger in the confrontation which occurs when there is legislation so hotly contested and so vigorously supported as this legislation is, and one has to make up one’s mind whether or not it is worth while changing the laws to obtain the result.

I think it is significant, in this context, to read what was said recently by an expert in this area, Professor Edward J. Sykes, a lecturer in industrial law at the Queensland University. This was reported in the Courier-Mail of 19 September 1979. Professor Sykes was referring to the Queensland Government’s Essential Services Bill, a rather drastic Bill. Professor Sykes states:

Concerning the Queensland Government’s Essential Services Bill, some 25 years experience and research in considering problems of industrial relations and industrial law have convinced me that legislation of this ‘strong arm’ variety is almost inevitably bound to fail.

He went on to say:

Either it becomes a mere ‘huff and puff threat which is not implemented or it is implemented but fails because of misunderstanding of industrial realities.

I think we must watch that, and I think the people in Queensland ought to be watching that very carefully in view of the very drastic nature of that legislation. Professor Sykes also had this to say. and I think it is very relevant to this situation:

Admittedly union powers when exercised as they frequently are, in an arrogant way, are anti-social, yet severe repressive measures can succeed only if some very wily and wellthought out initial preparation of the ground is first resorted to.

You will see that I conclude in my speech that I am not altogether happy about some aspects of this legislation and I am not altogether certain that it has been all that well thought out. Some of it, I think, is necessary. Other parts of it, I think, are more dubious. While I am speaking of the people who have written on this subject, I would like to refer to the Alfred Deakin Lecture this year, delivered by the Hon. Tony Street on the subject of ‘Industrial relations: Class Conflict or Common Goals’. There are a number of arguments in it which I certainly support. Mr Tony Street spoke of ‘conflict or consensus’. He spoke of those people who consider that industrial relations are just class conflict in an institutional form. He pointed out that the majority of people in this country do not accept that view. I believe that that is true. He pointed out that there are people who hold the view that there should be no form of sanction in industrial laws. He does not accept that, and nor do I. He set out reasons why that argument is fallacious. He then turned to those who think the law is too weak to be of any real use and who think it merely legitimises wage increases and better working conditions. I think that what appears on page 16 of his printed speech is interesting and important. It states:

The contention which follows is that what is needed is a battery of legislation to abolish strike action, so that when unions have a case to put they will be forced to go to the appropriate tribunal and accept its judgments. This argument neglects two basic principles of industrial relations.

First, we live in a democracy and cannot force people to work if they refuse to. Therefore, the Government can try to persuade or influence people to go back to work but we cannot, in the ultimate, force them to do so.

There is also an implicit assumption contained in the argument that no individual has a legitimate right to strike or refuse to work. But for example, if people have a genuine, informed belief that their lives or health and that of their fellow workers are being unnecessarily endangered by substandard procedures or conditions, they are justified in refusing to work.

Another problem with the argument for legislating to ban strikes is that it ignores the realities of industrial relations. The experience of the 1920s should have been sufficient to demonstrate the shortcomings of industrial legislation. While industrial relations legislation can facilitate and encourage a better climate it can never be the answer to all our problems.

I support those arguments very strongly. This Bill does not forbid strikes or anything like that, but I think the argument and the philosophy behind that statement is one that we should support. I regret that, to some extent, this Bill does not follow sufficiently the line of that argument.

I mentioned what Professor Sykes said about the initial preparation of the ground for the legislation. I feel that the ground prepared for this Bill was not altogether satisfactory. I know that there has been a lot of discussion in this chamber about the National Labour Consultative Council and the fact that union representatives were not at one of its meetings. I am not satisfied with the fact that they were not notified later of the contents of the Bill. I believe there has been too much secrecy in the course of preparation of legislation such as this. I think that secrecy is counter productive. I believe that, while the union leaders were not there- and it can be pointed out that they brought on their own heads a great deal of trouble by not being present and not discussing items- that was so well known and the Government might have made available to them the contents of this Bill at an earlier stage.

The fact that conciliation commissioners were not consulted has lead to a reaction from them. I think that that likewise is unfortunate. They are the people who are constantly engaged in the business of conciliation and arbitration and they could have contributed quite usefully to the formation of a Bill like this. I do not refer particularly to Mr Justice Staples. I think that he too has certain arguments which are worthy of consideration and which are not displaced by his background or his past membership of political parties and so forth. To my mind, if one looked around at all kinds of people one would find strangeness of political views in their youth. I would not like my rather conservative early-day views to be quoted against me now. I think we ought to try to divorce the arguments from the personalities and not try to argue ad hominem

I believe that there ought to have been a better look into the constitutional question. At the time this Bill was under consideration the Law and Government Committee of the Government parties was in operation. The Chairman was overseas and I was its Acting Chairman. I knew nothing, nor did the Committee, of this Bill until it was disclosed to us through our Party. I made my comments then and have developed my views since then. I think it is unfortunate that when there are a number of lawyers in political parties who have views and would be very prepared to look at these matters they are not used in the consideration and development of such Bills. What I am saying is that there ought to be a more open legislative process, particularly in an area which is so delicate and difficult such as industrial relations.

I want to refer now to specific parts of the Bill. There has been a lot of argument about the consultative process, which is to be about five clauses in the Bill. They are proposed sections 2A, 73, 78, 84 and 88AC, all of which are in this same form whereby it is required that the conciliation commissioner shall consult with the deputy president in relation to a decision that the commissioner is to give. I think that there is merit in what has been said; that this proposal is mainly to facilitate compliance with guidelines or principles laid down by a Full Bench of the Commission; that there ought to be uniformity; that someone should not lead the way in one area and cause all the other unions to follow suit; that it is better that uniformity can be pursued. I do not find in any way convincing the argument pressed quite considerably, particularly in the debate on this matter in the House of Representatives, that somehow the requirement for consulting is a requirement whereby a decision really is being made by the Deputy President instead. One only has to look at the Oxford English dictionary to find that the word ‘consult’ means ‘To take counsel, to seek information or advice from ‘. There is nothing of the nature of making a decision. I think that is important, particularly in respect to the constitutional aspects of these clauses which have been challenged. One only has to remember other recent legislation. For example, in the case of the Australian Security and Intelligence Organization Bill, the Government has agreed to consult with the Leader of the Opposition. Nobody suggested or imagined that that meant that the Leader of the Opposition was to make the decision or have any real part in forcing a decision upon the Government. Likewise, of course, in respect to the Human Rights Commission Bill. That Bill has not yet been debated by us but it contains a provision that the States should be consulted before extending the range of options open to the Human Rights Commission. Likewise again, there is no provision that the States would make the decision. I think this amendment is the provision which has rather confused some members of the Opposition in both chambers. In fact, it is not a decision- ma king process.

At the same time I do think that one could read into the provision a requirement that there must be some serious consideration given. It is not a matter of writing a letter and saying: ‘I am going to do so and so, whatever you might do’, and then doing it. There has to be formal and serious concern given to the advice of the particular Deputy President to whom the Commissioner is responsible. Mr M. Young said in the House of Representatives that ‘he who decides must also hear’. He took that as the basis of the law, suggesting that that would invalidate this part of the legislation. To my mind that view is not soundly based.

I notice also that reference has been made to a 1 930 case, that of the Australian Railways Union against the Victorian Railway Commissioners. In that case the High Court of Australia held invalid provisions which allowed conciliation committees comprising persons who were not members of the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, as it was then called, to make decisions without hearing argument. The three justices of the High Court said:

A law which enables a body of persons to settle a dispute by issuing a decree arrived at by discussion amongst themselves without any hearing or determination between the disputants is, in our opinion, not a law with respect to conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes and is not authorised by section 51 (xxxv) of the Constitution.

That, of course, is a law where persons are entitled to settle, to make decisions. It cannot be suggested here that the deputy president has the power to make the decision, to settle something. He is in a position to advise. If one turns from what one would say is the very dubious constitutional objection which has been raised to the problem of the actual operation of this provision, one will be concerned with the fact that there are objections from commissioners. There are obviously objections which Sir John Moore has brought forward and which concern members of the court. One can see that there are problems of the confidence and integrity of those who are making the decisions, in this case the commissioners, and a question of some doubt as to how the deputy president is to arrive at his decision. He will not, presumably, have heard the evidence. He cannot be expected to read all the judgments and all the evidence given before other commissioners who are hearing cases with regard to a number of different industries.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Don’t you concede that there is a lot of vagueness about that in the legislation?

Senator MISSEN:

-Yes, indeed I do. It is vague. I am saying now that it is very difficult to see how this can work, how it can operate. I put this not on the basis of any constitutional objection but on the basis that it does seem to lead to some lack of confidence in the commissioners. It also seems to me to suggest that the deputy presidents would not be in a position to make the decisions based on evidence, the evidence having been heard by a commissioner. Reference has been made at times to the situation of the Public Service Arbitrator. It is a different situation. If one reads the provisions of that legislation one will see that it is far removed from the position in this case. I do, therefore, say that I find this provision to be a very awkward provision. I hope that the Government will look again at and discuss with the officers of the court the problem which this one brings up.

Some of the other provisions of the Bill, which I shall briefly refer to, are, I think, necessary. I am satisfied with the arguments which have been advanced for them. They are repairing defects in the Act. I refer to the power which the President will have to withdraw matters from a commissioner and the power in regard to standdowns being expedited. One can imagine the amount of loss which occurs and the need for a decision in this area. I think that the provisions regarding reference to the Full Bench, which is possible, and the conciliation stages have quite a bit of merit. As I say, I am no expert in this area, but I am satisfied with the arguments that have been raised.

As to proposed new clause 25a, which says that no order shall be made allowing wages to be paid to people who are engaged in industrial action, I can well see the argument for that. I can well see the problem which arises although I believe that it has not arisen in very many cases. At present a member of the court is able to make such a decision for payment of lost wages. That can be one of the things that he does in the course of his settlement of an industrial dispute. However, I have doubts about whether this provision will hold up constitutionally. I am reminded of the fact- I think it was set out in the Amalgamated Engineering Union case of 1967- that the Parliament can pass laws that deal with procedural matters but not directing the methods by which the conciliation and arbitration function is carried out. I cannot see how this can be said to be in any way a procedural matter. It does limit the area in which the deputy president is able to make a decision if he thinks that is necessary, the circumstances being there and he being justified. That is being taken away from him. I must say that I would have doubts as to whether that would stand up to challenge in the High Court.

We must remember in regard to this whole area that we have very limited powers insofar as the Constitution is concerned. Before dealing with the last matter, which I think is of the greatest significance, I would like to read something about the power as described by Sir Robert Garran in Prosper the Commonwealth, his autobiography. He was a great public servant, a great lawyer and a man who should be listened to with great respect. At page 1 74 of his book he says:

The Commonwealth Parliament has power to make laws with respect to conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State. That is a shocking example of the way in which a subject matter should not be set out. The end, the purpose, is the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes; yet not every means for attaining that end is included in the power, but only the particular means of conciliation and arbitration. There may be other and perhaps better means for attaining this end- as, for instance, by legislative regulation creating a common rule for the industry; or by award of boards or shop committees, to enable the industry to regulate itself. But these means are not available to the Commonwealth Parliament.

He goes on to say that the possibility of the power here being either too great or too smallone can go one way or the other. He says:

I have always thought that the power is either too great or too small. Either it should have been restricted to a few precise matters such as standard wages and hours, or it should have been extended to the whole subject of industrial disputes, so that the Commonwealth Parliament would have had at its disposal a choice of all possible means of preventing or settling them. Or, better still, it should have been expressed positively to cover the whole purpose of keeping industral peace. As it is, the Parliament can do nothing of itself to preserve the atmosphere of peace, but can only create tribunals of pacifiers; and these can generally do nothing, but wait till the parties are in dispute and the dispute has become inflated to a federal scale, and the two armies are drawn up in battle array in an atmosphere not at all conducive to friendly settlement.

That, I believe, sets out pretty clearly the weakness of the power. It is a power which we should be careful not to use to create a great deal of heat in the community only to find that it falls to the ground.

With that in mind, I turn to the last proposal in this Bill. I feel that it, likewise, is of dubious constitutional validity. I refer to the provision in regard to deregistration of unions. By contrast, I will read what was said in the House of Representatives by the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) with whom, unfortunately I cannot agree on this occasion. He said:

If the Minister decides that an issue affecting the health, safety and welfare of the community is of such importance that deregistration action should be taken, he must make application to the Full Bench and he has to justify his position in a Full Bench hearing. It is only then, on the recommendation of the Full Bench, that the deregistration proceedings can continue.

In that statement, to my mind, there are two quite mistaken ideas. It is not that the Minister has to justify his position before the Full Bench.

All he has to do is seek a declaration from the Full Bench, fit in with the categories, and then it makes a judgment. It is not on the recommendation of the Full Bench that deregistation proceedings continue. Having obtained that order, the Executive is in a position to do most extraordinary things under this Bill. It will make decisions, which are not challengeable by the Full Bench. If one looks at the terms of this new deregistration provision- some reference has been made to it- one will find that there are some extraordinary things in what the Full Bench has to be satisfied of. Two or more members will have to be engaged in industrial action. It has been pointed out that that may be a small part of a union, perhaps a rebel part of a union organisation.

Senator Tate:

– Or a planted part.

Senator MISSEN:

– That is possible, too. The second part which must be proved under proposed section 143A (b), is that:

The industrial action has had, is having, or is likely to have, a substantial adverse effect on the safety, health or welfare of the community or of a part of the community.

The fact that it must be a substantial effect is an important limitation. I think that is valuable. Safety, health and welfare are very vague terms, and a small part of the community may well be affected by some industrial action. Therefore, the welfare of that part of the community is affected. What happens? The Full Bench shall make the declaration. It is given the power in the Bill only to make declarations. Frankly, I doubt whether that is part of the power of a ‘conciliation arbitration’. So, the first part of the proposition, to my mind, has very dubious chances of standing up as part of the settlement of a dispute by conciliation and arbitration. The Commission is to make a declaration about the conduct of certain people, with no reference to what happens thereafter.

One then turns to the Executive power. That is a power to deregister a union at any time within six months. As has been pointed out today, that carries with it grave consequence. It also enables the Government to do other things in regard to the unions and their members. The Government can make an order which includes the power to suspend any of the rights, privileges or capacities of the organisation or all or any of its members. In other words, it may discriminate between members.

Senator Elstob:

– What do you think of that provision?

Senator MISSEN:

– I am criticising this provision. To my mind, it is too wide and unconstitutional. It allows an order to be made dealing with the rights of members. There is a limitation but under this Act or under any other Act, award or determination there is very wide power.

Senator Tate:

– That could include wages.

Senator MISSEN:

– It could include wages and I suppose it could include superannuation rights in certain circumstances. It is difficult to know how long or how short might be the exercise of that power. I cannot see how that power fits into conciliation or arbitration, bearing in mind what was said by Sir Robert Garran about constitutional limitations and the fact that it must be a power in respect of the settlement of disputes and not just a wide open power. I must say in regard to both elements of this power that I have the gravest doubts as to whether that criterion could be found. I know that apparently the Government has received respectable advice, of which I am not aware, which suggests that that can be done. I know also that there is power in the High Court to ‘read down’ powers, as happened in regard to the Family Law Act, so that they fit within the constitutional framework and so that they can operate without defeating the law. I think that the powers would have to be cut down quite considerably if the courts were to uphold this particular law.

The last thing I want to point out about this provision is that although it empowers the Government to make orders under clause 1 6 of the Bill, those orders are in no way subject to disallowance in this Parliament. They are to be gazetted. We know the usual provision under the Acts Interpretation Act whereby regulations are made and are subject to scrutiny and possible disallowance in either chamber of Parliament, there is no power whatsoever do disallow in this case. It is most unfortunate that powers are given to the Executive government in this way to make very drastic orders which are not to be subject in any way to the control of the Houses of Parliament.

I will vote for this Bill because the Government is of the opinion that it requires a number of these powers. A number of these powers are desirable but I think that the procedures under which the Bill has been presented are rather dubious and I think it is unfortunate that quite necessary repair powers are mixed with others which are of dubious constitutionality. Those matters may well have the effect of polarising the community more. I have always stoutly rejected the idea that we should try to polarise the community either in a political sense or in an industrial sense. I trust that my political views in this regard have been consistent. I fear that some of these provisions may have the effect of polarising opinion in this country. I hope that the Government will look again at some of those powers and, in the calmness of that consideration, will amend them, taking advice from those who are experienced in the jurisdiction, and will thereby not cause the type of offence and industrial trouble which might otherwise break out. I therefore will support the Bill but I do it with reservations in the hope that it may still be subject to some reconsideration.

Senator MCAULIFFE:
Queensland

-I listened with great interest to Senator Missen. I am prepared to congratulate him on his studious and intelligent examination of the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1979 which the Senate is discussing. He addressed himself to it so fairly that I was going to commend a reading of his speech to his colleagues so that they may be enlightened by his remarks. The only regret I have is that in the closing stages he said that although he disagreed with the Bill he would vote for it. He reminded me of the story of a man who did not have a foot in three camps, only because he had only two legs. That was unfortunate because it was an excellent speech. It was a very good survey of the Bill before the Senate. I am at a loss to understand how a man could so passionately voice his opposition to a Bill and then, in the last sentence, say that nevertheless he will vote for it.

I feel that what this Government is really trying to tell this Parliament and the people of Australia, in a simple sentence, is that if the Industrial Court does not act in accordance with the wishes of the Government, the Government will ringbark it. No matter which way one looks at the Bill, that is the realisation that comes out of it. Never before have I heard such inflammatory remarks about industrial legislation. I repeat that the attitude of this Government has been clearly disclosed. If the Industrial Court does not act in accordance with its wishes, the Government will have no hesitation in ringbarking it. As pointed out by my colleague, Senator Bishop, who led for the Opposition in the debate on the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill, the Opposition is totally opposed to the Bill. It will not have a bar of it at any price. As was eloquently pointed out by Senator Bishop, the legislation is provocative. It is vicious, anti-worker and anti-union. Senator Bishop pointed out to Government senators their misgivings and the collision course on which the Government is embarking, as well as the excesses in which the Government is indulging in wanting confrontation with the trade union movement.

I ask the Senate: Who else is more competent and better qualified to press the alarm button on a Bill of this sort than Senator Bishop? He is a man who, throughout his adult life, has been associated with the trade union movement, including the Australian Railways Union. For a considerable period he was on the Australian Council of Trade Unions. By comparison, we on this side cannot accept the opinions of Government senators who overnight or in the last two minutes have become experts on conciliation and arbitration matters. On the other hand, we have had the experience of Senator Bishop, a veteran in industrial relations and a man of wide experience, offering to this chamber the benefit of a lifetime experience in the industrial movement. He made a plea to the Government to pull back before it is too late; but I predict that as surely as night follows day his plea will be ignored by the Government. His plea will go unheeded. .

Honourable senators may ask me: ‘Why are you so sure that his plea will go unheeded? The reason is that the Government has followed a policy of confrontation for the past few years. It has engaged in legislation by reprisal as far as the trade union movement is concerned. Then honourable senators may ask: ‘Why do you say this? Why do you claim this?’ The reason is that if one examines the track record of this Government in industrial relations one will find that in 1977 an amendment was made to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act or, as it is better known, the Industrial Relations Bureau legislation or, as some people describe it, the panzer division of the Government in industrial matters. That amending Bill provided for the deregistration of unions, the seizing of union funds and property, fines on officers and rank and file trade unionists, suspension from office of union officers, and the debarring of members of trade unions from elevation or election to full time or part time office in their union.

Need I remind Government senators of the amendment to section 45D of the Trade Practices Act, which was introduced into the Parliament at about this time last year. What did that amendment to the Trade Practices Act provide? It provided that a union could be fined an amount of $250,000- a quarter of a million dollars- if it was found to be engaging in so-called secondary boycotts. We know of the turmoil and the inflammatory situation that was brought about by the introduction of the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act. It provided that people could be stood down, sacked or retired from employment if they did not act or perform as their employers expected. But the most disgraceful element in that Bill was that employees could be declared redundant because, through the introduction of technology, there were no positions for them. There was no real right of appeal against early retirement. I will not weary the Senate by recapitulating all the provisions of that Bill because the very intensive debate we had on it less than three months ago must be in our memories. I am very proud to stand here this evening and inform the Senate that Bill Hayden, as Leader of the next Labor Government, has promised the repeal of all these measures. I am happy that he has publicly announced that and declared what the Australian Labor Party has promised to do when it becomes the next government of this country, because that is the only decent and right thing to do.

On another front, the national Government tries to give the impression that it wants to keep the excesses of the Western Australian Government and the Queensland Government at arm ‘s length in respect to the right of assembly disputes in Western Australia and the essential services legislation in Queensland. However, I will lay at the feet of the Government this evening the claim that every action it has taken shows quite conclusively that this Government condones the actions of the Western Australian and Queensland governments in their repressive legislation. This legislation we are discussing this evening is just as much a part of the same pattern of attack against the trade union movement as the pieces of legislation in Western Australia and Queensland. What is more, as I have previously pointed out, the Government has followed this approach for the past two years. Let us look briefly at how the Queensland legislation fits into the situation that exists in Canberra today. The Queensland essential services legislation provides for the imposition of massive fines, the deregistration of unions, the encouragement of scab labour against unions, and the sacking of employees who go on strike. In other cases it forces people to work in so-called essential industries, and it prohibits employer-employee agreements based upon negotiation and conciliation.

It also allows union property to be sold off for payments of fines imposed under this legislation. Already in Queensland one employer organisation has roundly condemned the Bill, and I refer to the Queensland Motor Industry Associated Ltd, a registered union of employers under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act and a registered body corporate under the Companies Act. That employer association had this to say about the essential services legislation- in Queensland:

On the overall situation if the Bill in its present form becomes law the Association see it creating more problems than it was designed to solve and it could lead to industrial relations situations that could be avoided.

The statement continues:

The ‘essential service’ definition is far too broad and is very open for interpretation.

The entering of private premises, on the authorisation of the Minister, in times of emergency, is far too loose a power.

There is a combination of Federal and State Awards in many essential services and this dual area of cover would present real problems of implementation of such legislation.

The time limit for conciliation proceedings before the Commission is too inflexible.

The right to claim damages against Unions is unclear and could be read to cover class actions by the whole community and not just the areas and bodies in disputation.

The method of strict control and recording of ‘responsible persons’ who Unions of Employees now refer to as ‘strike breakers’ could cause greater ill feeling than needed when the dispute was settled.

As mentioned above the loss of such accumulated benefits as long service leave, annual leave, and even superannuation are unrealistic penalties on individual employees.

The recovery of property through the courts structure to pay fines placed on individuals is unacceptable.

The Association does not agree with the principle of the introduction of an Act that can overrule the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

I thank the Senate for its indulgence in allowing me the time to read into Hansard those 10 opinions expressed in a position paper by an employers’ association in Queensland in response to the essential services legislation in that State. It is important to have those opinions recorded in Hansard and to tell Government senators about them. We on this side of the chamber know that, despite the window dressing of honourable senators opposite in saying that they want to keep the Western Australian and Queensland legislation at arms length, they absolutely condone their provisions. That is evidenced by the measures that are contained in the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill that we are discussing this evening.

