House of Representatives
21 April 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1971

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Sir William Aston) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1755

EDUCATION

Petition

Mr ENDERBY:

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of residents of the Division of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth:

Thai there is a likelihood that education in the Australian Capita] Territory will in the foreseeable future be made independent of the New South Wales education system:

That the decentralisation of education systems throughout Australia is educationally and administratively desirable, and is now being studied by several State Government Departments:

Thai the Australian Capital Territory is a homogeneous and coherent unit especially favourable for such studies.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that a Committee of Enquiry, on which are represented the Department of Education and Science, institutions of tertiary education, practising educators, and the Canberra community, be instituted to enquire into the form that an Australian Capital Territory Education Authority should take, the educational principles and philosophy that should underlie it, and its mode of operation and administration.

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

Petition received and read.

page 1755

QUESTION

WHEAT

Dr PATTERSON:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I preface it by saying that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have gone to great pains to say that the Government has never interfered with the Australian Wheat Board as far as political relations with China are concerned. I ask: Does the Prime Minister deny that in May 1967 the Australian Wheat Board delegation in Hong Kong, after negotiating a contract for the sale of 1,500,000 tons of wheat with China, was forced, on the instructions of the Commonwealth Government, to hand to the Chinese a note, after the contract had been signed, which stated that if China did not use her influence to stop the Hong Kong riots Australia reserved the right to cancel the contract? Does the Prime Minister deny that the reaction by the Chinese negotiators to this blatant blackmail was so strong that the wheat trade in 1967 was almost wrecked and the next Wheat Board delegation was bluntly informed by China that if such a provocative attitude by Australia continued China would do no more wheat business with Australia? Finally, will the Prime Minister table the relevant document containing the British-Chinese discussions in Peking on the wheat trade and the recent relevant Australian Wheat Board advice to the Government that political considerations are now a definite factor in ChineseAustralian wheat negotiations?

Mr MCMAHON:
Prime Minister · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– To deal with the first part of the honourable member’s question which goes back to 1967, he will know that at that time I was neither the Minister for Trade and Industry nor the Prime Minister. I have no knowledge of what is alleged in his statement but I will make an investigation and if the allegations turn out to be true I will let him know. Above all I will give him the facts and certainly not make a partial presentation of them. As to the second part of the honourable gentleman’s question, no written document was presented to us by the United Kingdom authorities. Tt was an oral discussion. Secondly, that discussion with officials was put on a confidential basis and we have been asked not to proceed any further than we have so far gone. As it was confidential I would not be prepared to make details of the oral discussion available to the honourable gentleman. Nonetheless, as I have tried to make clear before insofar as wheat transactions are concerned, we in the Government believe that the Australian Wheat Board is a highly efficient authority in the sale of Australian wheat.

If the honourable gentleman wants implicitly to be critical of the Wheat Board I believe it would be better if he came out positively and openly and said that he is dissatisfied rather than hide behind parliamentary privilege or make inexplicit statements. I have confidence in the Wheat Board. It is selling wheat well. We have already sold 3 million tons this year which is 1.1 million more than was sold last year Our carry over will not be a large one. Members of the Board are to leave today or tomorrow for the United Arab Republic.

I also want to point out that all this discussion on a political level is doing harm to the market for Australian wheat because if any buyer thinks that there is a weakness in the market he will of course exploit that weakness, just as the People’s Republic of China will, if it gets the opportunity, play politics with us. But when the chips are down and the decisive moment is at hand, price and quality are the most important criteria to be looked at in deciding whether to purchase our wheat.

page 1756

QUESTION

CIGARETTE ADVERTISING

Mr BUCHANAN:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. On what basis does the Government ignore the emphatic and repeated recommendations of its expert advisory body, the National Health and Medical Research Council, solidly supported by advice from the Anti-cancer Council, that Australia should place a total ban on cigarette advertising on television and radio, as has been done in the United States of America, Canada, England, New Zealand, France, Italy, Scandinavia and Russia, in a genuine attempt to reduce one of this century’s major health hazards?

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Immigration · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I made the Government’s attitude on this matter quite clear some weeks ago in answer to a question by the honourable member for La Trobe, and I personally have nothing to add to that answer. I will be glad to pass the honourable gentleman’s question to my colleague in another place to see if he has any comment to make.

page 1756

QUESTION

APARTHEID FILM

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct to the PostmasterGeneral a question which concerns a film on apartheid which was made in South Africa and is entitled ‘End of Dialogue’. Has that film been shown on television by Swedish, Dutch, West German and East German stations and by the Columbia Broadcasting System and the British Broadcasting Corporation? Has the Australian Broadcasting Commission refused to show it on the grounds that the Commission must pursue a policy of impartiality and present a balanced view on all subjects? As the Australian Government has officially declared its abhorrence of South Africa’s apartheid policies I ask: How can the ABC’s suppression of this film be justified on the grounds of official impartiality?

Sir ALAN HULME:
Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am quite amazed that I should be asked whether a certain film has been shown in about 6 countries, mainly in Europe. How I would be expected to know this other than by picking it up in a newspaper I would not be sure. I have said in this House time and time again that what the ABC does is a matter for the ABC itself. I could not possibly be aware of the films which are shown by the ABC unless in fact they are a series of programmes submitted to me for my approval as to cost in the terms of the Broadcasting and Television Act. I am sure an isolated film such as this would not come into that category. I shall refer the matter to the . Chairman of the ABC and, as far as he is able, he will answer the question the honourable member has asked of me.

page 1756

QUESTION

MINING AND METAL INDUSTRIES

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Minister for National Development. In view of our new dependence on exports from mining and metals industries, to what extent have exports of minerals increased in recent years? Because of the industry’s importance I ask how exploration activity has also increased in recent years and to what extent the Government is assisting this exploration.

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Obviously it would take me a considerable amount of time to answer this question fully. In view of the circumstances I think the quickest way will be for me to refer to a few statistics. Let me take 1967-68 as an example. Our export earnings from minerals in that year, classified as such in the statistical records, amounted to about $479m. In 1968-69 our earnings from them had gone up to about SI, 145m. 1 believe that this in itself indicates quite conclusively the very substantial improvement in the assistance given by these exports to the economy. The honourable member referred to the extent of exploration work. Again I think the quickest way to answer this question is for me to refer to the money which has been expended in this field. In 1967-68 the expenditure was $39m. In 1968-69 this amount had risen to about $79m for minerals alone. There was also an increase of expenditure on petroleum exploration work from about $66m to about $79m during the same period. This sum of money, of course, has been expended substantially by private enterprise. In other fields the Government does assist. The Government has assisted substantially in early exploration work by geographical and geophysical work. It also assists in the field of mapping and there is other direct assistance to people who are carrying out this very important work. It is vital that such assistance be given and that this work be continued and expanded in the future because of the tremendous value of this minerals field to the Australian economy.

page 1757

QUESTION

UNITED STATES INSTALLATIONS

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Can the right honourable gentleman give any information as to the nature of the United States installations in the vicinity of Woomera in South Australia? Are members of the Parliament permitted to visit these installations?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I have some knowledge of the United States activity around Woomera, most of which are classified. To the extent to which they are not classified I will advise the honourable member. I will also find out from the Acting Minister for Defence the extent to which Australian people can visit them. I will let the honourable gentleman know.

page 1757

QUESTION

VISIT BY SOUTH AFRICAN RUGBY UNION TEAM

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Is the right honourable gentleman aware that the Travelodge motel group has been forced to cancel accommodation booked for the South African Rugby Union team as a consideration to other guests? What is the Government doing in an endeavour to put an end to the gun barrel politics being practised by the alternative government and its masters?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– Only in general terms was 1 aware of the activities of Travelodge. However, what I am sure about is that the more the Australian people understand the action taken by members of the Australian Labor Party associated with the more extravagant sections of the Australian Council of Trade Unions who will do all in their power to obstruct the visit of sporting teams to Australia, the more the public will resent and be horrified at their actions and they will express their displeasure in the proper place, and that is in the polls. They will get their opportunity to express their opinions at the polls. I hope that they do not delay that opportunity for too long.

Mr Kennedy:

– I rise to order. I make the point that the Prime Minister is dealing with a subject that is not under his jurisdiction. In this case his attitude as Prime Minister has consistently been that the visit of the South African sporting team to Australia is a matter purely under the jurisdiction of the Australian Cricket Control Board.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order. The honourable member for Bendigo will resume his seat.

page 1757

QUESTION

CHINA

Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister: What were the conclusions that enabled him to recognise the Taiwan government as the lawful government of China? Did the People’s Republic of China come into existence in circumstances similar to those of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? If so, why do we have diplomatic recognition of Russia and not of Mainland China? Does the Government contemplate supporting the admission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations on a 2-China basis? If so, is the right honourable gentleman aware that the Chinese Prime Minister, Chou En-lai, consistently refuses to accept the 2-China formula and emphasises that his government will never surrender his country’s sovereignty, irrespective of where the political pressure comes from? In the interests of both peace and trade will the Prime Minister drop the 2-China concept and try to conceive something more politically original in his search for grounds on which the Australian Government might rely to enable it officially to recognise the People’s Republic of China and support its admission to the United Nations?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I will have to divide this very long speech into 2 different sections in order to deal with it. The first part of it relates to the difference between the Government’s approach to the Republic of China - that is, Taiwan China - and to the People’s Republic, which I choose to call

Continental China mainly because most people do not understand unless I do. Until fairly recently Continental China has not shown itself particularly anxious to be recognised nor to be seated in the United Nations. In recent months it has shown increasing desire to become seated. For years the Republic of China, or Taiwan China has been, as I have impressed on the House, a valuable member of the United Nations, has lived up to its international commitments and has been recognised by Australia.

The Australian Labor Party must ask itself whether it wants to jettison or desert a country that has the welfare of 14£ million people under its control. Does it want to insist that the Continental Chinese should have the right of domination of these people and of preventing the people from expressing their will at the polls as to the kind of government they want? The Opposition has to let me know whether its attitude has changed over the last few years or whether it once thought that it was wise to retain recognition of the fact that Taiwan China should remain a member of the United Nations. The Government has expressed its position on several occasions. I will repeat it again for the benefit of honourable members.

The Government is now looking, and has been looking cautiously for some time, at the position of representation in the United Nations. Its attitude has been made clear. It feels that votes at the United Nations are changing substantially. We want Continental China to be a responsible member of the international community. As yet we do not have strong and positive evidence that this is that country’s wish also. But Australia’s overall wish is that Taiwan China, which is responsible for 14± million people, should remain a member, and the Government will be working to ensure that procedures are adopted at the next United Nations meeting, or at a subsequent meeting, that will protect that country. In the meantime we think that this is a major objective and that recognition is not of paramount concern in comparison with the other. As I said yesterday, and I want to repeat this: The view of the United States is exactly the same as ours. The United Stales thinks that it is premature to be going along with the recognition of China, and it will be doing all in its power to secure the position of Taiwan China in the United Nations.

page 1758

QUESTION

ADVERTISING

Mr McIVOR:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– Is the Attorney-General aware of advertisements by a national organisation concerning goods listed by name and price and claiming that these goods were sold elsewhere at considerably higher prices when in fact the named goods are specially supplied to this company and cannot be purchased outside its own organisation under the brand names given? In view of this entirely fictitious and misleading advertising, which shows a complete disregard for integrity, will the Attorney-General take action to protect the public against a repetition of this false discount retail advertising?

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-I am not aware of the advertisement but I will have Inquiries made and give the honourable gentleman such information as I can on it. However, I would add that this would appear to be a matter governed by State law. He did not mention in what State this occurred, and perhaps he will be good enough to give me the details of the newspaper in which the advertisement appeared, because probably the only action I would be able to take would be to refer the matter to the AttorneyGeneral of that State. If be will advise me I will make inquiry and let him have whatever information I can give him.

page 1758

QUESTION

CHINA

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister a question supplementary to that asked by my colleague, the honourable member for Shortland. Does his Government still maintain, as is stated in the credentials of Australia’s ambassador to Taipeh, that the government of Taiwan China, to adopt his term, is the legitimate and actual government of all and every China? Does the Government officially maintain that Taiwan China is responsible not only for the 14 million people on the island of Taiwan but for the population 50 times that size in continental China as well?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– If the honourable gentleman had been listening at all to the statements that I have made during the course of the last few weeks he would know that I have been extremely careful to state that what we are doing is protecting the interests of 144 million Taiwan Chinese people in the United Nations. If he cannot draw sensible conclusions from that there is nothing I can do to help him.

page 1759

QUESTION

SOUTH EAST ASIAN DEFENCE

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. What is the right honourable gentleman’s understanding of how the consultative clause of the new five-power defence agreement for South East Asia will work? Has the Prime Minister any information on the cost of stationing an Australian battalion in Singapore compared with the previous post at Terendak? Has the Government of Singapore indicated that it wants use of bases by Australian forces in Singapore to he on a leasehold basis extending over at least 5 years?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– The political context in which the five-power arrangements have been couched is for consultation in the event of armed attack externally fomented or in the case of subversion and insurgency externally fomented. In other words, we will not be involved in internal civil problems but only in externally fomented operations. That is the position on the political basis. As to the basis on which we will be there and the administrative arrangements to be made, I think it would not be wise for me to enter into a debate on this or to go any further pending the return of the Minister for Defence. He has conducted the discussions and I think any question along these lines should be addressed to him when he returns. What I want to avoid is the making of statements prepared from bits and pieces. I think it is better for him to give a comprehensive picture.

page 1759

QUESTION

DARTMOUTH DAM

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for National Development whether any progress is being made in discussions on the building of the Dartmouth Dam.

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– Some progress is being made in the discussions but no progress is being made in the construction of the dam. Last week at the meeting of the Australian Water Resources Council in Canberra we took the opportunity of discussing the matter informally with the Ministers concerned and it was indicated by the governments of New South Wales and Victoria that their stand was the same as they had stated previously. I indicated on behalf of the Commonwealth that we believe that the original agreement that had been signed and ratified by 3 Parliaments, and had been signed by the previous Parliament in South Australia but not ratified by the new Parliament, should proceed. I understand this information has been conveyed by the South Australian Minister to his Premier and to his Government and we expect that there will in the near future be some further correspondence between the Prime Minister and the Premier of South Australia, and between the Premiers of South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales, setting out exactly the position of all the governments concerned. It will then be up to South Australia to make up its mind on whether it wishes the work to proceed at the earliest opportunity.

page 1759

QUESTION

MINING

Mr WHITTORN:

– I address a further question to the Minister for National Development. I ask whether he has any information regarding infrastructure costs associated with mining development in Australia. Is the assertion correct that Australian interests have been unable to take up to the full extent the equity offered to them because of these development costs which on average represent more than 60 per cent of total investment?

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– First of all, we do have some information. I do not have it readily available but I can obtain any details that are in the possession of my Department and let the honourable member have them. But I would like to point out that most of the development in Australia, particularly in the mineral field but also in other fields, is carried out by private enterprise and in many of the major cases by agreements between the companies concerned and the State governments. Conditions are laid “ down in the various agreements between the companies and the State governments, and these conditions vary from State to Sate. So we find, for instance, that infrastructure costs in Western Australia differ from those in Queensland, and there are differing arrangements as to who will meet those costs. This is of importance, of course, in relation to the matter of royalties paid to the various governments. There is no simple answer that one could give concerning a straight out comparison of costs that have to be borne by the developers themselves but I will see what information is available on comparisons that can be made and will let the honourable member have it.

page 1760

QUESTION

COMPANY TAKEOVER OFFER

Mr CREAN:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Prime Minister. Does he view with any concern the takeover bid by Philip Morris (Australia) Ltd, a United States controlled company, for Lindeman (Holdings) Ltd, a predominantly Australian owned enterprise? Is he aware that the takeover offer involves a cash phis share offer, the cash component of which is some $15m? Is he further aware that Philip Morris proposes to secure the cash through Euro-dollar sources at borrowing rates below those prevailing in Australia, a situation which places takeover bidders with access to foreign funds at an advantage over local bidders? Does not the possibility of such a transaction in these terms point to the need, firstly, for a lowering of interest rate structures in Australia and, secondly, for a revision of the guidelines applying to foreign investment?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– Of course, I regretted that Lindemans should be the subject of a takeover offer by an American cigarette company. But I have to remind the honourable gentleman that the Commonwealth does not own the shares in Lindemans and that there would be an agreement voluntarily negotiated between Lindemans and the cigarette company. The second point to be noted is that the Philip Morris interests did offer the Lindeman shareholders a price which was very substantially in excess of the market price, and I do not think that I or any other member of my Government would have wanted us to interfere to stop the shareholders in that company getting more than the market price itself. The third point to be made is that the Australian interest in the total ownership of Philip Morris can, if the Australian shareholders like, be increased to 28 per cent, with an assurance given to the Government that the Philip Morris company will consider in the future increases iri the shareholding by Australian interests. So there are obvious advantages for both interests. There is no doubt that there are obvious advantages for the Australian shareholders in Lindemans.

As to whether or not, because Philip Morris has borrowed on the Euro-dollar market, there should be a change in internal interest rates, I am afraid that this question bewilders me because if ever there was an occasion when interest rates, particularly the savings bank deposit rate, must be sustained in the interest of controlling inflationary pressures, this is the time for it to be done. So I do not think that the two matters are related. In fact, I would be fairly certain that if one were to ask the Reserve Bank of Australia it would shudder at the thought of a reduction of interest rates.

The next question is whether the guidelines ought to be changed. No, I do not think that they should. I do not like the transaction, being an Australian the same as everyone else in this House. I like to see an Australian concern maintained under Australian ownership. But when one looks at this from the point of view of the shareholders and of the long term interests of the Australian shareholders as well, one can but make this single concession: That at least it would be a good commercial transaction so far as Lindemans was concerned.

page 1760

QUESTION

CHINA

Mr JESS:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– I desire to ask the Prime Minister a question. If we accepted the presumed policy of the Australian Labor Party that we should repudiate Nationalist China in favour of mainland China because of its greater power, does the Prime Minister believe that if we undertook this action it might well be that we would cause in the minds of the smaller nations of South East Asia with whom we have existing treaties doubt as to whether’ under the same circumstances we might well repudiate them in the future?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I have no doubt, as one who has travelled an enormous amount in the course of the last 18 months, that the Governments of the smaller countries of South East Asia - and for that matter of Asia as a whole - which want to be independent would shudder at the thought that there was the prospect of the Labor Party being elected as the government of this great country of ours. I can but confirm the view that is expressed by my colleague. I have little more to add than that. The question which the Labor Party has to answer is: Does it believe that the smaller countries, such as Czechoslovakia, should be dominated by the great and powerful countries? Does it believe that the smaller nations of South East Asia - whether it be the South Vietnamese, the Cambodians or the Laotians - should be dominated by the North? If this is its policy it is a totally different policy from ours and the time has come for it to stand up and state where it stands, and if it believes in the domination of the small by the large it should make this information available to the Australian community.

page 1761

QUESTION

WOOD CHIP INDUSTRY

Mr ALLAN FRASER:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I ask the Prime Minister: Does he know the circumstances of the complete takeover of the wood chip industry at Eden by Japanese capitalists and its passage to complete Japanese ownership? Does he recall that, when the Australian Industries Development Corporation Bill was before the House last year, the wood chip industry was particularly named in the second reading speech of the Minister as being one which the Corporation could greatly assist in retaining Australian ownership? Is he aware that the reason given for the complete takeover by Japanese capitalists and the purchase of the Australian interests in the company was that the Australian portion of the ownership of that company was unable to obtain the capital necessary for the expansion of the industry? I ask the Prime Minister to inquire whether an approach was made to the Australian Industries Development Corporation for help and, if sp, with what results.

Mr McMahon:

– I ask the Minister for National Development to answer the question as T am not aware of the position.

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– Some time ago when the change took place a statement was made, as I think the honourable member knows. The company which had commenced operations at Eden - Harris-Daishowa (Aust.) Pty Ltd - was based on Japanese capital with a part Australian equity. Even at that stage and up to a year ago some changes had been made in the Australian structure of the company. This company, as the honourable member realises, had some misfortunes when it was about to commence its operations. First, it was well behind in its timing. Its expenditure was much higher than anticipated and the development of the harbour at Eden ran into some trouble which cost the company about another $500,000 which, at that time, was a dead loss. As a result, because it was so far behind in its programme and because of the additional expenditure involved, the Australian group which was involved within the company structure indicated that it wished to withdraw - I believe to try to cut its losses at the time. Some endeavour was made at that time to try to take up some additional Australian equity in the company but it did not succeed. I think it is fairly obvious why it could not succeed at that stage. The proposition was not a viable one and, even up to this point of time, it still is not a viable proposition.

The company has now commenced operations. The first shipments have gone out and it is believed that within a period of years the company will become a viable proposition. As a result, when this matter was raised between the New South Wales Government and the Commonwealth Government an undertaking was obtained from the company, which still trades under the original name of Harris-Daishowa (Aust.) Pty Ltd, that in 4 or 5 years time - I think about 5 years time - when by the contractual arrangements under the agreement it must build a pulp mill, it will offer again to the Australian market a degree of equity in the company. It is expected, because it will be a viable proposition at that stage, that this offer will be taken up. I do not know whether any company involved in the operation did approach the Australian Industries Development Corporation. Of course, that information could be ascertained only from the company itself. I can assure the House that it is quite in accordance with the original guidelines that were laid down. It is unfortunate that due to the troubles it had at the outset in getting into operation those holding the Australian equity that was involved had to withdraw. But the company is most anxious to obtain Australian equity. It has part Australian management and we expect that as soon as possible after the commencement of construction of the pulp mill Australian equity will again be taken up in the company.

page 1762

QUESTION

CHINA

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister and is supplementary to the questions asked by the honourable member for Shortland and the Leader of the Opposition and to the reply given by the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance to the House and to the Australian people that he will now cease using the Communist bogey during any future election campaign, a bogey on which his and previous governments have relied so heavily to maintain them in power?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– 1 dispute the use of the word ‘bogey’ and the answer in substance to the question is no.

page 1762

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration. Will the Minister undertake to write to Prime Minister Trudeau and draw to his attention the concern that exists in this country when newly graduated Asian students migrate to Canada instead of returning home? Further, if the Minister agrees to the aforementioned request, will he respectfully suggest to the Canadian Prime Minister that the Canadian Government give some consideration to requiring students to serve their own countries for a specified period before migration to Canada is authorised so that our scheme will become even more effective?

Dr FORBES:
LP

– As the honourable member broadly implies, the Australian Government attaches great importance to the principle that students trained in Australia under both the private and public student schemes should, after training in Australia largely at the taxpayers’ expense return to their own countries and make contributions to those countries. The honourable member has raised various points about the attitude of Canada to people in these circumstances. 1 will be glad to examine carefully the points he has made and consider whether it will be possible to do what he has asked.

page 1762

QUESTION

KINDERGARTEN-CUM-CHILD MINDING CENTRES

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Prime Minister a question about the proposal for kindergartencumchild minding centres which his predecessor announced 6 months ago. I ask him whether this proposal has been shelved as part of the Government’s anti-inflationary campaign. I also ask: Which departments are involved in the plan for carrying out the proposals? Has an inter-departmental committee, about which the honourable member for Bradfield 3 weeks ago asked a question which was not answered, been established on the matter? If so, when is the committee expected to make its report? If not, what steps are being taken to carry out the proposal and when will they come to fruition?

Mr McMahon:

– The Minister for Education and Science will answer this question. He has full details at his fingertips.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for Education and Science · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– In fact, this is a matter which comes directly under the portfolio of the Minister for Labour and National Service. My Department is represented on the interdepartmental committee which has met to consider this matter, but the fina] consideration has not come before Cabinet and I think it would be more appropriate if this question was answered by the Minister for Labour and National Service.

Mr Whitlam:

– As a matter of fact. I wanted to address the question to that Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister for Labour and National Service is not present.

page 1762

QUESTION

CHERRIES

Mr JESS:

– 1 address a question to the Prime Minister. I know that he is extremely interested in the cherry industry as are many other honourable members on this side of the House. In view of the absence of the Minister for Primary Industry will the Prime Minister discuss the situation of cherry growers with the responsible departments with a view to implementing some further measures to assist these most worthy primary producers?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I will discuss this matter with my colleagues as soon as I can. I am sure that whichever Minister is responsible for this matter will have a talk to the honourable gentleman.

page 1763

TERRITORIES

Mr BARNES:
Minister for External Territories · Mcpherson · CP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report on the Territory of Christmas Island for the year ended 30th June 1970; the annual report on the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands for the year ended 30th June 1970; and the annual report on the Territory of Norfolk Island for the year ended 30th June 1970.

page 1763

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION) ACT

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for Education and Science · Farrer · LP

– Pursuant to section 6 (4.) of the States Grants (Advanced Education) Act 1969-1970, I present a statement of approvals given during 1970 and 1971 in respect of Commonwealth unmatched grant for acquisition of library materials in colleges of advanced education.

page 1763

QUESTION

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · Darling Downs · LP

– by leave - I move:

In undertaking this inquiry the Comittee may wish to have the power granted by the motion and in accordance with practice the question is proposed for the concurrence of the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1763

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Motion (by Mr Swartz) - by leave - agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent a definite matter of public importance being submitted to the House and discussed at a later hour this day.

page 1763

POSTPONEMENT OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Motion (by Mr Swartz) agreed to:

That Government business be postponed until after notice No. 1, General Business.

page 1763

MR SPEAKER

Want of Confidence Motion

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

-1 move:

That Mr Speaker no longer has the confidence of the House.

This is only the 6th motion of want of confidence in the Speaker of this House to be moved in 50 years. Accordingly it is a most serious and significant recourse for this parliamentary Opposition to take. The last occasion on which a no confidence motion in the Speaker of this House was moved was on 10th May 1955. The then Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the right honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Calwell), moved a motion of no confidence in Mr Speaker Cameron. A motion of censure bad been moved against Mr Speaker Cameron on 20th April 1950 by the late Mr Chifley as Leader of the Opposition. During the term of office of the last Labor Government 2 motions of no confidence were moved in Mr Speaker Rosevear and one in Mr Deputy Speaker Clark. Sir, it is significant that through the turbulent political years of the 1920s, the depression of the 1930s and most of World War II it was never necessary to move a motion of this sort.

In the 50-year period from 1921 to 1971 the first motion of no confidence in the Speaker was moved on 28th September 1944. In the lengthy term of office of Mr Speaker Cameron - undoubtedly an immensely controversial occupant of the Chair - only 2 motions of no confidence were moved. In the whole period of office of Mr Speaker McLeay from 1956 to 1966 not a single motion of no-confidence was moved. This gives some measure of the seriousness of this motion, and the unbearable unfairness and persistent provocations that have moved the Opposition to protest in this way.

Mr Speaker, you were elected to your exalted office on 21st February 1967. No doubt you will recall your speech of acceptance to this House. You expressed consciousness of the great honour bestowed by the House in electing you to the ancient, distinguished and historic office. You said further, and I quote:

The position of Speaker has, since its inception in the British Parliament some 600 years ago, attained a dignity and respect which are unique.

With the help of the honourable members and with their understanding and tolerance I shall endeavour to uphold the high standards required of the Chair.

I suggest with all respect Mr Speaker that you have failed abjectly in fulfilling the lofty standards you set yourself. On that occasion you appealed for the understanding and tolerance of the Opposition. I am convinced that this understanding and tolerance was accorded to you in full measure, indeed to a degree beyond that ever given any other Speaker in this House. 1 refer briefly to an unpleasant and widely-publicised incident involving you, Mr Speaker, which occurred in January 1968. This incident has never been raised by the Opposition in this House apart from passing reference by one Or two honourable members. At the time, Sir, you made public explanations and denials in the Press. Because we respected your honesty and decency as a person these explanations and assurances were accepted without question by the Opposition. We regarded it as improper to try and exploit this matter for political purposes in the House in view of your public disavowals. I am sure you were grateful at a time of extreme stress for yourself and your family of the Opposition’s impartiality. In view of the fairness and responsibility of the Opposition at this time, I believe it cannot be said you were not given the understanding and tolerance you sought from the Opposition. In the whole period of the 26th Parliament from 1966 to 1969 this relationship of trust and respect was sustained.

Admittedly there were tensions because of the normal rough and tumble of Parliamentary proceedings, but in the main harmonious relations existed between you, Mr Speaker, and the Opposition. This atmosphere of mutual co-operation and tolerance has been dissipated completely by you in the IS months of the present Parliament. In this period you have thrown away any pretence of dispassion and judicial calm in your supervision of the proceedings of this House. We submit that you have acted most capriciously in interpreting Standing orders to the marked political advantage of the Government. In particular the Opposition submits you have allowed yourself to be made an instrument for the blatant manipulation of this chamber to the advantage of the Government. It has not escaped the notice of this side of the House that there is a consistent system of tick-tacking’ going on between yourself, the Prime Minister and senior members of the front bench. We believe there has been a consistent pattern of vindictive victimisation of members of the Opposition and that you, Mr Speaker, have connived in a partisan way in this campaign.

I want to look briefly at the events of yesterday which precipitated this motion. Yesterday’s question time was an example of what has become commonplace in this Parliament. This is the use of the forms of Parliament for what the late Prime Minister Harold Holt called ‘kicking the Communist can’. In essence, it is the manipulation of question time for a specific issue. This gets away from the purpose of question time as a forum for information. I suppose it is a valid enough political tactic, but it has to be remembered that if question time is to be used in this way a rowdy political atmosphere can be expected. It is a politically provocative tactic, and where there is provocation one must expect spirited response.

In this rather crude atmosphere of political give and take there is room for flexibility by the Speaker in his control of this House. If the Government wants to ‘turn on’ in this House in a flagrantly partisan, political issue it must do so without the active connivance of the Speaker. Yesterday a series of questions was asked by Government back benchers about the People’s Republic of China and its relations with this country. They were provocative questions and they were answered in a frankly provocative way by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). During one of these answers the Prime Minister referred to the former Leader of the Opposition, Dr Evatt. The honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) interpreted this reference - quite correctly in my opinion, and quite correctly in the opinion of honourable members on this side of the House - as a reflection on Dr Evatt. He raised a point of order and put his objection in fair and measured terms. You, Mr Speaker, ruled that there was no substance in the point of order.

The honourable member for Reid repeated his claim that there was a reflection on Dr Evatt but you reiterated that there was no substance in the point of order. The honourable member for Reid then said in a rather emotional way that he would challenge the Prime Minister if he cast any further reflection on Dr Evatt. Mr Speaker then directed the honourable member for Reid to contain himself, and he replied: ‘I will contain myself.’ This can be interpreted only as a recognition by the honourable member for Reid of the authority of the Chair and his intention to abide by the ruling. In this heated and provocative atmosphere Mr Speaker then took the extraordinary step of warning the honourable member for Reid, despite his statement that he would contain himself and abide by the rejection of his point of order. I submit , that this was piling provocation upon provocation.

The Prime Minister continued his answer, and there was some cross-talk about the pronunciation of the name of the Chinese Premier. In this confusion there was a call to the Prime Minister to stop clowning. It seems that this call came from the Opposition back benches. Unfortunately this remark is not recorded in Hansard. The honourable member for Reid then made the jocular call to the Prime Minister: ‘Is your name Popov the clown?’ This is the sort of jocular comment which, if made by any of the acknowledged cap and bells members on either side of the House, would have been treated as a matter of levity. All honourable members in this House know, with all due respect to the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Cope), that on numerous occasions that honourable member has been able to relieve the tension in this House by some jocular comment. The same applies to honourable members on the other side of the House. On many of these occasions, Mr Speaker, you have joined in what has been the general acceptance and the laughter that has emanated in this chamber.

Parliament thrives on this sort of topical reference. It would be a great pity if these carefully timed interjections were excluded from proceedings of the House. Unfortunately, Mr Speaker, you chose to name the honourable member for Reid for the very light hearted nature of his interjection, in spite of his earlier promise to contain him self and in spite of bis fulfilment of that promise. I submit, with respect, that this action was completely outside the scope of the Standing Orders. The relevant standing order is No. 303 which reads as follows:

If any member has:

persistently and wilfully obstructed the business of the House; or

been guilty of disorderly conduct; or

used objectionable words, which he has refused to withdraw; or

persistently and wilfully refused to conform to any standing order; or

persistently and wilfully disregarded the authority of the Chair - he may be named by the Speaker, or, if any of the above-named offences has been committed by a member in committee, by the Chairman.

Where is the justification in this provision for the action taken against the honourable member for Reid? There was no sense of persistent and wilful obstruction by the honourable member; he said he would contain himself and he did contain himself. He was not guilty of disorderly conduct, nor. did he use objectionable terms; his interjection was phrased in the gentlest and most humorous of terms. He did not persistently and wilfully refuse to conform to any standing order. He did not persistently and wilfully disregard the authority of the Chair; it is on the Hansard record that he submitted to the authority of the Chair. Yet he was named and subsequently suspended from the service of the House.

It is to be said to the credit of the honourable member for Reid that when I rose in my place to give notice of this motion the honourable member expressed to me the hope that I would not be rising to apologise for him. I believe that be accepted, as we all did, that he had been most unfairly and unjustly treated as a result of an interjection that was made only in the spirit in which many members in this Parliament interject on occasions. The action of the Speaker in naming the honourable member for Reid can only be construed as a vindictive and arbitrary use of the powers of the Speaker. It revealed a complete lack of a sense of humour and a complete lack of a sense of proportion. This has been part of a continuing pattern of pin-pricking and provocation against the Opposition from the Chair; obviously the screws are being tightened.

An analysis of incidents in this House reveals an alarming growth of bias against the Opposition. Mr Speaker’s first year in the chair was 1967. In that year he named only one honourable member, the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Cope) from this side of the House. In 1968 the Speaker named 3 members - the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Jeff Bate) from the Government ranks, the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) from the Opposition, and the former member for Darebin, Mr Courtnay, also from the Opposition. In 1969 the honourable member for Reid was named. In the term of the 26th Parliament from 1967 to 1969, 5 members were named, 4 from the Opposition and 1 from the Government. In the preceding Parliament Mr Speaker McLeay named 10 members, 7 from the Opposition and 3 from the Government.

The present Speaker’s first term of office can be judged most favourable in terms of fairness and impartiality against his predecessor, In the present Parliament there has been a marked growth in the application of the Speaker’s disciplinary powers against this side of the House. In 1970 4 members were named - the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant), the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) and the honourable member for Sydney. All were members of the Opposition of some standing and length of service. In the few weeks of this session, 2 members of the Opposition have been named - the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) and the honourable member for Reid. This Parliament has gone a little over a third of its term, yet more Opposition members have been named than in the whole of the previous Parliament; the comparative figures are 6 against 4.

The same pattern shows through in the growth of motions of dissent from the rulings of the Speaker.

In 1967, the Speaker’s first year of office, there were 2 motions of dissent. In 1968 there were 3 and in 1969 there were 2. In the 3 years of the last Parliament there were 7 motions of dissent from your ruling, Mr Speaker. In the first year of the present Parliament, 1970, there were 6 motions of dissent moved by the Opposition. Every ruling you gave except one was dissented from by the Opposition, a most extraordinary record for an officer of the Parliament who should be non-partisan and unbiased. The most shameful example was your ruling that a censure motion could be amended to delete the original censure proposal and substitute another censure proposal. This ruling flew in the face of all precedent; further it negated the long accepted convention of ministerial responsibility. How can a Minister be called to account to a Parliament if the motion censuring him can be deflected to an entirely different issue?

The broad areas of complaint the Opposition relies on to support this motion are these: In the discharge of your duties, Mr Speaker, you have revealed serious partiality in favour of Government members and have displayed bias against members of the Opposition; you have been arbitrary and unjust in many of your decisions; you have failed to interpret or apply correctly the Standing Orders of the House; you have abused the great constitutional convention of ministerial responsibility by permitting amendments to no confidence and censure motions contrary to the intention of these motions. I would like to cite in conclusion one authority on the conception of the role of the Speaker.

This is the Hansard Society of London, which in relation to the office of Speaker gives the following opinion:

It has been well remarked that such an office does not require brilliant or rare qualities so much as common qualities in a rare degree. lt needs a practical man with a sound instinct for justice who does his task honestly, firmly and good-humouredly.

The Opposition may once have attributed these qualities to the present Speaker; its respect for him has been rudely dashed. He is arbitrary, capricious, inconsistent and undeniably partisan. Everyone in this House is a political partisan; there is nothing wrong with that. But in the Speaker’s chair, which is a chair of justice, partisanship must be controlled.

In moving this motion, all that I have put on behalf of the Opposition is that there has been a clear indication during the course of this year particularly and during the 2 sessions in 1970 that an attempt has been made by the Speaker, whether in collaboration with the new Prime Minister and other members on the Government side, to apply pressure unfairly whenever the opportunity presents itself in this House. I have demonstrated with chapter and verse this afternoon that this has been the persistent attitude of the Speaker. It is for this reason that on behalf of the Opposition I have been compelled, reluctantly I must confess, to move a motion of no confidence in the Speaker. I have already indicated to the House that it is many years since a similar motion was deemed to be necessary and indeed had to be moved. But I believe that as the result of what was after all a deliberate attempt on the part of the Prime Minister and those who supported him during question time yesterday afternoon to disrupt this House this motion is necessary.I ask that it be supported.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · Darling Downs · LP

– At the outset I would like to make it perfectly clear that all members on the Government side of the House and I am sureI could safely say the majority of members on the Opposition side of the House, if they could speak freely, would express complete confidence in you, Mr Speaker, and would support the high reputation which you have established not only in this place but also in other parliaments in Australia and overseas. I am sure that those of us who have had the opportunity to observe other parliaments in operation have always been impressed by the standard that you have maintained, Mr Speaker, a standard which is one of the highest of any parliament in the world today. I think honourable members remember quite well - some of us certainly - the standards which deteriorated very rapidly in a previous parliament when a Labor Government was in power. As the persons concerned are not with us any longer I cannot of course, refer in detail to that situation. But what I can refer to are some of the comments made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard).

I was surprised that a person of the standing of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should bring into this debate some of the matter which he did. He made references of a personal nature to you, Mr Speaker, concerning matters which had nothing whatsoever to do with this House and, having made them, men said: ‘Of course, we are not going to refer to this matter. We did not at the time and we will not now’. I am very surprised that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would introduce this particular note into the debate. He stated that the atmosphere of trust and respect which had been evident up to 15 months ago has been dissipated and that you, Mr Speaker, have shown partiality towards Government members. I am sure most honourable members in the House, including those of the Opposition, would completely refute this statement. I certainly do on behalf of all honourable members on the Government side because if there is anyone who has set himself out to be completely impartial in his attitude to his high duties in this House it is you, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made some reference to what he called conniving with the Government against the Opposition. This, of course, is incorrect; but it is a sad occasion when a senior member of the Opposition introduces this note into the debate. What he was actually implying was that members of the Government have greater access to the Speaker than do members of the Opposition. I can only say that, looking around the House and knowing the number of members who contact the Speaker in his office, there are more Opposition members than Government supporters who take advantage of the Speaker’s open door and also of the opportunity in the House to contact the Speaker on matters of concern to themselves or to the House.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the incident which occurred yesterday in relation to the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). Unfortunately, as Leader of the House I, of course, was the person who had to move the motion that the honourable member for Reid be suspended. When I say ‘unfortunately’ I do so with some feeling because the honourable member for Reid and I have been friends for years and we served together during the last war. However, that does not. prevent one from carrying out the duty which one has under the circumstances. The position is that the House voted for the suspension of the honourable member for Reid and he was suspended for the prescribed period.