We have heard similar statements expressed over and over again by senators on this side of the chamber, men who are experienced in industrial relations. We have heard also the opinions of the Australian Democrats expressed by their leader Senator Don Chipp. We know of the grave concern that we all share regarding the observations made by Sir Richard Kirby on the provisions of the Bill. Surely, when a man of his experience, standing and industrial knowledge goes on the public record and so strongly criticises the provisions of the Bill, any responsible Government or group of people would sit up and take notice. If the criticisms of Sir Richard Kirby were not enough we also have the statements from Mr Justice Staples, a man whose remarks have been quoted by honourable senators who have spoken before me. The opinions of Mr Justice Staples have been soundly and roundly supported. He is a man of great industrial experience.

Of course, we witnessed the gutter-snipe tactics of some honourable senators opposite. They said that Mr Justice Staples used to be a member of the Communist Party. Do we ever say anything about the decision on income tax law by the Chief Justice of Australia, Sir Garfield Barwick? Do we condemn his decisions because he was a Liberal? Do we condemn the decisions of Sir Nigel Bowen or any of the other former Liberal parliamentarians who have been elevated to the High Court? Do we ever hear people on this side of the chamber condemn the decisions of those people on the grounds of their poltical persuasions? No, never! All that petty criticism comes from honourable senators on the other side. They say that Mr Justice Staples was a communist. I want to say to the Government Whip, Senator Peter Baume, who is sitting smugly on the other side of the chamber, that anybody who was not a mad radical at university by the time he was 23 years old would be an ultra conservative by the time he was 40 years old. I am waiting for a bit of a change in the honourable senator.

Senator Peter Baume:

– That is not even original.

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– It does not matter whether it is original. If it is good it is worth repeating.

Senator Peter Baume:

– You are not capable of anything original.

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– It is kosher as far as I am concerned. Does the honourable senator understand me now? Not only did Sir Richard Kirby have things to say; he was supported by Mr Justice Staples. Now we find that the 25 industrial commissioners share the same view. Surely it cannot be said that they were all appointed by the Australian Labor Party. Some 20 of the 25 commissioners were appointed by Liberal-National Country Party governments.

As if outbursts from Sir Richard Kirby and Mr Justice Staples are not enough, we have had the public denouncement by the 25 commissioners. Now the president of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has taken a stand. The matter was so important that the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Street, had a meeting with him last evening, the real details of which seem still surrounded in mystery. This discussion of industrial law is unprecedented in our history. The discussion has involved a former President of the Court, a justice and 25 commissioners. The climax has come with Sir John Moore’s saying that he can see the dangers in the legislation and is trying to talk the Government into pulling back and further considering the Bill.

I have with me a document which I have had for some time. It was sent to me from Geneva some years ago by a top trade union official who was representing Australia at the International Labour Organisation. I have kept the document. I read it three or four times a year to keep me abreast of what justice is required for freedom of association not only in trade unions but also in employer organisations. I have never quoted it before because I have not thought that any situation has ever arisen in any industrial debate to warrant such a lofty resolution being read into Hansard. But now, with this unprecedented situation in the country where a former President of the Court, a justice, 25 commissioners and, the final climax, President Sir John Moore have expressed opposition to the Bill, I think the time is opportune to refer to the document which is entitled ‘The Protection of Trade Union Rights: Twenty Years Work by the Committee on Freedom of Association.’ The Committee not only protects the rights of association of trade unionists but also protects the rights of associations of employers. The resolution I am about to quote was carried at the International Labour Organisation and is referred to as convention No. 87. With the indulgence of the Senate I propose to read it. It states:

In brief. Convention No. 87 guarantees to all workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever and without previous authorisation, the right to establish and join organisations of their own choosing; these organisations are to have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes, without interference by the public authorities; they shall have the right to form federations and confederations, and to affiliate with international organisations of workers and employers; these rights also apply to federations and confederations; the acquisition of legal personality by organisations may not be made subject to conditions restricting the exercise of these rights; in exercising them workers and employers and their respective organisations must respect the law of the land-

I repeat those last few words: ‘must respect the law of the land’. I am appreciative of the nods of honourable senators opposite. It continues:

  1. . but in turn the law of the land may not be such as to impair, nor may it be so applied as to impair, the guarantees provided for in the Convention;

So it is two-way traffic. To continue:

  1. . the extent to which the guarantees provided for in the Convention shall apply to the armed forces and the police is to be determined by national laws or regulations.

I do not need to remind honourable senators opposite that the Australian nation, through its Parliament, is a member of the International Labour Organisation and a signatory to all these agreements. I suggest to honourable senators opposite that after they have read Senator Missen ‘s speech they should read the relevant sections of the International Labour Organisation’s conventions regarding freedom of association not only for trade unions but also for employers.

I come to the point. Despite all these outbursts by such eminent men as those whose opinions I mentioned earlier and who are charged with the dispensing of justice in the industrial arena, we have received no responses from the Government. No opinions have been forthcoming from it. A statement was put down this morning, but we need refer only to the last paragraph to see the insincerity of the Government. It states:

Sir John asked when the legislation was expected to be passed through the Senate. I -

That is Mr Street, the Minister- replied that the legislation would be dealt with in the normal way, but that the actual timing was of course in the hands of the Senate.

I will leave the Senate to be judged on its performance this evening as to whether this legislation is being handled in the normal way. As I said, very forceful opinions have been expressed by Sir Richard Kirby, Mr Justice Staples and 25 commissioners, the climax being the meeting between the Minister and Sir John Moore. But where is the Government? It maintains the silence of Dean Maitland. No opinions or responses have been forthcoming from it. That makes those of us on this side of the chamber wonder what all this urgency is about. Why does the Government want the legislation passed today? Why is it prepared to steamroll through the Senate legislation which will have a vital effect on the whole of the nation. What is this all about?

I have explained that the track record of this Government over the past two years is one of confrontation with the unions. It has condoned the public assembly legislation in Western Australia and the essential services legislation in

Queensland. What is it building up to? I have heard previous speakers ask whether the Government is contemplating an early election. I do not know. I am at a loss to follow the performance of the Government in relation to the legislation before us. I do not know what it all adds up to. I do not know what is behind it all. What is the Government withholding from us? I do know. As I said, is it all leading up to an election? I hope that in the interests of this country the real reasons will be disclosed during the debate at the Committee stage when the Opposition will be able to give close scrutiny to the legislation, particularly to proposed new sections 22a, 25a and 143a.

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

– Although in this debate I follow the amiable Senator McAuliffe from Queensland, I am sorry that I will not be able to support his remarks, as it seemed to me that they were almost totally irrelevant to the Bill before us tonight. I would like to deal with some of those matters as we proceed. I make one remark with regard to the statement made very early in his speech that he sees this Bill as being totally synonymous(Quorum formed). Early in his speech Senator McAuliffe referred to the terms ‘anti-worker’ and ‘anti-union’ in exactly the same context, as though the two were synonymous. I submit that that is not so and that, in terms of the legislation before the Senate tonight, the words he was using relate to the support of workers and in no way destroy the unions in a constitutional way.

Later in his speech he referred to International Labour Organisation conventions. In so doing, it was fairly clear that Senator McAuliffe sees this legislation as an attempt somehow to undermine the freedom of association of trade unions. He put forward no argument in respect of that and it seems to me quite reasonable to expect that unless his case can be made more forcibly, he cannot expect much respect from this side of the chamber. The point is that in his speech there was no indication of any attempt in this legislation to cut across the freedom of association of any trade union, whereas the core of this legislation is to provide an opportunity for particular workers and individual members of a trade union to express their views in a free way. I fail to see the honourable senator’s argument that somehow the legislation which is before us tonight in any way destroys the point he was speaking of. It is fairly clear either that he was referring to another piece of legislation outside this jurisdiction or that his argument was totally off track.

Let us look at the Bill itself. I believe that it contains three important thrusts which require further amplification. Clearly the aim of the legislation is to speed up the settling of disputes. It contains improved methods of ensuring that hearings come to a speedy conclusion and that matters get before commissioners and higher officers in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission as quickly as possible. Secondly, there is a provision for increased consultation between the commissioners and higher officers of the Commission. As has been made clear in the Opposition’s presentation of this debate, there is a very clear case for increased consultation at all levels of industrial dispute settlement. Consequently, one can hardly accept the suggestion that the Opposition would not agree with the thrust of this legislation in that respect. Thirdly, it ensures a faster and simpler means of settling disputes. There is an attempt to extend the powers of the President to intervene in particular cases -

Senator Tate:

– On what basis?

Senator MESSNER:

– I will come to that. There is provision to refer matters to the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in certain circumstances. Let us look now at the very bases of the industrial relations settlement system as it applies federally. We have noted that over the last 70 or 80 years the arbitration system has developed in such a way as to reflect the views and needs of any particular time. But at all times, the Arbitration Commission has been the creature of the Federal Parliament. In fact, the source of all power for the Arbitration Commission in its dispute-settling practices and procedures has been the Parliament.

Senator Tate:

– The power is granted in the Constitution.

Senator MESSNER:

– Yes, but it is granted in terms of the laws that have been made by the Parliament for the establishment of the Arbitration Commission and its dispute-settling procedures. The Parliament, as we are all fully aware, is elected by the people. The unions are not. They are elected by members of the unions themselves. Quite obviously, therefore, the superior power must reside in the Parliament itself which, as has been pointed out, derives its power from the Constitution.

The Arbitration Commission was established back in 1 904. During the constitutional conventions of the 1 890s there was some debate about what form of power the Federal Parliament should have over its arbitration procedures.

Clearly, there was then a very strong State bias. All power resided in the States. There was a suggestion that perhaps total power should be vested in the Federal Parliament. (Quorum formed). I apologise to my colleagues for them having been needlessly called to the chamber. I was making the point that the power of the Arbitration Commission derives from the Constitution and, of course, from the Parliament itself.

During the constitutional conventions of the 1890s there was much discussion of the way in which power should vest in the Federal Parliament. In fact, Mr Kingston of South Australia proposed in 1891 that the Federal Parliament should have total power in this area. However, the States were jealous of their powers at that time and clearly did not want to hand them over to the Commonwealth. However, we now have set out in section 51, subsection (xxxv) of the Constitution the power of the Commonwealth to legislate in this area so that industrial disputes which affect more than one State may be handled through the Arbitration Commission. That position has been subject to refinement ever since. I make the point that at that time the Federal Parliament discussed very deeply the question of the powers in this area that it ought to assume. In fact, it has set up the Arbitration Commission, not so much as a way by which the law itself would be judged, but rather in a way by which the law would be administered so as to carry out the practical duties and purposes of settling disputes. The Commission has remained the creature of the Parliament.

There is perhaps an argument in favour of extending the powers of the Federal Government and the Federal Parliament over industrial relations as they affect the States. In fact, in recent days and months there has been quite a deal of discussion on that subject in the newspapers. The idea has received considerable support from not only newspaper editorial writers but also from the State Premiers. There has been talk about the reference of powers to the Commonwealth for that purpose. My point is that the role of the Commission itself represents the centrepiece of the Australian industrial world. It has the job of settling disputes. It has the massive task of trying to deal with the affairs of some 300 trade unions spread across six different State jurisdictions. It protects the standard of living of workers and the very society in which those workers live. It is constantly beset by very detailed problems concerning working conditions, work value cases, the basic wage cases that occur from time to time and so on. All in all, the Arbitration Commission is a huge institution which has a massive impact on the economy and on the whole of society.

Since those first days of the Constitution the evolution of the Commission has proceeded apace. It has become one of the most important institutions in the country. It is not in itself strictly a judicial body but rather an arbitrative body, one which administers the industrial law. In earlier days the Federal Parliament debated whether it would take unto itself the power to administer the detail of industrial law. It decided in 1 904, as a matter of expediency, to set up the Arbitration Commission. As a body with such central power and such great importance- its decisions are impacted upon the community- its role obviously extends far beyond the very superficial tasks that it sometimes performs. Clearly, it owes a duty to the people of Australia to be very careful in its judgments because of the impact of those judgments upon our society. (Quorum formed). I want to make the point in the shortest possible time- for the sake of the Oposition- which was made clear in the middle 1 950s in the Boilermakers case, that the role of the Arbitration Commission in Australian society is of fundamental importance to the future of the society itself; not only to the future of the trade unions, not only to the future of the employers or indeed only to the economy. It concerns the people of Australia in the broadest possible sense. Its power stems, as I have demonstrated, from the Federal Parliament, which stems from the Constitution itself.

The role and the duty of the Arbitration Commission is to have regard to that very important interest of the people of Australia as a whole. One of the difficulties in the administration of such a body, which is not strictly a judicial body, is the need to be able to carry out, to propose and put down consistent interpretations of the industrial law which, as I have said earlier, affect not only the Federal awards or Federal situation throughout Australia, but the six State jurisdictions in this area as well. In that way the leapfrog approach, the fact that there is a roll-over of decision making from the Federal body through into other jurisdictions, means that this consistency of decision-making is of the highest importance. Yet we have situations and have observed them over the last few years of decisions being made at the various levels of the Arbitration Commission which have, in fact, flowed over and caused enormous disruption for the people of Australia in all sorts of situations. Consequently I believe that the overriding consideration of any body such as this must be for the interests of the people of Australia as a whole.

As far as the Parliament of Australia is concerned, it is a question of who is making the rules. The people want the rules to be observed, they want the rules to be written in such a way that it looks after the general interests and the interests of the population as a whole, not of sections of it. The South Australian election recently demonstrated that. I believe the results of the 1977 Federal election demonstrated this, as did the 1 975 Federal election. Recently the Australian Labor Party conducted a media survey, a poll in Mr Chapman’s seat of Kingston and this has been reported in the media. I understand that this showed a very great concern with the union movement and its activities. The people of Australia want laws which will be observed.

Senator McLaren:

– You don’t know that the ALP conducted a poll.

Senator MESSNER:

- Senator McLaren says The people do not know the answer’.

Senator McLaren:

– I said: You don’t know that the ALP conducted a poll.

Senator MESSNER:

-Well, it has been reported. I have not heard it tonight. The Arbitration Commission is, of course, in a position to be able to smooth the way for decisions in this area but there is this massive weapon that has been used against the people of Australia in various ways. It is not used so much against employers, those people who can afford it. It is used against the people of Australia and it is their interests which are being affected. The weapon of the strike is treated as though it is the final solution, it is not treated as though it is a weapon. It is used like a bludgeon to beat the people into submission. The newspapers have railed against strikes. Is it not proper, therefore, in the light of the argument that I have put forward that there is a very real need for the Parliament itself to take a constant interest in the affairs of the people who elect the members of Parliament, who have to make decisions about what laws ought to be observed in the interests of the people?

What we need in Australia is a more responsible and responsive industrial world to make sure that the people’s will is properly interpreted. The power and the source of the power is the Parliament and the Commission, and the unions should listen to that power and to the expression of that voice through the Parliament. That is not to say that the Parliament itself should direct in respect of policies. Getting down to this particular legislation, it is pretty clear that that is not indeed its thrust. It is not to change policies, it is to change the ways in which the Commission itself will be administered. That seems to me to be the matter that is in issue here and, quite clearly, the five or six matters which are included in the legislation require consultation by the commissioners with the deputy presidents. I do not think that anybody could say that that is not a good practice, nor would it be a delaying procedure in the normal course of events.

Senator McAuliffe:

– The deputy president need not have heard the evidence.

Senator MESSNER:

-Yes, but the circumstance arises on many occasions where, on points of law, it is necessary to take advice from others. ls the honourable senator saying that that should not apply?

Senator McAuliffe:

– No. I take advice all the time as long as it is good advice.

Senator MESSNER:

– All men of prudence such as yourself would.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Robertson)- Order! Address your remarks through the Chair, please.

Senator MESSNER:

-Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. There is prohibition on the Commission to make employers provide back pay to employees for periods of industrial action. This particular matter is one of very real concern in the community insofar as people who put other people and the general sections of the community to some sort of damage are seen, according to some of the decisions that have been propagated from time to time, not to have been disadvantaged themselves. Surely those who put themselves and others to risk and damage ought to suffer damage themselves. That is a clear rule. I have no argument with that particular section of the proposed law. There is a third section that relates to the speeding up and hearing of standdown applications in respect of the law. Quite clearly this is an area where there is a requirement to get matters moving and to get disputes settled quickly. Obviously to speed up that method of operating is to the advantage of all, particularly to the people of the Commonwealth. Other matters relate to the extension of the number of matters and the types of matters than can be referred to the Full Bench of the Arbitration Commission. All these matters are designed to speed up the settlement of disputes. If the Opposition claims that that is not a worthy objective, it is entitled to its view; but obviously the people of Australia, as they express themselves by their votes in the elections for members of this Parliament, say otherwise. I think it is for the members of this Parliament to make laws in such a way that those points are well and truly covered.

With regard to the deregistration provisions, quite clearly this is a matter of very real concern, and it is obviously a weapon of last resort. But again the proposed law moves only in the area of ensuring that procedures are speeded up and observed. The law does not endeavour to jackboot the decision-making process of the Arbitration Commission. It does not go to the point of instructing the Commission on how it should make a decision in all the particular circumstances.

Senator Elstob:

– Do you think it is an undemocratic law?

Senator MESSNER:

-No, I do not believe it is, and it seems to me that some of the hysteria that has been about this place has been unwarranted. We are talking here strictly about procedures. Although some Opposition senators have spoken of Sir Richard Kirby ‘s comments in the early days when this legislation apparently was not available to him, we note that he commented in a way which would indicate that he thought this legislation might be unconstitutional. But I do not believe that he could have seen the legislation, and I should like to have the opportunity to ask him whether in fact, having seen the Bill, he now thinks the same way. I believe he may have altered his view insofar as there are -

Senator McAuliffe:

– Have you a hint of that?

Senator MESSNER:

-No, I have not. I am just saying that I should like the opportunity to discuss it with Sir Richard Kirby. I wonder whether in fact he has had that opportunity to re-examine the legislation. As for the recent discussion concerning Mr Justice Staples, as this stage I do not want to enter into any of the matters which he raised. But I do believe that the letter does enter into the area of emotional debate. The letter refers to smoke filled rooms and side alley conferences. Comments such as that seem to me to be not relevant to this matter. That is my own view. I do not claim in any way to be an expert in industrial law. I am not even a lawyer. But it seems to me that there is a reasonable view that can be taken that he has overstated his case in this particular letter.

I do not want to detain the Senate any longer, but I do want to reiterate that I believe the Commission should not ignore the higher duty which I think it owes to the people of Australia. I do not believe it ought to descend to the level of all other quasi-autonomous government organisations- Quangos- or statutory corporations and assume that it has a role and independence for itself which overrides the people’s will. If it does this, it does it at its own risk, in which case it would be not only on its own way to destruction but also it would in effect destroy the rights of all of us in Australia, all of us who are individual workers and want to do our jobs and get on with it. The position is, as I have said, that the Commission draws its source of power from the Federal Parliament by the laws that this Parliament makes. It is for this Parliament to hear the will of the people, to express that will in terms of legislation and to require that the overriding interest of the people has paramount regard. (Quorum formed).

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

-As Senator Messner was speaking the former President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, Mr Justice Kirby, said on Nationwide program that the consultation provisions of this Bill that we are debating, the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1979, were wrong in principle, making it possible to influence the Commissioners’ decisions, and that other amendments also were unacceptable. For me to be able to repeat almost immediately the observations of this very distinguished former President of the Commission is perhaps opportune, although I feel that it will not have any influence whatever on Government members.

At the beginning of his homily Senator Messner was at pains to try to draw a distinction between the worker and the unionist. But we are dealing with people- real people. We are not dealing with abstractions or someone way out there. We are dealing with people who will not be pushed around. Trade unionists are Australians. They are human beings, virile Australians, and they do not like being pushed around by petty Jacks in office. I must say that it is difficult to reply to Senator Messner because he did not say anything. But I must say this also, that he, like his colleagues, with the exception of Senator Missen- I must pay tribute to the observations of and the contribution by Senator Missen to this debate; it was a very thoughtful and constructive contribution- is locked into a power group that is astride of this country at the present time. His philosophy, like that of the others, embraces the belief that anything that stands in the way of their philosophy, their profit seeking and the selfish systems to which they subscribe, has to be cast aside. That is the nature of this legislation. As the pressure grows in this system to perpetuate and justify itself, so will the powers grow ruthlessly to overpower and subdue the accepted traditional patterns of industrial relations. That is the issue which we are debating.

The legislation can be classified as of historical importance inasmuch as it marks a milestone in the present march of Australia down the road towards a right wing elitist fascist State. It has all the hallmarks of pre-war Germany, under the strutting arrogance of a neo-Hitler; with the direction of our news, media and police by a Himmler; with the monopoly of the media equal to that of a Goebbels; and the passive acquiescence of a frustrated and demoralised community. This state of affairs is the product of a Fraser dominated Executive which has usurped the rights and the powers of the Parliament and is prepared to bludgeon through legislation such as this to patch up the Government’s decadent collapsing capitalist ethic. Any Australian who does not record his abhorrence to this trend is a traitor to those who fought against Hiterlism and Fascism. As I said before, people will not be pushed around. I am just warning the Government that legislation such as this will beget violent action. We on this side are violently and totally opposed -

Government senators interjecting-

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Yes, violently opposed to this legislation, as violent as the Government wants to get. The Government should put the people of Australia to the test on this Bill. This legislation has been conceived in conspiratorial secrecy and is born in perfidy. It is a slick, cynical and sick set-up to induce confrontation and industrial turmoil for the purpose of creating another sleazy and dishonest election issue, just as the Government did in 1 975. 1 refer to law and order. What hypocrisy, what utter gall and hide the Government has to think that it can cover up its motives when they are so obvious. In the opinion of reputable jurists the measure is unconstitutional. But this is only a minor corroborative detail as far as members of the Government are concerned. They have a track record of using every snide and questionable backdoor charade to have and to hold power.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– Are you reading this?

Senator Webster:

– Give him a go.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– You have to give me a go. You cannot stop me. The Constitution, the Governor-General, the Senate, the courts, the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the States, the trade unions and the people of the Commonwealth are all means to an end as far as this Government is concerned. The end justifies the means. That is the cry of the fascist. The means contained in this Bill should arouse the ire of the Australian people to put an end to this false pretence, ersatz National.sozialistische Fraser Government. The long traditions of the arbitration and conciliation set-up in Australia has been studded with consensus decisions arising from consultation between the employer, the employee and the Commission. Where was the consultation in the preparation of this legislation? The liaison of the National Labour Consultative Council with the Government was the only weak attempt to create a facade of respectability for the Bill. The National Labour Consultative Council was comprised of employers. What a sham, what a charade, what an insult to the intelligence of the ordinary people of Australia.

Senator Archer:

– You are, really.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– You cannot read, you hillbilly. This Parliament is indebted to Mr Justice Staples for the honest and forthright appraisal of this despicable and underhand attack by the Government on the industrial relations fabric of this country. Not only Mr Justice Staples but also his fellow justices and commissioners- all 25 commissioners- and the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Council of Australian Government Employees Organisations are appalled at the arrogance and the arbitrariness of this measure. Sir Richard Kirby, a man of impeccable standing in the field of industrial relations, has said:

Industrial harmony and co-operation between workers and employers is not produced by legislation of this sort. You cannot achieve it by Draconian means or threats.