A reference was also made to the number of honourable members who have been named by the Speaker during his term of office. It was obviously thought that this gave some support to the argument brought forward by the Opposition. I think we can all appreciate the attitude of members like the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) who only yesterday in this House indicated quite clearly his approach to the new wave or philosophy of dissent and protest which is sweeping, apparently, not only this Parliament but also areas outside. The motion before us is merely an illustration of this type of action being carried into the House. In other words, the motion can only be described as irresponsible.

I fear the Opposition, far from helping to maintain the dignity of Parliament, is intent by this motion on lowering the dignity of Parliament. On an earlier occasion we saw the disgraceful spectacle of members of Her Majesty’s Opposition forming a bloc around one of its members to prevent the rules and procedures of this House being enforced. They brought then the stature of and regard for this House to its lowest possible ebb and in the process condemned themselves in the. eyes of the public. It is little wonder the Opposition bitterly opposes the legislation dealing with law and order which is now before Parliament. How can it endorse any measure invoking penalties in the name of protection for individuals and institutions when it fails to uphold the rules of Parliament itself, as was the case again yesterday. Mr Speaker displayed the greatest tolerance and fairness despite extreme provocation, and his rulings were entirely in accord with the Standing Orders. He made repeated references to the behaviour of some members of the Opposition and was forced to issue warnings. These, as honourable members know, were disregarded. The Opposition then gave notice that it would be moving this motion of no confidence in Mr Speaker and, were it not so serious, it could be regarded as almost farcical. But it is serious, very serious.

This is only the fourth occasion on which such a motion has been tabled, the others being in 1946, 1949 and 1955. Certainly, there are precedents, but it is equally certain that the grounds of the motion have never been more flimsy. The

Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are embarrassed by the misbehaviour of some of their own supporters and they must try to excuse in some way inexcusable conduct. Therefore, they are endeavouring to transfer the responsibility to Mr Speaker. That attempt is as ungracious as it is ungenerous. Let me quote from Hansard of 26th July 1946 during the debate on a similar motion when the present Opposition was in Government. The then Minister for the Navy, Mr Makin, said:

Unless there is compliance with the directions of the Chair, there can be no orderly parliamentary procedure. If honourable gentlemen opposite desire to observe British parliamentary practice they must acknowledge the authority of Mr Speaker, who is charged with the duty it conducting the business of the House.

Mr Makin went on to say:

Dignity cannot be associated with disrespectful conduct in relation to the Chair. … We must recognise that the prestige of the Chair is the symbol and the embodiment of the authority of Parliament itself. We shall not lightly allow to be challenged the authority which Parliament has vested in its chief executive officer, an authority which he is bound to exercise to preserve order in the House. In this instance, the Speaker has upheld the highest traditions of his office, and has proved himself to be entitled to the confidence of the House.

These were the words of a Labor Minister in 1946 and they apply very pertinently to this motion in 1971. We on this side of the House could not agree more with Mr Makin’s words, but at the same time we cannot help but comment on the degeneration of the behaviour of some members of the Opposition since then and the change in their attitudes to and respect for the Chair and the institution of Parliament itself. On occasions when Mr Speaker gives a decision which is impartial and in accordance with the terms and customs of this House there has been an unfavourable reaction from the Opposition. One would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition, as a Queen’s Counsel, would endeavour to influence his members to recognise the necessity for upholding the traditions of the high office of the Speaker and also the dignity of Parliament. But he has shown little desire to curb the activities of some of his own colleagues. In fact, it is clear that he has practically no control over them. lt must be remembered that the forms of the Parliament have evolved over the centuries with the just purpose of ensuring that the Opposition, as well as the Government, shall have full opportunity to express itself. The Government does jot in any shape or form deny the right of the Opposition to move a motion of want of confidence in Mr Speaker. In fact, the Parties now in Government moved 2 of the 3 similar motions already on record in 1946 and 1949. The big difference in the reasons behind the actions lies in the importance of the issues on those occasions and the blatant triviality of the issue presently before the House. Another big difference is that when the present Government was in Opposition it gave notice of a similar motion on 17th November 1948 and the motion remained on the notice paper for 7 months before the then Labor Government allowed it to be debated in the House. What a sharp contrast there is between the action of the Labor Government then and the action of this Government which accepted notice from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition only yesterday. Of course, this was predictable.

The Government knows full well that the House will show, by its vote, that it has confidence in Mr Speaker. As I said before, the record of Mr Speaker since his election in 1967 has been outstanding. The sense of dignity and complete impartiality that you have brought to your high office, Sir, are well known. The deplorable fact is that if you are not assisted by some honourable members the dignity of this House can be lowered accordingly. Since your election and often under trying circumstances you, Sir, have endeavoured to the best of your ability to maintain a high standard in this House. The Opposition gains little from the submission of this motion. In fact, it gains only condemnation for wasting the time of the House. Yet I suppose that if the Government’s legislative programme is disrupted and longer or later sittings are necessary, we will again hear the inevitable cry of ‘legislation through exhaustion’.

Let me stress that I do not challenge the right of the Opposition to move this motion, but I cannot see - as there have been no allegations against you, Mr Speaker, in appropriate terms of unfairness or impropriety in parliamentary action, made by the Opposition in the last 4 years - why the flimsy basis of today’s motion should be regarded as a suitable vehicle. While you, Mr Speaker, express the firm and honest intention of maintaining order, of preserving the dignity of the House and of carrying out your duties without fear or favour, you will continue to receive the endorsement of responsible members and an appreciative nation. 1 have no hesitation in deploring and rejecting this unnecessary and irresponsible motion.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes. The Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) made some references to me. He said that I had not done my part in maintaining the authority of the Chair. Sir, I have on every proper occasion done my best. There are only 2 matters. I do not want to canvass them. Firstly, I have differed from you, Sir, on the application of standing order 145 which requires answers to questions to be relevant. Secondly, I have differed from you on your allowing some things to be said, as you know, reflecting in general terms on my Party. But except on those occasions when I have thought protests were justified, I have successfully seen that your authority has been maintained.

Mr SWARTZ (Darling Downs- Minister for National Development) - Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. I claim to have been misrepresented by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). I made no reflection on the Leader of the Opposition personally. What I was referring to, as will be borne out by Hansard, was an appeal to him to exert more control over some of his members. There was no reflection on him personally. I stated that as a Queen’s Counsel he should have a better knowledge than most people of the necessity to uphold the traditions and rules of the House. I asked him whether he could exercise his particular authority as Leader of the Opposition in order to Control some of his members in this respect.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

- Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House and Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) has gone to great pains to defend your good self. One of the statements he made was that you have always acted with complete impartiality. Does he really mean this? Does he believe that we are all fools? After all, this is a political House and one has to look, only at question time day after day in order to get many illustrations of how, when the element of doubt is in question, the Government or the Ministers are always given the benefit of the doubt. So do not let us have this claptrap from the Minister for National Development, about the Speaker always acting with complete impartiality.

The other point which the Leader of the House made was that after you, Mr Speaker, had recommended the suspension of my colleague the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) he ‘unfortunately’ - that is the word he used - had to move a motion. 1 suggest to the Leader of the House that he did not have to move any motion if he believed an injustice had been done. Mr Speaker, if one looks at a dictionary in order to see the meaning of the word ‘unfortunately’ which the Minister used, perhaps one could say that he did not agree 100 per cent with your ruling. Certainly we on this side of the House did not agree with it.

Let me explore that matter a little. You Mr Speaker, gave a warning, particularly to the Opposition, in which you said that you would deal with the next person who interjected - which means out. Then you allowed the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) completely to vilify the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), to smear us and to utter words of provocation. We were supposed to sit here, while you acted with complete impartiality, and take it. The honourable member for Reid has never been one to sit quietly when an injustice is being done. He has proved that before he entered this Parliament and afterwards. That is why I say it is nonsense for the Leader of the House to say that you, Sir, always act with complete impartiality. If the roles were reversed, if there were a Labor Speaker, would I get up and say that the Labor Speaker always - every minute - acted with complete impartiality? Let us not be hypocrites in this matter.

Mr Speaker, this is a very serious matter and it gives me no pleasure to second a motion of no confidence in a person. I treat it seriously because it is quite different from moving a vote of no confidence in a Minister, who represents a part of the government, or in the government itself, because what is on trial is not the Minister but really the portfolio which he represents and administers or the government itself. When a vote of no confidence is moved in you, Sir, it is moved against a person because you have made deliberate personal decisions. Therefore, whether you like it or not, or whether we like it or not, the vote of no confidence is directed at you personally, and the Opposition has not done this without giving it serious thought. In fact, we were extremely upset yesterday at the way in which the proceedings were allowed to develop in this House. You, Sir, referred to the House as a fun House or a circus, the inference being that the only clowns in the House are on the Opposition side. My friend the honourable member for Reid pointed out where the real clown in the House was, the one who was actually damaging its prestige. and in fact making it more difficult for you, Sir, to carry on in your position.

Mr Reynolds:

– Do you mean the Prime Minister?

Dr PATTERSON:

– Yes, the Prime Minister himself. Mr Speaker, early in this Parliament - and this is the third Parliament of which I have been a member - we witnessed scenes which no doubt nobody has ever witnessed before and which we hope we will never witness again. Of course, the Opposition got the blame for them. We even had the absurd statement by the then Deputy Prime Minister that the police were going to be called in to control people like myself and others - police, mind you. Is this the way in which the Parliament should behave? The cold facts are that this was just the first example of the deliberate provocation that went on and on. In the end the then Leader of the House and Minister for Labour and National Service, now the Treasurer (Mr Snedden), gagged the Opposition when it was going to move amendments. Is it any wonder that the Opposition objected, and objected violently?

I have felt the power of your position, Mr Speaker. I was suspended from the Parliament for several hours. As you well know, I have always maintained and will continue to maintain that I should not have been suspended as I was at that time in the heat of the moment. I interjected when a Minister was not stating facts. 1 said to him: ‘You are making a lie’. Without any warning to me - I was not even allowed to withdraw the remark - I was suspended. 1 objected, but I was escorted from the chamber by the Serjeant-at-Arms. In a lighter vein I might say that my daughter was cross-examined at school about the necessity for me to be escorted from the Parliament by an armed guard, the Serjeant-at-Arms. I regarded this incident as serious because I take the position that no member of the Parliament wants to be suspended in any circumstances. If he is to be suspended it should be because he has committed the unforgiveable - has caused deliberate disruption and been deliberately disrespectful to you, Mr Speaker, or to the chamber itself. I do not believe that the honourable member for -Reid should have been suspended yesterday and certainly, in my own case as I said before, I should not have been suspended. In fact I was reinstated after I had made a statement of apology. I will say too, in support of my argument, that the former Prime Minister apologised to me, perhaps reluctantly, and said that I should not have been removed. That happened in the heat of the moment. The House got out of control and I, a member of the Opposition, was tossed out.

What are the qualifications of a Speaker? The Speaker is a chairman - a person who conducts the affairs of the House in accordance with Standing Orders as impartially as possible. I can make a comparison only between Speaker McLeay and yourself. Mr Speaker. The record shows that Speaker McLeay even named a Minister. He would not tolerate many of the things that are going on at present on the Government side of the chamber. I do not know whether the Government is standing over you, Mr Speaker, but it is quite obvious that someone is standing over you otherwise you would not be allowing the blatant discrimination that occurs in this Parliament against the Opposition, particularly at question time when we can see it at its worst. The Opposition has moved this motion because it believes rightly - and certainly I would not have seconded the motion unless I believed it - that you, Mr Speaker, have time and time again exercised inexcusable bias and discrimination against the Opposition.

Let us look at some of the facts. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) referred to the notorious occasion when the Opposition moved a vote of no confidence in the Government and you accepted an amendment which was a direct negative of the motion, thus defying every rule of debate. Time and again at question time Standing Orders are deliberately disobeyed by Ministers. Occasionally, Mr Speaker, you have made half-hearted attempts to stop them. You know in your own heart that Ministers are deliberately and blatantly defying the Standing Orders of this Parliament. Almost every day without fail Dorothy Dix questions, as they are called, are directed at Ministers. Some Government supporters do not engage in this practice, but it is not for me to hold any brief for them. Members of the Opposition get the impression that the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) is fairly impartial in that not many of his questions are Dorothy Dixers, but yesterday there were obviously blatant preprepared Dorothy Dix questions asked of Ministers. I will deal with them presently.

This afternoon the Prime Minister made a statement for which, in my humble opinion, he should have been pulled up immediately by you, Mr Speaker. In answering a question asked by the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Griffiths) the Prime Minister said: ‘I will have to divide this very long speech into 3 parts’. That was the commencement of his answer. In other words he gave notice that he was about to make a speech. The Minister for National Development is one of the greatest offenders in this Parliament in answering questions. He gets up with a nice kindly smile on his face and makes speech after speech. You, Mr Speaker, know very well that this is contrary to Standing Orders, but this action by the Minister is deliberate. There is nothing wrong with a long answer if it is relevant to the question. But what happens is that it is a deliberate plot by the Government in making answers to questions long in order to limit the number of questions that can be asked. The Government gets Dorothy Dix questions from its supporters and the Opposition has time to ask only a few questions.

Members of the Opposition are criticised by some members of the Press for not asking many questions. Up until today I had been able to ask only 2 questions. I rose in my place yesterday hoping that you, Mr Speaker, would give me the call, because yesterday a former Minister for the Army, Sir John Cramer, engaged in a deliberate infringement of the Standing Orders and the Prime Minister, fully aware of what he was going to say rose, almost rubbing his hands, and poured the bucket of hate over the Labor Party, the Leader of the Opposition and, indirectly, over myself on the Chinese question. I rose in my place. I had no doubt, Mr Speaker, that you knew that I was seeking to ask a question in relation to this matter of China. It was my intention to sling a question right back at the Government, but I did not get the call, despite the fact that I reckon I should have got it. My record this session is 2 questions. If honourable members examine the question list it will be seen that I should have got the call prior to some honourable members who did get the call. To me this is just another example of what is happening in the Parliament. I am not saying, Mr Speaker, that you did this deliberately, but I thought that some discretion would have been shown particularly as I was being aimed at directly by the Prime Minister in Dorothy Dix questions. I thought that you would at least have given me the right to sling a question back at the Government. I had a question prepared.

In a booklet prepared by a very learned gentleman, the Clerk of this House, the following appears:

An answer should be relevant to the question and should not develop into a statement.

This also, of course, could mean that an answer should be relevant to the portfolio which the particular Minister administers. Let us consider what happened today. The honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) asked a question about the fact that the managing director of the Travelodge company had cancelled the bookings of South African sportsmen. What on earth did this have to do with the Prime Minister? There was no reference to this in the newspaper and it did not have anything to do with politics or with the Australian Labor Party yet you, Mr Speaker, allowed the question. It should have been ruled out of order immediately. The question had nothing to do with the Parliament or with the Prime Minister yet you permitted the Prime Minister to make a smart alec reply and we had to sit and take it.

Let us examine the time available in which members of the Opposition can ask questions. I have gone to the trouble of counting the words spoken yesterday during question time and it is obvious that the Opposition occupied IS per cent of the time and members of the Liberal and Country parties 85 per cent. This does not mean that the Opposition wants 50 per cent of the time because obviously answers must be longer than questions but I ask you, Mr Speaker, whether 15 per cent of the time is sufficient to enable the Opposition to express its viewpoint in questions when you permit Ministers to get up and deliberately infringe Standing Orders. As the Clerk of the House wrote: ‘An answer should be relevant to the question and should not develop into a statement’.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

– 1 rise to oppose most bitterly the motion that has been moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard). I would like to preface my remarks by referring to some of the comments made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when he spoke in the debate this afternoon. He said that when you, Sir, took over this high office of Speaker of the House of Representatives you promised to uphold it with dignity and tolerance on all occasions. From my observation in this House you, Sir, have certainly done this on every occasion. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has accused you of blatant manipulation of this House to the advantage of the Government. What utter nonsense that statement is. How many times have we seen members of the Opposition going up to the Chair and seeking advice from you on certain matters, which advice you have freely given to them? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke about the number of times during your occupation of the chair that members of this House have been named. The total over 5 years is 15. Here again from my observation in this House - and some unruly scenes have been witnessed here - I would say that15 over 5 years is certainly not a large number of members to be named by any Speaker.

I agree with the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) when he said that you are held in high regard throughout Australia and overseas. This was very much in evidence early this year when, with colleagues from the House of Representatives, it was my good fortune to represent Australia as part of a delegation to other countries. We learned at first hand the esteem and regard in which you, Sir, are held by people overseas. It was good to see, and it is good that I am able to get up in this House this afternoon and tell honourable members of this fact. It is good that an Australian is able to go overseas as part of a deputation led by a man of such stature and one who is held in such high regard. It is a most serious matter to move a motion such as this in view of the happenings in this House during question time yesterday, particularly when one studies the Hansard report of the events leading to the naming of the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). I feel sure that if honourable members took the trouble to do this they would find that the Speaker of this House was indeed more than tolerant in the situation which developed when the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) was answering a question asked by the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) concerning wheat trade, defence policy and diplomatic relations with Peking China.

In his reply the Prime Minister stated that under strong emotional influence the late Dr H. V. Evatt was induced to write to the Foreign Minister of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The honourable member for Reid took exception to this statement and rose to take a point of order. You, Mr Speaker, ruled that there was no substance in the point of order and that no reflection was cast on the late Dr H. V. Evatt. During the continuation of the reply to the Prime Minister the honourable member for Reid interjected 4 times and I feel that you, Mr Speaker, showed considerable latitude and restraint in carrying out the duties of your important office. On the third occasion you warned the honourable member for Reid who immediately replied:

He can please himself what he does.

This represented the fourth interjection. A crossfire then took place between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), and you, Mr Speaker, intervened and said:

Order! The House will come to order.

On this demand by you the honourable member for Reid exclaimed:

Is your name Popov the clown?

In his speech the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to this remark as being humourous and in good fun. I thought it was dreadful and in bad taste to make a statement of that nature to the Chair. After thisinterpection, Mr Speaker, you named the honourable member and on a subsequent vote of the House he was suspended from the service of the House. There can be no doubt in the mind of any fairminded member that the Speaker was most tolerant and patient with the continual interjections of the honourable member and it is possible that action taken sooner could have been regarded as fair in the circumstances. The final remark, ‘Is your name Popov the clown?’ by the honourable member for Reid deserved to be dealt with in the manner adopted by the Speaker. From my observation and experience the Speaker of this House is as fair minded and impartial as it is possible for a Speaker to be. His duty is to keep the House in order and there is no doubt that he exercised great restraint in that situation and was as lenient and patient as any Speaker of the House of Representatives could ever hope to be. It appears to me that the honourable member for Reid desired a day off from duties in the chamber. In view of these facts it is ridiculous for the Opposition to move a motion to the effect that the Speaker no longer has the confidence of this House. He has conducted himself in this high office with dignity, tolerance and ability. This motion will be voted out, as it should be. We oppose it in the strongest possible manner.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-It seems to me that the traditional role of the Speaker in this House is quite different from that of the Speaker of the House of Commons. It seems to me that in this Parliament the Speaker is traditionally a Party man. I think this is a fact and is recognised as such by everybody. I do not think anyone expects the Speaker to be impartial and in fact the Speaker tends to take a partial attitude. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) gave details of the number of times when you, Mr Speaker, have given rulings against the Opposition or when, as a result of your having named them, members of the Opposition have had to leave the House. He has shown that you have given these rulings to a far greater extent than any of your predecessors and he has shown that you have tended to do this more frequently. Most of the trouble has occurred during question time. The asking of questions in this Parliament is very carefully limited by the Standing Orders.

It is not possible, when asking a question, for a member to use arguments, inferences, imputations, ironical expressions of hypothetical matter, and it is not possible for a member of this House to ask a question which will reflect on the character or conduct of any person. But it seems clear to me that these Standing Orders have been applied in a partial manner during the time that you, Mr Speaker, have been in the Chair. Many questions have been asked by honourable members on the other side of the House that infringed those rules. The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) interjected a short time ago contrary to those rules. He frequently does so and implies all sorts of sinister suggestions. Quite a number of honourable members on the other side of the House have a reputation for continually interjecting. The honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) who is the Liberal Party’s Deputy Whip continually interjects but is treated in a much more friendly and acceptable manner by you, Mr Speaker, than is anyone on this side of the House. Standing order 145 states:

An answer shall be relevant to the question.