The Government is calling into question the whole fabric of the citadel of arbitration and conciliation in this country. Perhaps the Government wishes to destroy the citadel. If it cannot run it, break it! The Government has a known obsession with the dictum of divide and rule as espoused in federalism. That dictum is espoused by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick). The Government could quite easily be attempting to throw industrial relations matters back to the States. Section 5 1 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is designed to provide for the settlement of disputes beyond the limits of the States. It would appear that this legislation is designed to undermine the arbitration and conciliation set-up in this country in the hope that industrial matters might be referred back again to the States so that the Government can divide and rule the trade union movement, can take another blow at the unity of the national trade union movement. In another place the honourable member for Wilmot gave an indication of the real attitude–

Senator McAuliffe:

- Mr Burr.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Yes, Mr Burr, the noxious weed. He gave an indication of the real attitude of the Government to the trade union movement when he said that the Government is prepared to take such legislative action as to ensure that the community is protected against the actions of industrial gangsters. That is an illustration of the mentality of people who are prepared to introduce and to support legislation such as this. They believe that fellow Australians are industrial gangsters. This Bill will take its place in the mosaic of legislation to suppress and to destroy the unions.

I make the prediction that this Government will rue this legislation and will for a long time lick the wounds that the Australian people will inflict upon it at their next chance to pass judgment on it. History has a long habit of repeating itself. Stanley Melbourne Bruce, who believed he controlled the keys of the pearly gates, met a very sorry fate when he toyed with ideas similar to those put forward by this Government. He lost his Government and he lost his seat in parliament. We have no evidence of his ultimate fate. On many occasions governments of the complexion of the Government which sits opposite have tried to impose a compulsory arbitration system and have failed. They will continue to fail. Any compulsory arbitration system will be rejected by the people in the work place. They will make certain that this type of legislation is a failure. There is enough discontent and disillusionment and disgust with the Government and today’s economic system without this provocative and punitive stirring by the Government. The Government should beware. The sleeping dog may bare his fangs and sink them into the flabby throat of his tormentor. Government senators should mark my words that this legislation can provoke -

Government senators interjecting-

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I am trying to get into the thick skulls of Government senators, which seems to be an impossible task, that this legislation is provocative to the extent that it can induce the widespread disapproval of the 2.5 million people who have been degraded and denigrated in the debate in this chamber. They have been described as industrial bludgers, anarchists and the like. Freezing funds, sanctions, deregistration, suspending benefits, and suspending rights and privileges may appear to be a strong weapon to use. All I can say is that the immutable law of Mendel that like begets like, that, to quote myself, violence begets violence or, to quote Senator Baume or one of his predecessors, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth can be adopted as well or even better by the other side under provocative circumstances. The Government is forcing the trade union movement into reciprocal, equal and opposite reaction and the movement would not be able ever to raise its head again if it allowed this attack on its existence to occur without staging a full fight.

Senator Peter Baume:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr President. Before the honourable senator turns to the next page of his notes, I draw your attention to Standing Order 406, which states that no senator shall read his speech. We on this side of the House have been watching him very carefully. The honourable senator is clearly reading most of his speech.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Tonight I certainly have noted a very close adherence by the honourable senator to his notes. I ask him to continue, reminding him that that is the Standing Order, as he well knows. His close adherence to them is quite definite tonight. I have noted that myself.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I write my own notes, whereas many honourable senators opposite have notes written for them and read them meticulously. I am referring to my own notes. I will continue to refer to them. What I have been saying is getting under the thick hide of honourable senators opposite. They know full well that they have to support this legislation to hold their positions amongst their supporters, but if they had a free go they would be like their colleague, Senator Missen, and express the truth on this matter. It is provocative legislation. It is hurtful. It is a retrograde piece of legislation. One would think that Government supporters are talking about the enemy when they speak of trade unionists. One would honestly think that this section of the community is their enemy.

Most of the Government supporters are socalled bunyip aristocrats. They have climbed a rung or two up the social ladder and set out to despise their fellow Australians. Those fellow Australians toil and spin to produce the goods that honourable senators need, unlike many of the parasites who secretly think that trade unionists should be taken out and shot. They would not be able to drive a car, eat a dinner, switch on a light or have a house to live in if it was not for the trade unionists of this country. One would think that we on this side of the chamber were vying for the power to control the trade unionists.

That is not so. We are asserting that the Commission is the appropriate body to deal with disputes, not politically biased, self-interested creatures of the system to which honourable senators opposite so subserviently bow and scrape. Would they deregister the Walsh companies or the Sinclair Pastoral Company?

Senator Teague:

– I raise a point of order. Although I can hardly believe it, Senator O ‘Byrne is reading his speech word for word. Mr President, I ask that he stick to your ruling, and not read his speech but speak according to the Standing Orders.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I have already drawn Senator O ‘Byrne’s attention to the Standing Orders. I have indicated that he is adhering closely to notes.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I would like to know whether anyone on the Government side would deregister the Walsh companies or the Sinclair Pastoral Company and deprive its employees or its shareholders of their rights- not Pygmalion likely. There are honourable senators on the Government side of the chamber who are noted for their concern for civil rights. This deregistration proposal affects the civil rights of every unionist. It can deprive him of his industrial rights and his rights to an award. I give the Government a warning: The unionists will stand up for those rights. They will stand up and be counted when the time comes. This is the type of provocative legislation that will bring that about. I am quite serious when I say that the attitude of this Government is testing to the limit the people of this country who produce the goods, who produce the wealth, who have rights, and who have an entitlement to share in the technological age.

The only objective of Government senators is to protect those who have the monopoly of technology and who will not share with the employees of industry the great advantages that have been made. All they want to do is to throw onto the scrap heap the young people leaving school. There is no use for those people in industry today. They had a use in my day. When I was unemployed, the only way that one could get a job was to work in a war industry or go to war. That is the way the capitalist system works. It skims off the surplus youth in war, raises the flag, gets the old blue rinses out to say: ‘You are a brave hero. Go off to war’, and encourages its supporters, like a lot of the people who are the top men in industry today to be in B company- be there when they go, be there when they come back, and make the profit while they are away. That is the way the system works. The

Government is in real trouble. This is a facade. It is a smokescreen. The Government’s policies are in tatters. The economy is haywire. Unemployment is high and rising. Our youth are bewildered and disillusioned. This legislation will add another black cross- a hackercrenz, a swastika -to the appalling botch that this Government is making of this country.

Senator ELSTOB:
South Australia

-We on this side of the Senate are totally opposed to the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill. There are parts of this legislation which are so undemocratic that it is hard for me to accept that an Australian government would dare to bring legislation like this before the Australian Parliament. When I became a member of this Parliament, I thought that legislation would be passed by this Parliament to benefit all types of people, but very sadly I have found that not to be the case. The legislation of this Government is being enacted only to serve the very wealthy people of this country. If one does not have $ 1 m one is guilty of not being wealthy. That is the attitude of this Government. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who support the Liberal and National Country parties, thinking that they are in a privileged position. I assure them that they are not. When I came to this place I was amazed also at the amount of security, to see the front doors of the building altered at a cost of something like $100,000 and to see security wherever one looked.

Debate interrupted.

page 1555

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, 1 formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator McLaren:

- Mr President, I wish to speak to the adjournment motion.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Durack.

Senator McLaren:

– I was on my feet.

Senator Georges:

– I wish to raise a point of order. Mr President, do you not normally call a member of the Opposition when you move the motion that the Senate do now adjourn?

The PRESIDENT:

– When a Minister or an Opposition Leader rises, he is called.

Senator McLaren:

- Mr President, I was on my feet to speak to the motion that you moved.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Durack.

Senator McLaren:

– I am entitled to speak to the motion that the Senate do now adjourn.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have called Senator Durack.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

- Mr President, the Government proposes to negative the adjournment question to enable the debate on the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill which is before the Senate to continue. I therefore move:

That the question be now put.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I wish to take a point of order in regard to the propriety of this matter. Mr President, the Minister moved that the question be now put, and the question must be put unless someone rises to speak on it.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no debate on the motion that the question be now put.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That is my mistake. You put the question, in accordance with Standing Orders, that the House do now adjourn. The Attorney-General then moved that the question be put.

Senator Walters:

– He negatived the adjournment question.

Senator Cavanagh:

– He did not negative the adjournment question. He moved that the question be put. He cannot negative it on his own. That questions your duty under the Standing Orders, Mr President, to put the question, unless someone rises to speak to the motion. An honourable senator has risen to speak to the motion and I believe there is no alternative but to call the honourable senator who rose. I believe he will not move that the question be put. He would not defy your right to- I can see no reason why the Minister cannot get the call after he has finished speaking. I question your right to call the Minister and accept a motion when under the Standing Orders, honourable senators have the right to speak.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is quite in order to do that which has been done.

Senator McLaren:

– I wish to speak to the same point of order raised by Senator Cavanagh.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point of order at this stage. There having been a motion putthat the question be now put- it must be voted on without debate.

Senator McLaren:

– My point of order is that you gave the call to the Minister when I was on my feet distinctly before the Minister but you did not see me. I claim that that is an infringement of Standing Orders. I wanted to speak in the adjournment debate. Is this to be the procedure in this House? Why should we bother to come here if our rights are to be taken away by the Executive?

The PRESIDENT:

– The motion has been put that the adjournment debate be deferred for the time being. There can be an adjournment debate at a later stage.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I rise on a point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– No points of order can be raised. The question has to be put.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I take the point of order that at 10.30 p.m. you rose and said:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

That is a procedural matter, in that you do that at 10.30 p.m. in accordance with the Standing Orders of this House. They are Standing Orders that have been drawn up by a Standing Orders Committee, presented to the Senate, debated and agreed to by the Senate. At that time my colleague, Senator McLaren, was on his feet. Notwithstanding the fact that he was on his feet, you then called the Minister. I suggest that that is a most unusual occurrance in an adjournment debate. The Minister then arose and moved that the question be put, notwithstanding the fact that Senator McLaren had risen, and drew your attention to the fact that he was on his feet. Having put the question in accordance with Standing Orders that the House do now adjourn and Senator McLaren having attracted your attention and indicating that he wanted to speak before the Minister moved that the Question be put, 1 suggested that you should call Senator McLaren.

Senator Bishop:

– Speaking to the same point of order, 1 wish to read from the agreement which was made on 9 March 1977. In paragraph (3) of the papers which were circulated with the Standing Orders, it is stated:

That, during the present session, unless otherwise ordered, at half-past ten p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays and eleven p.m. on Wednesdays, the President shall put the questionThat the Senate do now adjourn- which question shall be open to debate . . .

I happen to be in charge of the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill on behalf of the Opposition. Although I know there has been talk between the party Whips, no discussion as to what procedure would take place tonight has been put to me. I suggest that the proper procedure under the Standing Orders is to allow

Senator McLaren to speak. That is the usual procedure. I ask you to give consideration to the arguments put.

The PRESIDENT:

– No, I have the motion before me that the question be now put.

Question put.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke)

AYES: 29

NOES: 20

Majority…… 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Government senators interjecting-

Question put-

That the Senate do now adjourn.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke)

AYES: 20

NOES: 29

Majority…… 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1557

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

The PRESIDENT:

– No, Senator Elstob has the call.

Senator Bishop:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. A few minutes ago you explained, when disagreeing with my point of order, that it was the usual custom to call the Minister or the Leader of the Government. The Leader of the Opposition now wishes to take up the point of order I raised with you. I had intended to do that separately but he thought that he should do it. You will recall that 1 referred to a meeting of the

Standing Orders Committee which affirmed a procedure that when the President put the question that the Senate do now adjourn, that question was open to debate. That statement has been circulated to honourable senators. Presumably it would be better for Senator Wriedt to raise the matter with you and ask you to consider it. I would have done that in any case if Senator Wriedt had not sought to do so. He now intends to raise it and, consequently, I ask you to consider that procedure, which is an important one not only for this occasion but for other occasions.

Senator Peter Baume:

– I wish to raise a point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– As I said earlier, if the Leader of the Opposition rises on my left he gets the call. If the Minister in charge of the House rises on my right I give him the call. This is done as a matter of courtesy. At present Senator Elstob has the call. I will call him unless a point of order is raised. I must call Senator Elstob to continue his remarks. Senator Wriedt, do you wish to raise a point of order?

Senator Wriedt:

- Mr President, in view of your ruling or your assessment of the present position I will have to take a point of order. I will refer to the division which we have just had. I am concerned with what happened at 10.30 p.m. which is the normal time for the question to be put that the Senate do now adjourn. As I understand it you put the question and the Minister rose, as did Senator McLaren. Normally a Minister, of course, will have precedence over anybody else. It is also normal, in an adjournment debate, that if a back bencher rises he is called and a Minister will not rise. In other words, the Minister will allow the honourable senator to say whatever it is he wants to say. What concerns me is that the Minister was called and immediately the debate was closed. Yet the Sessional Order agreed to on 9 March 1977 quite clearly states:

That, during the present Session, unless otherwise ordered, at half-past ten p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays and eleven p.m. on Wednesdays, the President shall put the Question- That the Senate do now adjourn- which question shall be open to debate.

Such provision is repeated later in the same paragraph of the Sessional Order. It is quite clear what the Standing Orders Committee intended. The procedure adopted tonight prevented any debate -

Senator Peter Baume:

– Can I raise a point of order about what Senator Wriedt is saying?

The PRESIDENT:

– I am hearing a point of order. I ask that only one point of order be raised at a time.

Senator Peter Baume:

– I believe that he is out of order in what he is saying.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Baume can raise a point of order when Senator Wriedt finishes.

Senator Wriedt:

– I will be barely another minute. I would like to emphasise to the Senate what has happened. The action taken by the Minister, Mr President, and your calling of the Minister, prevented debate. That is in contradiction of the Sessional Orders. This matter went to the Standing Orders committee to be clarified. The motion for the adjournment was moved. I am not suggesting that there was a deliberate intent on the part of the Minister to prevent Senator McLaren speaking. For whatever reason, the fact is that action was taken contrary to the Sessional Orders. I ask you, Mr President, to reconsider. It is too late now to change the decision. I think we ought to consider very seriously what has happened here tonight. A precedent cannot be set. The Sessional Orders have been contradicted. It is as simple as that.

Senator Peter Baume:

– My point of order is that it is not possible for Senator Wriedt in effect to canvass a ruling which you, Mr President, gave a few moments ago. Senator Wriedt was really raising the same point that was raised by other honourable senators. The Standing Orders are quite clear. It is not possible to take objection to the ruling of the President except if it is done immediately and in writing. Exception was not taken immediately and in writing. The matter has been determined. It is now not possible under the Standing Orders to raise again by way of point of order the matter on which you, Mr President, have already ruled. I ask you not to allow further debate.

Senator Bishop:

– I wish to speak on the same point of order. I suggest that Senator Baume ‘s point has nothing to do with the issue raised by Senator Wriedt. Mr President, nobody is contesting your right to determine a matter.

Senator Peter Baume:

– He has determined it.

Senator Bishop:

– No, he has not. Mr President, I understand your rejection of the point I raised while we were in the process of voting on the issue. That was correct. Since that time the report handed to you by myself and the statement by Senator Wriedt raise the question of whether the motion for the adjournment put by you is open to debate. The only thing which moderates that is a procedure which you, Mr President, and everybody else has accepted- that the call shall be given by special arrangement to the Minister and to the Leader of the Opposition. I ask you to consider the position put forward by myself and

Senator Wriedt in particular. I do not necessarily ask you to determine the issue immediately although that would be preferable. If it is a question that requires further consideration I ask you to give it that consideration.

The PRESIDENT:

– I will explain the situation as I see it. The Minister received the courtesy of the call. He has moved that the debate continue past the normal time of 10.30 p.m. which is set down for the adjournment. When the motion for the adjournment is moved I call those who wish to speak. The Minister has a right and he exercised it. He moved that the question be now put. That was done. I regard the matter raised this evening as closed. I call Senator Elstob.

Senator ELSTOB:
South Australia

– Before the motion for the adjournment of the Senate was put I was saying that security had been increased quite alarmingly since I was elected to this place. Something like $100,000 has been spent on the front doors. More Commonwealth police are now on guard in this place. Bulletproof cars have been ordered for the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) at a cost in excess of $80,000 each. Aeroplanes have been ordered so that the Prime Minister can travel overseas. He said they were orderedbeacuse of the security risks. Mr Whitlam in 1975 proposed that the Commonwealth Police become part of a Federal police force. In the four years since that time the size of the Commonwealth Police has increased quite alarmingly. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation has received unprecedented powers. It has the power to break into premises and to use bugging devices.

Senator Jessop:

– I raise a point of order. Are we still discussing the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill?

The PRESIDENT:

– That is right.

Senator Jessop:

– I want to know whether the remarks are relevant to the debate.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Elstob has just commenced his speech. I am listening to what he is saying. I feel that at this stage I cannot rule that the honourable senator’s remarks are not relevant to the Bill.

Senator ELSTOB:

– I assure you, Mr President, that my remarks will become relevant. The powers of ASIO have been increased. It can tap phones and do many other things. This has all been foreign to this country. While I have been around this place I have not witnessed any reason for all this added security. One must come to the conclusion that the Government anticipates more violence. Why should this violence be anticipated? This society has been comparatively free of violence. It must have been the intention of this Government over 12 months ago to bring in legislation such as this to prepare for and provide this added security. This Bill was no mistake. It was well thought out 12 months ago, or possibly longer. The added security was quite unnecessary. I suggest that with the way things are going, if legislation such as the Bill we have before us tonight is continually brought before this Parliament the new Parliament House will have to be redesigned completely. I suggest that perhaps the people who designed the Siegfried Line should be brought in to design it, because that is what will be needed. With the way things are going and with the introduction of rotten legislation that takes away people’s rights, it will have to be designed like a pillbox. I always thought very proudly that Australia was a democracy and that it was one of the few countries in the world where democracy counts for anything.

Senator Mulvihill:

– The Magna Carta is a dirty word.

Senator ELSTOB:

– Of course it is a dirty word. The contents of this legislation are exactly what Hitler put into legislation in Germany in the early 1930s. Make no mistake about that. Fascist organisations should not be tolerated and the fascist legislation of this country should not be tolerated. This legislation will not solve industrial disputes. No legislation in the world has solved industrial disputes. In undemocratic countries industrial disputes have been solved at the point of a gun; and after legislation such as this, that is the next step to be taken. I am disgusted to think that an Australian government would dare to bring down legislation such as this. When one looks at it, one finds that the whole of it is unbelievable. It is no wonder that the Government cannot get co-operation.

I believe that there is a need to bring about better industrial relations, but this is no way to achieve it. There are better ways of doing it. I do not believe this Government really wants to bring about better industrial relations because in my opinion it has planned this legislation. It is very convenient to bring in such legislation to upset the unionists and then to say to the people: There you are, they are the people who are breaking all the laws’, and thus cover up the misdeeds of this Government. This Government has said that it will reduce the rate of inflation. Next year the rate of inflation will run at almost 12 per cent, and all honourable senators opposite know that. At least three-quarters of a million people will be unemployed in this country. The Government has borrowed $5,000m to date. Next year it will be running round the world trying to borrow another $2,000m. Yet it dares to criticise the Whitlam Government for trying to borrow $400m to buy back the country. I know who are the real traitors in this country- make no mistake about it.

This Bill seeks to inject into the principal Act a provision which purports to give the Government the power to order that claims for lost wages due to industrial action shall not be awarded by the Commission in any circumstances. That means that in future people who have had to stop work because of some unsafe condition will not be able to get a decision from the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. In the mid-1950s a provision was inserted into the award of the Waterside Workers Federation to cover the very thing that the Government is trying to prevent other unions from receiving. It was a safety clause. If the men decided that the working gear on a ship was unsafe they could stop work. They were off pay until an officer from the navigation authorities inspected the ship’s gear. If he found that the ship’s gear was unsafe and unworkable, the men were paid. If the claim was found to be frivolous, the men were not paid. I might add that the Waterside Workers Federation never lost a case because stoppages never occurred unless they were genuine. Consequently, on any occasion that there was a stoppage over such an issue, the men were paid.

Senator Tate:

– That is just.

Senator ELSTOB:

-That is just. I would recommend to any union that it have such a safety clause inserted in its award. I do not believe that a union should run to the industrial court every time a safety measure comes up and men have to stop work to safeguard their lives. Other honourable senators have spoken about many other aspects of that provision.

I turn to the next provision that I consider to be entirely unacceptable to the trade union movement, that is, proposed new section 143a. Under that provision all that is required is for two men to engage in industrial action and a declaration to that effect can be sought from the Commission. The declaration has to be made. There is no other way. There is a provision in the legislation which says that the declaration must be made if the health, safety and welfare of any people are affected. That is very easily proved and there is no way in the world that a declaration would not be made. When the declaration is made, the Governor-General may freeze the whole of the funds of that union. In effect, the Minister can decide who shall or shall not be the secretary of that union and who can or cannot go to a union meeting. That is the power of this Bill. It takes away all the rights of people.

If honourable senators opposite believe for one second that the working people of Australia will accept this legislation and take it lying down, I think they are sadly mistaken. I do not believe that the working people of Australia will fall into the traps that this Government is laying for them. I think that they will look at this legislation very intelligently and very closely. I believe that the credibility of this Government will be substantially damaged. Other governments have tried to do the same thing and have felt the sting of the people’s rejection. If there is no democracy in any sector of the community, the people do not respond to the community’s needs. Great anxiety grows up between workers and management. How can industrial relations improve under those conditions? To achieve that, we virtually have to stand over people continually.

By this legislation it will be possible for a worker to lose his long service leave, irrespective of how long it is has been accruing, his sick leave and any holiday pay that is owing to him. It can all be lost under the legislation. In the early 1960s waterside workers were paid casual rates and were not entitled to long service leave. We fought over a long period to win that privilege. The Tasmanian Government was the first to give it to waterside workers. The Labor Government in New South Wales at that time decided to do the same but it did not actually come to pass. The Federal Menzies Government introduced legislation providing long service leave to waterside workers but it had no intention of giving it. Its purpose was merely to prevent the New South Wales Government from bringing in legislation that would extend long service leave to workers in that State.

In those days if waterside workers looked sideways at a foreman or a supervisor or if they were a few minutes late for work it was possible under the Act to lose their long service leave. Indeed, it could be withdrawn for any misdemeanour. During a period of many years we were able to accrue no long service leave credits. Year after year they were taken from us. The hatred on both sides became so great that it was almost impossible to work under such conditions. I know what bad legislation can do and the hatred that it generates. It is almost impossible for any industry to operate under the conditions that are engendered by bad legislation. Always, in industrial disputation, too many outside people become involved, lawyers, governments and agencies of all sorts become involved. That is the worst thing that can happen. The more people involved, the harder it is to resolve the dispute. Governments that think they can cure industrial disruption by legislation are foolish. That is an impossibility.