From time to time that standing order has been breached and I think you, Mr Speaker, recently recognised that it has been seriously breached. I was suspended from the House for seeking to raise a point of order relating to standing order 145 after a long series of answers, largely by the former Prime Minister, which were completely irrelevant to the question. When I sought at the end of question time to raise a point of order so as to direct the attention of the Chair to the way in which those answers were contrary to standing order 145 you, Mr Speaker, refused to accept my point of order. I said that I thought a member of this House had a right to raise a point of order, and I should imagine that would be accepted by everybody. You, Mr Speaker, said that I should have raised it at the time. At what time? How did you know to what time I was referring? You had made your ruling that I was referring to a particular time and you had no knowledge as to what time I was referring. I might have been referring to something which occurred 10 seconds before. In fact I was going to refer to something that extended throughout that question time.

I was going to refer to an answer given by the former Prime Minister to the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), who had asked about something quite specific. The question related to the capital value of shares of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd but what did we get by way of an answer? We got an answer three-quarters of which was praise for the BHP Co. The Minister went on to talk about wildcat strikes. In what way was that relevant to the capital value of Broken Hill shares? Then the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) asked a question which was quite specific. He asked:

Is it a fact that the forms for this year’s census have already been printed and would have to be pulped if the census were postponed?

The then Prime Minister gave an answer that had no relevance whatever to the question. He went on to suggest that the Labor Party was the only party that was willing to probe into the private affairs of people and that his Government and his party would never be involved in such a thing. The answer was completely irrelevant to the question. The question asked whether the census papers had been printed, and if the census were postponed would they have to be pulped. That is the matter or which I had intended to raise a point of order. Mr Speaker, you were completely partial and completely prejudiced in favour of the then Prime Minister whom you were protecting that day, among others, by refusing even to hear what my point of order was about.

Then we had the case of the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant). The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) began by saying:

We have witnessed tonight one of the most disgraceful episodes in this Parliament -

Mr Speaker then said:

The honourable member for Dawson will resume his seat.

The Hansard record of the incident is as follows:

Mr Bryant:

– Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The question is: That the question be now put.

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA · ALP

– I take a point of order. 1 will not recite what appears on the next few pages of Hansard which involve 2 divisions during which time the honourable member for Wills sought to raise his point of order. Finally the honourable member for Wills moved that Mr Speakers ruling be dissented from. The Hansard record reads:

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order] The honourable member will submit his motion in writing, signed by a seconder. The question is: That the ruling be dissented from.

Mr BRYANT:

– Id moving this dissent-

At that stage the then Minister for Labour and National Service moved that the question be put, which stifled any kind of discussion on the matter. The matter was taken further. The honourable member for Wills attempted to ascertain on what authority some of the decisions had been made. Finally at a point when the honourable member for Wills was told to sit down, having tried for 12 minutes to have his point of view put forward, the following exchange took place:

Mr Bryant:

– 1 will not stop talking.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Wills will resume his seat.

Mr Bryant:

– No. The facts are that the Speaker chose-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! 1 name the honourable member for Wills.

On that occasion the honourable member for Wills had undergone an experience of 10 or 12 minutes duration in which he was refused by the Government and by you, Mr Speaker, in co-operation with the Government, a reasonable opportunity to put forward his point of view on at least a dozen or 20 occasions. I think this was a way in which the opportunities of the Opposition were stifled and it accords with the evidence that has been submitted, par ticularly by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in giving a summary of the total number of occasions on which you, Mr Speaker, have intervened against the Opposition and in favour of the Government.

Then we have yet another case in which the honourable member for Oxley was suspended from the service of the House He had asked a question about a productivity index, arising out of a speech that the then Minister for Labour and National Service had made to the Committee for Economic Development. The Minister went on to take up more than a column and a half of a page in Hansard to answer that question but the answer did not relate to the question at all. The Minister spoke about anything else that he thought might be of political advantage to the Government. He spoke about the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions having made a statement on a 35-hour working week and asked whether the Opposition supported that statement. He spoke about the political strikes with which unions had been associated, the strike in support of the speech on the Budget by the Leader of the Opposition and the unity ticket that was established by unions and the Opposition. He went on to speak about a national stoppage in support of the moratorium. He spoke about all these things in reply to a question about a productivity index.

That type of reply is typical of those which have been given during the time in which you have been the Speaker, and increasingly so. I submit that this has resulted in a stifling of the opportunities ot the Opposition to put its case. J submit that this has resulted in an undue freedom for Ministers and others on the Government side to use and misuse the procedures of this House for their own political advantage. At best this has been deliberately done. On many occasions we have seen Ministers moving from their place, very often the Prime Minister, to have j. discussion with you, Mr Speaker, while you have been in the Chair. It would seem that there is a connection between these discussions and what has happened before them or what happens very soon after the Minister or honourable member returns to his place in the chamber. On many of the occasions when members of the Opposition have moved from their place to speak to you in the Chair, it has not been for tha purpose of getting your advice, as the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe) suggested; it has been to make complaints to you time and time again about things that have happened in this House. You will be well aware that that is the case. I believe that unless the Standing Orders are applied more fairly, at question time in particular, the amount of disorder that occurs in this House can never be explained. It is because of the unfair way in which standing orders have been applied at question time that most of the disorder to which you as Speaker have objected and most of the action that you have taken to deal with it have arisen.

I submit that you have permitted and encouraged the disorder, as you would claim it to be, that has occurred on this side of the House by the way in which you have permitted Ministers to misuse question time in such a way that there is no one member of the Opposition who would be worth his position here if he were not prepared to show his objection to it. I submit also that unless there is a fairer interpretation of the standing orders, and particularly the standing orders to which I referred and which carefully confine questions within limits and carefully exclude certain things which cannot be suggested or asked in them, it is completely fair and reasonable to expect that you will apply the same spirit in limiting the answers in that way.

I think you said on one occasion when I raised this question that if I wanted to have standing order 145 - which provides that answers shall be relevant - strictly applied then this would restrict unduly much of that which members on both sides of the House want to do. I do not want a narrow and strict application of this standing order. However, I want a more fair application of it. I think that the answer you gave on that occasion was no answer at all. The answer that you should give is that a reasonable standard of relevance will be applied in this House to the answers made by Ministers to questions. Unless a reasonable standard of relevance is applied I think that your performance of the office of Speaker is open to question. I think it is completely proper that this should be questioned, now that the matter has been brought out into the open for examination.

The Government, on your behalf, has not answered those accusations. No-one has tried to prove that the figures given by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are incorrect. You have only been praised in the answer to the Opposition’s motion. The Government has failed to support its case.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr DRURY:
Ryan

– 1 have much pleasure in supporting the remarks made earlier this afternoon by the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz). I can say from my personal experience, Mr Speaker, that your standing both in this country and overseas is very high as a Speaker of a Parliament - an institution which, as the Leader of the House said, has been evolving over a long period of time, 700 years or more. You have the esteem of Speakers in the State Parliaments of Australia. You have the esteem of the Speaker at Westminster, the Speaker at Ottawa and your counterpart in the United States, to say nothing of Speakers in other countries in which I have also heard your name spoken.

The Leader of the House mentioned your approachability. He said that he considered you to be completely impartial and tolerant. I support what he said. There is nobody who can be completely right all the time. But as far as anyone could possibly be correct in the interpretation and the application of the Standing Orders, which is not always easy to do on the spur of the moment, I say that you have applied Standing Orders impartially and with tolerance and have allowed a good deal of latitude, perhaps far more latitude than many other Speakers in other countries and indeed many Speakers in the State Parliaments of Australia would have allowed in the same circumstances.

The Leader of the House contrasted your record as the Speaker of this House of Representatives with that of Labor Speakers in times gone by. Like the Leader of the House, I do not wish to engage in any personalities, especially as those people are no longer here. All I can say is that I was one of the ordinary citizens of this country who used to listen to the broadcasts of the proceedings of Parliament in the 1940s. One of the things that used to incite me to a feeling of great indignation was the way in which supporters of the Liberal and Country Parties, who were then in Opposition, were treated by occupants of the Chair in those days when the Australian Labor Party was in power.

I agree with what the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe) said regarding the latitude you allow and the exercise of restraint which you have shown since you first held office in 1967. I do not think it is too much to sum up your qualities as Speaker as being just, considerate, able, tolerant and patient. These human qualities are very hard to find in any one man. I do not suppose there is any one man who possesses all the most desirable human qualities, and I think some of the things that have been said about you today have been untrue, unfair and unjust.

In opening this debate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) spoke of the happy atmosphere which existed in this House under your Speakership during the period 1966 to 1969. If I remember rightly he spoke of your fairness in the first 3 years of your Speakership. This is very strange because someone must be speaking with tongue in cheek. I remember distinctly after the 1969 House of Representatives elections that during a debate on the election of Speaker of this new Parliament at least two honourable members on the opposite side of the House spoke. I remember that the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) was critical of you in relation to your Speakership during the period 1966 to 1969. I remember also that the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) spoke quite bitterly and criticised you. If I remember his words correctly, he said that you were cruel and unjust. How does that square with the remarks made this afternoon by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition?

I believe that these charges have been trumped up. I think that the motion of no confidence was made up on the spur of the moment yesterday because some honourable members opposite were annoyed that one of their members was named by you for disobedience to the Chair and committing a breach of Standing Orders. I do not want to repeat what has already been quoted from yesterday’s Hansard. However it is quite clear from the record that the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), for whom we all have a personal regard - but that is beside the point - did in fact twice interject after you had given him a warning to contain himself. This again does not square with what was said earlier this afternoon by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

It is no doubt true that there has been provocation. There has been provocation no doubt from both sides of the House from time to time during the course of speeches, during question time and on other occasions. Of course, this is part of politics. There is provocation. When provocative remarks are made or provocative questions are asked, feelings tend to be roused. It is very natural for people sometimes to say things that they do not really mean and would not say if they were in a calmer frame of mind. However, I believe that you have presided over this kind of situation with remarkable dignity, tolerance, restraint and understanding.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition claimed, as did one or two other honourable members opposite, that you have been arbitrary and unjust towards the Opposition. I think the words used by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were that you were capricious and partisan towards honourable members of fong standing and service on his side of the House. That is how I wrote down what he said. I hope I am not quoting him incorrectly. First of all, I do not agree with his statement that you have been capricious and partisan to those long standing members of Parliament, but I want to make the point that there is an obligation on the long standing members of this Parliament to set an example to other members who have not been here for such a long period of years. Unfortunately, we do not see very much of this. Other honourable members and I have noticed a tendency during the course of the present Parliament, since the 1969 Federal election, for some honourable members to be provocative, to defy the Chair, to make too many interjections and to refrain from restraining themselves even when requested time after time to do so by the Chair.

The honourable member for Dawson made some remark about long answers to questions being against the Standing Orders. I would be interested to hear from the honourable member which standing order provides that there shall not be long answers to questions. I suggest that he have a look at the Standing Orders dealing with questions without notice. He will find nothing there in relation to the length of answers. You, Mr Speaker, have been criticised for allowing long answers to questions. Certain honourable members opposite have said this afternoon that you should have pulled up Ministers and prevented them from making long statements. Time after time we have all heard you do this very thing. We have all heard you ask Ministers to make shorter statements and ask honourable members to submit shorter questions. If criticism is coming from the Opposition in relation to answers to questions then, in all fairness, I think that honourable members opposite, if they are calm and objective about it, must accept that honourable members on both sides of the House ask questions which are sometimes far too long and involved, to which a Minister could not normally be expected to have answers and carry a lot of detail in his head. Nobody is perfect. Probably the Standing Orders are not perfect either.

Mr Speaker, I believe that you do a remarkably good job in relation to the application of the Standing Orders. There has been a very regrettable tendency in this Parliament which I, as a member who has been here for quite a long time, have not noticed to such a degree before, of defying authority, defying the Chair and even refusing to comply with a decision of the House. I do not want to be personal. I do not want to point to individual members. I am talking about a principle. I am disturbed, and I know that other honourable members on both sides of the House are disturbed, by an apparent and obvious growing tendency towards defying the authority of the Chair of this Parliament regardless of who may be sitting in the Chair. There is a tendency to take unnecessary points of order, which I believe could be construed as obstructing the business of the House. Honourable members are elected by constituents to come to this place, presumably to behave themselves as grown up human beings with a sense of responsibility.

There have been occasions which should be better forgotten rather than brought up this afternoon. I mention in a general way that there has been a falling off of respect for the Chair in the present Parliament and a tendency for honourable members to refrain from bowing to the Chair when they come in and go out of the chamber. There is a tendency for some honourable members to walk past the end of the table and omit to bow to the Chair. There is a standing order which requires honourable members to do so. I am not saying that this is deliberate, but there is a growing and noticeable tendency towards disrespect for the Chair. Parliament can function properly only if honourable members comply with the Standing Orders and endeavour to do their best to co-operate with the Chair. Whoever is the occupant of the Chair, he has a fairly difficult role to play, lt is a highly responsible role. It is by no means an easy one. It is a role which needs and demands the co-operation, understanding and assistance of honourable members on both sides of the House if Parliament is to do its job effectively for the nation.

Much has been said about question time. I do not want to go back over that. I feel and I fear that among the newer members of Parliament there are just a few who do not regard this institution with a sufficient degree of respect. Perhaps they have not yet got around to studying the Standing Orders. Perhaps they have not talked to some of the more senior members of the Parliament about times gone by and perhaps they have not yet absorbed sufficient of the atmosphere and tradition of Parliament. This does not apply to the vast majority of honourable members. The vast majority of members of this Parliament are men of good, sound commonsense. They are men of responsibility regardless of Party affiliations. 1 am not speaking in terms of Parties at all this afternoon. I am speaking in terms of Parliament and respect for the Chair which represents the authority vested in the Parliament through the Crown.

It is not true to say of the great majority that there is a growing lack of respect but it is true, I fear, that there is a falling off of respect for the Parliament and for the Chair. I hope that this will not be noticeable from now on. I hope that honourable members, having been through this exercise this afternoon, will go out of their way to meet you, Mr Speaker, as the Presiding Officer of this Parliament, in an atmosphere of greater understanding, tolerance and respect, and with a greater desire for this Parliament to work in the way that it should work.

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the question be put.

Dr Patterson:

– I raise a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Dr Patterson:

– Yes. I claim that the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Drury) has misrepresented me in his statement about long answers. What he said was that apparently Ministers could make statements without any time limit. He challenged me on the Standing Orders. I quoted from a document entitled ‘A Short Description of the Business and Procedures of the House of Representatives’ by the undoubted expert here, Mr Turner, which reads as follows:

If it is necessary for a long answer to be given, the proper procedure is for the Minister to indicate that at the end of question time he will seek leave to make a statement.

This has been suggested by Mr Speaker on several occasions.

Mr Drury:

– I wish to make a personal explanation. I had written down in a hurry what I thought the honourable member had said. If I was incorrect, I apologise and I withdraw any reflection on the honourable member.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The motion before the House is that the question be now put.

Mr Swartz:

– I have moved the motion. The honourable member for Reid has asked for 2 minutes to make a short statement. I think that in view of the circumstances we should agree to that, and I will move the motion later on.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I will make my remarks brief but they will be direct. 1 hope that you do not take them as being personal, Mr Speaker. I believe they are very serious, otherwise I would not have risen in my place to make these remarks. Firstly, I want to know really why I got under your skin yesterday, Mr Speaker, because I have been far more difficult on many other occasions. Why did you lose control and suspend me from the House? Was it because of your frame of mind? Was it because I refused your request on 6th April that I seek legal advice about the possibility of my going to prison? You will recall that I stated to you on 6th April that I thought the Clerk had given a ruling, and you replied that any decision upon whether there had been a criminal or civil offence would be a decision of the chamber magistrate who tried the case. I immediately went to the Clerk of the House and sought from him the details. He said that in his opinion it was a matter for the Privileges Committee to determine whether it was a civil or criminal case.

Why I am deeply concerned with your frame of mind yesterday is that if it were a civil case no letter such as the letter which came to this House and which was read out by you would have been permitted, but if it were a criminal case such a letter could have been read out. I am not giving my opinion but that of one of the officers of this House. 1 was advised that a letter such as the one from the Clerk of the Central Court of Petty Sessions which you read out to the House would be sent only in the event of a criminal case.

I would like to know whether it was you who sought that letter, whether the court officials sent it voluntarily and whether, when you received that letter you sought permission or advice from the officers or Clerks of this House on whether or not you would be following the correct procedure in reading the letter to the House. By reading out that letter you acknowledged that the action on which I was imprisoned was an action involving a criminal offence. Therefore, if you did this without advice I believe you acted out of malice. I am making the serious charge of malice. Frankly, I did not claim privilege when I made my decision in court; when I went to gaol it was for a principle; and 1 am not trying to hide under privilege now. But the question we are dealing with now is whether you as Speaker displayed personal malice against me. Mr Speaker, I believe that there are certain questions you should answer before this vote is taken.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Before the vote is taken, I think in view of what the honourable member for Reid has said I should answer him. First of all, I want to say that there was no malice whatsoever in the way he has suggested or in any other way. Secondly, when the gentleman came here and saw me about the question I vas rather perturbed for him and I said to him: ‘I hope you have sought legal advice on this matter’.I do not believe that I said what the honourable member for Reid has stated, but if I did say that I do not wish to withdraw it. Thirdly, I want to say that before anything was done in regard to this matter complete advice was obtained from the officers of the Parliament as to the correct procedure. I want to assure the honourable member for Reid that I had no motives or any intention other than those as the Speaker of the House.

Mr UREN (Reid)- Mr Speaker, ifI may make a personal explanation, let me make it perfectly clear that on 6th April I did not go to you; you called me over, and you asked whether I had sought legal advice. You said that I should seek legal advice.I then repeated that I thought the Clerks of the House had more or less decided what the position was. You then repeated that it was for the magistrate to determine whether it was a criminal or civil case. I am not going to say any more.

I then went to the Clerk of the House. I did not approach you; you called me over. That is the position. I still do not know whether in reading out that letter you were acting on the advice of the officers of this House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I said that I was.

Mr UREN:

– Very well.I apologise on that. I take it that the Clerks accepted that it was a criminal case, although it seems to me that there is a double standard here, because every officer from whom I have sought information has been so confused. This was a borderline case and they did not know whether it was a civil case or a criminal case. Even though they were in doubt, it seems that they advised you that they would take the action as a criminal action. ThereforeI think that what happened was not in the best interests of the Parliament.

Mr Swartz:

-I take a point of order on the matter that has just been raised. I would like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that this matter is before the Privileges Committee. The motion to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee was supported unanimously by the members of this House. Some of the matters to which the honourable member has referred will obviously come out from the hearings of that Committee.

Question put -

That the question be now put.

Tht House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. Sir William Aston

Ayes . . . . ..51

Noes . . . . . . 47

Majority . . 4

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Barnard’s) be agreed to.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. Sir William Aston)

AYES: 47

NOES: 51

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Not at all.

page 1781

THE ENVIRONMENT

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The threat to the national interest in relation to environmental pollution, preservation of coking coal reserves, and infringement of Commonwealth sovereign rights over the sea bed caused by the contractual arrangements between Clutha Pty Ltd and the Government of New South Wales.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. (More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The matter of public importance which I have proposed for discussion concerns the Clutha Development Pty Ltd Agreement Act 1970 assented to by the New South Wales Parliament on 9th December 1970. Clutha Development Pty Ltd is one of 19 subsidiary companies of Wollclift Pty Ltd, a company incorporated in New South Wales with paid up capital of $2m in 1 million shares of $2 each. The major shareholder is Universe Tankships Inc., Bermuda, said to be controlled by Daniel Ludwig. This company controls 16 New South Wales coalmines and certain shipping interests. Approval has recently been given to Clutha to engage in a development project for the export of massive quantities of New South Wales coking coal at the expense of the Australian people. Through its blissful indifference and slovenly acquiescence, the Commonwealth Government is responsible, with the Government of New South Wales, for many shameful provisions of the Clutha Development Pty Ltd Agreement Act.

The Act authorises the making of an agreement between the State of New South Wales and the company for construction, maintenance and operation of a private railway line from Burragorang Valley to a stockpile at Coalcliff on theIllawarra coastline north of Wollongong. It also authorises the construction of conveyors from the stockpile to an off-shore coal loader some 5,000 feet into the sea and grant, to the company a mining lease for these purposes. The cost of the project to Clutha is estimated at $80m. The entire proposal reeks of privileged treatment of an overseas-owned company, abandonment of public interest and the wholesale sell-out of bargain basement prices of Australia’s high grade coking coal resources. Responsibility for all matters pertaining to New South Wales coal resources is vested jointly in the Commonwealth and State governments through the Joint Coal Board which is constituted by virtue of the authority of the Coal Industry Acts enacted by both governments. The powers and functions of the Board are stated in identical sections of the respective Coal Industry Acts. One significant function is in the following terms in the Act:

To ensure that coal produced in the Stale is distributed and used in such manner, quantities, classes, and grades and at such prices as are calculated best to serve the public interest and secure the economical use of coal and the maintenance of essential services and industrial activities.

Rather than fulfil these obligations under the Coal Industries Act, the Commonwealth has abandoned its responsibility. It is precisely because the Commonwealth has starved the New South Wales Government for adequate funds to finance construction of coal loading facilities that the Premier of that State has gone cap in hand to an overseas industrialist for financial support. No financial assistance for the provision of coal loading facilities has been provided by the Commonwealth since 1961, 10 years ago. when the New South Wales Coal Loading Works Agreement was approved.

Both the Commonwealth and the Government of New South Wales must share responsibility for the Clutha Development Pty Ltd Act Under its provisions, Clutha, the company controlled by the American multi-millionaire, Daniel Ludwig, said to be one of the world’s richest and most powerful industrialists, expects to earn a minimum of $90m a year for the next 20 years exporting high grade coking coal from the Burragorang Valley in New South Wales. The State Government on the other hand has settled for a rate of royalty on the coal carried by Clutha’s private railway which is expected to net only S5m a year over the next 20 years. Whereas Clutha’s profits may rise by increases in the export price of coal or by world inflation, the royalty rate is fixed under the terms of the Agreement and cannot be altered for 20 years. That is to say, Clutha will gain a bonanza of $ 1,800m while the New South Wales Government has settled for royalty revenue of $100m over the next 20 years. Clearly public interest has been recklessly jettisoned and betrayed by a money-starved Government for the traditional handful of silver.

However, the $100m revenue which the State Government is expected to receive over 20 years is offset by the fact that the New South Wales Government Railways loses to Clutha the business of transporting the coal some 40 miles from the pit top to the coast stockpile. According to the Institute of Transport in Australia the loss in railway revenue will amount to some $70m, so the net gain to the State may well be limited to something like $30m over 20 years. For the price of an offshore coal loader and the return of a mere pittance we are relinquishing a rich Australian heritage. International experts and the Joint Coal Board in its report of 1968- 69 contend that known reserves of good quality coking coal are such that a world shortage is imminent. This ravenous pillage of the Illawarra coal seam can in the foreseeable future place in jeopardy the future of the great Port Kembla steel industry which may be without sufficient coal for its own essential processing. It is the very height of folly to conclude this Agreement with Clutha before the Bureau of Mineral Resources concludes and analyses the results of its survey of Australia’s coal reserves currently being undertaken.

The Commonwealth has both a prerogative and an obligation to ensure that Australian coal is exported at reasonable rather than give-away prices. According to the Chairman of the Joint Coal Board, Mr Hartnell, our coal is underpriced. He said:

United States export coal was sold for between $8 and $9 per ton freight on board more than Australian coal, and freight rates from the United States are dearer.

At current rates on the production of 8 million tons a year Clutha will earn $96m per annum. If the Chairman of the Joint Coal Board is right and the price should be $8 a ton higher, an extra S64m a year would be earned by Clutha. That is, the income per annum would increase from $96m to $160m. In other words, the people’s assets are being undersold to the extent of $64m a year. Clutha is not only the black blot on the Australian landscape; it is the stain on the nation’s pride. Remember, the people’s share of the bonanza is a paltry S5m a year. Let me remind honourable members that the Japanese ‘Commerce Daily’ lists Australia as the country which is receiving the lowest price of 11 supplying countries. Whereas the weighted average annual price is SUS20.16 a metric ton, Australia gets $US14.96 a metric ton, such is the state of underselling of our coal.

The favoured treatment given to this company is unprecedented in Australia’s history. It is awarded rich coal leases in Sydney’s main water catchment area when all others are denied that opportunity. It was allowed to purchase the Oakdale State coal mine from the New South Wales Government. A special Act of Parliament was passed so that Clutha can build its private railway line to its private port to enable coal to be exported in its privately owned bulk carrier ships, which will probably have the effect of rendering obsolescent other ships in the Australian trade. Crown land is rented to the company for 50c an acre per annum. Any privately held land required by Clutha is to be resumed for it by the Government at the ValuerGeneral’s valuation and can be either held or sold by the company without restriction and at the company’s discretion. Appeal provisions in the Mining Act and Public Works Act which enable citizens to lodge objections are waived under the Clutha Development Pty Ltd Agreement Act so that citizens are denied traditional civic rights. The Clutha scheme is exempt from the Local Government Act provisions for rating, zoning, building ordinances and stamp duty. The Commonwealth has already exempted the off-shore area where the loader is to be installed from any Commonwealth off-shore minerals legislation which may be enacted in the future. It has done this by giving the State Government an unqualified assurance that it will not issue any off-shore mining titles which would interfere with Clutha’s lease.

The worst feature of all is the fact that the project threatens the environment of one of the most attractive coastal areas in New South Wales. On the Bulli escarpment some 1,300 feet above the sea, the world’s biggest coal stockpile will be located. This stockpile will serve an offshore loader rated at 4,000 to 6,000 tons per hour and geared to the export of 12 million tons of coal per annum. It is estimated that the stockpile will stand 30 feet high, cover at least 22 acres and accommodate up to 200,000 tons of washed coal. Some engineers speculate that a stockpile capable of feeding the loader at the maximum rate and capable of meeting all eventualities would cover as much as 66 acres. While $2m is being spent on examining the engineering feasibility of the scheme, the possibility that the environment will be desecrated and people will be contaminated by coal dust is completely neglected. Some 60,000 people living on the coastal plateau below the stockpile will be subjected to a perpetual deluge of coal fines spread by the prevailing winds. Already the Mayor of Wollongong has publicly advocated that the coastal community of Coalcliff should be abandoned to the coal industry and the community re-located.- A PostmasterGeneral’s Department telephone repeater station at Maddens Plains could easily become one of the first casualties of coal dust contamination from the stockpile. Already the PMG research laboratory is examining the cost of relocating this facility, said to be one of the most important communication units in the State. The replacement cost of this station, which carries most telephone traffic between Sydney, Wollongong, Melbourne and Canberra and all the television circuits, could run into a 6-figure amount.

Some of the most attractive beaches and bushland areas on the eastern coast of Australia, which serve the recreational needs of Sydney and Wollongong, are threatened with industrialisation. Coal dust and spillage, combined with discharged bilge water from the ballast tanks of huge tankers, will turn the area into an industrial slum. The water run off from the stockpile must end up either in the sea or in Sydney’s water supply. Undesirable features will include smoke and soot emissions, noise from loading facilities, increased traffic - already coal trucks are a nuisance in the area - and the installation of customs and fuel facilities. Clearly the price is too much for the community to pay. Can a State enjoy immunity as a party principle to the injurious development of an off-shore area? ls the

Clutha Development Pty Ltd Agreement Act valid without Commonwealth complementary legislation? Eminent legal opinion has it that States have neither property in nor constitutional control over territorial waters be’.ow the low tide mark. Does the New South Wales legislation involve an assertion of competence beyond the powers of the Government of New South Wales?

The Commonwealth should take the initiative in establishing a CommonwealthState commission to investigate all the ramifications of the Clutha deal. For that matter, the whole shabby deal in my view justifies the establishment of a royal commission. The Commonwealth should move to safeguard Australia’s coking coal reserves and ensure that a fair price is obtained for exports. The pollutive effects of the project and the environmental destruction which seems imminent in one of the most attractive coastline areas of Australia, to which visitors go from all over the world, should become one of the first investigatory tasks of the new Commonwealth Office of the Environment, if this Government is ever going to demonstrate a decent sense of priorities to the point of getting this Commonwealth Office of the Environment off the ground. Adequate funds should be made available to expand the publicly owned coal loading facilities at Port Kembla and to upgrade the State railway system to link that port with all coal production units in the Illawarra region.

Concern about this matter in the region is such that I believe that the citizenry and the workers are not prepared to contribute to the destruction of their own environment. If this Government and the New South Wales Government fail to face up to the great responsibilities which are involved, I reliably speculate that the trade unionists and workers in the area may abstain from making their employment capacities available in such a way as would cause the ruination of this district and bring about the destruction and pillage of Australia’s coking coal resources, said to be among the best in the world and said to be in short supply. This is disgraceful legislation. The Commonwealth Government is a party to it, and I believe that it requires urgent Commonwealth action.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Dr MACKAY:
Minister for the Navy · Evans · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, if the facts were anything like those that have just been presented to the House by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) then of course everyone in the nation should be concerned. But I believe that on most material points that he has made in his speech he is grievously in error, as I will now try to show to the House. The matter of public importance that is before the House refers to the threat to the national interest in 3 areas. The first is pollution, the second is the squandering of the reserves of coking coal on the South Coast of New South Wales and the third refers to the sea bed vis-a-vis the Commonwealth’s sovereign rights. I intend to deal with the latter two points first because pollution is by far the greatest issue.

First of all, let me deal with this question of coking coal reserves. Actually, this discussion with regard to these particular leases - if the word ‘leases’ is understood aright by the honourable member for Hughes - is totally irrelevant because the leases for the extraction or the mining of this coal already exist. These leases to which reference is now being made relate to the facilities for the railway and the loader. So what is being suggested here is that in regard to leases which have been granted, in common with the practice of granting mining leases throughout the State of New South Wales and the nation, there should in some way be an interference with the holder’s right to exploit his resources; to exploit the resources within his own leases. That is the first point I want to make.

However, let us look at the charge as far as the nation is concerned. It is said that if we allow these leases, already legally granted, to be exploited, we will deprive the nation of an extremely valuable asset. It is true that we have several hundred years resources of steaming coal. In terms of soft or highly volatile coking coal it is undoubtedly true that there is a reasonable supply in Australia. But it is admitted that the supply of the harder coals is not, as at present known, unlimited. The New South Wales Government has given me an assurance - and the Commonwealth Government likewise has reiterated it - that in determining mining leases and mining policy, the continuing prime concern is that there should be adequate reserves for the indigenous steel industry as at present envisaged or as it may be envisaged in the immediate future.

There is need for continuous drilling and and for continuous proving up and assessing of the reserves because it is in this way that new discoveries are made. There was a time when we were told - and this continued through the history of oil exploration - that the world was running out of reserves of oil, but every year sees known reserves increase faster than consumption. With regard to iron ore, it is not long since Australia was told by its most eminent consultants that we should not be exporting iron ore from Australia because we needed it for our own production. But hundreds of years of supplies at a world level have already been discovered in Australia and more are continually being discovered. Of course, in addition to this there is no guarantee that coking coal and the process which involves the use of coking coal in the reduction of iron ore is going to be the most efficient and the necessary way in which industry will proceed in the future. Like wool and synthetics, new discoveries are continually being made and place these assets in a different light. 1 turn to the other question regarding the sea bed. The statement has just been made to the House that a jetty or pier will be built from the shore some 5,000 yards out into the ocean. This is completely and utterly misleading. The facts are that it is possible, and indeed probable, that the jetty will be 3,000 feet long which will enable a workable depth of 75 feet of water for the swinging of these ships. This should be adequate, although some consultants say that perhaps the jetty should be 4,100 feet long, which would give a workable depth at low water mark of 90 feet. These figures were supplied to me today by the Minister for Mines of New South Wales. The actual level of the pier is subject to an agreement which has yet to be lodged with the State of New South Wales.

The point was made that the Commonwealth Government had done something special when it said that it would exempt Clutha Development Pty Ltd from the provisions of any future legislation which the Commonwealth might introduce regarding the exploitation of minerals on the sea bed.

It is a normal standing agreement between the Commonwealth and the States that, should a State enter into a mining lease agreement for off-shore minerals in the period before the legislation comes into effect - if it ever does - and if this agreement is first submitted to the Commonwealth Government for approval, this will be honoured by the Commonwealth when any future legislation comes into effect. There is nothing special whatsoever about the arrangement with Clutha.

The real matter for discussion is pollution, plus the overtones of a suggestion that this is a sell-out to a foreign company. Let us look at the question of pollution. Pollution is a word that is very easily bandied around the nation and around the world at this time. What is pollution? I suppose it could be said that pollution is any change in the primitive or pristine environment - any change from the simplicity of the natural situation. It could be said that the first Aboriginal bark shelter was a polluting influence or that the first white man’s homestead - or would it be the first 2 homesteads, the first 4, the first 1,000 or the first 1,000,000- is an example of pollution. Where does pollution begin and reasonable development lead off? Is it when a mine is set up in a particular area, such as Mount Isa where there are now lovely homes, a beautiful lake and unspoiled hills surrounding it? It would be a ridiculous situation to close the mine because it continually poses a threat of pollution to the environment in those terms. In my book, pollution is the unnecessary, ugly or dangerous change in the environment which is not in the best interests of the community; not just in terms of finance and economics but culturally and physically in terms of its health or in terms of the real security of people.

Pollution is a feature of the urban sprawl today. It is a feature of the population explosion and of interference with nature by science and so on. Natural laws are being assailed continually by modern man. It is a form of pollution, if you like, that we have challenged the old law of the survival of the fittest, because now, with modern science and medicine, we decree that the unfit shall survive. In addition to birth control, we have death control and the population explosion takes over. Pollution is as easy catchcry but we are all in it,

We demand it. Everyone of us here demands pollution of some kind, especially when our own self-interest or individual interest is at stake, even if it is driving a motor car with one person in it into the city day by day. But society has been stirred, and thank goodness it has been stirred, to re-think the great problems of pollution as it is developing and threatening man today.

Let us look at a situation on the south coast of New South Wales in the light of that and ask ourselves: Is this a case of pollution? Is it unnecessary? Is it ugly? Is it dangerous to health? Is it not in the best interests of the community in terms of economy and of their physical health, culture and security? What are the facts? 1 ask honourable members to examine this matter of public importance and the way in which the facts have been presented to the House. I suggest to the House that there are mining leases in existence in New South Wales for the mining of coal which have been and still are a substantial basis for the whole development of the economy and for the whole civilised development of New South Wales. They have been one of its prime bases of development. Exports have risen from 1 million tons in 1959-60 to 12 million tons in 1969-70. The present facilities in New South Wales are hopelessly inadequate. For instance, Wollongong is a port that has a maximum capacity for 40,000-ton vessels and we all know that, these days, vessels in excess of 100,000 tons are necessary to enable necessary economies in the conveyance of bulk cargo. Clutha is already a major exporter from southern and south western coalfields and it would be necessary to extract immense sums of money from the public purse to enable the facilities to be built to expand and continue to develop this important mining industry. The railway that is envisaged will go from Oakdale - where, incidentally, coal mines already exist and are being mined and have been mined for years right alongside Burragorang and the Warragamba Dam - to Coalcliff. This railway will not at any point go inside or traverse a metropolitan water supply catchment area as was said by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson). There will be a stockpile at Coalcliff and a conveyor belt will carry the coal down the cliff and out to the loading facility. A charge will be made for the use of this facility. We have heard a figure of $100m compared with the income to Clutha over a 20-year period. What is this figure of $100m?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I said $l,800m.

Dr MACKAY:

– There will be SI 00m of income to New South Wales compared with % 1,800m to Clutha. The facts of this situation should have been studied and should not have been made the basis of an emotional kind of appeal. The SI 00m relates only to the charges for the use of this facility, which will be built with the company’s own money. In no way does it refer to the normal royalties that are being charged and will be charged to this company for every ton of coal that it extracts in the normal process. Here we have the situation where there is a saving to the people of New South Wales of the kind of charges on the public purse that, up until recently,, were normal and natural. The Government normally provides the jetties, the wharves and the rail facilities, but in this case the private company will supply these things and will pay for their use. At the end of 50 years, having paid at a determined rate in addition to its royalty payments, the company, under the agreement, is obliged to offer, at the ValuerGeneral’s valuation, these facilities back to the nation. I fail to see where this is a bad deal.

I do have not time this afternoon to describe all the multifarious ways in which the agreement will control pollution. The agreement has not been finalised, because it is still in the feasibility stage and has yet to be brought before the Government. The second reading speech of the Minister in the New South Wales Parliament was most illuminating in respect of the lease conditions. I would challenge anyone to point to one area of potential pollution of the water supply of the area or to say that reasonable caution and care have not been taken against the coal dust menace or other factors which could be a menace to health. There is a tremendous number of ways in which the holder of this lease will be obliged to take care. He must use the most modern methods for the transportation of his coal. A further saction for compliance with the terms of the agreement lies in the fact that one of the requirements is that the lessee shall lodge a deposit - an earnest - of $250,000 or enter into a penal bond for that amount in case he breaches in any way or does not fulfil in their entirety the requirements of the lease that is to be granted. I fail to see that the honourable member for Hughes has made out his case.

Mr CONNOR:
Cunningham

– Firstly I wish to correct some very blatant errors made by the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay). The Port of Kembla is dredged to a depth of 42 feet. At the present time it can load coal on ships with a capacity of up to 65,000 tons. The State Government is calling tenders for the deepening of the coal loading section of that port to 50 feet which will enable vessels of up to 120,000 tons capacity to be loaded there. In addition to that it has announced that a second coal loader is to be built. I was present some 8 months ago when the State Minister for Public Works made the announcement. In respect of the Coalcliff roadstead as defined in section 9 of the State legislation Clutha Development Pty Ltd has already advertised the fact that the jetty is to extend 5,000 feet. This is necessary because, as the Minister would know if he had studied a hydrographic map, the 70 feet depth of water that the Ludwig vessels will require is available only at a minimum distance of 5,000 feet from shore.

Dr Mackay:

– I dispute that.

Mr CONNOR:

– You need not dispute it. I have represented the area for many years and I know the facts. What I have said is correct.

In supporting my colleague, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson), I want to say that this legislation is a sell-out second only in magnitude to that of the Bass Strait oilfield. It is for that reason that we are appealing to the national Parliament which has 2 functions; first, it can control the export trade, and, second, it can, because of its sovereignty, prevent the pollution of the coastline by the proposed coal loader. If that loader operates in the Coalcliff roadstead we can be certain of the pollution of every surfing beach between Coalcliff in the north and Shellharbour in the south. That will be to the eternal discredit of this Government because it and no-one else has the power to prevent the New South Wales Government from carrying out this crowning lunacy. Today there is a world shortage of hard coking coal.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) will enter this debate later and make a great announcement as to the mineral survey which is now being contemplated. 1 do not want to become emotional; I want to quote hard facts. I wish to refer to the report of the Joint Coal Board for 1970. For the past 3 years the Joint Coal Board has given warnings of the needs of the steel industry. I speak for the major centre of steel production in the southern hemisphere. Port Kembla already produces two-thirds of the nation’s steel. When the new No. 5 blast furnace begins operating Port Kembla will be producing three-quarters of the nation’s steel. The Joint Coal Board stated:

On the basis of present technology the South Coast coalfield, at present the mainstay of the Australian steel industry, can be expected to have a life of little more than SO years.