I believe that an honest attempt should be made to improve industrial relations and that there would be a genuine desire on the part of everyone to achieve that end. The Government should encourage labour and management to get together around the table. If that is impossible, a conciliation commissioner from the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission should be brought in. He would simply chair the meeting and get talks going. Commissioners are skilled in that field. They make suggestions and often, because of their training in that field they are very successful. One cannot simply bring in people with no training in industrial relations and think that they will solve problems. They cannot. Working people want security. Many industries could give workers that security. People have to be treated with some respect. If they are not there will be resentment. Too many managers in industry are too proud to talk to their workers. Anyone who cannot do that should not be a manager. There are in this country no bad men merely bad managers. There should be managerial courses to train these people. If they were provided half of our industrial problems could be overcome. The majority of our industrial problems arise out of almost nothing and hatred builds up. I have seen this happen continually.

Senator Messner:

– Do you think that it is changing now, Senator? Do you think it is getting better?

Senator ELSTOB:

-I believe that our industrial problems are not as bad as they were years ago. In some areas there is need for the training of both trade union representatives and managers. Anyone who believes that only the managers and not the trade union delegates- the people who are dealing with each other- should be trained is mistaken. That is the real key to the matter. This practice of saying, ‘You are a Liberal’ or ‘You are a communist’ is no good. That is the worst thing that can happen. Members of the union elect their leaders because of the job they can do. They do not elect them because of their political affiliations or their colour. If any government or court tries to interfere, to say, You shall not have Joe Blow as your union secretary’, there is immediately great resentment.

One cannot stop it. Violence breeds violence. There is no need for it is the first place. There is no need for this legislation. We should be appointing more commissioners. The truth is that in many industries management cannot talk to labour and labour cannot to management. It is necessary to bring in conciliation commissioners, but their numbers are inadequate. No one wants to go on strike but today if a union puts in a claim and does not go on strike the claim will never be heard.

Senator McLaren:

– You have to prove that there is an industrial dispute.

Senator ELSTOB:

– There must be a stoppage and a strike. That is the real tragedy. If people could have someone come in and act as chairman of a meeting there would be no need for a stoppage. Labour and management should be better trained. If this is not done, if we do not look upon industrial relations as a special field and if governments continue to intrude I believe that industrial relations will become worse. This Bill will not improve industrial relations. It will only make them far worse. That is the real problem. I have been through very bad times, when unions and management would not give an inch. The position deteriorated to such an extent that the system could not work. I was one of those who said, ‘There must be a better way’. I took it upon myself to meet some of the employers. I said to them, ‘For goodness sake, can’t we sit down and resolve some of these problems’. I talked to a few others also and eventually that co-operation did occur and went from strength to strength. Eventually the Waterside Workers Federation changed over from the casual system to the permanent system of employment and today the relationship between management and labour is very good. Such co-operation takes a long time to achieve but it is improving continually.

In the past there would not have been a more turbulent industry in which there was more hatred than the waterfront industry. I have seen all of that. In 1956 someone mentioned that certain people intended to put the waterside workers into the ground. I remember that dispute very vividly. Everything seemed to have been lost. The hatred that was engendered at that time was unbelievable unless one experienced it. Men would have been prepared to die. Somebody said that the union could be deregistered. The unionists were so inflamed at that time that they said: ‘Well, come on, let them try’. People had to be talked out of getting a gun and taking action. That is how people can become inflamed. Do not ever think that violence cannot erupt; it can. The best people, the very mild, pleasant people will go to that end. I tell honourable senators that they will fight and that proved it to me. It is a very dangerous thing to engender all this violence in our society.

I have always considered that Australia has something better to give the world. We should be able to resolve our problems amongst ourselves. We should not be thinking of what is happening in other countries. There is a better way. I thought when I was elected to this Parliament that we would solve some of our problems. This is what I am saying here, what I am pleading for. I know it is rubbish and no one will listen to it. No one is going to take up anything and it is not going to alter anything. There are a lot of sincere people on all sides. I am not saying that they are not sincere, but what is the good of it? Why is this system not working? Why can we not do it? We all want to do it. Yet no one has the courage to say: Well, let us do it. It could be done. We have got no confidence in ourselves as Australians. That, I think, is one of the things we should be doing. We have one of the finest principles and one of the finest countries. We have good upbringing, everyone is healthy and reasonably well educated. Why is it that we have so many unemployed? We have a very rich country and yet we, the managers, allow this to go on. We have half a million unemployed now. There is no security and no future. That is how people are seeing it. If we cannot give better guidance, if we cannot run the country better we are going to lose it; that is what it is all about. We have something like 1 5 million people. We would not have seven million people in the work force if everyone wanted a job. Do you mean to tell me that we cannot employ seven million people, that we cannot find work for them, that life cannot be more useful or purposeful in this country? We ought to be ashamed of ourselves as politicians. It is no wonder the general public think very lowly of politicians. It is about time that we, as politicians, started to do something about it. We have the procedures here and we have the committee system. If we were really sincere about it we could start a committee, get the thing going, give some advice and have a look at it. It could work. If we cannot manage this country with virtually no problems, with a small population, a wealthy country, we should not be allowed to have it. We could not run a peanut stall if we cannot run this country. There is lack of cooperation. It is lack of saying: Well, let us do something about it. There is no one willing to do anything about it. Unless we do it, I am afraid somebody else will come in and do it for us and that is not good enough. I would ask that this Government take a serious look at this Bill. It is not going to work. There are better ways and I believe people would co-operate. I think it is hopeless going on like this. I sincerely hope that the Government will have a look at what it is doing and will do better in the future. (Quorum formed).

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-The Senate is debating amending legislation to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1904. Many good comments have been made from this side of the House in opposition to this Bill. Most of the people on this side of the House who have spoken in the debate have been active trade union members in the past, have been officials of unions and have played a very prominent part in the trade union movement in Australia. They are fully aware of the problems faced by the trade union movement, unlike the people opposite who have introduced this legislation and who have spoken to it. You would be hard put to find three or four on the Government side who have ever worked in conditions covered by a trade union movement. Most of them are silvertails, born with silver spoons in their mouths, never had to work for a living and have not any idea at all of what a working man has got to put up with to try and eke a living out of this country.

Senator Archer:

– Would you name a few?

Senator McLAREN:

– I could name many. Perhaps you are one of them. This legislation which we have before us tonight is being claimed as urgent legislation. It is legislation which was envisaged five years ago by Mr Fraser. I alerted the Senate in a speech that I made here on 30 September 1 975 when I related to the Senate a conversation which the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser)- he was not even the Leader of the Opposition- had with the present Minister for Industrial Relations, Tony Street. I am going to quote only a portion of this tonight. It is on page 789 of the Senate Hansard of 30 September 1 975. 1 told the Senate that Mr Fraser ‘s next proposal was, after he unseated Mr Snedden, that his faithful friend Tony Street would be Minister for Labour and his first task would be to take the unions on in the courts to teach them a lesson. I told the Senate that on 30 September 1975. It was a conversation that took place in this Parliament 1 1 months before to the day between Mr Street and Mr Fraser when they were organising to get rid of Mr Snedden. The speech is there in chapter and verse. What I am saying is that this is no legislation that has just come in now because this Government cannot cope with unemployment, cannot cope with many of the broken promises. It was envisaged and was in the mind of the Prime Minister five years ago, what he was going to do if he became Prime Minister of this country. We are now seeing the results put into legislation so that they can bring down the hammer with a very heavy clout on the work force of this country. I well recall when I was a boy in the work force ex-Prime Minister Menzies saying that the best foreman you could get on any jobwas 30 men waiting at the gates for one man’s job. You did not need a foreman because they were all afraid of their jobs. They would work like slaves so that somebody else would not be put on in their place.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– When did he say that?

Senator McLAREN:

– He said it on many occasions. Senator Messner and Senator Puplick are interjecting. They are still wet behind the ears. They were not even in the universe at that particular time. We now find ourselves debating legislation which is claimed to be urgent. Why is it urgent? It is urgent because it has been pointed out by previous speakers that we might have an early election. This Government wants to go to the people and say: ‘We cannot find jobs for you. Inflation is now getting out of hand again. The issue is that we have passed legislation to control the workers and, if you elect us back to government for three years, we can assure you that we will enforce this legislation which we rammed through the Senate and there will be no more strikes’. Nothing could be further from the truth. There will be more strikes. This legislation which will be passed here will inflame the work force of this country to an extent that there will be a great increase in industrial unrest. I heard my colleague Senator Douglas McClelland tell the Senate today that a Liberal or conservative Tory Prime Minister, Stanley Bruce, lost his seat many years ago because he took on the trade union movement with some very oppressive legislation. What do we see in the legislation? If we have a look at the second reading speech of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney), what does he say? He said that this legislation will: . . prohibit the Commission from ordering, recommending or sanctioning in any way, an employer paying wages to an employee for time when the employee was engaged in industrial action -

Quite apart from the fact that an employer might be quite prepared to pay a faithful employee so that he can keep his wife and children off the starvation line while that industrial action is taking place, this Government has now seen fit to introduce this legislation to prevent a commissioner from allowing an employer to give his faithful employee any substance to live on. This is the type of government we have sitting opposite. What else does the Minister say in his second reading speech. He says that the legislation will provide for the expeditious hearing of standdown applications either before a single member of the Commission or a Full Bench.

So it is going to expedite the stand-down clauses. That is a clause in the Bill which we find very obnoxious, and it is something which will be debated at length in the Committee stages. We find that this Government is intent on taking work away from people who have jobs- never mind about those who do not have jobs. I will refer to that aspect later; it is another broken promise of the Prime Minister. If we go to page 2 of the second reading speech, we find the Minister saying that the legislation will provide increased protection for the community by creating an alternative path to the deregistration of organisations, and thereby remove delays in the deregistration process in cases where the safety, health and welfare of the community are put at risk by industrial action.

There is no thought for the health and welfare of the workers at large who have to go on strike to get justice. I have been in the work force for many years. I have been a trade union officer, out on the job, out in the back country, and I know that no working man goes on strike without good reason. He has to have a good reason to go on strike, because he knows that immediately he goes on strike he loses his pay packet. Yet we have people opposite saying that at the drop of a hat man goes on strike. In most cases he has a legitimate reason for going on strike and in many cases he is provoked into doing so. If we have a look at clause 15 of the Bill relating to the cancellation of registration, in proposed new section 1 43a (1) we find:

Where, on application by the Minister, a Full Bench is satisfied that-

an organisation has been or is, or two or more members of an organisation have been or are, engaged in industrial action . . .

That means that we reach a situation where two members of an organisation who create an industrial dispute could bring about the deregistration of a union. We had a situation in South Australia prior to the State election with the bus employees union where people went along to the depots, agitated for strike action and drove out of the depot with stickers on their cars asking for people to vote for the Tonkin Government. They were the agitators. They were not true trade union people. They provoked the strike. When this legislation is passed we will see the situation where provocateurs will go along to a trade union meeting and provoke a strike, and that union will face deregistration. This will suit this Government in its endeavour to bring the trade union movement to its knees.

I have no doubt that the right wing of this Government will see that the provocateurs are planted in unions and cause a strike so that it may bring about the deregistration of the union. That is what the Government will do when this legislation passes through this House, and it will be a very black day for the trade unions and the work force of Australia. It is high time that the workers in industry in this great country woke up to the Liberal and National Country Party Government, which is continually telling the people that it is their friend. We heard Senator Jessop today saying that many trade unions members come to him with their problems. It is high time that workers in industry in this great country woke up to the fact that this Government is two-timing them all along the line. It could not care less about the wages and working conditions of the people in the work force. Its actions over many years have proved that. But it will live to rue the day. As Senator O ‘Byrne said here tonight, the legislation is being forced upon the work force in this country.

Let us have a look at an address to the nation by the Prime Minister delivered on 3 February 1 976. On page 2 of that address he said:

We have sought to reduce inflation and create employment opportunities by opposing the passing of the full C.P.I, increase into wages.

That is an admission by the Prime Minister that the Government has deliberately gone into the courts of this country and opposed any increase in line with the consumer price index for the trade union movement; but then it wonders why it has strikes on its hands. How does the Government expect members of the trade union movement and their families to live when inflation is on the rise when it will not even grant them the equivalent of the CPI? It expects them to live in poverty and it wonders why it has strikes. It deliberately sets about provoking them.

If we have a look at the National Times of 2 June 1979 we see that it is talking about Malcolm’s Battle with the Time Machine’. There are many things to which the article refers, but I will refer only to wage indexation. The article says:

It (the coalition Government) will support wage indexation . . .

Of course they are quoting the Prime Minister’s policy speech of 1977.

Our reforms will maintain the purchasing power of wages and ease the pressure for excessive wage demands.

This was said on 27 November 1 975 after the debacle that we had in this place when the Government members sitting opposite went on strike. Now those members condemn the work force for going on strike. Members of the present Government sat here week in and week out, on strike. They would not even vote on the Budget while the man who is now the Prime Minister was out at Yarralumla organising the overthrow of the Whitlam Government. The article continues:

The following January the Fraser Government opposed the full flow-on of the CPI rise for the previous six months, seeking to limit wage increases to half-indexation.

The Government has consistently opposed full wage indexation at subsequent wage hearings.

Last December, after the Arbitration Commission granted a full wage indexation increase of 4 per cent, Fraser criticised the decision for its ‘irresponsibility’ and said he would consider tightening the law to bring wage-fixing processes further into line with Government economic policies.

That is the whole purpose of this legislation. It is to bring down the heavy hand on the Arbitration Commission to force it to do the will of the Government. The Government has gone into the court, and the court in its neutrality has decided that the work force has been entitled to an increase because of the CPI, and the Government has opposed it. It has made a submission, but it has not been able to prove it to the satisfaction of the court. Because the court has overridden the instructions of the Government we now find that the Government is bringing in this oppressive legislation so that it can instruct the court to carry out its will. (Quorum formed). I thank Senator McClelland for calling the quorum. I would just like to refer to the comments made by Senator Rae when Senator McClelland said that Senator Rae had not been in this chamber all evening. Senator Rae’s first appearance here tonight was when I called a quorum. There were about three Government senators on the benches.

Senator Rae:

– That is an untruth.

Senator McLAREN:

– If Senator Rae has a look at Hansard tomorrow he will see when the quorum was called and thereby ascertain the time when he came into the Senate. It is the duty of Government senators who wanted to sit on the right hand side of the Chair you occupy, Mr President, to maintain a quorum in this House so they can scream their heads off. They wanted to be in government. They did what we are doing now when they were in Opposition. It is a matter of the chickens coming home to roost. I have some expertise in that field. Before the quorum was called I was talking about how this Government, ever since it came to office, has deliberately put an advocate into the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to oppose any increases in wages as a result of increases in the consumer price index. It now wonders why the work force of our community has become agitated and unsettled and in many cases has taken industrial action. We have seen that happening.

The only way that this Government now feels it can put its case to the Arbitration Commission and oppose any increase following the CPI is to have this legislation proclaimed and then use the big hammer on the commissioners of the Arbitration Commission so that they will not give any justifiable increase in wages to the work force of this country. The work force of Australia should be well warned of what this Government is all about. I think that the people will be warned when they see the ramifications of this legislation which presently is going through the Parliament.

I was also talking about unemployment. The Prime Minister said in an address to the nation some time ago: ‘We have sought to reduce inflation and create employment’. If one looks at the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for the work force, those for July- we received them at noon on the tenth of this month- one finds a very illuminating situation. We are all well aware that this Government, in an endeavour to hide the true unemployment in this country, decided not to use the Commonwealth Employment Service figures but to use the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures. Senators on the Government side have been very willing at times to criticise the people in the work force by saying they are job bludgers, dole bludgers and that there is plenty of work for those who want it. The figures put out by the ABS and used by the Government as a guideline are very illuminating. Senator Walters is now walking out of the chamber because she does not want to hear them. They are not my figures, they are the figures of the ABS, the organisation used by this Government. If one looks at page 1 of its report one sees this under the heading of Main Features’:

Note: Survey estimates are subject to sampling variability, as explained in paragraph 8 below.

It goes on to say:

In July 1979, of 372,800 unemployed persons looking for work - 16.7 per cent reported that their main difficulty in finding a job was that there were no vacancies in their line of work -a further 30.3 per cent reported that there were no vacancies at all -84.4 per cent of those looking for full-time work had registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service, but most of those registrants (92.S per cent) had also taken other active steps to find a job -218,700 persons had been wage and salary earners in their last full-time job and had ceased working in it in 1978 or 1979.

Of these - 1 33,800 (6 1 per cent) had lost their job, been retrenched or the job had been temporary, or seasonal -84,900 (39 per cent) had left for other reasons.

So much for the claims by this Government that there are jobs available for every person who wants one. So much for the claims by this Government that most of the people in receipt of employment benefits are dole bludgers. Either the ABS figures are incorrect or the statements of the Government are incorrect. In this case, in view of the record of this Government, I would be prepared to accept the figures of the ABS as being nearer the truth than those outlandish claims made by the Government. We now find this legislation being proposed to try to suppress the work force. As I pointed out, the Government put its advocates before the Arbitration Commission to say that the work force is not entitled to the CPI increase. What do we find this Prime Minister doing while he is trying to downgrade the work force and reduce living standards? I will quote from the Sydney Daily Mirror of Monday 27 August this year. It was headed: ‘A $3,498 Tax Slug for P.M. Trip’. This was revealed by the Minister for Defence, Mr Killen, so it is not a fictitious figure. It further states:

Taxpayers are slugged $3,948 every time the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, flies from Canberra to his Victorian country property Nareen in a BAC 1 1 1 Jet. Mount Gambier is the only airport near Nareen, in Western Victoria, on which the plane can land.

Mr Fraser normally uses the BAC 111 the RAAF VIP Squadron when he flies from Canberra to Nareen.

The $3,498 cost of the return flight from Canberra was revealed in Federal Parliament by the Defence Minister, Mr Killen.

Senator Primmer:

– What about the car that goes from Melbourne to Mount Gambier?

Senator McLAREN:

- Senator, that article only refers to the cost of the BAC1 1 1. It does not refer to the car that has to be driven from Melbourne to Mount Gambier to pick up the Prime Minister to take him from Mount Gambier to Nareen and then make a return trip to Melbourne. That newspaper report shows that we have a Prime Minister who is quite prepared to spend anything up to $4,000 of taxpayers money every time he goes home to his property at Nareen and then deny the work force of this country an increase of $6 a week to cover the cost of living. What sort of a Government have we got? On top of that we find the Government bringing in this oppressive piece of legislation to further downgrade the living standards of the work force and to turn workers into serfs. History is going backwards under this Government.

Senator Jessop, the person who now occupies the Chair, entered this debate tonight and claimed that the trade union movement in South Australia was frustrating the Tonkin Government. I interjected and said that the ink is not yet dry on the forms that were signed to swear in Mr Tonkin as the Premier of South Australia at Government House in Adelaide. So, we have already got the warning from Senator Jessop that the trade union movement in South Australia will be made the scapegoat for the Tonkin Government’s failure to carry out its election promises. I make the forecast here tonight that we will be in this Parliament this time next year debating how the Tonkin Government failed to carry out its outlandish and wide-ranging election promises. We will be here debating its failure. We will find Senator Jessop, Senator Young and Senator Messner getting up, as Senator Jessop has forewarned us, to say that it is all brought about because the trade union movement will not do a fair days work in South Australia. Senator Jessop tonight waived around the Senate a document which he claimed was a copy of the Queensland legislation. It is similar to this oppressive legislation on the trade union movement. When I interjected to ask him to incorporate it in Hansard, he did not reply. The Opposition would have liked to have seen it. That is not the whole story because he also mentioned legislation to be introduced in Western Australia. Charlie Court in Western Australia is also introducing legislation, similar to that which we have here tonight, which is to oppress the work force.

Senator Jessop forewarned us that Mr Brown, the appropriate Minister in South Australia, is already considering the introduction of similar legislation in that State. Mr Brown will find it a bit hard to get through because, even though the Labor Party suffered a disastrous defeat at the South Australian election, due to a lot of untruthful advertising and the electors being misled, the Tonkin Government does not have the numbers in the South Australian Upper House. It will not be able to oppress the work force like this Government here which has the numbers, like the Liberal Government in Western Australia which has gerrymandered the electorate, and like the Liberal Government in Queensland which has gerrymandered the electorate. The Liberal Government in South Australia will not have such an easy road to hoe.

Of course we all know that the Queensland legislation is aimed at delivering a body blow to the workers and forcing them to be subservient to unscrupulous employees. I have spoken about the Western Australian legislation. The other point that Senator Jessop did not tell us tonight but which has been freely bandied about in South Australia is that Mr Brown is shortly to introduce legislation to abolish preference for trade union members. We will then find scabs on the job. People will be prepared to go out moonlighting, that is, work for an employer through the day and then go out and undercut the other people by sub-contracting at weekends and on holidays. These people will not have to be in a trade union because, as Mr Brown has said, one of the first things he is going to do is to abolish preference for trade union members. That will have a very great impact on employees particularly government employees in South Australia. These people ought to be forewarned.

What is the whole reason for this legislation? The reason, I think, is that the Prime Minister is going to use it as a prop for his election campaign. He thinks he can win if he has an early election. I know from talking to some of the Government back benchers that they are a bit afraid. Mr Fraser is not very worried about some of them losing their seats, as they will, because he cannot control the large number of back benchers which he has at the present time. His majority is too large and there are too many rebels in the Party. So an early election would suit him in the hope that possibly he could win with a majority of seven or eight seats.

Senator Rae:

– I raise a point of order. I draw your attention, Mr Acting Deputy President, to the Standing Orders and in particular to Standing Order 4 1 9 which in part reads:

No Senator shall digress from the subject-matter of any Question under discussion-

We have been listening for what seems like an eternity, but apparently it has been only 26 minutes, to a dissertation which has not yet approached the subject matter. I ask you, Sir, to call the honourable senator who is speaking to order and ask him to comply with Standing Order 419 and to start addressing the subject matter of the legislation which is before us. He has not yet started.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Speaking to the point of order, I do not know whether Senator Rae has been asleep or not. I think the attitude of the various Liberal governments to the trade union movement throughout Australia is very pertinent to the subject under discussion because under a Liberal government there is no redress for the trade union movement. I think the remarks are very pertinent and very relevant to the question that we are discussing.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Jessop)- I have been listening with great interest to what Senator McLaren has been saying. I detected on occasions that he may have been diverting from the thrust of the Bill before the Senate. I suggest that Senator McLaren pay some regard to it and come back to the subject. ( Quorum formed).

Senator McLAREN:

– I was rather surprised that Senator Rae took a point of order on me. Obviously he was asleep earlier. If he had not been he would have known that I quoted extensively from the second reading speech of the Minister on this Bill and referred to certain clauses of the Bill. I was directing my attention and my remarks to the Bill. It was only when I started rebutting some of the remarks that you made, Mr Acting Deputy President, in your contribution to the debate when talking about the activities of the Government of your political persuasion in South Australia that Senator Rae took umbrage and you saw fit to say that I was departing from the terms of the Bill. I think that references to anything to do with the trade union movement, no matter how it is brought about in this debate, is pertinent to the legislation that we have before us, despite what Senator Rae might think. If Senator Rae had listened today to the speeches of some of his colleagues from Tasmania, particularly Senator Walters, he would know that they hardly mentioned the Bill.