That is without an increase in exports but allowing for the projected growth in steel. That projection was made when southern district coal exports were of the order of 3i million tons a year. Clutha intends to export immediately 8 million tons of washed coal, which is the equivalent of 10 million tons of raw coal. In other words, there will be an increase of 6i million tons for a start. I wish to cite a projection made by Mr Cook, the head of the Department of Geology at the Wollongong University College. He said that, depending on the rate of increase in the needs of the steel industry the projected life of this field is from 28 to 35 years. I will make these details available to the Government although it should already be aware of them.

I know that the Minister for National Development will produce figures relating to further coal reserves that have been discovered, but the types of coal which are needed for the steel industry are very limited. They depend upon a vitrinite content and the vitrinite content which is necessary for hard coking coal, either to be used by itself or blended with lesser types of coal - I am speaking in terms of hardness - is 55 per cent. The Japanese coal export trade is picking the eyes out of our major coal reserves, particularly those reserves which are suitable for hard coking coal. The Japanese themselves are continuing with blast furnace production of steel and I dispute the suggestion of the Minister for the Navy that there will be alterations in steel technology; there will not be any alteration in the foreseeable future.

Let the Government be warned,, because it will have the responsibility: The availability of hard coking coal in the right proportions and in sufficient reserves is a matter of life or death for my constituents. But it is more than that. The former Deputy Prime Minister said: ‘Are we to be a quarry or a farm?’ We need that coal and we need a national fuel and energy policy. This Government .has been recreant to its trust for 20 years and the Opposition has pounded it for this. It still has to evolve a policy, but it cannot and will not do so. The nations of the world are lining up already making inquiries as to what they can get in the way of Australian hard coking coal. The British Steel Corporation, Holland, France, Italy, Western Germany - you name it - are ali making inquiries. Trial shipments have already been sent abroad. If the Clutha people are allowed even to start with their initial export target of 10 million tons of raw coal - 8 million tons of washed coal - the life expectancy of my constituency will be seriously reduced. It is as bad as that. Let the Government give its answer - and an answer it lacks.

It may be suggested that testing has shown that there are very substantial reserves of coal in the Sydney basin, but where there is an overlay of more than 1,000 feet, with coal extraction technology today it is impossible to work such reserves. It can be done but it is dear coal and that in turn means dear steel. We have in Australia 16,000 million tons of iron ore. We have 16,000 million tons of various types of coal. But within the southern coalfield the limit that is available, as stated by the Joint Coal Board, is 2,020 million tons. That figure must be reduced because a certain amount cannot be extracted owing to physical limitations - rolls of stone as they are called - and then the figure must be reduced further because of what is lost through washing the coal to bring it up to the highest possible standard. We are left with a matter of 1,500 million tons.

At the present time the coal industry is using 8,600,000 tons of coal a year in my constituency. The projections of the Joint Coal Board are that by the year 2000 the steel industry alone will be using 30 million tons of coal a year. What is the Government’s answer? It has not got one. When the Government tries to bandy statistics in terms of black coal, let it state the vitrinite content of that coal. Not all the coal within the South Coast area has a high vitrinite content. Blending is required even with coal from the Bulli and Wongawilli seams.

Lest the Government should also suggest that there is some economic advantage in this contract I give the hard facts. Mr Daniel Ludwig is a notoriously shrewd operator. He is the biggest shipping tycoon in the world. He operates from tax havens. His ships operate under flags of convenience. What will be the result of the Clutha operation if the Government is foolish enough to permit exports to start? The coal will be sold to a subsidiary company registered in Bermuda at production cost and then, keeping a straight face, Clutha executives will allege to the Commissioner for Taxation, in a quite apologetic document: ‘We have barely broken even this year’. The subsidiary will resell the coal and the profits for Australia will be nil. Clutha and Ludwig are two of the toughest operators that one will find in any part of the business and commercial world. Another major scandal is that the New South Wales Government is so inept that even the royalties which it has imposed are not to be varied for a period of 20 years. In the meantime inflation will continue and the coa! reserves will be further depleted while the world price of coking coal will continue to rise.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Sitting suspended from 5.50 to 8.40 p.m.

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · Darling Downs · LP

– I propose to deal briefly with 3 points - Firstly, coking coal reserves; secondly, the environment; and thirdly, the Commonwealth rights in relation to the seabed. I should firstly make it clear that mineral exploration and mining operations in Australia are governed by the relevant State legislation and these things are without question matters of State responsibility, except in the case of Commonwealth Territories. For example - and this is relevant in view of the terms of the debate - the majority of the leases which are operated by Clutha Development Pty Ltd in New South Wales were issued during the term of the former Labor Government in New South Wales.

On the question of any threat to the quality of the environment, it goes without saying that the responsible Ministers and departments in New South Wales have taken the closest interest in this matter. I am informed that following the entering into by the New South Wales Government and Clutha Development Pty Ltd of the agreement, which was authorised by the New South Wales Parliament, there have been detailed . discussions between the company and the appropriate departments, and agreement has been reached on the inclusion of provisions in any lease that may be granted which will ensure that measures necessary to preserve the quality of the environment will be taken. These conditions will coyer the conveyance of the coal by the railway to be constructed, the stockpiling of the coal and the off-shore loading operations. The New South Wales authorities are satisfied ‘ that these conditions will ensure that the environment of the areas concerned will not be adversely affected.

Quite a number of statements have been made in the last year in the Press and in other publications about Australia’s reserves of coking coal. As honourable members know, Australia’s main black coal - that is. coking and steaming coal - reserves are located in New South Wales and Queensland. As a result of the expansion of industrial development in Australia, the enormous increase in the production of steel in Japan and industrial developments in Europe there has been a significant increase in the production and export of black coal from Australia. In 1965 coal exports amounted to 7.2 million tons and in 1970 they totalled 18.1 million tons. As a result of this substantial growth and being aware of estimated exports from Australia in future years, the Bureau of Mineral Resources has carried out an inventory of Australia’s coal resources. I informed the House of this in October last year. This inventory has now been completed and is being further examined within my Department. I expect to have a report on this matter in the near future.

It is apparent that there are many types of coking coal. The coal areas on the south coast of New South Wales contain deposits of high-quality coking coal. A number of companies are already exploring this area for new deposits, or are currently mining known deposits. The issue of mining titles is, as I said before, solely a matter for each State. However, in regard to our coal reserves I have been in close consultation with the responsible State Ministers. In New South Wales the Joint Coal Board also has a responsibility in regard to the operation of the coal industry in that State. The Minister for Mines in New South Wales has already announced that certain action was taken after discussions were held with the Commonwealth and the Joint Coal Board. I have been informed that Queensland has also taken action to see that adequate coal resources are reserved for local industry. The New South Wales action is to reserve certain areas for steel and energy production purposes. This has the full support of the Commonwealth which wishes to ensure that there are definite reserves of coking coal for our domestic steel industry.

In view of the demand now developing around the world for coking coal I believe that we should study the situation carefully, which my Department is doing. We must take a balanced approach as to how the coal industry is developed on the one hand. We must act to ensure that the future requirements of our domestic industry will be available at reasonable cost. On the other hand, we must not let the tremendous marketing opportunities afforded to us for a reasonable quantity of our coal to be lost to the economy. 1 assure the House that the coking coal situation is being closely examined by the Commonwealth. As a matter of fact I had discussions on this subject with the New South Wales Minister for Mines only recently and we agreed to hold further talks shortly.

Finally. 1 should like to refer to statements made in relation to an alleged infringement of Commonwealth sovereign rights over the seabed. I. must point out firstly that in this instance the matter is one for the Government of New South

Wales. Secondly, the mining operations already referred to will take place on land within the State of New South Wales. Thirdly, the construction and use of a loading wharf will be ancillary to the mining operations on land. Fourthly, the question of regulating the construction and use of a loading wharf of the kind suggested is appropriately a matter for the State as part of the authority of that State to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the State in relation to mining operations conducted in that State. There is no infringement on Commonwealth sovereign rights.

I can only repeat that the measures to be adopted in the control of pollution arising from the construction, maintenance and operation of mining works are most stringent. The lessee is under an obligation to comply with the directions given by the New South Wales Minister for Mines, and I am certain that his inspectors will regularly make thorough examinations for this purpose. Consequently, I feel that the arguments advanced by the Opposition in this discussion have already been answered by my colleague the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay). Whilst the interest of honourable members opposite is appreciated it is felt that the actions being taken by the Commonwealth Government and by the New South Wales Government cover the matters which have been raised.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter Valley

– Coming as I do from a major coal mining constituency I would like to make a contribution to this debate. First and foremost I want to congratulate the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) and the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) for the way in which they informed this House and the people of this nation tonight about something which I consider should cause great concern to every Australian, and that is the exorbitant profits that Clutha Developments Pty Ltd-

Mr Swartz:

– I raise a point of order. At this stage I do not wish to interrupt the honourable member unduly but the arrangement was that there would be 2 speakers from each side. We have had 2 speakers from each side. I know the honourable member has a personal interest in this matter so if he can restrict his comments to about 5 minutes we would be happy to conclude this debate.

Mr JAMES:

– I will reluctantly respond to the request made by the Minister because he is generally respected by all honourable members on this side of the House. I will curtail my remarks. The disclosures in this Parliament tonight by the honourable member for Cunningham and the honourable member for Hughes of the extensive profits which will be made by this foreign company, Clutha Development Pty Ltd, and the privileges which have obviously been extended to it by the New South Wales Liberal or free enterprise government are scandalous and should shock the people of this nation. It is to the everlasting credit of honourable members on this side of the House who have disclosed the information to the Parliament tonight. I could say a lot more but, as I have said, the Minister has requested that I curtail my remarks. I hope that the information disclosed in this debate by the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay) on the Government side of the House and by the honourable members for Cunningham and Hughes on this side will be fully printed in the Press tomorrow so the people of Australia, who are the jury of this Parliament, can sum up for themselves the integrity of the New South Wales Government in allowing the exorbitant profit of $ 2000m to be made by this foreign company over the next 20 years.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! The discussion is now concluded.

page 1790

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Discharge of Morions

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · Darling Downs · LP

– by leave - I move:

That the following Orders of the Day, Government Business, be discharged.

No. 24 Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill 1970: Second reading - Resumption of debate.

No. 25 United States Naval Communication Station (Civilian Employees) Bill 1970: Second reading - Resumption of debate.

No. 26 Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Bill (No. 2) 1970: Second Reading- Resumption of debate.

The reason for this motion is obvious. New Bills are to be introduced.

page 1791

PUBLIC ORDER (PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 April (vide page 1728), on motion by Mr Hughes:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr KENNEDY:
Bendigo

– The Bill that is now to be discussed by the House is entitled ‘A Public Order Bill’. In the debate that has taken place so far there has been some very intriguing reference to something called a balance between the rights of a minority to express its dissent with the rights of the majority to go about its normal and every day life. I say that the reference to the balance is intriguing because I do not see the balance there. The Government has come down very heavily against those people in Australia who care to exercise their rights of dissent.

This Bill is based principally upon public order. It is a law and order Bill which is concerned very little indeed with justice. This is a term which Government supporters speaking in support of the Bill have used very little because, indeed, there is very little justice in this Bill. There has been a discussion on this balance between the right of dissent and the right of members of the public to go about their normal every day business. .In fact, the Bill sets out only what minorities in particular cannot do. It does not set out what they can do. I believe that this is one of the most serious omissions in the whole Bill.

Before going into detail about this Bill and the clauses contained in it, I would like to discuss the fundamental issue that the Parliament has been debating. What we are talking about is what sort of society the Australian society should be. We have used the terms ‘democracy’ and ‘democratic’ very loosely. If we listen to Government supporters we realise that they are concerned almost entirely with order. They are concerned with the orderly progression of the every day activities of the majority of the people.

The view held by Government supporters is that democracy means that a government which wins power by gaining a majority of the votes is then constitutional and has the right to do virtually as it pleases for another 3 years.

Mr Giles:

– That is nonsense.

Mr KENNEDY:

– Well, I suggest to the honourable member that if he looks very closely at this Bill he will see that this is the very nature of it. If he listened to some of the debates that took place last year he would leuw that many honourable members on the Government side of the House regarded as offensive and usurping the power of Parliament and the Government that people should actually congregate outside this Parliament to express a view on Vietnam, on conscription and to try to bring influence to bear in order to change the view of the Government.

The Government has always talked in terms of the pressure of minorities and the usurpation of the rights of government. Regardless of what the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) cares to say, this is a traditional attitude and a traditional mentality of this conservative Government. Of course, when we talk about public order we talk about any society because any society requires public order. That is without question. Every honourable member on the other side of the House should bear in mind that what distinguishes a democratic society is not the extent of public order. The degree of public order is in fact a characteristic of a different type of society. The Chinese Government - whether it be the government of the People’s Republic of Mainland China or Taiwan China - has a very considerable degree of public order. The point is that both of these governments are public order governments. Very little latitude is permitted in either of these countries for individuals or minorities to express their criticisms of their governments. The same sort of approach toward dissent and the rights of a minority characterises the Soviet Union. It also characterises the governments of Spain, Portugal and Greece. When we talk of public order, think again about what sort of society or government we have in mind. What in fact distinguishes a democratic society is the freedom and tolerance that the society gives to individuals and groups to think as they see fit, to feel as they choose, to express their views as individuals, to organise together as groups in assemblies, to express their views in order to publicise those views and to change government thinking. These are the characteristics of a democratic society. Honourable members on the other side of the House should bear this in mind. This is something which is not second to the everyday activities of the public; it must in fact take precedence over them. What the Government has done in this Bill has been to say that there are two factors - the democratic rights of individuals and public order. It is clear on which side this Government has come down. The Government has come down very clearly on the side of public order.

There can be no truth whatsoever in the claim which is often made by supporters of the Government, and which lies behind this sort of Bill, that a government is democratic purely by virtue of the fact that it happens to represent majority thinking. Unfortunately, the Government knows only too well that it exploits majority thinking on the civic rights of individuals. But a democratic society cannot subordinate so grossly the rights - of individuals and minorities, as the Government does through this Bill.

This is supposedly ‘ a public order Bill, it is in fact nothing of the kind. A Bill of this nature does not create public order and it does not sustain order. A Bill of this nature is an insult to individuals and to minority groups in Australia because it directly throws down the gauntlet to them and calls upon them to challenge this sort of Bill. Government members know it, and we have seen it all the way along. Once you say so blatantly to individuals: ‘You shall not do this. Here is a law that has been brought in for the specific purpose of suppressing and limiting your rights’ anybody with any political sense at all knows what the reaction will be to this sort of Bill. It is an incitement to public disorder. But even more important than the Bill are the nature and the actions of the Government that has produced the Bill.

This is a cynical Government. It is a Government that creates issues that cause dissent. The Government cannot reasonably or rationally argue against that dissent. Its only answer is the mailed fist of public order legislation like this. How many Government members are there who over recent years and recent months have been able to go out and defend their Government’s case on Vietnam and the National Service Act? Not too many of them. This Government has no policy by which to justify its Vietnam policy. One needs to look only at the changing opinions of the editors of newspapers to see that the policy by which the Government justifies its actions in Vietnam and on national service can no longer be sustained. But the Government does not have to argue its case. It does not have to rationalise its case to individuals, to minorities and to the growing number of people who are becoming resentful of its policies. All it has to do is to continue as it has been doing, out of sheer habit and lax imagination, to introduce a Bill like this to suppress people who are going to attack its policies.

The Vietnam policy pf this Government cannot be justified. The National Service Act can no longer be justified. At the very time when this nation should be winding up its commitment to Vietnam - it should be the first nation out of Vietnam, not the last, as it threatens to be- at the very time when this nation should.be preparing itself for internal harmony, unity and peace, the Government introduces a, Bill like this which will continue to divide the nation. The Attorney-General. (Mr N. H. Bowen) sits, at the table with a grin on his face. He should consider exactly what he is doing. His predecessor has brought in a Bill which will enable him to deal with the very public disorder that his Government creates. For example, let us look at the issue of the South African cricket team which is to come to Australia. Why is that team being brought here? The Government cannot justify it. lt justifies it by the argument that to keep it out of Australia would be an intervention in the affairs of South Africa, as though the decision as to which people Australia receives must be left to the internal policies of the Government of South Africa.

This Government says that the team must come to Australia because this is an internal affair of the sporting authorities of Australia. But what does the action of bringing those cricketers to Australia do? If the Government cannot realise that it is importing the violence and the discord of racial suppression from South Africa into Australia then it simply does not know what politics is about. That is the very thing that the visit of these racial teams to Australia is going to do. Every Government member should know that there will be demonstrations against this visit because the visit is an affront to people who object to apartheid and to the whole odour of the racial policies of South Africa in which this Government is only too willing to enmesh Australia. It is an incitement to violence, to disunity and discord within Australia. Yet the Government persists in this act of inviting the South African teams into Australia. At- the same time as it does that it brings in a Bill that will enable it, at least in its own territories, if necessary to deal with that sort of violence.

But it is not the Commonwealth in this case that is so much at fault, because the Commonwealth and the States have produced the very same sort of law and order legislation that will deal with the public dissent that is going to come with the South Africans’ visit. I said earlier that this was a cynical Government. Naturally, Government members opposite took affront. That was a nasty word to use about the Government. They are not cynical at all. They are honourable and just people. But where did this Bill originate? Last year it was created within the synthetic hysteria of the law and order mania that was whipped up by back benchers of the Government itself. It is very interesting to notice, for example, that it was not the Government, the Cabinet or the Prime Minister that conceived this legislation, lt was the back benchers. The Bill originated at the time when Dick Gregory was coming, in the mind of the Government, to Australia to incite violence and to destroy the Australian forces in South Vietnam. I have a quotation from The Age’ of 7th September 1970. It says: . . it is really the back benchers who have launched the Government on its law-and-order campaign. At a private meeting of the Government parties a fortnight ago, a number of them called on the Government to take on the Labor Party in a direct confrontation.

It then refers to a man who, to all appearances, is the very essence of placidity. The article continues:

Queensland Liberal MHR Nigel Drury led the call to arms. ‘We must attack the ALP’s policies and its subversive Left-wing elements’, he declared. ‘We must expose its nationalisation plank and its attitude towards defence and foreign policy. We . must show how it is linked with political disturbances and industrial disputes. We must destroy the Labor Party.’

There is the atmosphere of artificial and synthetic hysteria in which this Bill was created last year. If the honourable mem bers do not think I am justified in using the word ‘cynical’ then they have only to look at the editorial opinions of newspapers, many of which are sympathetic towards the Government parties. At that time last year, on 27th August 1970, the ‘Daily Mirror’ said:

Messrs Gorton and Askin, two astute politicians, have leapt aboard the already crowded law and order bandwaggon

It then referred to the disturbances which upset the public. It said:

But none of this justifies the hysteria some members of the State and Federal Parliaments are generating.

None of it warrants the sweeping, repressive legislation foreshadowed by Messrs Gorton and Askin.

The West Australian’ of 28th August 1970, in the headline to its editorial, said: ‘A doubtful move’. The headline of the editorial in the ‘Australian’ of 28th August 1970 said: ‘Law, order and politics of fear’. The Sydney Morning Herald’, a paper which is not an enemy of the Government by any means, on Friday, 28th August 1970 referred to law and order. Once again there is a reflection of the same doubt about the sincerity of - the Government’s motives in bringing in this legislation. ‘The Age’ of 28th August 1970 referred to order and liberty. Let me give some examples from the editorial of that date:

But if the Government seriously pretends that Australian democracy is under desperate challenge it leaves itself open to the charge of over-reacting dangerously. Order and liberty are the basic elements in the democratic dichotomy and it is both wise and necessary to keep the balance under constant review.

The editorial continues:

However, society itself could be the sufferer if there is an unnecessary stock-piling of powerful legal weapons.

One of the headlines in an editorial in the Canberra Times’ of 28th August 1970 reads: ‘An added provocation’. So there is the background against which this Bill has been introduced. Without doubt this is a cynical action which is not calculated to maintain public order but to increase public disorder. There are many things that could be said about this Bill. There are many aspects on which it can be taken apart and on which it can be displayed that this Government is applying unreasonable pressure and unreasonable bias against minorities who care to challenge its opinion.

This is what we are concerned with here. It is the challenge to the opinion of established government.

Mr Cope:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, is there a meeting of the Government Parties tonight? Where are the members of the Government?

Mr KENNEDY:

– There is some point in the interjection because I am surprised at the large scale absence of members of the Australian Country Party. There are, of course, the arch exponents of public law and order. The Country Party claims to be the intermediary party between the Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party. It is surprising that its members are absent from the chamber in such large numbers. I revert to the Bill. There are many examples of deliberate vagueness in the Bill. This Bill means that the rights of the individual are to be determined not by this Act of Parliament or by the Australian Constitution because they are not mentioned there, but by a policeman on the spot at a public incident and by the magistrate.

The Bill contains a definition of an obstruction. If members care to read that definition they will find it loosely stated and in complex terms that an obstruction is unquestionably an obstruction. Then there is the ponderous circumlocution about what a vicinity is, and there again we find that, although some members of the Government are very skilfully trained in the law, they can still say that a vicinity is a vicinity.

There is also the vagueness about what is called a reasonable apprehension. If a policeman feels a reasonable apprehension that an assembly will lead to damage to property or violence to individuals he can disperse that meeting. Merely by reason of this danger being apprehended, people become guilty not of doing anything but of being apprehended to be about to commit an act of danger. There is also reference in the Bill to a person who harasses a protected person or otherwise unreasonably interferes with the free and safe discharge of the duties of a protected person, or a person who behaves in an offensive, threatening or insulting manner towards a protected person, or a person who unreasonably obstructs a protected person. For a person who comes within that category there is a fine of up to $250 or a gaol sentence of 3 months, or both. The

Bill will also make it an offence for a person taking part in an unlawful assembly on Commonwealth premises to possess a weapon, a missile or a destructive, noxious or repulsive object or substance. What is a repulsive object? To many people in Victoria a picture of Sir Henry Bolte being carried down the street would be regarded as a repulsive object.

Most of all I want to say that many of the basic principles of established common law in Australia are rejected in this Bill. This Bill comes down heavily against the lawful rights of individuals and minorities to assemble and to express their individual and group views in an attempt to change opinions. Such an assembly, if a peaceful one that does not cause harm and danger to other people, must be the very essence of a democratic society, but there is no guarantee in this Bill in relation to such assemblies.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr GILES:
Angas

– Outside Parliament House at lunch time today and for several days past there was a group of people called Quakers - the Society of Friends. They are demonstrating, according to their beliefs, as one of the most sincere groups 1 know. They are demonstrating in the way that any member on this side of the House thinks demonstrations should be carried out - peacefully, quietly and without interrupting other people. These people have not been making a nuisance of themselves or tripping up members of the Opposition or anybody else as they walked past. They have been doing a sincere job quietly, quite contrary to the actions of those who only use their voices and who are not prepared to act according to their own philosophies.

I object to what the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Kennedy) said about how this Bill relates to minorities. This Bill aims at protecting minorities, even little minorities. It aims at protecting properly those people who demonstrate according to the law, sensibly and decently. It does not aim at protecting people about whom the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) spoke a few nights ago. It is not designed to protect those who misbehave - T do not wish to become too crude - and those who open doors, misbehave and leave messes in the back of people’s cars, or those people- who wish to damage other people’s property maliciously. Furthermore, this Bill is aimed at such behaviour only when it is committed on Commonwealth territory. This is not a law and order Bill that should be taken as carte blanche across society in any shape or form. Member after member on the Opposition side has tried to pretend that this is so. It is not so. Maybe the Federal Government wishes to give a lead in this matter so that it is then open to the States- open to the Premier of South Australia - to take what action they see fit.

That is the perspective in which this Bill, which has become known as a law and order Bill, should be viewed. The honourable member for Bendigo then conveyed to use the proposition that this Bill has a greater application than merely to Commonwealth territory and Commonwealth business premises. It has not. It deals with Commonwealth business premises and to nobody else’s. As I have said, it perhaps suggests to the States a standard of behaviour to be followed. The honourable member for Bendigo then carried his argument on to the argument of majority rule. I object to his remark that the Government aims at protecting only the majority point of view and that it does not take into account the minority view, because this is not so. 1 repeat the argument 1 advanced a while ago. Those of us on this side of the House who attend Party meetings and who can have an influence on the form of legislation that comes before this House would not have a bar of a Bill that limited the rights of people in the minority putting their point of view to those in authority in a legitimate fashion.

What we object to and what the Opposition cannot or will not understand is that we draw the line at those people who take advantage of the law in any way possible to commit acts that are to the disadvantage of the majority. One saw this in the performance by the Opposition today in moving a motion of no confidence in the Speaker, one of the most rotten debates I have heard since I have been in this place. The Opposition’s action was sheer hypocrisy and a sheer denial of the importance -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! I remind the honourable member for Angas that he cannot canvass the subject matter of an earlier debate in the House.

Mr GILES:

– I will demonstrate the point in some other fashion because 1 personally am most sincerely involved, as T am sure the Government is, in an attempt to produce a situation in which people can demonstrate legitimately and can put forward a dissentient point of view.

Mr Uren:

– Give us the facts.

Mr GILES:

– If the honourable member returns to the chamber I might listen to him. We want a situation in which we can listen to the minority point of view because 1 regard the right to express a minority point of view as of prime importance in a democratic society. So does the Government. We recently have seen signs of the Labor Party trying to approach this form of democracy. We have seen its members trying to undo the damage done by the Victorian left wing faction.

Dr Gun:

– What about South Australia?

Mr GILES:

– 1 will deal with South Australia in a minute. We have seen them also trying to patch up their machine in New South Wales. I give the Labor Party members credit for what they have been doing. I hope that next they will get stuck into the State to which the honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun) has now referred, the State of South Australia, and undo the damage done by a card vote, one of the most undemocratic principles that could possibly apply. On a matter of law ana order I will not stand outside the hall in which they are meeting and try tr. disrupt their normal processes of discussion. This would not be right. If I did so, according to some sections of this Bill, might I hasten to add, I would be culpable. And I would be rightly culpable, depending on exactly what action I took. This is the attitude of those on this side of the House. We do not want to see under any circumstances the majority, whom members of the Opposition have been good enough to suggest we represent - rightly so, I think - disadvantaged by any group that wishes to hold them to ransom or to make life uncomfortable for them.

I refer again to the example of what happened to the honourable member for Boothby. His car, which was parked on

Commonwealth premises, was damaged maliciously by those who do not deserve any respect in our society. I know of the case of one man in my State - if what happened in this instance applied to Commonwealth premises it would be entirely in line with the provisions of this Bill - who was silly enough, if that is the way we look at it, or decent enough, if that is the way we look at it, to reply to a letter published in a local newspaper. The letter conveyed a series of facts relating to the Seamen’s Union. This man had had a lifetime plying the seas as the captain of vessels engaged in commercial shipping ventures. He replied objectively to contradict the point of view that had been put forward. That man still is subjected to intimidation. 2 years after he wrote to that local newspaper in South Australia. I am not saying for one minute that anyone in this House would have a bar of that kind of action.

Mr Birrell:

– You are insinuating it, though. . . .

Mr GILES:

– Nobody would have a bar of it, not even the honourable member for Port Adelaide. But I do say that the people who carry out that sort of action and who maliciously try to. make life hell for women and children-

Mr FOSTER:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Why do you not tell us-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! The honourable member for Sturt will cease interjecting, and resume his seat.

Mr Foster:

– I rise to take a point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Sturt will cease interjecting.

Mr Birrell:

– We do not want insinuations.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr GILES:

– AllI am saying is-

Mr Birrell:

– Why does he not come straight out and say it? He is insinuating.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide will cease interjecting.

Mr GILES:

– All I am saying is that this Bill aims to act against this sort of behaviour in our society by a small group of people who have become rotten. This Bill aims to protect the vast majority of people against rotten behaviour. I give credit to the Government for introducing the legislation and I hope that in areas other than Commonwealth territories some of the principles of this Bill will overlap.

The honourable member for Kennedy also mentioned sport. I have not time to deal with this subject because I must resume my seat in a moment. The honourable member touched also on the vast problem of apartheid. If the honourable member had been here longer I think that he would have known, perhaps better than he conveyed, the fact that there are those of us on this side of the House who have spoken, often with a lot of heat in the atmosphere, against this form of discrimination. I do not hesitate to line myself up with those who object to the denial of human rights involved in such a situation. But if the Opposition really means by its actions that it intends to assume the role of judge and jury as to what sporting teams should be allowed to come to Australia under any circumstances, it is time that its members learned to walk on the water. The people of Australia will not back this sort of denial of the rights of the ordinary Australian to see and to absorb what he wishes. The Opposition is adopting the same view as those who will not allow books to be published because they are frightened that we are too narrow in our views to be able to absorb what is published. The Opposition is taking the narrow view on this issue. Its own philosophy should make the Opposition see the opposite side of this issue. The philosophy of its members even as Australians should make it see-

Mr Martin:

– I take a point of order. The honourable member for Angas is not speaking on the subject of this Bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Angas is speaking as much on the subject matter of this Bill as previous speakers have spoken on the subject matter of this Bill.

Mr Martin:

– I take a further point of order. I certainly will not canvass your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, but merely because some other honourable member has transgressed is no reason why the honourable member for Angas similarly should transgress

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! In this debate members have used different points to illustrate their arguments. 1 would suggest to the honourable member for Angas and to future speakers in this debate that they should not devote an undue proportion of their speeches to a point of illustration.

Mr GILES:

– I have touched on the subject only briefly and I will tie my reference in with the matter of human rights which is a vital ingredient of this Bill. I hope honourable members will appreciate that point. The trade union movement in South Africa took great offence at the attitude adopted by the trade union movement in Australia towards apartheid. We should remember that - I do not say this as an excuse; I do not say it because I like the attitude of the South African Governmentonly recently, the South African Government proposed legislation to allow skilled workers of dark skin to take their place in society. What happened? The fact is - and this can be checked quite- easily - that the trade union movement in South Africa refused to allow the legislation to be passed. What sort of a double standard is this? The Australian Labor Party seeks to deny to the majority of Australians - 85 per cent of our people - the right to see representatives of the champion cricketing nation of the world play cricket in Australia. That is what the Opposition would like to do. It will not be successful in its endeavours. Instead of using its influence with the trade union movement in South Africa, the Opposition has adopted this narrow minded attitude, which, I submit to honourable members opposite, is not a typically Australian one. This attitude is not broadminded. It does not allow the people of Australia to see what they wish. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for that little bit of dispensation which allowed me to deal momentarily with a matter away from the subject matter of the Bill. It related to human rights and human rights must be protected.

Mr Martin:

– I take a further point of order. This Bill deals with alleged breaches of law and order on Commonwealth properties and in Commonwealth territories. What the honourable member for Angas is saying has no connection at all with transgressions in Commonwealth buildings and in Commonwealth Territories. He is seek ing to bring into this debate a subject which has nothing whatsoever to do with this Bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! 1 point out that I indicated earlier to the honourable member for Angas that the subject matter to which he referred was not under consideration. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– I did not realise that the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) had completed bis speech.

Mr Daly:

– We did not know that he had started.

Mr BARNARD:

– As a matter of fact,’ I was waiting for the honourable member for Angas to come back to the subject matter of the Bill. It was completely fallacious for the honourable member for Angas to argue that this Bill is one that will protect the rights, of minorities. The honourable member knows that that is not correct. The plain fact is that this Bill is aimed against the rights of people in this country to dissent. Much of the difficulty that has been experienced in this country in recent years is due entirely to the policies of the present Government. I venture to suggest that nothing in recent times has caused more public dissension than the Government’s policy on national service. Whenever there have been demonstrations of protest against the’ national service scheme the Government has sought to use whatever powers have been available to it to curtail or eliminate such demonstrations and similar activity.

Indeed, it must be conceded that this Bill arises out of an incident last year which involved the former Attorney-General, the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes). That incident itself was a form of demonstration against national service and involved the right of young people to express their opposition to government policy, a right which should be accorded to all people in any democratic country. We are now discussing a Bill which really has nothing at all to do with the matters referred to by the honourable member for Angas. He spoke of the State of New South Wales arid the State of Victoria and what may in his opinion be the position of the Australian Labor Party, but all his remarks along those lines were entirely irrelevant to the Bill. Of course, the honourable member for Angas completely ignored what is happening in Queensland. Perhaps I may be permitted to digress for a moment to remind him that there is at this moment a contest between the Liberal Party and the Country Party in that State to see which party is to arrange the biggest gerrymander ever in Queensland. The honourable member completely ignores that situation. Now I come back to the Bill.

This legislation comes about 8 months after the dissipation of the particular political climate it was intended to serve. It dates back to July-August last year when there was a concerted attempt by this Government and the State Governments to generate a law and order confrontation. The purpose of this confrontation was political exploitation of issues of dissent for the Senate elections and for State general elections and State by-elections. There was also speculation that it was intended as the vehicle for a snap election, an election which, fortunately for the Government, never materialised. We are getting another burst of this sort of phoney kite flying at the moment; again it is likely to fall on barren ground in electoral terms. In retrospect, it is difficult to see what all the fuss was about when this legislation was mooted. The issue never took off as a vote winner at either level of Government.

Eight months ago this legislation was bruited as a tough new law designed to protect Commonwealth property and employees and members of Parliament from demonstrators. Despite its many objectionable features this law is hardly that. It achieves little in either clarifying the law or tightening it up. What it does achieve has no relevance in the major centres of population where most demonstrations occur. What it does is to put another objectionable statute on the books, a statute that in all likelihood will be enforced but rarely, if at all. Its most objectionable feature is that it does nothing to indicate clearly what the rights to lawful assembly are in this country. Rather it further constricts rights to protest and obscures just what is allowed and what is not in the public streets.

In his second reading speech the former Attorney-General stressed his objectives for the legislation. He said it was drafted to clarify, to simplify and to mitigate the severity of the laws concerning assemblies of persons in areas of Commonwealth legislative responsibility. On the issue of clarification this legislation will accomplish nothing. The law on public assembly in Australia is covered by a maze of law at all levels of Government and regulation. There are Police Offences Acts, traffic regulations, municipal regulations, the Commonwealth Crimes Act, and the archaic common law provisions referred to by the former Minister. How will this Bill serve to simplify and clarify this great mass of law and mould it into an intelligible code which could be applied consistently and justly in every State of the Commonwealth? The Minister knows this it just will not do so. There has been no attempt to approach this particular aspect of the law in concert with the States to try to get some co-ordinate regulation of public assemblies. This dispels the claim that any clarification or simplification of the law has occurred.

The former Minister made much of the removal of the provisions of the Riot Acts of 1411 and 1414 and 1714 from the statute books of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. This is hardly a sweeping reform as these ancient provisions still remain on the statute books in most States. The former Attorney-General said that these obsolete provisions had been repealed in the United Kingdom by the Criminal Law Act of 1967. I hope he did not mean to imply that what this Bill achieves is anything like as significant as the United Kingdom reforms. The other point made by the former Attorney-General about mitigating the severity of penalties does not bear close examination. It is true that antiquated penalties ranging from 3 to 21 years have been removed by the Bill, at least in areas of Commonwealth legislative responsibility. But these penalties have never been invoked; it is extremely unlikely that they would ever be invoked. The penalties provided by the Bill should not be compared with the lengthy gaol sentences deriving from an earlier and much more primitive social and legal environment. The obvious basis of comparison is with the penalties for the usual offences of obstruction, offensive behaviour and the like which apply to public demonstrations.

When this comparison is made, it will be found the penalties provided in this Bill are quite stringent.

In one important aspect the penalties of this Bill do not in any way mitigate the severity of the traditional statutes; they increase the severity of penalties. This Bill imposes significantly higher penalties for these offences than existing penalties under State legislation. It is hard to substantiate the claim that this Bill in any way mitigates penalties for offences against the right to lawful assembly. At the very best the former Minister applied a double standard in assessing penalties relative to the old statutes and to other relevant legislation. The legislation falls down on both counts of clarifying the law and making it less onerous. The former Minister put the crux of the legislation in the following terms: ‘Of making an effort to achieve a synthesis of freedom and order’. This is a most worthy objective; again the legislation falls down sadly in achieving it. A lot of lip service has been paid to the concepts of free speech and the right to dissent. This usually takes the form of sanctimonious expression on the lines that there is a right and proper way to exercise these inalienable rights. But the components of this right and proper way to express these rights are never defined. All that comes out in the courts is a process of negatives. This is not the right way to express dissent’, ‘That is not the right way to express it’. A lead is never given on what is the right- way to express these rights. This has been exemplified on countless occasions in political demonstrations in every part of the Commonwealth in the past few years. What is permissible in one city is not permissible in another; a form of behaviour is tolerated on one day and not on the next. There is no way of knowing what is reasonable conduct for a demonstrator; all is confusion and vexation.

In this Bill the onus of proof is thrown on an officer of the law as low ranking as a sergeant of police. An unlawful assembly is confined to as few as 3 people. This further complicates the problems inherent in defining reasonable conduct in a demonstration. It becomes an impossible task for the organisers of any demonstration to advise participants on reasonable conduct in a public demonstration, lt is impossible for a lawyer to advise a client on how a demonstration can be mounted in a public place within the confines of the law. Nor is it possible for a person seeking to act within the law to get any guidance from the text of this Bill on how he should behave. The arbitrary and discretionary right remains with any person enforcing the law to interfere with dissent and interpret it as obstruction or offensive behaviour.

The Bill provides no protection whatsoever for the genuine protester or demonstrator it is ostensibly designed to protect, as we were given to understand by the former Attorney-General. In this context the whole sanctimonious clap-trap about the protection of the basic right to dissent is exposed as a sham. A’ genuine dissenter or demonstrator has this so-called inalienable right only as long as an officer of the law interprets his conduct as giving him (his right. His rights are not prescribed; they are discretionary and this discretion is defined in only the crudest and vaguest of terms. Reasonable conduct is to be judged initially on the discretion of the individual police officer and ultimately by the courts. Unreasonable’ conduct is determined only after a protester has been arrested, put in a police wagon, taken to a police station, charged, fingerprinted, gaoled, bailed out, remanded and then ultimately judged by the courts.

There is no way in which a person can before the event make his own assessment of what he can do in a demonstration under the law and adjust his conduct accordingly. This makes nonsense of the claim made by the former AttorneyGeneral that the Bill is designed to synthesise freedom and order. The principal duty of this legislation should be to put some sort of definition on what is universally conceded to be a basic right. If the Government wanted to provide a positive example to all levels of law and regulation in this country, it could have given a positive statement of what it regards as the right to assemble in public for protest. For example, in the areas of Commonwealth legislative responsibility, it could have listed places where protest could be made publicly without liability for penalty. It could have listed times such as Saturdays or Sunday afternoons or off-peak hours when streets or other public places could be used for protest without liability for obstruction. It could have listed public buildings where peaceful protest could be made at certain hours.

These are measures which could have been undertaken to give substance to the claim by the Government that the Bill would give a meaningful form to basic rights. As the law is at present interpreted it is possible for streets to be blocked off for hours to commemorate Captain Cook’s landing or the Pope’s visit. It is not obstruction for people to cram the streets to express their approbation on these occasions. They do it with the full sanction of the law, and quite rightly so. But if they want the same privilege to protest against the treatment of Aboriginals or Vietnam or racist sporting policies there is no way in which they can do so peaceably without exposure to penalty.