Senator Walters:

– I didn’t speak today.

Senator McLAREN:

– On other Bills. It was yesterday that she made it, which is nearly two days ago. Getting back to the legislation and the furore that it has caused among the members of the Concilation and Arbitration Commission, I would like to draw the attention of the Senate to a cartoon that appeared in the Australian Financial Review of today. What do we find? We find it depicting a masked person on a motor bike- he looks like Mr Fraser- and another person who has hopped off the pillion seat, gone over to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission building with a tin of spray paint and written on it: ‘Smash the system ‘. That is a very good cartoon. It is one of the best that I have seen because it really hits the nail on the head. That is what this legislation is all about- smashing the conciliation and arbitration system. To get back to what you said, Mr Acting Deputy President, when you spoke to this Bill- I could hardly be prevented from making some reply to it because you said that it was time that the Liberal Party got together with the trade union movement. I was very interested to read an article in today’s Melbourne Sun under the heading ‘Liberals plan a union move’, which states:

The South Australian Liberal Party may become directly involved in trade union affairs, particularly union elections.

That is very enlightening. It continues:

A radical suggestion for the party to endorse Liberal candidates in union elections will be put to the annual meeting of the party’s State council next week.

Federal Industrial Relations Minister, Mr Street, will make the suggestion in a discussion paper to the council.

I take it that that is the same Mr Street as the one who had discussions last night with Mr Justice Moore in Sydney. It continues:

The paper is headed ‘Trade Unions and the Liberal Party: A Fresh Approach?’

How timely it is that the Liberal Party had a fresh approach to the trade union movement and tried to talk with it instead of talking against it all the time. The article continues:

Other suggested topics include how the Liberal Party can overcome an ‘apparent disinclination’ of most unionists to align themselves formally with any political party.

Members of the Government stand up in this Parliament day after day and accuse the trade union movement and the Australian Labor Party of working hand in glove, yet here we have a statement emanating from the South Australian Branch of the Liberal Party that the trade union members do not align themselves with political parties. Again, who is right and who is wrong? The article continues:

The article also seeks to discuss whether the party should: Establish formal consultation between itself and the unions.

I say that it is high time that the Liberal Party did have some consultation with the trade union movement and its members. The article continues:

Be willing to set up committees of Liberal unionists to promote the cause of moderates against Left-wing extremists.

Of course, if the legislation goes through the South Australian Parliament to abolish preference to unionists, in many cases there will not be any trade unionists. How is an organisation such as the Liberal Party talks about here going to be formed? I repeat, the article states:

Be willing to set up committees of Liberal unionists to promote the cause of moderates against Left-wing extremists.

I emphasise the words ‘left wing extremists’. If a man is a bit militant and he sticks up for his rights, he is immediately tabbed a militant member of the community and, in lots of cases, a communist. We heard an honourable senator from Tasmania trying to denigrate Justice

Staples here today by saying that at one time Justice Staples was a member of the communist party.

Senator Walters:

– Is that denigrating him?

Senator McLAREN:

– Of course that is what the honourable senator was trying to do. It is the system the Government uses all the time- the old communist bogy; smear tactics. If I had been in the chamber at the time, I would have quickly reminded him that the Chief Justice of Australia was Attorney-General in a Liberal government. I think I would sooner have a person who had been a member of that political party, as Mr Justice Staples was accused of being, because he would mete out more justice than would the person who was an Attorney-General in a Liberal government. We have seen an Attorney-General in a Liberal government here in this chamber tonight deny this chamber justice. The article goes on to say:

The paper also seeks to establish MPs’ roles in raising the Liberal profile in union affairs.

So here it is admitted that the Government’s profile in Liberal affairs needs to be raised. It will not be raised too high after the people become aware of what is embodied in this piece of legislation that we have before us tonight. The article continues:

It is within this new atmosphere that the Liberal Party must adopt a fresh approach towards the trade union movement and conduct of industrial relations, ‘ the paper says.

It says non-Labor in conservative government traditionally has been regarded by union hostility and suspicion.

How true that will be once this legislation is proclaimed. There will be more hostility to the Liberal movement and it will be no good people like Senator Jessop coming into this chamber and saying that he has had representations from trade union members to fight a case for them because they will have no trust in him.

I refer now to the minutes of the 3 1st session of Convention No. 87 concerning freedom of association and protection of the right to organise held in San Francisco between 17 June and 10 July 1948. And what does articles 4 say? It says:

Workers’ and employers ‘ organisations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority.

The very thing that the Government is doing, against that convention, is contained in clause 15 of this piece of legislation- the dissolving and the deregistration of trade unions. The Government thinks that with the article it put forward to the Melbourne Sun today, it is going to have a better rapport with the trade union movement. I say to the Government that if it thinks that that is what it is going to do, it has another think coming.

In conclusion, I again warn every trade unionist in this country. As a person who has been a trade unionist ever since about 1935 and who is still an active member of a trade union, and proud to be one -

Senator Walters:

– So am I.

Senator McLAREN:

– The honourable senator said that she is sick of me and she said: ‘So am I ‘.

Senator Walters:

– I did not. I said: ‘So am I’. I am a member of a union.

Senator McLAREN:

- Senator Walters is a pretty poor example of a trade unionist, the way she comes in here and bashes the trade unions every opportunity she gets. She ought to be ashamed to say that she is a member of a trade union.

In conclusion, I say that it is high time that this Government got down off its high horse, had discussions with the trade union movement and tried to solve problems in a conciliatory manner instead of going at it like a bull at a gate and doing what its Prime Minister said in the parliamentary dining room in 1974, that is, that if ever he became Prime Minister he would take on the trade union movement and teach it a lesson. I hope that many people are aware of those remarks. The first opportunity the Government gives them to go to the ballot box again- and as I said earlier tonight, it is being hawked around the place that that will be in December- the Government will get the shock of its life. When honourable members come back into this chamber in the autumn session, we will be sitting where they are sitting now and they will be sitting here.

Friday, 1 9 October 1979

Senator McINTOSH:
Western Australia

– I have been listening to the debate since it started yesterday and I have noticed quite a number of misstatements. That is why I knew that Senator Rae was not in the House when he said that he was in the House. The Bill before us is to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Senator Rae:

– What did you say?

Senator McINTOSH:

-I said that that is why I knew that you had not spent the time in the House that you said you had spent in the House.

Senator Rae:

– Oh, come on.

Senator McINTOSH:

– I have answered the honourable senator’s question. What more does he want? This Bill has been very badly handled since the very beginning. Senator Bishop gave the Government an opportunity to adjourn the debate while negotiations went on so that the Bill could be handled a bit more competently than it has been handled by the Government so far. The only reply of the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) to that was that the Bill had no time limit on it. Senator Harradine then moved to try to put a time limit on the adjournment to meet the objections of the Minister. This still did not suit the Government; the Government was determined to push on with the legislation. Here we are living in a post-industrial revolution society. We are entering a new technological age. But honourable senators opposite are concerned about seeing how they can screw the workers a bit harder with repressive legislation. It is disgusting to see what is going on.

I want to speak about quite a number of things that have been said in this House. Senator Elstob seems to have covered most of them. Nevertheless, a saying that has come up time without number is that one man’s wage increase will cost another man his job. I do not care who coined the phrase; I think it is silly. Surely to goodness we cannot say that because the workers are looking to increase their wages so that they can live with dignity in 1979 this is costing another man his job. Let us look at some of the figures and try to analyse what is happening in our society. These figures were taken out at the beginning of the year. From 1971 to 1974 the manufacturing industries created 10,800 more jobs a year; community services, 36,500; wholesale and retail traders, 36,400; finance, 13,200; and public administration, 1 1,400, making a total of 108,000 new jobs a year between 1971 and 1974.

Since 1974 the position has completely reversed. The manufacturing industries have shed 60,000 jobs, construction, 15,000 jobs and transport 2,000 jobs, making a total of 77,000 jobs that have been lost. These jobs have not been offset by any increase in employment in other areas. After hovering around 1.5 per cent for years, unemployment rose dramatically to 4.5 per cent in 1976. The continuing loss of jobs in industry and commerce, combined with staff cuts in public administration, has resulted in unemployment rising to 7.6 per cent of the work force. These figures were taken out in January 1979. The situation is a lot worse today. According to the Commonwealth Employment Service, there were 493,5 16 people without jobs as at January 1979.

Recent statements issued by the Department of Social Security indicate that the total number of unemployed is likely to increase to more than 600,000 by 1980. That is the Department’s statement, not mine. The Federal Government forecasts an annual net increase of about 1 10,000 jobs in the work force up to 1985, with about 250,000 young people leaving school each year for at least the next 10 years. This net increase in the work force means that approximately 130,000 jobs a year would need to be found for the next five years even to reduce unemployment to the 1 976 figure of 4.5 per cent. In other words, this Government will have to change a loss of 79,000 jobs a year into an increase of 130,000 a year, a difference of 200,000 jobs. At present indications it does not look as though that will be achieved. Instead, the Government is trying to introduce this legislation which will only aggravate the industrial relations situation.

Senator Watson had quite a bit to say about the recent wage rises. I wonder whether honourable senators on the Government side of the chamber can bring down a formula of what they see as a decent living wage for 1979, a living wage that will enable people to meet the expectations of 1979. They should present these figures and then start judging why people are going on strike. They should bring down a judgment after they know what is a decent wage. Instead of that, the Government is condemning people who are trying to achieve some decency in life and some decent wages to meet their obligations. Has any honourable senator any idea what it would cost to live in the dignity of 1979 with the expectations of 1 979?

Senator Jessop:

– What do you think?

Senator McINTOSH:

– I am asking honourable senators opposite. They are the ones who are passing judgment and condemning people for going on strike to try to get decent wages. Senator Watson, Senator Jessop and Senator Missen produced figures to show how much time had been lost in industrial disputes. Have they any idea why people go on strike and why they are willing to lose wages? They are fighting for a principle in the same way as the Government expects men to lay down their lives for a principle. Surely to goodness they realise that people do not go on strike for the fun of it. They go on strike because a principle is at stake.

I have not heard anything mentioned about the time lost in industrial accidents. Why do honourable senators opposite not speak about that? That is too difficult a problem. They would rather speak about strikes in order to justify to people why they are bringing down legislation such as this. In Western Australia last year 159,800 days were lost in industrial disputes. Is that not disgusting? The number of days lost in industrial accidents was 430,420. Three times the number of days was lost in industrial accidents as was lost in industrial disputes. We never hear a word about what we can do about that. Men go on strike because of accidents. I will give an example. When a rig was to be built by Transfield ( WA) Pty Ltd a big hole was scooped out of the sand and the erection of the rig was commenced. A three-inch electric cable ran across the sand and down to the rig so that the welders and everybody else could work on the rig. It went through a hollow that filled up with water. I was in the office when the men rang up from Transfield. They said: ‘We have had it. Get that electric cable shifted. We do not intend to work while it is there. It is pelting with rain’. One day passed, three days passed, a week passed, 10 days passed. Nothing was done about the matter. The next time the men telephoned they said: ‘ We are out. We are on the grass. We have had it. We will not work while that cable is in that water’.

This legislation will prevent people from being paid for the time that they are on strike. Those men were on strike for six days. Sure, they were paid for those six days after a long struggle and a hard fight by the unions- those bad Communistled unions. I think it is disgusting to expect people to work in those conditions. The way that the Government completely ignores the accident rate in this country is disgusting. It is willing to condemn people for losing time in industrial disputes but industrial accidents do not seem to bother it in the least. Two or three honourable senators have mentioned the strike in Western Australia. Senator Cavanagh covered it adequately. He said that the strike was over when the Police Act was invoked which inflamed the strike again. How many honourable senators know what the seven-week strike in Western Australia which they have all condemned was all about? Did anyone telephone or try to find out why the men were on strike for seven weeks? Honourable senators opposite are prepared to condemn people for going on strike but they are not prepared to judge what the strike is all about. Those men were on strike for seven weeks because they had come to the end of their agreement with the firm. They started to negotiate a new award. They put in a 27-page claim. They got back a 147-page counter claim. When they read through the counter claim they found that it proposed a reduction of $15 a week in their wages. What did honourable senators opposite want them to do? Did they want the men to stay and work just to please them? Sure, people will go on strike. There will always be strikes.

Reference has been made to the communists in the union. I think it is unionists who are in the unions. I refer to one of these big bad communists, Jack Marx. Senator Rocher will know him. He used to go into the north-west fairly regularly. When there was a dispute he explained to the men: ‘Look it has to go to arbitration. Just wait’. He was nicknamed ‘Back to work Jack’. This is the bloke who is pulling people out on strike. That is what the men named him. He was forever saying: ‘For goodness sake hold your peace. Take it easy. The arbitration system will eventually deal with it’. In the end the men had to pull on a strike to make sure that the matter was dealt with. Another of these big bad wolves in the trade union movement is Harold Pedon, a communist, who I believe has very high principles indeed. I only wish that many people on the other side of the chamber had half the principles that Harold Pedon has. I remember an occasion when he pulled some men out on the grass. When he was being paid his wages at the end of the week and they handed him his cheque he said: ‘Put it into the strike fund. I feel responsible for what has happened here. ‘ He was personally involved in that strike, and he should not have been. None of our organisers pulls people out on strike. They are told by the men on the job when they are going out on strike. The organisers dare not tell them.

I was president of the Amalgamated Engineering Union and president and vice-president of the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union, and the meetings I enjoyed most were the monthly shop stewards ‘ meetings. The organisers sat there, the shop stewards lined up and each one told us exactly what was happening in his workshop and how the men felt about a situation. The organisers say Sweet Fanny Adams. They are told by the shop stewards. The backbone of our movement is the shop steward organisation, which is in touch with the men on the floor. I am fed up with listening to this talk about organisers pulling men out on strike. Honourable senators opposite have not got a clue about what is going on. It is all right for Senator Baume to nod his head. He has not a clue what happens in industry.

Senator Peter Baume:

– I am listening with great interest.

Senator McINTOSH:

– I hope the honourable senator is agreeing because I am telling him the truth about what happens. Anyone who wishes can make inquiries about what goes on in the union movement. The organisers are told whether the men are going on strike. The organisers do not tell the men; they dare not. If they dare suggest anything like that, they have had it.

Senator Rocher:

– That is not true in all cases.

Senator McINTOSH:

-If Senator Rocher will tell us about the cases where that is not true we will make inquiries. I know what happens. One of the jobs I have found very difficult when dealing with shop stewards is to convince them that they ought to take things easy because an arbitration commissioner says this and that. The general feeling running through the shop floors now is that the men object strongly to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Government is now taking things to a stage where the unions will draw out of it. If that happens, the Government will have plenty of trouble on its hands. How does it think the pilots got on? They would not cop this rubbish and they withdrew from the Commission. They do not have to come under the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We registered under it and we can withdraw from it. I would find it very difficult indeed to dissuade union members from pulling out, and that is what a lot of shop stewards will want to do. That is the sort of unholy mess the Government is going to bring on its head. If it continues to act like a megalomaniac with the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, that is what will happen. The unions will pull out. Quite frankly, after listening to this debate, if I had to go back and chair one of these meetings I would not be arguing against my shop stewards’ desire to pull out. Marx and Pedon and the others continually argue for their unions to stay in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for the sake of the smaller unions, but the Government is now dragging them to the stage where they will pull out, and that will be on the Government’s head.

I do not have much more to add. I believe that we should take a far more sensible approach to conciliation and arbitration. Industrial relations is a very delicate matter. Government members seem to have the attitude that industrial relations is a means of keeping people at work while the boss goes on making profits. The feeling that exists amongst a lot of unions now is this: ‘I don’t know what it is, but whatever it is I am against it.’ I am very sorry about that situation. We should be looking at this new technological era and tackling it with the unions, finding out where we are going as a nation and how we intend to get there, instead of waiting until the whole lot falls on our heads and we are fighting the next election against an army of unemployed. That is where we are headed. (Quorum formed).

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– in reply- The Senate has been dabating the Bill to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act for over 1 1 hours. A great many senators have taken part in the debate and the Opposition, of course, has expressed its opposition to all the amendments in the Bill. As far as I can ascertain the Opposition’s attitude is one of total opposition to the amendments. It does not see any virtue in the Bill itself or any improvements in the system. Indeed, the case it has put seems to be based on the assumption that this legislation is aimed at provoking the unions, at bashing the unions, and at upsetting and destroying the arbitration system and the process of consultation and conciliation between management and unions and between employer and employee. Generally, the Opposition sees the legislation as making a major assault, in some very unclear way, on the whole industrial relations of this country.

In those circumstances, it is perhaps just as well in closing the debate on this measure to recall to the Senate just what are the proposals in this legislation. If the Opposition had really attended to the details of this legislation instead of becoming thoroughly excited and emotional about the subject, I think its attitude to this legislation might have been different.

I shall just run through the purposes of the legislation. The legislation will require a commissioner to consult with his deputy president before making or varying an award relating to wages and conditions; prohibit the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission from ordering, recommending or sanctioning an employer paying wages to an employee for time when the employee was engaged in industrial action; provide for the expeditious hearing of a stand-down application, either before a single member of the Commission or a Full Bench; provide that the question of whether an industrial dispute exists may be the subject of a reference to a Full Bench; enable an industrial dispute or part of an industrial dispute to be referred to a Full Bench at the conciliation stage; reinforce the powers of the President of the Commission by enabling him to withdraw a matter from another member of the Commission and either deal with it himself or refer the matter to a Full Bench; and provide increased protection for the community by creating an alternative path to the deregistration of organisations in cases where the safety, health or welfare of the community are put at risk by industrial action.

It seems clear from that recapitulation of the purposes of this legislation that the great majority of its provisions deal with the methods of procedure within the Commission itself. In fact, only the last provision- that is, that dealing with the deregistration of unions; I propose to say something further about that- directly deals with unions or the position of unions or could be said to meet in any way the violent objections which the Opposition has made to this measure. I think it must be clear that members of the Opposition have not fully studied the measure. That may not be surprising as it seems to be the attitude adopted to this measure by the trade union movement from the word ‘go ‘.

Another criticism of the Government is that it did not consult with the trade union movement on these matters. As I said yesterday when I was speaking in the preliminary debate before we commenced consideration of the Bill, the Government sought consultation with the trade union movement through the National Labour Consultative Council in the ordinary way. That tripartite body comprises the peak employer organisations, peak union councils and the Government. The body was set up for the very purpose of providing consultation with the Government on industrial relations matters and, in particular, about proposed amendments to the legislation. The Government sought that consultation. The Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street), when he heard that the peak union councils would not be present at the meeting, wrote to them and told them that at the forthcoming meeting, which they said they would not attend, these legislative proposals would be on the agenda. He generally alerted them to the desirability of their being present. Notwithstanding that, they refused to attend. They lost the important opportunity of discussing these matters with the Government. They had all the opportunity in the world offered to them to consult and they refused to do so, for whatever their reasons. That is up to them. The fact is that they cannot have it both ways. They cannot say now that they were not consulted.

Further, after the meeting of the NLCC failed to produce consultation with the peak union councils, the Minister sent a copy of these proposals to the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations. They were given notice of the provisions of this legislation. They had, even after that day, the opportunity of seeking consultations. I understand that CAGEO did so, but no response came from the ACTU. That shows that from the beginning of the public debate about these proposals there has been simply an attitute of shutting the mind on the part of the trade union movement. This is now the attitude revealed by the Opposition in this debate.

As I have said, all the proposals, except the one dealing with deregistration, are concerned with the manner in which the commissioners or deputy presidents go about exercising powers under this legislation. The proposals arise because there have been problems over the years, and particularly in recent times, in regard to some of the these matters. The proposals have been developed as a result of experience and as a result of the problems that have arisen. As I have said, they are, by and large, dealing with the procedure within the Commission, with machinery matters. I do not propose to go through them all. The one that we were told yesterday was the most important was the one providing for consultation between a commissioner and his deputy president. Yesterday afternoon that provision, I remind the Senate, was regarded by the Opposition as the most important. It was regarded, apparently, as much more important than the proposal to deregister unions. The Opposition is now saying that this legislation is aimed at union bashing and so on.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Of course it is.

Senator DURACK:

– Yesterday the Opposition was saying that the most important provision was not the provision dealing with deregistration of unions but the provision in regard to the need to consult. This is purely a machinery mechanism within the Commission. It refers to a relationship between a commissioner and his deputy president. The provision is not requiring any commissioner to be directed or to seek approval. Yet we have been told that the Opposition considers that to be the most important aspect of the legislation. That is very interesting. If” that is the most important matter I find it very difficult to understand why so much time has been spent in debating this measure. It only goes to show that the attitude of the Opposition is designed just to whip up a lot of emotion and excitement about matters which are not justified in the light of the proposals in this legislation.

There are only two matters that I wish to deal with in regard to provisions other than the machinery provisions. Firstly, the Bill provides that the Commission will not be entitled to order or sanction the payment of wages to an employee during a time when the employee is engaged in industrial action. As a general principle, that is not really challenged. The Opposition is really saying: ‘Look, this occurs only rarely and should occur only rarely, but there are odd cases where it is justified’. That is the only opposition to that provision. Nobody is challenging the principle that, by and large, employees should not be paid during a period when they are on strike. We are simply enshrining that principle in clear terms within the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

There are two ways in which some of the particular problems that might arise in extreme cases- I think the example of safety cases has been given- can be overcome. Senator Elstob mentioned the clause in award covering the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia which provides for questions of safety. The rights of employees under that award are provided for within the award, and machinery procedures under the award can be utilised in order to cover such matters. Such provisions, of course, can be inserted into the award in the ordinary way. Further than that, under common law, an employer has an obligation to provide a safe system of work. If an employee is justified in not working because there is a question of safety and the employer is in breach of his duty, then the employee would have his common law rights. I think that the criticism that has been made in this debate about that provision is based upon a misunderstanding of its effect in such cases, which seem to be the only cases where concern is felt about the principle.

The other matter is the question of new powers and provisions in relation to the deregistration of unions. The Senate is aware that for many years there have been provisions in the legislation for deregistration. By and large, they deal with the powers of deregistration of the Federal Court and with applications to that court. There are, and have been for many years, provisions in the Act by proclamation to give powers of deregistration to the Full Bench of the Commission itself. Admittedly they have not been proclaimed nor exercised, but they have been in the Act for a long time. This provision means that in special cases where there is a substantial adverse effect on the safety, health or welfare of the community because of industrial action, application can be made to the Full Bench of the Commission, which has to hear the application and to deter mine whether those conditions are satisfied. The Full Bench has to determine whether in fact the industrial action has had, is having, or is likely to have, a substantial adverse effect on the safety, health or welfare of the community or a part of the community.

Those facts have to be established as facts by the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It is not until those facts have been established that the powers of deregistration can be exercised by the GovernorGeneral under this legislation. That is a discretionary power of the Governor-General which can be exercised only after the facts have been investigated and a declaration made by the Commission that these very strict conditions have been satisfied. That is the procedure for establishing conditions within the terms of the legislation, just as they have to be satisfied in other methods of applying to the Federal Court for deregistration. That is clearly a judicial process in which facts are determined, and it is only after the facts are determined in accordance with the legislation that these powers can be exercised. Apart from the fact that in one case the court would be deregistering and in the other case the Governor-General would be doing so, and he has a discretion as to whether to do so, there is no fundamental difference really between the exercising of the powers of deregistration, except that the Government believes that in these cases the procedures will be able to be exercised more quickly, and for the greater protection of the community, than they can be exercised under the existing powers in the generality of cases when applications for deregistration take a considerable time. It is only because of the urgency of the matter in the particular threat to the safety, health or welfare of the community that the Government is proposing these additional and more expeditious powers.

There is only one other matter. During the debate a number of questions were raised about whether the provisions in this legislation are constitutional. I would simply like to repeat that these legal and constitutional questions have been the subject of attention and advice by my Department and by me during the period in which this legislation has been developed. It is in my view, and certainly the view of my advisers, that they are within the powers of the Constitution. But let me say that the question of whether a particular Act passed by this Parliament is within the Constitution is not decided by the Attorney-General, by his Department, by the Opposition or by legally qualified members of parliament. The question is decided by the High Court of Australia, which is the only body that can determine in the end whether something is constitutional. Naturally, we do not propose to the Parliament legislation which is obviously unconstitutional or about which there are grave doubts or concern as to its constitutional validity. In my view, and in the view of my advisers, those questions do not arise in relation to this legislation. For all those reasons, I hope that the

Senate will give its support to this measure and agree to the motion for the second reading of the Bill.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke)

AYES: 29

NOES: 21

Majority…….. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 and 2- by leave- taken together.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I wish to speak about the comments made by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) in his speech in reply on the second reading debate. It is clear from what he said that he has not recognised the basis of the general criticism of the amendments. He has not understood and does not recognise the comments made by the former President of the Conciliation and Arbitration

Commission, Sir Richard Kirby, who only tonight continued his opposition to this legislation. Sir Richard criticised the basic clause, clause 3, which deals with the need for the commissioner to consult with the presidential member and generally restates the criticism made in this place that such a procedure, proposed in an attempt by the Government to have generally consistent standards applied, will breach the whole purpose of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. That point has been definitely made in the speeches delivered by honourable senators on this side of the chamber. We have said that in our opinion the objectives of the Bill as it presently exists, are such as to ensure that the Commission will see that disputes are settled amicably.

We received today the report of the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Street. It has been ventilated and argued here. No one who was reasonable could do other than accept it as to use the vernacular, a shandygaff report. Although it might have been, as the Attorney-General has said, a draft which was acceptable to the President and the Minister for Industrial Relations, it raises all of the questions that we have raised. It does nothing to dispel our fears. The issues are still there. If the Government pushes this Bill through the Parliament at this stage it will get, as other honourable senators have said, more reaction than it has witnessed today.

It is strange to hear the Attorney-General arguing about the chances that the Australian Council of Trade Unions had to consult with the Government. We know that the legislation did not originate in the regular departments of the Government. Those who drew it up were bound to secrecy. No leaks occurred until Mr Justice Staples made his statement. Only today the Government rejected a call from the ACTU to discuss urgently new section 143 of the Bill. When I raised the matter, the Attorney-General said that the Government had no intention of discussing that section, which relates to the proposed deregistration procedures which allow the Executive to almost take control of a union. Therefore, it is extraordinary to hear the Minister talk about the Opposition not accepting the reforms in the Bill. It contains no reforms that improve the lot of the worker. Can it be said that the deregistration procedures will in any way help the unions? The minister has the power, under certain prescribed pro forma, to take control of the unions and to affect the rights of members. The only assurance that the AttorneyGeneral has given us tonight has been his statement that he has looked at these clauses and considers that they are consistent with the

Constitution. But, as he has also said, that would have to be tested in the courts. No doubt it will be. The surprising thing is that, for some reason, although there appears to be no urgency, we are here tonight at nearly one o’clock in the morning because the Government, as the result of a whim or the decision of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) who is determined to attack the unions and the worker movement, has decided that, this legislation has to go through. It is crazy. We all know that it is crazy. We should adjourn the debate to allow other aspects of the legislation to be debated next Tuesday. On that day we will meet at 3 o’clock, a half hour later than normal. But the Government cannot see its way clear to permit us to consider these matters at 2 p.m. or 2.30 p.m.

What nonsense the Minister talks about safety questions. He referred to the situation of a shunter. I have been to a shunting yard at night in pouring rain where, if a man slips under an engine, he will lose his legs. Men have refused to work in those shunting yards under such conditions. The Minister says that if anything happens these men have their rights at common law. What sort of nonsense is that.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Who said that?

Senator BISHOP:

-The Minister said that a moment ago. He wants to make it easier for employers to stand those people down. When people say: ‘We will work in another place’, the Minister wants to make sure that they cannot be employed. The same applies to men working on the excavation of a building site- we have all seen them and the engineering and waterworks department workers working in a trench. The shuttering may fall and they may say: ‘We will not work there’. In the course of a year many men are killed in this way. The Minister says that if these men refuse to work in these conditions they should be stood down, they should have a new award or the Act should be changed. The provisions of this Bill are crazy. Is it any wonder they have been rejected by the trade union movement? Is it any wonder that important people such as Sir Richard Kirby- a man one would think had retired from the scene- decided to state publicly on Nationwide tonight that the proposals are wrong and should not be carried. That is just not rhetoric. I believe in what I am saying now and it is reinforced by my experience of trade union work over 30 or 40 years. Some honourable senators made shocking and most reactionary speeches tonight. Had they listened to what Senator Missen had to say, who reinforced bit by bit the points that were put by the Opposition, we would have had a different debate tonight.

It is scandalous for honourable senators in our positions, sophisticated and intelligent people with a good knowledge of society and life, to be here arguing about a Bill which could wait until next week. If there is some reason why it should not wait until next week let the Minister tell us about it. We are shocked, and we will resist this legislation clause by clause because the procedure is wrong. This is a crazy action taken by crazy people.

Senator GEORGES:
Qld

-Mr Chairman -

Senator Durack:

- Mr Chairman, may I ask you to clarify what clause of the Bill we are considering.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question is that clauses 1 and 2 stand as printed.

Senator Durack:

– I hope that the debate might be relevant to the clauses.

Senator GEORGES:

– I wish to put it to the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) through you, Mr Chairman, that we have made considerable progress with the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill. We have completed the second reading and it is now ten to one. Surely sanity will now prevail. Having completed the second reading, we should consider reporting progress with a view to resuming consideration of the Bill on Tuesday. The reason I put this suggestion to the Minister is that there will be considerable debate on each clause in Committee. However, I do not think that this Committee debate will be anywhere near as lengthy as the second reading debate unless, of course, the situation is aggravated and the debate is prolonged.

I have looked at the program of the Senate for next week and I note that it is not a very heavy program. If it was said that we have to complete the debate on this Bill tonight because of next week’s program I would have to say that that is not quite the case. I have before me the suggested program for the week beginning 22 October. It lists for consideration on Tuesday the Migration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979, the Homeless Persons Assistance Amendment Bill 1979, the National Labour Consultative Council Amendment Bill 1979, and the Coal Industry Amendment Bill 1979. There are five Bills to be taken cognately on Wednesday, and on Thursday we are to deal with a series of smaller Bills, two of which are to be taken cognately. It is not a heavy program for next week.

I am suggesting that sanity prevail and we report progress, if necessary, after the conclusion of these two clauses that we have before the Committee. I am putting it to the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) that because we have failed to come to some arrangement we should adjourn the debate at the end of the second reading. We had hoped that the second reading would have been completed at 12 midnight, but we have failed to come to an agreement. Perhaps at this stage, having reached the Committee stage of the Bill, we could consider reporting progress and adjourning the matter to Tuesday. As I pointed out to you, the program next week is not onerous.

We should be able to deal with the measure with some sort of sanity and without being tired. We are a bit ragged at the present time. However, if Senator Webster mutters in his sleep he might fire us into further activity. Surely we are not going to have a heady confrontation over the course of the Bill. I am not going to threaten. I have been accused before of threatening and promising. We could take all night and morning on these clauses and then move straight on to the plane. Surely that is not what the Government wants.

Senator Webster:

– Let us get on with the Bill.

Senator GEORGES:

– Do you want us to stay here, Senator? If you do, by all means ignore what I am saying but I hope that the AttorneyGeneral does not.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I rise on clauses 1 and 2 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill to support the remarks that have been made by my colleague Senator Bishop. During his reply at the second reading stage of the debate, the Minister suggested that with the exception of deregistration the Bill related to the internal administrative arrangements of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. He then mentioned that it was his advice, and the advice of his advisers that the Bill was constitutional. That is completely different from the statements that have been made by the former President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, His Honour Mr Justice Kirby, who has gone on record as saying that in his opinion the Government was trying to tell the Commission how to conduct its business. That statement of His Honour Mr Justice Kirby seems to be in line with the statement made by the Minister during the course of his second reading reply that with the exception of deregistration -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I must point out to the Committee that I believe I have shown a great measure of tolerance and that we are concerning ourselves with clauses 1 and 2. Senator McClelland, if you wish to address yourself to those clauses, so be it.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The first clause is the name of the Act:

The Act may be cited as the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act 1 979.

I am speaking to that clause because the provisions of this Bill and the consequences flowing directly from the Bill relate to the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act of 1979; that is the very Bill that is under discussion during the Committee stage. This is the first clause of the Bill and I would suggest that any flow-on arising from the consequences of the passage of this clause are very pertinent to clause 1 of the Bill. The remarks that I intend making during the course of my 15 minutes will particularly relate to clause 2; that is the date on which the Bill will receive royal assent.

I was addressing my remarks to the constitutionality situation in the first instance before I come to the second point, namely, the date on which this Bill will be presented to the GovernorGeneral for his royal assent. Mr Chairman, at the time you rose to your feet I was saying that in the opinion of His Honour Mr Justice Kirby by these provisions the Government was trying to tell the Commission how to conduct its business. Mr Justice Kirby said that the legislation was setting out to destroy the independence of the Commission and that as far as he was concerned it was probably unconstitutional. Unquestionably, because on one side of the fence the Attorney-General and his advisers are telling the Parliament that their advice is that the Bill is constitutional–

Senator Peter Baume:

– On a point of order, Mr Chairman, I refer to your ruling a few moments ago that clause 1 is the short title of the Act and clause 2 is the commencement date. I ask you to consider whether or not discussions as to the constitutionality of the Act have any reference to the name, the short title or the commencement date. I submit that they do not and that Senator Douglas McClelland should speak to the clauses as you requested him to do a few moments ago.

Senator Bishop:

- Mr Chairman I raise a point of order. I put it to you that Senator Douglas McClelland is talking about matters concerning the first two clauses of the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill. I suggest that his remarks are pertinent in the broad scheme of things. He should be allowed to deal with the issues because they are consistent with clauses 1 and 2 and the title of the Act.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Clauses 1 and 2 do refer to the short title and the commencement. It is my view that Senator Douglas McClelland was straying somewhat wide of that mark. I ask him to contain his remarks very strictly to those two clauses.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Chairman, I am doing that precisely, I submit, because the Act is being cited under these clauses as the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act and I am speaking to the results that flow from the passage of this legislation which is titled or cited as the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act 1979- to use the words of clause 1 of the Bill. Mr Chairman, I assure you and the Minister that I am raising what I regard to be a very pertinent point. Obviously this legislation is the subject of dispute and will be the subject of dispute at some time in the near future before the High Court. We have had a situation where the Attorney-General has put a point of view forward on the constitutionality of the provisions of the Bill. We have had a situation where His Honour Sir Richard Kirby who was President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for 17 years believes- as he expressed the opinion - that the legislation is unconstitutional.

I recall a situation many years ago when former Senator Wright was a Minister of the Crown. In his capacity as the then Minister representing the Minister for Labour Senator Wright put through a Bill to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. That debate went on until the early hours of the morning- until 4, 5 or 6 o’clock in the morning. Despite the fact that the Government of the day had said that the legislation was essential and urgent and had to be dealt with expeditiously- that was the reason for the sitting- when the Bill went through the Parliament it was never proclaimed because it was never put to the Governor-General for royal assent. Despite the fact that the Minister, Mr Street, told the President of the Commission, Sir John Moore, that the legislation would be dealt with in the normal way, we want to knowbecause of the uncertainty of the validity of the legislation- whether the Government intends submitting the legislation to the GovernorGeneral for royal assent as soon as this House has dealt with it and as soon as the House of Representatives has received the message from the Senate.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– Apparently the appeal I made previously has fallen on deaf ears; so now we have to match unreason with unreason. We have reached a poor state of affairs when we cannot reach some sort of agreement on the program before us. I would have thought that what I suggested might have met with some sort of response. After all, what has happened is that the Government has taken -

Senator Walters:

– Get on with it.

Senator GEORGES:

– I am not interested in what the honourable senator is thinking. I am not interested in her advice. We should report progress.

Senator Archer:

– No, get on with it.

Senator GEORGES:

– No, not necessarily. There has been sufficient time given to this debate today. General Business was taken away from us. If honourable senators opposite consider that we have been unreasonable in our approach I would ask them to remember that there have been no urgency motions raised in the past two days. Normally the Senate would have had an urgency motion before it both Wednesday and Thursday. This week we have conceded that this Bill is an important Bill. In spite of all the matters which have been brought forward as excuses for shifting this debate from Tuesday to Wednesday at our behest, it was our view that it was much more reasonable to deal with this Bill on the Wednesday than on the Thursday. But several other matters have intruded such as the desire of the Commission to state a point of view. I would prefer not to be pressed at the moment. I am away from the Bill at the present time and I want to get back to clauses 1 and 2. 1 would have thought that there would have been some response to the approach that we should report progress on this Bill and then consider it on Tuesday. Honourable senators opposite have insisted on having their own way. Maybe when people are unreasonable they ought not to have their own way.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Could I indicate the position? At this moment we are not ready to report progress.

Senator GEORGES:

-Could honourable senators opposite give us and the transport officers and all the people waiting downstairs some indication of what they want to do? All we wanted to arrive at was a reasonable finishing time tonight. It was considered by us that if the Senate intended to sit past the adjournment time, at least midnight or the end of the second reading debate would be a reasonable time to finish. I am suggesting that the Government ought to give us some indication of when it will be ready to report progress. If it can do this let it do so quickly. We can come back on Tuesday and get into the Committee stage of this debate. Otherwise we will be arguing about clauses 1 and 2 until such time as we receive some indication from the Government as to when it intends to report progress.

Senator Archer:

– Eggs and bacon at 6 a.m.

Senator GEORGES:

– I suggest that the honourable senator impose his wishes upon his colleagues. Clause 1 of this Bill reads as follows:

This Act may be cited as the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act 1979.

We feel so strongly about this legislation that we intend to oppose it line by line and clause by clause. If we oppose the whole of the Bill, surely we oppose each clause of the Bill and one clause in the Bill is clause 1.

Senator Harradine:

– What is wrong with it?

Senator GEORGES:

– The point I am making is -

Senator Walters:

– Don’t you like the name of the Bill?

Senator GEORGES:

-No, I do not. As a matter of fact we would be better off without the Bill being before us. Since clause 1 is before us we are opposing it, just as we will oppose every clause in the Bill progressively until the Government is prepared to enter into an arrangement for a proper debate on this Bill in the Committee stage. We could argue that this Bill is of such concern to a large section of the community that an approach ought to be made to the GovernorGeneral not to give it royal assent. As soon as I mention royal assent I am back to being relevant, because royal assent is mentioned in clause 2.

If we can take so much time dealing with these procedural clauses of the Bill, consider also how much time we can take, if it is necessary for us to push our point of view, on the rest of the clauses in this Bill. I appeal again to the Government Whip or the Minister. The Minister who is in charge of the Bill is not in the chamber and the Minister who is supposed to be seconded on his behalf is obviously asleep. He is not listening. He is not interested. I have used the debate on these two clauses again to make an approach so that we get some sort of understanding as to how we will proceed for the rest of the morning. If we are going to report progress, at what point will the Government move to report progress? What does it want?

Senator Walters:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. Is the reporting of progress part of clauses 1 and 2 or is the Opposition Whip departing from those clauses?

The CHAIRMAN:

– There is no point of order.

Senator GEORGES:

– I may move at any time that the Committee report progress. I am not prepared to do it. I would prefer the Government to do that. I can do that at any time. I can speak to that proposition or anticipate it because part of the debate in the Committee stage of this Bill is whether we should proceed now or at some other time. My suggestion is that the Government ought to give some clear indication to everyone as to what it intends to do. Does it wish to debate this Bill until 4 o’clock in the morning? By all means let it say so if that is the case so that we can organise ourselves accordingly. Does the Government wish us to rise at 1.30 a.m. or 1.15 a.m.? If it does it has less than three minutes left to do so. At least let us have some indication from the Government as to what it proposes.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– Somewhat facetiously I asked Senator Georges how he could oppose clause 1 of the Bill. Clause I of the Bill states:

This Act may be cited as the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act 1979.

I have just refreshed my mind as to the object of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. 1 have also just refreshed my mind as to the provisions of this Bill. In no way can this Bill be squared with the objects of the Act. Therefore in no way can the Bill be called in any shape or form the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill. I do not want to go on on this sort of angle because I am going to prove clause by clause that that is the case. I think it is better for that to be done at the appropriate time on each clause. Mr Chairman, am I in order in asking the Minister responsible, in respect of clause 2, when the Government proposes that the Bill receive royal assent?

The CHAIRMAN:

– It is in order that you put such a question.

Senator HARRADINE:

– Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have just been given the green light that I am in order to ask the Minister when the Government intends that this Bill receive the royal assent. If we sit until 6 o’clock in the morning, will the Governor-General be woken at half past six to give his royal assent to this Bill? What is the situation? What is the hurry?

Senator Georges:

– What is the urgency?

Senator HARRADINE:

– Yes, what is the urgency? I think the Government ought to bring us into its confidence. If there is some urgency, let us look at that and see whether we ought to report progress now or go through the whole of the Committee stage.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have raised a question, as Senator Harradine raised a question, as to what is the Government’s intention insofar as putting the legislation to the Governor-General for royal assent. I would have thought as a matter of normal courtesy that when a Minister is putting a Bill through the Parliament and questions are asked of him at the Committee stage the Minister would give the Committee the answers that have been sought, especially when the Minister’s advisers are alongside him to give him advice and to give the Parliament advice. Questions have been raised not only by me but also by Senator Harradine, an independent senator. With great respect, I think this incident, probably more than anything else, highlights the supreme arrogance of the Government in its attitude towards this Parliament. At a quarter past one in the morning, because of a determination by the Government, it was decided that the Committee stage of this Bill will be dealt with and then the Minister in charge of the Bill had the audacity to walk out of the chamber while we were debating the clauses. I think that shows the complete arrogance of this Government and the way in which it rides roughshod over the long and well-established principles of the Westminster system.

As Senator Chipp said today, this whole matter has become a complete and utter charade. It is a complete and utter farce. The AttorneyGeneral, the Minister in charge of this Bill, walked out of the chamber at the stage when two senators- myself, a member of the Opposition, and Senator Harradine, an independent member- sought a legitimate explanation from him as to when the Government proposes to put the Bill before the Governor-General for royal assent. As I said earlier, a precedent was created by a similar type of government- not the Fraser Government but from recollection the Gorton or the Holt Government- when former Senator Wright represented the then Minister for Labour. My colleagues Senator Bishop, Senator O ‘Byrne and Senator Cavanagh would well remember that we sat here until 6 o’clock one Friday morning, having debated a Bill for two days, and then the Government decided not to put it to the Governor-General for royal assent. We want to know whether the Government is dudding us on this one, as that Government did many years ago. I think that we are entitled to an answer. Mr Chairman, again I protest most strongly to you about the Minister in charge of the Bill not being in the House during the Committee stage to answer questions posed by the Opposition.

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Victoria · NCP/NP

– I heard the comments made by honourable senators. I think it must be accepted by the Senate that what the Opposition is attempting to do is purely to stonewall on this matter. We have opened up the consideration of the first two clauses of the Bill. I heard some comment between Senator Douglas McClelland and, I think, the Government Whip that they would certainly see that no progress was made for some time. That is a matter for the decision of the Opposition. It is obvious that the Government, having decided as it has that this Bill will go forward at this hour of the night, will be the determining factor as to what time the debate will finish. Obviously the Government wishes to see progress made in the Committee stage of the Bill, and that is what it intends to do. If the Opposition wishes to continue to frustrate, I suppose it has that ability so to do.

The question was raised as to when the Government would seek to present this Bill to the Governor-General. I do not think that honourable senators are so naive as to put that question without tongue in cheek because they would recognise that the Government which has responsibility for legislation will determine on the factors that are known from time to time when the Bill will be submitted to the GovernorGeneral for royal assent. All I can say to Senator Harradine, as he raised the matter first, is–

Senator McLaren:

- Senator Douglas McClelland raised it.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Well, whoever raised the matter, I give my reply to Senator Harradine. I acknowledge that some of the honourable senators on the Labor side who have spoken have been Ministers themselves and they may have the ability to know that a question such as the one which was raised is one for the Government to decide on the facts that are presented day by day. If the Cabinet decides that a Bill is to proceed quickly and go to the Governor-General at a minute’s notice, it is within its province so to do. As a matter of courtesy, the answer to the question asked by Senator Harradine is that it is in the hands of the Government and it will decide in due course.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I speak only briefly to advise the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) that I think it is most irregular for him to tell the Committee that the Government will report progress when it decides to do so. The Minister has not informed the Opposition what is likely to happen about reporting progress this morning. He should do so as a matter of courtesy and also because that action would acknowledge the right of the Committee. I suggest to the Minister that in a parliamentary sense it is most irregular to treat us in this cavalier way. If the Government intends to be reasonable about this matter, the Minister, some other Minister or the Whip ought to advise the Committee at this time what the Government expects the Committee to do, whether it expects the Committee to proceed and conclude consideration or at what time progress might be reported.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I desire to speak on clause 2 because I am concerned about what has happened. I think that two senators legitimately and very properly asked when royal assent would be sought and obtained. The Attorney-General (Senator Durack), who is in charge of the legislation, refused to listen or answer and walked out. That illustrates his attitude to the whole of the Bill and his attitude to the trade union movement. The Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster), who appeared to be asleep all night, on realising that he was the only Minister present in the chamber rose to his feet and told us what he knew, although we already knew it. He said that it is the right of the Government to decide when a Bill will go to the GovernorGeneral. But what is more important- and there is no justification for keeping it secret- is that as the Government wants the Bill passed tonight obviously one would think there is some intention on the part of the Government to get royal assent before the Senate resumes next Tuesday. But, if the Minister is unable to say that, the whole suggestion that the Bill is urgent is simply phony. There is no need for the passage of the Bill at this sitting if it is not going to be given royal assent. Although the answer given by the Minister set out the normal course, there is no justification for it in this instance because of the way that the legislation has been treated in this place. I think that possibly the Minister who had charge of the Bill would have more information as to Cabinet’s view on the urgent nature of the Bill. I do not know why he walked out of the chamber without giving the Minister for Science and the Environment the information that we are seeking. It is so unusual, discourteous and unparliamentary for the Attorney-General to walk out of the chamber that I am worried that something has happened to him or that he is ill. Perhaps we should make some inquiries about his health. No Minister who could possibly sit up would do what Senator Durack has done tonight. I think that there should be some investigation. Perhaps we are accusing him wrongly. The man might be very ill by now. We do not know whether he has been taken to hospital or what has happened to him.

Senator Webster:

– I think he may be sick of hearing the debate.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– It may be the debate that caused it. I think that there must be something wrong with a Minister if he acts in this say.

Senator O’Byrne:

– There always is.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– There is more wrong with him than his mental capacity or fatigue. We should have a look at what has happened to him because I am sure he would not do this if he was capable of continuing the duty that is his to do as a proper Minister and parliamentarian.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will not delay the passage of these two clauses for long, but I merely want to say frankly that when Senator Webster, who is the temporary acting Minister in charge of this Bill, rose to tell us that the Government would determine when the matter will go before the Governor-General, he indicated that he just did not know what he was talking about. As he said, some of us on this side of the chamber have had the benefit of being Ministers. I was always under the impression- I still assume that the position is as it was then- that when a Bill is presented to Parliament by the Executive it becomes the property of the Parliament. When the Bill is passed by the Parliament it is then in the hands of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. They determine when the Bill will be presented to the Governor-General for Royal Assent. So it is not a case of when the Government will determine the matter. It is when the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate will determine the matter. What advice the Government gives the Governor-General in Council as to whether the Bill should be signed is quite another question. I thought that I should put that fact on the record merely to indicate that the Minister who is temporarily in charge of the Bill does not know the first thing about it or the procedures that are involved.

Question put-

That clauses 1 and 2 stand as printed.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator D. B. Scott)

AYES: 29

NOES: 20

Majority…… 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Commissioner to consult with Presidential Member before exercising certain powers).

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– As had been indicated during the second reading debate, the Opposition in this place, like the Opposition in the other place, intends to oppose this provision. It does nothing to improve the lot of people covered by awards granted by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It has defects in that it requires a commissioner to consult with the presidential member before he makes an award. As I think has been pointed out very clearly to everybody, in that regard it diminishes the responsibility of the commissioner. Proposed new section 22a states: 22a. Where-

  1. a Commissioner proposes to make an award, or certify a memorandum of agreement, making provision for, or altering, the rates of wages or the conditions applicable in relation to employees in a particular industry or group of industries; and
  2. that industry or group of industries, as the case may be, has been assigned under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 23 to a panel of members of the Commission, the Commissioner shall, before making the award or certifying the memorandum of agreement, whether or not he is a member of that panel, consult with the Presidential Member who is a member of that panel.

Everybody, including honourable senators, knows that that came under the scrutiny of not only the trade union movement but also of the employers and more particularly the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. As a result, yesterday morning the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) made a statement which said that the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Street, had met Sir John. Mr Street’s statement then says:

Sir John told me of concern within the Commission about the autonomy of the commissioners and asked specifically whether the consultative proposals in the legislation would enable a deputy president to direct a commissioner, or whether commissioners’ decisions would require the approval of a deputy president.

I will not continue with the rest of that statement because it is well known. Of course, we now know that every other commissioner was concerned about that new provision. In his second reading speech the Minister claimed that these things are necessary to obtain some consistency. As Sir Richard Kirby has pointed out, whatever the Government wants to do in respect of wage rates, it must go through the processes. It cannot ask the Arbitration Commissioner to fix a general wage rate. The Minister stated:

There is a complex range of awards and registered agreements operating in industries coming within the jurisdiction of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This very fact demands consistency of principle in decision making within the Commission itself.

The views of the trade union movement about this have been put to the Government, but I will put them again. Its views are that the requirement of consultation raises problems of a legal, industrial and constitutional nature. It refers to the legal problems which have been acknowledged by the Minister. Whatever assurances he has been able to give have not been very substantial; they have been fairly shaky. Its attitude in relation to the industrial problems is that the requirement to consult will tend to undermine the existing authority of the commissioners in the eyes of the parties appearing before them. That is almost the same sort of attitude that has been taken by Sir Richard Kirby, as I mentioned only this evening. The union movement also states that this will make it more difficult for commissioners to perform their work of conciliating and arbitrating; further, the knowledge that whatever decision a commissioner comes to is subject to the approval of a deputy president will tend to lower the confidence of parties in the conciliation and arbitration system. That point has been well taken by speakers on this side of the House and it has also been referred to by Senator Missen.

The final point is about work loads. That was mentioned in the statement made yesterday morning. The Australian Council of Trade Unions says that the requirement to consult will also fundamentally alter the existing relationships and work loads in the Commission and may promote disaffection amongst members especially since no clearly defined decision making process is provided for in proposed section 22A. Further, depending on how the requirements are consulted and interpreted, the requirement may place a heavy work load on presidential members as they would need to examine fully the arguments and information put before the commissioner in order to assess the proposed decisions. Obviously arising from those sorts of contentions- about which we have no precise information from the Commission- the AttorneyGeneral yesterday morning repeated what the Minister for Industrial Relations said. The Minister’s statement read:

Finally, Sir John said that he would expect the consultative requirements would put an extra work load on the Commission.

I think at that stage it was Senator Harradine who pointed out that if the Commission put on more staff it would only add to the complexities. The statement continued:

If the Commission were to carry out its work effectively, and with minimum delays to the parties before it, more people would be required on the Commission. I said that I could see the logic of this point and the Government would await advice from Sir John when he had had an opportunity to make an assessment of the situation.

That document, as we now know, has been debated. There has been no clear answer to the concluding paragraph in the letter. At no time has the Minister tried to explain it away. Mr Street said:

Sir John asked when the legislation was expected to be passed through the Senate. I replied that the legislation would be dealt with in the normal way but that the actual timing was of course in the hands of the Senate.

That is hypocrisy. The Bill is not in the hands of the Senate; it is in the hands of the Government. If the Senate had its way it would accede to what the Opposition has requested.

Senator Walters:

– What rot!

Senator BISHOP:

-Of course it would. What sort of a parliament is it when the Government will not tell us when it is going to report progress and adjourn the debate. The Attorney-General (Senator Durack) who is in charge of the Bill walked out of the chamber earlier. In my experience that has never been done before. It was certainly not done during the reign of the Labor Government by Ministers, responsible for looking after Bills. The Attorney-General walked out of the chamber with the Whips. We had a Minister in the chamber who was only partly interested in the proceedings–

Senator Gietzelt:

– He was asleep.

Senator BISHOP:

-He looked to be asleep. He did not respond to logical questions. I know that these matters have been debated. They are relevant. They have never been answered. For those reasons and for all the reasons put by honourable senators on this side of the chamber this legislation should not be approved by the Senate. It is a fatal weakness. I said earlier that this legislation is, in the vernacular, a shandygaff piece of legislation. It will be found to be wanting. As it starts to work, if it is ever proclaimed, it will be tested by a number of organisations. I hope that that is done very quickly. This legislation may well be like some other Bills which have gone through the Parliament. The Government has rushed them through as a matter of urgency and then decided not to proclaim them. What sort of a government have we when that sort of action takes place? We oppose the legislation. I am sure that my colleagues will add to the brief comments which I have made.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– I am sure that all honourable senators on this side of the chamber oppose this clause. We do so in spite of the taunt by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) that the Opposition has misconceived the important clause in the Bill which we ought to be opposing. We make no apology for the fact that we regard clauses dealing with the internal machinery of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to be of the essence of what this Bill is trying to do. The AttorneyGeneral is trying to place some sort of role on the Opposition. He is surprised that we should be more concerned with the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission than with a clause dealing with the deregistration of unions. We make no apology, at least at this stage of the Committee debate, for putting in such a prominent position our concern at the attempt to create an intolerable work load, delay and frustration within the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission itself. That description of the effect of this clause is not one that has been adopted by the Opposition simply as a propaganda exercise amongst the general public. It is a view that has obviously been taken- it has been repeated often enough in this debate- by the 25 commissioners of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and by Sir John Moore who came out of his sick bed to consult with members of the Commission yesterday. Late last night he consulted with the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) on this very point, that is the intolerable working situation which this clause will create for the Commission.

The opposition by the 25 commissioners and the presidential members and the concern expressed by Sir John Moore have been made public. Why has the opposition been made public at such a late stage? It is because the Government refused to consult with the people directly affected. It is all very well to say that no consultation took place with the ACTU and CAGEO on 8 August, or whenever it was, because at that time they were boycotting the National Labour Consultative Council. They did so for very good reason. The fact is that the Government has not taken the opportunity it has had to confer with any of the unions, singly or collectively. It has not responded to the ACTU ‘s request today for more consultation, as Senator Bishop pointed out. My question is this: If the Attorney-General knows what went on at that meeting of the National Labour Consultative Council he would know- he ought to have the minutes before him- that the employers’ representatives, Mr Ray Kirby and Mr George Polites, both indicated that they were opposed to this type of clause. They were opposed to it- this is the employers- because they said that it would interfere with the appeal system in that every decision of a commissioner would appear to be endorsed by a deputy president.

That is the sort of thing that we in the Opposition have been saying. It is now very clear that the only segment of the Australian community supporting this clause is the Government. Perhaps one might infer that not even the total Government had it in mind that this should be pushed through. It is fairly clear that the Industrial Relations ministry would have a much more practical attitude to the workability of this clause. It is clearly a product of the so-called industrial relations secretariat or unit within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. It is from there that this legislation emanates. It is as a result of the Prime Minister’s will and determination that this clause appears in the Bill. It has not got the support of the employers, the employees, or the arbitration commissioners. In the circumstances, it is little wonder, and the Opposition makes no apology for it, that we place our opposition to this clause in such a prominent position.

Looking at the clause, we find that the commissioner, before making the award or certifying the memorandum of agreement, shall consult with the presidential member who is a member of that panel. In the very scant document emanating from the consultations last night between Sir John Moore and the Minister there is a clear indication that Sir John Moore, drawing on his vast experience, his legal knowledge, his practical knowledge of the workings of the arbitration system, found it difficult to determine the meaning of ‘consult’. If a man of that vast experience and legal talent does not know whether consult’ involves the approval of the deputy president and whether the deputy president can direct a commissioner, if those questions arise in the minds of Sir John Moore and the commissioners of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, why has not the Minister, rather than putting his own opinion of what the words involve, come into this Parliament with some amendments which clarify the meaning of consult’, along the lines indicated in the statement emanating from last night’s meeting? At least then we would have something other than this very obscure, very vague, very loose language which has caused concern within the Commission at the very highest and most expert level. In the end, what we have is a few remarks by the Minister, that it does not mean this and it does not mean that. He says that the requirement is to consult. That is an insulting reply to Sir John Moore, a simple tautology repeating the words of the Bill. That is the maximum that has come from this Government by way of clarifying the situation for the Commission.

It is still not clear whether ‘consult’ means just a phone call, a notification of a tentative decision, a face-to-face consultation over some hours, perhaps some days, acquainting the deputy president with the elements of the dispute and the process by which the commissioner has reached his tentative conclusion, which process and the need to acquaint the deputy president with it is as important as the elements of the dispute. But whatever ‘consult’ might mean, taking it to be something milder than requiring the actual stamp of approval of the deputy president and understanding it to be something less than requiring the actual consent and assent of the deputy president, Sir John Moore asked for some limitations to be placed on that consultation because he could see that if it were required in every instance an intolerable work load would be created for the Commission.

The reply of the Minister was simply that the granting of” any concession would lead to an increased risk of inconsistency. Unless this requirement of consultation operated in every instance, the Minister says that there would be an increased risk of inconsistency. Therefore he would make no concessions to Sir John’s request. Surely we have a situation of the President of the Commission coming to some understanding of the meaning of this clause as indicated by the Minister and asking very reasonably that nevertheless some limitation be placed on the operation of the Bill. One would think that in that situation the Minister would make some sort of concession; that the Minister would realise that he had to balance absolute consistency with the placing of an intolerable strain upon the Commission.

Sir John obviously thought, and said to the Minister, that there would be occasions on which there would be delays in getting final decisions. He was saying to the Minister that there would be occasions on which a speedy resolution- an immediate, virtually instant resolution- of an industrial dispute would be of much greater service to industrial relations in this country and to the general public than would be an absolutely consistent decision with the decisions made in other sections of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It is a question of balance. That plea was absolutely rejected by the Minister. It is no wonder that we in the Senate are taking up the plea of Sir John and asking that the Government consider whether it should not accept some amendment which would allow the Commission to consult where it is practicable, where an absolutely speedy resolution of a matter by one commissioner is not required. That seems to be a reasonable request by Sir John, but it has been completely overruled by the Minister.

My final point repeats one made by Senator Chipp earlier in the debate today. It concerns what I believe to be a piece of obscure wording in the document which emanated from the meeting last night. I think it tries, probably deliberately, to impute to Sir John an agreement with the Minister’s point of view of which there is no proof that he actually intended to convey. After Sir John requested that a limitation in the proposed consultative procedures be introduced, the Minister replied:

Any qualification on the need to consult would obviously carry with it an increased risk of inconsistency.

The Minister continued:

Sir John acknowledged this point.

Acknowledgement could simply be a nod; it could simply be, as it says, a recognition that that is the case. There has clearly been an attempt to convey an implication that Sir John agreed that there would be an increased risk of inconsistency and that he therefore dropped his opposition and put aside his request. Where was the indication that that was the case? I think we need an answer from the Minister.

Senator Harradine:

– You can acknowledge a declaration of war.

Senator TATE:

-That is right. What we need to hear from the Minister, I believe, is a further elaboration of whether Sir John was satisfied with the reply, in the sense of agreeing that he would go back to the meeting from which he came with a message that he accepted as the only workable situation that which was indicated by the Minister. There is no doubt that this clause is an attempt by the Government to put into inflexible, legal and rigid terms something which could have operated quite well within the Commission in a flexible and informal manner. By attempting to put the terms into legislative form, I believe the Government is creating a situation where the Arbitration Commission will find it most difficult to carry out its functions as laid down in the objects of section 2 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1 904.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The arguments that are being advanced by the Opposition in relation to this clause are really just a repetition of the arguments that the Opposition put in the course of the second reading debate. They were very fully dealt with in that debate. I think Senator Missen dealt most effectively with the question of consultation.

Senator Bishop:

– He supported us.

Senator DURACK:

-He did not. He completely demolished what the Opposition was attributing to the meaning of consultation. Some points were raised about the discussion between the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) and Sir John Moore last night. As a result of that discussion, Mr Street issued a statement which has been tabled in the Senate and referred to extensively in the second reading debate and again by Senator Tate. The Minister indicated that if there were any of the problems about which Sir John Moore was concerned-

Senator Harradine:

– I raise a point of order. Is the Minister closing the debate on this clause?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Minister is answering a question.

Senator DURACK:

-This matter has been clearly dealt with in the statement that has been issued. If there are any problems of a machinery character in the operation of this consultative process- an increased work load or delays- Sir John Moore will come back and advise the Minister and the matter will be considered in that light. The matter can be sorted out in that way. No amendment to the clause before the Committee is required.

The debate on this measure has now extended for over a further hour since the Bill was read a second time. The whole of the issues have been extensively debated and canvassed in speeches made at the second reading stage. The approach to the Committee debate and the Committee debate itself have clearly indicated that the Opposition intends to keep repeating the same arguments. No amendments whatever have been foreshadowed by the Opposition to this measure. The Committee debate is simply developing into a repetition of what was a very lengthy and in many cases a repetitious debate of what occurred at the second reading stage. For those reasons, I declare that this Bill is an urgent Bill.

page 1584

QUESTION

DECLARATION OF URGENCY

Motion ( by Senator Durack) proposed:

That the Bill be considered an urgent Bill.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Senator Harradine:

– He cannot go to the people on this measure if he is not prepared to answer certain questions that I have to raise with him which are of practical interest to the practitioners in this field. He is closing off this debate.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Senator Harradine:

- Mr Chairman, I have certain questions to ask on this matter. They are of vast importance to the future of industrial relations in this country.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Senator Harradine, I must ask you to resume your seat. The question cannot be debated. The question is: That the Bill be considered an urgent Bill’. I shall put the question.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I wish to raise a point of order, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! No debate is permissible.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I wish to argue this point, Mr Chairman. The Standing Orders are for our guidance. When such irrational behaviour occurs as is occurring here, we have to overlook the Standing Orders.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! In accordance with Standing Order 407b, the question must be put on the motion before the Committee. I shall put the question.

Senator Wriedt:

– I raise a point of order. It has not escaped the notice of the Opposition that at some stage today this Bill would be declared an urgent Bill by the Government. We discussed this matter this afternoon. Certainly the Standing Order permits the Attorney-General at any stage, provided that no senator is on his feet, to move that the Bill be considered an urgent Bill. There is no argument about that; it is quite clear. I put this point to the Attorney-General: Would it not have been a matter of simple courtesy for the Government to have indicated prior to the last suspension of the sitting that it intended to exercise that right if it was in the Government’s mind? It must have been in the mind of the Government earlier in the day. Does the Attorney-General regard it as proper and fair for the people who have important remarks still to make in the Committee stage to be gagged at 2 o’clock in the morning because the AttorneyGeneral has suddenly risen and moved that the Bill be considered an urgent Bill? It has been the practice in the past, in the time that I have been m this Parliament, whenever a government has moved that a Bill be considered an urgent Bill for it to give fair warning to the Senate of what it intended to do. This is simply a bludgeon method.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I must insist on putting the question.

Question put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. B. Scott)

AYES: 27

NOES: 20

Majority…… 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

And:

That the question be now put.

Question put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. B. Scott)

AYES: 27

NOES: 20

Majority…… 7

Majority…… 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put.

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

Th Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator D. B. Scott)

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– I wish to remind the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) of the points that I made during my speech at the second reading stage, none of which he even adverted to. Perhaps I could direct his attention back to some practical questions in relation to clause 3, which he suggests is designed to provide greater co-ordination and consistency of decision-making within the Commission. In practical terms, how is that to take place? I have been associated for a great many years with the notification of disputes. Such a notification may take place under section 25 of the Act, for instance. If that has occurred, what purpose will this provision serve? Already, under section 25, the Commissioner must have notified the Presidential Member. Obviously, that reason for introducing the clause falls to the ground. Therefore, if the presidential member wants to tell the commissioner of the collective viewpoint of the Commission he has the opportunity of doing that there and then. What is the purpose of this piece of legislation?

Secondly, it is highly questionable whether the consultation processes envisaged by this particular provision will have the desired effect. The Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) has said that if a particular commissioner wants to go his own way, according to the document that has been presented here today he can do so. If this legislation goes through and there is consultation and disagreement between the commissioner and the presidential member heading the panel, I would like to know whether this disagreement is to be recorded. I would like the details of what occurs in that circumstance. If it is not to be recorded, what is the purpose of the consultation? I am trying to be as brief as possible because a number of honourable senators on this side of the House want to ask questions.

Thirdly, during the second reading debate I asked whether the Government could conceive of the likelihood that this proposition would diminish the authority of the individual commissioners in the eyes of those people who have got to come before them. It will be remembered that I said that the first thing that an industrial advocate will say to a commissioner will be: ‘I do not want to see the cabin boy. I want to see the captain’. I ask: Is that not so? By all logic this particular proposition really will have the effect of diminishing the dignity and the authority of the individual commissioners in the eyes of the practitioners in the industral relations field.

Fourthly, I come to this question of work loads. Will the Attorney-General please give honourable senators some idea as to what the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Street, meant when he said- in agreeing with Sir John Moore’s contention- that this will put an extra work load on an already overloaded Commission. What about the delays that will occur such as those which have been mentioned by Sir John Moore? Let me give an example to the chamber. Suppose there is a dispute on the west coast of Tasmania. The Commission is duly notified under section 25 and a commissioner goes to Tasmania to hear the dispute. The dispute concerns a wet weather site allowance. What is going to happen if there is insufficient ambit in the original log of claims for that matter to be determined by the commissioner? What is going to happen? The men are out on strike. They are to go back to work pending the decision of the commissioner. There are no telephones in the area. The commissioner is out there and wants to make a decision to conclude the matter and get the fellows back on the job working properly. That commissioner cannot make a decision there and then. After having examined all of the matters, and all of the circumstances, he cannot make his decision. He has got to run away to Burnie and telephone the presidental member. That is a ludicrous situation and certainly is not in accordance with the objects of the Act.

The next question is the question of Sir Richard Kirby ‘s attitude to this particular matter. On a number of occasions I have disagreed with Sir Richard Kirby but I have agreed with him on most. Surely in this particular instance he knows what he is talking about, because he was part of the case in which this particular matter was discussed; that is the Boilermakers case. The Attorney-General presumably knows all about the Boilermakers case. I know he does because we discussed it in the Senate on another occasion. The seventh point I raised related to the matter of natural justice. I mentioned this matter in the second reading debate. The Attorney-General did not advert to that pellicular matter at all in his response. In normal circumstances natural justice requires that he who decides the matter must hear it. In this circumstance this particular proposition is against natural justice. Might I point out to the Attorney-General that this proposal is the reverse of what is contained in section 30 of the Act which maintains the principle of natural justice insofar as he who decides must also hear. That section goes to the extent of precluding a presidential member from even hearing about matters that have been the subject of negotiations before a commissioner.

Under section 30, if agreement cannot be reached in relation to a matter which is being dealt with by a commissioner then those matters cannot even be discussed with the presidential member, if that presidential member is put in the position of having finally to determine the matter. That is a fundamental principle of natural justice. No wonder the employers are against this particular proposition. As Senator Tate reminded the Senate, the employers are against the amendment the Government is putting forward because it virtually closes off the whole question of appeal if it works as the Government wishes it to work. A I said before, it takes three to do the tango in the industrial relations field. The Government is the only one doing the tango and it is doing it at this time of night in a most abnormal manner.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I shall answer Senator Harradine ‘s points, although I think most of them have been answered. The key question is whether there will be diminution in the status of a commissioner because he has to consult with a deputy president. I have reiterated- it has been said over and over again- that the commissioner is left to make the decision. The process of consultation does not mean that he will be directed, or that he has to get approval from the deputy president. It simply means what it says. We have looked at the legal meaning of the word consult’. The legal meaning is what everybody understands it to mean and what the dictionary says it means. It is simply a question of fact as to whether a consultation is taking place. It does not have any overtones of authority or direction. It is simply designed for people to be able to discuss these questions so that they will know, or be reminded of what principles or decisions have been made in other cases. Thereby we will obtain consistency. There should be no diminution in the status of the commissioners as a result of this amendment. No record of conversation will be required. Whether the people will keep a record will be entirely for them. There is a complete difference between section 25 and proposed new section 22a. One deals with the notification of a dispute and the other deals with the making of an award or a certified agreement which is at the other end of the spectrum. As far as communications and workloads are concerned, the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) has said that he can see the logic of the point made by Sir John Moore. There may be an increase in the workload. If there is, the matter will be assessed and it will be reported to the Minister. It will be considered in the light of the facts revealed and it will be reported by Sir John Moore. The circumstances outlined by Senator Harradine in relation to preventing a problem about communication would be very exceptional. I do not see communication being a real problem anywhere a commissioner may be in this country in these days, with the highly sophisticated and efficient system of communication that we have. The honourable senator mentioned other matters such as the constitutional problems and the Boilermakers case. Of course, we are perfectly well aware of that case. We have considered the matters. As I said in my second reading speech we do not consider that they would present any difficulty. It may well be argued that there is, but in our opinion the legislation is a valid exercise of power. Natural justice has also been considered and we believe that it is a quite accepted principle in administrative law that to seek advice on policy matters does not infringe the independence of the tribunal. Nor does the process of the consultation as outlined detract from the independence of the commissioner and thereby infringe natural justice.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I only have two short questions to ask about clause 3. 1 notice that it is essential for two things to happen. Firstly a commissioner must propose to make an award and, secondly, an industry or group of industries, as the case may be, must be assigned under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 23 to a panel of members of the Commission. I know that the President has already assigned some industries to a panel of members. I therefore ask if there are some Commissioners who have not been assigned to a group of industries. If the answer is in the affirmative, how many groups will be exempt from this clause? It is very hard to speak over the snoring. It is difficult.

Senator Georges:

– I take a point of order. One honourable senator is making far too much noise.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am only saying how hard it is to speak because the honourable senator has a very loud snore. The other point I make is how long will the appointment of the additional aid take? I understand that the people providing additional aid will be presidential members. The presidential members seem to be the ones upon whom the additional work load will be put. There is the question of how many will be needed. I was looking at how many industries are covered by this section and how many are exempted from it? What is the additional manpower requirement of the Commission and what qualifications are needed? Will they be presidential members or just Commissioners?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-It is said that clause 3 is for the purpose of overcoming inconsistencies in the decision making responsibilities of the Commission. In the statement that was put down in the Senate this morning by the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) on behalf of the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) it was said that while decisions inconsistent in principle were not frequent, they had resulted in great industrial disruption and inconvenience to the public. I suggest to the Minister and the Committee that this clause will create much more industrial disruption and inconvenience than exists at present. In my experience with the process of conciliation and arbitration one of the great complaints of workers and one of the great complaints of trade union leaders is the long delays that take place from the time a log of claims is lodged with the Commission to the date of the hearing. Time after time we have had industrial stoppages because of the long delay that has been involved in getting a hearing before the Arbitration Commission. Now, as a result of the discussion between the President of the Commission, Sir John Moore, and the Minister for Industrial Relations today, Sir John said that he would:

Expect the consultative requirements -

That is those set out in this clause- would put an extra work load on the Commission, if the

Commission were to carry out its work effectively -

I ask honourable senators to note these words- and with minimum delays to the parties before it, more people would be required on the Commission.

I would have thought that if this clause were designed not only to overcome inconsistencies but also to aid in settling industrial stoppages and to bring about more harmony in the industrial relations of this nation the Minister today would have been able to say to the President of the Commission: ‘We will look immediately at the appointment of additional people if the Government wants this provision to go ahead ‘.

I also point out- I am adding something to that which Senator Harradine has already saidthat whilst the Government has already said that it wants this provision in order to overcome industrial inconsistencies and whilst it insists on consultation, the notes prepared by the Parliamentary Library for consideration of this Bill point out:

The Australian Labour Law Reporter Supplement to Report 26,21 September 1 979, poses the question of whether a requirement to consult will result in any greater actual consultation between Commissioners and Presidential members that at present (especially when ‘consultation’ is not denned . . .

That was the point that Senator Harradine was making in his remarks. The Australian Labour Law Reporter then went on to suggest that because there is no definition of the word ‘consult’ in the legislation being considered by the Senate the requirement that the commissioners consult with a deputy president before they make or vary an award is not legally enforceable. It appears to me that the Minister himself should now indicate to the Senate what is his interpretation of the word ‘consult’. Is consultation considered to be a commissioner going to a deputy president of the Commission after hearing a case and then saying to the deputy president: ‘Look, I have heard the boot trade employees application and I intend to do such and such ‘ and the deputy president saying: ‘I see’, or ‘Are you’? I assume that that was what was considered to be consultation in the words uttered by Mr Street to the President of the Arbitration Commission, Sir John Moore, according to the document that was tabled in the Senate today. But I raise those matters on this clause because it is an important clause.

While I am talking on the clause I want to lodge my strongest protest at the way in which the Minister moved at a very late hour in the morning that this Bill be treated as an urgent Bill.

Senator Harradine:

– Early, I think.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Yes, I agree with the honourable senator, at an early hour of the morning. It was only yesterday that the New South Wales Minister for Industrial Relations said in the New South Wales Parliament that the proposed changes to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act could have very serious implications for New South Wales. He criticised the Federal Government for being completely out of touch with industrial disputes and industrial relations and he said that the Federal Minister, Mr Street, had not conferred with him or, as far as he knew, any other Ministers about the implications of the legislation. Bearing in mind that those words were uttered in the New South Wales Parliament yesterday and bearing in mind that this is a States ‘ House and that it is supposed to be a house of review, I think it is contemptible that the Minister, the Attorney-General of this nation, has acted in the way he has this evening.

Senator McINTOSH:
Western Australia

– I wonder whether the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) has given any consideration to the effect that this legislation will have on industrial relations. I am considering it from the point of view of a trade union going before a commissioner whose authority will be completely undermined in the eyes of the trade union movement. A union will feel when it goes before a commissioner that it can never be sure what the commissioner is going to say when he consults with a presidential member. Furthermore, since in the eyes of the unions the presidential members will make the decisions, does the Minister consider that the unions will continue to put cases before the commissioners? When they go before the commissioners they will be saying: ‘We do not want to talk to the butcher; we would rather talk to the block’. The unions will try to overcome this problem the best way, and any way, that they can. All the time the commissioners would be losing authority in the eyes of the unions. All that has to happen is for the commissioners to bring down two or three decisions that do not suit the trade union movement for them not to be sure whether the decisions were the commissioners or the presidential members. Senator Harradine touched on that point when he asked whether there would be a transcript kept of the discussion that goes on between the commissioner and the presidential member. I feel that the Government has completely ignored the industrial relations question by bringing in such a clause that undermines the authority of the commissioners in the eyes of the trade union movement. If the Government is concerned about industrial relations I think it should reconsider the implications of this clause and the damage it is going to do to industrial relations.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I want as briefly as possible to deal with this clause. It is almost impossible to deal properly with any of the clauses at this stage. There are now 15 clauses which should be dealt with and which should be scrutinised properly by the Committee. It is a scandalous exercise of power. There is no justification for what has been done and I protest most strongly against the arrangements which have been made. Opposition members will of course oppose all the clauses. They have declared their opposition to them, for the reasons stated. Some very important issues are still to be discussed. I add my protest to the protest made by Senator Douglas McClelland in respect of the way in which this busines is being conducted this morning.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

Because I have only one or two minutes in which to speak and receive a reply from the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) I touch very briefly only on clause 16 which relates to the deregistration provisions.

Senator Harradine:

– We are only on clause 3.

Senator TATE:

– No, we took the Bill as a whole. The Minister has declared the whole Bill urgent.

The CHAIRMAN:

– We are discussing clause

Senator TATE:

– I am sorry, I thought we were discussing the whole of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Does the Committee wish to take the Bill as a whole?

Senator Bishop:

– Yes.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Remainder of the Bill- by leave- taken as a whole.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– The consideration of the Bill as a whole is regarded by the Opposition as a course being undertaken under protest. I will be very brief to enable other senators to speak if possible. I primarily ask a question of the Attorney-General, not in his capacity as Minister responsible for this Bill but as Attorney-General. I ask him whether it is in accordance with the Constitution, with all the democratic and legal traditions underlying the Australian community, for it to be provided in a Bill presented to this Parliament that an organisation might be deregistered or be done away with; that the Government might suspend benefits flowing to its members, including wages; that the Government can take control of the funds of an organisation within the Australian community simply be taking a decision in Cabinet. Whilst it is true that the Bill provides as a preliminary step that a declaration has to be sought from the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, once that declaration is obtained at any point in the six months following the Cabinet may decide to deregister a union or exact some lesser penalty for any reason which occurs to the Cabinet as being sufficient and good. It may have nothing to do with the original reasons surrounding the dispute. It may have nothing to do with an attempt to resolve the dispute.

Not only may the Cabinet deregister the union or deal in a lesser way with the union in that six months, once the deregistration is achieved it requires permission from the Cabinet for the organisation to be reregistered. So it may be two years, three years or four years in the wilderness, outside the machinery of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. In view of the decision of the High Court in the Communist Party case, I should have thought that any Attorney-General would have to do a lot of explaining to this Senate to show why Australian citizens and Australian organisations should be stripped of their rights- indeed, completely extinguished- by the dictates of Cabinet without reference to any criteria argued before an independent tribunal.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– I did not realise that we were dealing with other than clause 3. 1 go to the question of the restrictions that are placed in proposed new section 2 5 A.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You have to give him a chance to reply by 10 minutes to 3.

Senator HARRADINE:

– Yes. I refer to clause 4. I will be extremely brief. I ask the AttorneyGeneral to advise the Senate about proposed new section 25A, which concerns payments in respect of matters involving strikes- that is, strike pay. Does he conceive that that could not be an industrial dispute? Clearly it is an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Act. That proposition prevents the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission from dealing with an industrial dispute. Is that not inconsistent with the objects of the Act, which quite clearly state the purposes for the settlement of industrial disputes? Clearly by this legislation the Attorney-General would conceive that strike pay issues could be an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Act. This would prevent their settlement. Is that not quite contrary to the objects of the Act?

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– I would wish to raise a number of matters in respect to the various clauses we are now discussing in Committee, but, due to the attitude that has been taken by the Government- the Attorney-General in particular- in gagging the debate and thereby preventing honourable senators from having reasonable time to deal with these matters clause by clause, I have to forgo my right to do so. I just want to indicate that I am doing so under protest. In no way does that mean that the Opposition condones the disgraceful behaviour that has been engaged in by the Government this evening.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I will not take long. I want to reinforce what has been said by my colleagues in respect to proposed new section 25A. This new prescription will simply mean that these actions will be taken outside the ambit of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. There have been very few cases of the Commission deciding to make awards in respect of this lost time and when it has they have been well justified. What will happen in the future will be that the unions will settle the disputes directly with the employer. The Bill is advocating industrial action outside the control, power and influence of the arbitration system. Consequently, it is a very bad move. It is placing the whole matter in the industrial jungle.

Senator LEWIS:
Victoria

-Because of what happened last night my time was so limited that I was not able to finish all the comments that I wanted to make.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Surely you are not going to try to speak now?

Senator LEWIS:

– Opposition senators have been speaking all night on this matter. I want publicly to record, before the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill goes through, my objection to the period of six months stipulated in proposed new section 143a. In my view that period is far too long. The Government ought to be able to make up its mind as to what it will do within 35 days of the declaration being made by the Full Bench. I would like my objection to that part of the legislation to be publicly recorded.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I have already dealt at length in my reply to the second reading debate with the point that Senator Tate raised. I pointed out that the deregistration of a union can take place only after certain conditions have been satisfied. Those conditions must be thoroughly investigated by the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. A declaration is made by the Commission that it is satisfied under the Act that certain conditions exist. There has to be a full hearing by the Commission and it has to be satisfied of certain conditions before any powers of deregistration may be exercised by the Governor-General.

On the point raised by Senator Harradine about proposed new clause 25a, where an industrial dispute has led to the strike -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The time allotted for the Committee stage having expired, I put the question: That clause 3 and the remainder of the Bill stand as printed and that the Bill be reported without amendment.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator D. B. Scott)

AYES: 28

NOES: 20

Majority…… 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported without amendment and resolution reported that the time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill be until 3 a.m. this day.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

And:

That the question be now put.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Durack) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– On behalf of the Opposition I make the strongest protest about the way in which this legislation has been pushed through the Parliament. This morning the Government thumbed its nose at the parliamentary system and at the so-called great advantage of there being a Senate. It has thumbed its nose at the experts in the community. It has denied the logic of people like Sir Richard Kirby who has given the Government and the people the advantages of his wisdom in respect of industrial legislation. What the Government has done tonight has not made industrial relations better in Australia. It talks with two tongues. Ministers are talking about employee participation. The Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Street, is going out to the Liberal Party branches and talking about the need to have a new form in respect of industrial relations. Yet in this place, the Government is bringing in laws to make conditions worse. I hope that the people of Australia will realise the way in which the Senate parliamentary system is being dominated by numbers by the Government.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– In the minute remaining to me, I wish to add a few remarks to indicate that we have reached a point of very little co-operation between the Government and the Opposition. What time the Government has saved will be, I would say, expended. It is quite ridiculous, after so many months of reasonable co-operation, to reach a stage where it will now be difficult to arrive at some sort of consensus as to how the program is to be run from now until the end of the sittings.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The time allotted for the consideration of the remaining stages of the Bill having expired, I put the question:

That the Bill now read a third dme.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke)

AYES: 28

NOES: 20

Majority…… 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1592

ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Senate stands adjourned until Tuesday, 23 October 1979, at 3 p.m., or such other time as I take the chair.

Senate adjourned at 3.6 a.m. (Friday)

page 1593

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Australian Defence Equipment Orders: Offset Items (Question No. 1791)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 August 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What is the total number of projects received by Australian firms for the production of offset items in Australian defence equipment orders placed overseas since January 1976.
  2. What are the names of the Australian firms which have sucessfully negotiated contracts with overseas suppliers of defence and associated equipment to Australia.
  3. What is the nature of the equipment and what is the value of each contract.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. In view of questions (2) and (3) it has been assumed that the information requested in question ( 1 ) refers to the total number of contracts received by Australian firms as a result of major Australian defence equipment orders placed overseas since January 1976.

The number of such contracts received by Australian firms is 46.

  1. The names of the Australian firms on which these orders have been placed are as follows:

Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Ltd

Computer Sciences of Australia Pty Ltd

Hawker de Havilland Australia Pty Ltd

Racal (Australia)

Rockwell-Collins (Australasia) Pty Ltd

Leigh-Mardon Pty Ltd

Standard Telephones and Cables Pty Ltd

Mount Isa Mines

Sola Basic Australia Ltd

Western Mining Corporation

Ordnance Factory, Maribyrnong

Australian Precision Optics Pty Ltd

Ordnance Factory, Bendigo

John Valves Pty Ltd

M. E. Mack and Co. Pty Ltd

D. Richardson and Sons Ltd

West Footscray Engineering Works Pty Ltd

Kelly and Lewis Pumps

Austral Standard Cables

EMI Electronics ( Aust.) Pty Ltd

Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation Ltd

Bradford Kendall Foundries Pty Ltd

Commonwealth Steel Co. Ltd

Walkers Ltd

ANI Corporation Ltd- National Forge Division

Commonwealth Industrial Gases Ltd

McNaught Instruments Pty Ltd

H. H. Peaston Pty Ltd

Bishop Graphics Inc.

Selson (Australasia) Pty Ltd

Electronic Associates Pty Ltd

EMAIL Ltd

British Aerospace Australia Ltd

Wormald International Ltd

ITE Industries Australia Pty Ltd

Wright Audio Developments Pty Ltd

  1. The nature of the equipment covered by these orders is as follows:

Ship rudder stock forgings

Fire extinguishing systems

Ship propulsion shaft

Various valves

Mobile tactical communications shelters

Power panels

Fans

Development work on sonobuoys

Helicopter tie down fittings

Pumps

Wire cables

Modification of electronic warfare trainer

Castings

Loudspeakers

Ship barrel strut casting

Turbine blades

Integration of sonobuoy processor into LRMP aircraft

Welding electrodes

Electronic support measures equipment

Radar simulators

Mission support centre for sonobuoys

Electronic warfare training equipment

Transportable high frequency radio systems

Fixed high frequency radio equipment

Production of sonobuoys

UHF radios

Magnetic ranging system

Battery lead

Communications transmitters and receivers

Connectors, electrical

Lubrication equipment

Leads, electrical

Special purpose tools

Lenses

Electronic parts

Nickel

Refrigeration power units

Technical handbooks

Computer power assembly and testing.

Details of the individual financial arrangements between overseas and local firms are treated as company confidential. The aggregate value of these orders is $94.76 1 m.

This figure does not include major Defence projects placed in Australian industry such as the Patrol Boats at NQEA Pty Ltd ($50m), Heavy Lift Ship HMAS Tobruk at Carrington Slipways Pty Ltd ($36m) and the Underway Replenishment Ship for which a contract is currently being negotiated with Vickers Cockatoo Dockyard, or a number of communications projects now in industry.

The honourable senator should note that overseas firms have a number of years from the date of contract in which to fulfil offset obligations. Further, firms can build up offset credits’ by placing offset orders in advance of any offset obligation, on which they may draw when they win a major contract against which offsets are required. As some firms supply both Defence and other Government Departments, offsets achievements are treated as aggregates. Separation of achievements into offsets against Civil and Defence orders is not always possible.

I would also like to point out to the honourable senator that Defence was instrumental in establishing the Offsets

Policy in 1970. Useful offsets have been achieved particularly in the aircraft field as a result of these early efforts, the total against Defence and civil orders being $128m at 30 June 1979.

Former Members of Yugoslav Partisan Forces: Service Pensions (Question No. 1872)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:

Why are former members of the World War II Yugoslav partisan forces who have met residential qualifications in Australia denied the benefits of recent legislation providing service pensions for allied war veterans, particularly in view of their actions in concert with British and New Zealand forces to defeat the Axis forces in the Trieste region of Europe.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979 which will authorise the payment of service pension to veterans of formally raised forces of Allied countries was recently introduced into the Parliament. This legislation does not extend eligibility for service pension to informally raised partisan groups. Therefore, members of Yugoslav partisan forces during World War II will not be eligible for service pension.

The Government has taken the view that service pension eligibility should not be granted to British Commonwealth and Allied veterans on terms which are more liberal than those applied to Australian veterans. Australians who did not serve in formally raised forces are not eligible for service pension.

Library Services for the Handicapped (Question No. 1959)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 18 September 1979:

What action has been taken in respect of the recommendation of the Working Party on Library Services in its report of April 1979, that the National Library Council establish a national advisory committee on library services for the handicapped.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

I am informed by the National Library of Australia as follows:

The Council of the National Library considered the report of the Working Party on Library Services for the Handicapped at its meeting on 3 August 1979 and approved in principle each of the 1 8 recommendations. The recommendations, including those on the establishment of a national advisory committee on library services for the handicapped (recommendations 15-17) were referred to the Council’s Advisory Committee on Co-operation with State and Public Libraries for its views on the means of implementing the recommendations. When these views are known, the appropriate decisions will be made on what action should be taken.

Library Services for the Handicapped (Question No. 1960)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 18 September 1979:

What action has been taken in respect of the recommendation of the Working Party on Library Services, in its report of April 1979, that the proposed national advisory committee on library services for the handicapped examine in detail Australian Standard 1428-1977, Design Rules for Access by the Disabled, with a view of ensuring that the standard is adequate for buildings and facilities providing library services.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

I refer the honourable senator to my reply in answer to Question No. 19S9. In addition, the National Library has informed me that the promotion of the Australian Standard on Design Rules for Access by the Disabled (No. 1428-1977) by library authorities has been referred to the Library Association of Australia (in accordance with recommendation 5 of the Report of the Working Party on Library Services for the Handicapped).

Replacement Vessel for HMAS ‘Supply’ (Question No. 1974)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Department of Defence reached agreement with Vickers Cockatoo dockyard to build a replacement vessel for HMAS Supply.
  2. What is the estimated financial all-up contract proposed for the supply of that vessel.
  3. Are any royalties or any other payments being made, or to be made, to the French designers; if so, what is the amount of those royalties.
  4. Does any subsidy or financial assistance apply to the construction of the vessel by Vickers Cockatoo; if so, what is the amount of such subsidy.
  5. ) Were tenders called from other companies in Australia and overseas; if so (a) from which companies were tenders called; and (b) what were the tendering prices offered by other tenderers.
  6. What is the anticipated commencement date for the construction of the vessel, and what is the estimated completion date.
  7. What are the terms of the agreement reached with the Australian Council of Trade Unions relating to industrial disruption at the dockyard during the period of construction of the vessel.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Substantial agreement has been reached with Vickers Cockatoo Dockyard Pty Ltd for the construction of the new fleet underway replenishment ship. Final arrangements will be concluded when agreement is reached with the French on the supply of the production documentation necessary to enable VCD to build the ship.
  2. The estimated contract price will be worth nearly $70m expressed in November 1978 prices.
  3. Yes. It would not be appropriate to divulge the amount of the Royalty fee until the final arrangements with the French have been concluded, and then this could only be done with the agreement of the French parties.
  4. No. The VCD tender was competitive with the French offer both in price and delivery timescale.
  5. Proposals relating to the definition of a ship and its construction costs were invited from:

    1. Rijn Schelde Verolme, Holland;
    2. Direction Techniques des Constructions Navales (DTCN), France;
    3. Vickers Cockatoo Dockyard Pty Ltd, Sydney;
    4. Evans Deakin Industries Ltd, Queensland (which later withdrew).

The prices of the proposals are a matter of commercial confidence, which it would not be appropriate to disclose publicly.

  1. Construction of the ship will begin shortly after the contract with VCD is finalised. The ship is expected to enter service with the RAN in 1 983.
  2. As the Minister for Defence announced in his statement to the House of Representatives on 23 August 1979, a delegation of officials of the ACTU Shipbuilding Committee has assured him of their full support in maintaining good industrial relations at VCD and in assisting the company to acquire the additional skilled workers for this task. (Hansard 23 August 1979 pages 548 and 549).

Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies: Research Funding (Question No. 2011)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) To what extent does research that is funded through the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies support research undertaken by Australians, and to what extent does it support research undertaken overseas or by non-Australians.
  2. What is the breakdown of the research staff employed by the Institute, by nationality.
  3. What attempt is being made to direct whatever funding that is available to support research undertaken by Australians.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies does not take the nationality of applicants into account when considering applications for research grants or the appointment of research workers to the staff. I do not consider that the cost in time and money of extracting information about the nationality of grant recipients and staff could be justified. The Institute makes few grants for research to be carried out overseas either by Australians or non-Australians.

Repatriation Benefits

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

-On 30 August 1979 Senator MacGibbon asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the following question without notice:

Will the entitlement to repatriation benefits proposed in the present Budget for those men and women who served in Allied armed forces be restricted to those persons resident in Australia who have taken out Australian citizenship? What evidence of service will be required? Must they have been and be able to prove that they were bona fide servicemen and women in regular and legally constituted armed forces?

The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Allied veterans will be required to have been resident in Australia for at least 10 years in order to be eligible for service pension. They will not be required to be Australian citizens.

In order to be eligible for service pension an Allied veteran will have to provide proof that he served in a formally raised armed force, that he served in a theatre of war and that he did not serve at any time in an enemy force. The proof required will be the production of service documents. If these are not available, consideration will be given, by the respective determining authorities, to other evidence which could substantiate a claim.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 18 October 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1979/19791018_senate_31_s82/>.