This sort of public assembly is put beyond the protection of the law. The whole weight of the law comes down on one side of the scales; it is all penalty and no protection. Under the law as it stands . demonstrations with a political motivation can be broken up by mass police action on the grounds of obstruction; other public assemblies of a social, cultural or religious character get the positive sanction of the law. If a positive acknowledgment were made of the validity of public protest and the rights and duties of public dissenters were written into the law, then most of the problems associated with public demonstration in Australia would be eliminated.

Another aspect of this legislation is the severity meted out to the form of public dissent known as the ‘sit-in’. This is a comparatively recent tactic outside the bounds of the traditional common law offences and the offences of obstruction and offensive behaviour. Undoubtedly this sort of protest is subject to abuse; in essence, however, it is a form of passive protest. There have been examples in the past few days of the use of a passive presence on Government property to register protest. The curbs against this sort of protest in the Bill before the House do not seem warranted by the history of this sort of demonstration in Australia.

More importantly, these demonstrations, if conducted in a reasonable manner, deserve recognition. It has been one of the most effective forms of protest in the history of dissent. Much of the ground won by Negroes in segregated areas of the

United States was won by the courageous but peaceful use of this technique. In Australia, it has been directed against the premises of the Department of Labour and National Service. They have not been sit-ins designed to destroy property or insult or harrass Commonwealth staff. There are legitimate grounds for allowing this form of protest, with it stated clearly in the law what is reasonable conduct and what is not. Restriction on places where reasonable protest can be made has the effect of isolating a government completely from criticism of any form.

In summary, this Bill is not a significant addition to the law. It would have fulfilled a signal service if it had formulated the objects stated for it by the former AttorneyGeneral who introduced it to the House. One remembers very well the statement made by the former Attorney-General who referred, with what I think was a degree of sincerity, to some of the problems which he personally believed and which undoubtedly the Government believed were associated with the question of the right of dissent in this country. If one studies the Bil] and if one has listened to the debate which has taken place in this House, unfortunately it is quite clear that the Bill fails to achieve the objectives which it was said to have. The issues of political protest and the right to dissent have been dormant in the past few months. This situation is unlikely to continue with controversial tours by sporting teams selected on a racist basis about to visit Australia. Who can tell the circumstances under which these visits will be made if, in fact, they are made? With the possibility of future confrontation, the Government had a golden opportunity to clear the air and define exactly the sort of conduct at public assemblies of protest it deemed reasonable and within the law. I believe it is a matter for regret that this opportunity has again been muffed by the Government.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr UREN:
Reid

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I enter the debate at this late hour although at one time I thought that I would not have been able to make a contribution to it. I would still have been in one of Her Majesty’s prisons had it not been for a foolish individual. But be that as it may, here I am, and for better or for worse I want to contribute a few comments to this debate. The Bill represents a further restriction on the individual rights and freedoms of persons. It does not in any way provide for greater extension protection of freedom. The Attorney-General (Mr N. H. Bowen), who is sitting at the table, is a man of some distinction in the law. He knows, as does the Government, that this legislation is not necessary. Existing Acts of Parliament cover all aspects provided for in this legislation which I brand as a political stunt. Police offences ordinances and the Crimes Act cover all breaches of the law on Commonwealth territory. Commonwealth property is protected under the Crimes Act and the common law covers the question of trespass. In all States, particularly New South Wales and Victoria, vicious - and I stress that word - Summary Offences Acts can be invoked. The Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Acf passed by the Commonwealth Parliament in November 1970 cleared up all doubts about the application of State laws in Commonwealth premises outside of Commonwealth territories. I challenge the Attorney-General to say whether that statement is false. I thank the Attorney-General for indicating that my contention is correct. I challenge the Government to prove that there is not existing legislation which covers ali aspects provided for in this Bill.

The Bill is a political stunt - a gimmick. What we need in Australia is more freedom, not less freedom. One does not realise the limited freedoms that we possess until one steps outside of conformity. People believe that we should protect minority rights and should protect certain individuals. We believe that Australia is a free society but on 5th January Mr Lewer, in the Central Court of Petty Sessions, said:

There is no guaranteed right of either free assembly or free speech in common law countries. This very often surprises people who believe their school history books. Nonetheless that is the legal situation.

Mr Lewer gave as his authority chapter 38 of Wade and Hood-Phillips ‘Constitutional Law’ at page 525. In other words the socalled cherished right of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, which is taught in Australian schools, is utter hypocrisy. It does not exist in fact: It exists only if one conforms. Recently 1 spoke to students at the University of Sydney. 1 was able to explain to them that although their freedoms were limited within the university once they stepped outside the boundaries of the university grounds their freedoms were far more restricted - they had no freedoms outside. If they wanted to demonstrate against the war in Vietnam or against visitors from a country which supported apartheid or if they wanted to support farmers who were seeking economic justice or old age pensioners they had no freedom of assembly and no freedom of speech. They are second class citizens.

What is an unlawful assembly? It has been defined as:

An unlawful assembly is an assembly of 3 or more persons with intent either to commit ‘ a crime . . .

This definition was used in connection with a demonstration which I attended. I make no excuses; 1 am a demonstrator, I believe that democracy does not function only in the parliamentary system. I have respect for the parliamentary system but I have respect also for the freedom of the individual. I believe that one does not elect a member of Parliament every 3 years and remain dormant between elections. In a free society people should function, should criticise, should demonstrate, should express their indignation, should express their attitudes and should have the right of freedom of assembly. I place on record that although I support the parliamentary system 1 participate as a demonstrator and 1 encourage people to express their individual indignation against what they believe to be unjust laws. I have always stressed, although I have not lectured. the manner in which people should demonstrate. I do not suggest that they .should demonstrate as I demonstrate. I support demonstrations in a peaceful manner, I loathe violence. I believe that violence is a weapon of the establishment, of the few and privileged, and it is not the right of people who seek to bring about some freer and more open society.

As I have said, an unlawful assembly is an assembly of 3 or more persons with intent to commit a crime. But what is intent? One could be in a demonstration of 10,000 people of whom 9,500 might be peaceful and the other 500 have certain agitations and break the law. On 5th January Mr Lewer, the magistrate, said that it was of no consolation to the people who were demonstrating peacefully if they were associated with people who were acting unlawfully because the assembly as a whole could be regarded as an unlawful assembly. Evidence could be presented that people were acting unlawfully and consequently even though the great majority of persons were lawful and a small minority unlawful, the assembly could be deemed to be an unlawful assembly. The magistrate on 5th January at least quoted from the text books. He said:

I should think beyond any doubt the police are entitled to put an end to a procession, a meeting, or a gathering if they apprehend, notwithstanding its lawful nature . . .

In referring to the police he said:

They may take quite severe steps to set an end to unlawful assembly.

What does this mean? The honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) talked about the people having the right to demonstrate. That was utter stupidity because they have no right to assemble, no freedom of assembly and no freedom of speech. The police have unlimited power. The magistrate in the Central Court of Petty Sessions said that the police could take extreme action to end an unlawful assembly. Let us stop this rubbish. Let us stop this talk about the freedom of our society. We do not need this legislation. What this Government should do is to repeal the repugnant - I use the word advisedly - police state legislation that now exists in the 1960 Crimes Act. There are provisions in that Act which are a disgrace not only to this Government but also to this country and which would be a disgrace to any democratic society. They are a discrace to the Attorney-General who now sits at the table. We want a freer society.

Recently the Attorney-General delivered an address at the opening of a police seminar. He delivered his speech on 14th April and it was reported in the ‘Australian’ on 15th April. He said:

If this belief was accepted as a fundamental human right, it would be the beginning of a breakdown in the acceptance of law and an ordered society.

He went on to say:

What these views fail to take into account is that an individual in our form of society has duties as well as rights.

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– That is correct.

Mr UREN:

– The Attorney-General nods his head and says: ‘That is correct’. Let me tell him a few of the duties that I believe individuals have in this society of ours. Individuals have a duty to speak out against, to demonstrate against and to work against the war in Vietnam. In that war we see the most powerful nation in the world dropping more explosives on the little nation of Vietnam than were dropped on all the Axis nations throughout the whole of the Second World War. We have a duty to call for the cessation of that stupidity. We have a duty to express our indignation at the conscription of young men like Geoffrey Mullen. This young man is a science graduate who can make a contribution to our society, yet we gaol him for 2 years because he opposed the immoral war in Vietnam.

Geoffrey Mullen said: T am not a conscientious objector as such but I am against the war in Vietnam and I am against conscription. Therefore I will not submit to the dictates of this Government. I will not go and fight in Vietnam because I believe it is a crime to engage in the war in Vietnam.’ I know that there are men of good will on the other side of the House. It is a great pity that they have not had the moral courage to stand up against the war in Vietnam. Why is it that in the United States of America Republicans and Democrats alike have opposed the war in Vietnam and have criticised it?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– I point out that when a point of order was taken earlier in this debate because subjects being discussed were outside the ambit of the Bill I suggested that if an honourable member wished to give a particular illustration to make a point he should not then proceed to debate that matter. The honourable member for Reid can appreciate that if an honourable member develops such a point into a debate the next speaker can develop a point of argument to counter the first point and then we will have a full scale debate on that subject instead of on the Bill before the House.

Mr UREN:

– I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your learned lecture. I know that your sensitivity as a member of the Government-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I remind the honourable member that it was a member of the Opposition who took the point of order on which I gave a ruling. The remarks of the honourable member for Reid are a reflection on the Chair and, I think, are completely uncalled for and unjustified in any way. I suggest that the honourable member proceed with his speech on the subject matter that is before the House.

Mr UREN:

– With all due respect-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will proceed with his speech on the subject matter that is before the House.

Mr UREN:

-I will, Mr Deputy Speaker, but in passing may I say that I think you are ultrasensitive.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Reid was not in the House when the point of order was taken. He should proceed with his speech.

Mr UREN:

– In the United States Government there are divisions but in this Parliament not one supporter of the Government and not one member of the Government has ever expressed criticism in this House of Government policy in this regard. There was one beloved person in the Senate who did express opposition, and his memory will always remain with me. When we talk of duties that men have 1 remind the House of the duty that we have to speak out against the Kon Sons in Vietnam because this is involved with the legislation on law and order that we are now discussing. We have a duty to speak out against the tiger cages in which the Government in Vietnam, which we support, has kept people chained up like animals. To say that Vietnam is not involved in this law and order legislation is complete hypocrisy. To say that My Lai is not linked with this legislation is utter hypocrisy. To say that the fragmentation bombs being used in Vietnam are not linked with this legislation is utter hypocrisy. To say that the use of napalm in Vietnam is not linked with this legislation is utter hypocrisy. To say that phosphorus bombs being used in Vietnam are not linked with this legislation is utter hypocrisy. I have nothing but contempt for this legislation which I say is quite unnecessary.

I have given examples of legislation that is now on the statute books and which could be used for the purpose for which we are told the legislation now before us is to be used. This is a political stunt because the legislation is not necessary. Let me return to the question of locking up young men and intimidating them. The young man Geoffrey Mullen is at present in Berrima gaol. On Good Friday, before I myself was incarcerated, I visited Mullen in Berrima gaol and remained with him for an hour and a quarter. The superintendent of that gaol said that if there was a demonstration outside the Berrima gaol against the gaoling of this young man he would be transferred to another prison. Since that time there has been intimidation within the gaol itself. It has been said that if there are demonstrations outside Berrima gaol the privileges of the prisoners within the gaol will be restricted. Two prison warders named Unicomb and Motley have even said that they will turn their backs if injury is inflicted upon Mullen by his fellow prisoners and that they will not see it. I say here and now that if anything happens to Mullen this Government, this Deputy Speaker and every man on the Government side will stand condemned and will be responsible because it is this Government that committed the young man to that gaol.

If the Government tells us that we have freedom of assembly we will demonstrate and we will make sure that we demand more freedom, not less. What is wrong with this Government is that it has restricted our freedoms. Let me cite to the House Article 19 of the Declaration pf Human Rights. It reads:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20 reads:

Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

This freedom does not exist in this country.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr N H Bowen:
Attorney-General · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– This is a very important subject. It deals with civil liberties and with the protection of per- sons and property against violent conduct. This Bill is concerned with violent conduct against people and property and that is the only thing that this Bill is directed against. Many honourable members have spoken in this debate. Some of them have been in favour of this Bill, others have advanced criticisms of varying degrees of importance and even of irrelevance but I do not intend to detain the House by dealing with every criticism which has been raised. However, there are some matters which should not be allowed to pass without comment. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and several other honourable members on the other side of the House, including the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen), have suggested that this Bill is unnecessary and that the existing law relating to the protection of diplomatic missions and Commonwealth premises is completely adequate. This certainly is not in fact the position. I want to make that quite clear without spending too much time upon it.

The law in this country with respect to unlawful assembly and riot undoubtedly needs clarification and modification. Obviously there are gaps and inadequacies in the present law, particularly that law which deals with sit-in demonstrations, the harassment of diplomats and the damaging of diplomatic premises. There is no question about this. It was suggested that the provisions of the Crimes Act - the Leader of the Opposition mentioned section 76 - are sufficient to deal with trespass, sit-ins and things of this description. He said that it is inappropriate for the Government to introduce this legislation to deal with this sort of situation. 1 think this assertion which was made by members of the Opposition is due to a misunderstanding of the existing law.

The provisions of section 76 would be completely inappropriate in most of the cases with which this Bill deals. Under that section of the Act it is necessary to prove not merely that there is an obstruction during a sit-in to the discharge of the duties of a Commonwealth officer but that there is an obstruction to the discharge of the duties of his office under a law of the Commonwealth or any duty imposed upon him by any law of the Commonwealth. These are very narrow concepts and entirely alien to the subject matter of this Bill. It is really a lack of understanding of the subject matter which has caused the Leader of the Opposition and those who support him to suggest that section 76 of the Crimes Act or other sections appropriately deal with the subject matter.

Then they said we should leave the law as it is. They have said this quite plainly. They said: ‘Do not change this law: leave it as it is’. Anyone who votes against this Bill and in favour of the law as it is will be voting for life imprisonment for offences committed in the Australian Capital Territory which are covered by the provisions of this legislation. We are reducing the maximum penalty in this Bill to 5 years imprisonment in the case of grievous injury to a person in the course of a riotous assembly, but although this Bill mitigates penalties contained in the existing law the Leader of the Opposition and other honourable members opposite have said in all seriousness: ‘Leave the law as it is. Let us have life imprisonment.’ That is what they want. I suggest this is a complete misunderstanding of the effect and purpose of this Bill.

This Bill will modernise the present law: It will make it clear. It will make it intelligible and it will make it fair and reasonable. No-one can say that the existing Jaw has these attributes. It has been rather sad to hear some of the speeches made by the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) in recent times in this House. I can remember the time when I regarded him as one of the good debaters in this House but when one reads in Hansard the speech which he gave in this House on this Bill one can say only that there is a complete absence of logic and that there is a strange fantasy in his speech. I fear that there has been a decline in the honourable member for Lalor. One thing that he said is that there is no right of free speech in this country. He said further:

Any government can make this country into a police State without changing the law.

This is nonsense. This is Alice in Wonderland talk and it should be nailed. Has the honourable member heard of the factors in our law which protect the rights of the individual? If he has travelled around the world he must know that this is probably the freest of all countries for a citizen at the present time. I have travelled through the countries of the world. I have been to America, the United Kingdom, Canada and other countries, and I venture to suggest that this country is the freest for a citizen of all countries I have visited. Why is that? Has the honourable member not heard of the principles that we observe and which other countries, perhaps some of the less fortunate, do not observe? 1 refer firstly, to the principle of absolute equality of citizens before the law. This is a principle on which we insist. Everyone, whether he is a Minister of the Crown or someone else, is subject to the law. Even if a person’s conscience leads him to think that he can disobey the law he is still subject to the law.

The second principle is the independence of the judiciary. It is all very well to have a guarantee in a constitution. In the 1936 Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics section 125 guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, but after the invasion of Czechoslovakia 3 citizens had placards iri the Red Square which were critical of that invasion and they were prosecuted. Their defence’ was section 125 of the Russian Constitution. One of them suffered a sentence of 2 years exile; one of 5 years; and the other 7 years. That was the result of a constitutional guarantee, but it happened in a state where the philosophy is that the judiciary is an arm of the executive. These things are not understood by the honourable member for Lalor and those who are with him. The real safeguards for citizens of this country are the principle of equality before the law and the independence of the judiciary.

To suggest that we could introduce a police state is a suggestion which could be made only by a man who has never heard of a writ of habeas corpus. If we attempted to detain indefinitely a person without trial - this can happen in a great number of countries at the present time - he could immediately have a writ of habeas corpus taken out before an independent judge to obtain his release. Notwithstanding what the honourable member for Lalor suggests it is impossible to introduce a police state in this country because we do have protection of the rights of personal freedom emanating from wrongful detention. This is ensured by an action for false imprisonment and a writ of habeas corpus. We have the right of freedom of speech which means that any person can write or say what he pleases so long as he does not damage his neighbour or defame him. This is where we come in; we protect the neighbour. This is what this Bill will do. It will protect a man’s neighbour against physical violence and against damage to his property. Everything else is permitted except that, and that is the only thing that this Bill prevents.

The right of public assembly means that people may meet together so long as they do not infringe the laws designed to ensure public order and the recognition of the rights of others. These are the things that we live for in this country. We expect them. They are our tradition. We understand them and we exercise that freedom and enjoy it in this country. It cannot be argued that people in this country have no rights because they are not written into a constitution, for what that is worth. I know a country which has these guarantees in its constitution and where 70,000 cases are awaiting trial. It would take a person 12 to 14 years to get his case before the courts because this guarantee is in the constitution. Thank heavens that is not the position in Australia. Our rights are in fact something that we can exercise day by day by way of actions for damages. If the authority conferred on the police has been exceeded we can bring an action against the police.

We have parliamentary scrutiny of allegations. We do not have to go to a court or a judge who has been appointed for life. We can examine or cross-examine a Minister day by day in the Parliament if there is an infringement. If someone’s premises are entered wrongly we can question a Minister. If there is oppressive conduct this can be displayed and criticised in Parliament and the Press. Ultimately the Minister and his government can be voted out of office. This is not the position if all one has to rely on is words in a constitution and resort to a court appointed for life.

In Australia we can deal with these matters and take action. We can affect it politically. Is this not a great safeguard? In fact, in our system there is freedom. Honourable members can see that this is so if they look around them; they know that this is the position. I am stating a few of these facts to indicate some of the reasons which underlie this legislation. 1 think the honourable member for Lalor ought to appreciate these matters.

The honourable member said that trespass has recently and for the first time been made an offence. Perhaps I should not take too much time on these legal inaccuracies. But really, even the very matter to which he referred - the arrest of the women in Victoria - originally came under the Victorian Police Offences Act 1915. Although the provisions of this Act have certainly been repeated in the Summary Offences Act its origin that it is a trespass if a person is requested to leave premises and refuses to do so goes back to 1915. Other offences in Australia go back to the Police Act of 1869 and the New South Wales Enclosed Protection Act of 1901.

Perhaps I should not take too much time over this but it is utterly ridiculous for the honourable member for Lalor to say that for the first time trespass has been made a penal offence. This is nonsense.

The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) and the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) complained that there was no definition of terms such as ‘offensive’ and insulting’. Really, these are phrases taken from legislation which has been the subject of judicial decision of many, many years. Every lawyer knows what they mean. This is well known. To suggest that this Bill is to be criticised on this kind of basis is a completely fallacious type of criticism.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) said that the Bill is aimed against the right of people to dissent. No person who has read this Bill honestly could make such an assertion. Anyone has the right to dissent. The only thing that this Bill seeks to prevent is violence against the person or damage to property. If either of these 2 elements is missing there is no offence anywhere in this Bill. I defy the Opposition to point out where there is any offence if these elements are missing.

I do not want to detain the House on a Bill which is so manifestly moderate and sensible. It is clear that this Bill will clarify the law; it is clear that the law needs clarification. It is clear that it will simplify the law and that the law needs simplification. The time has come when we should not be relying on Acts which go back to the 14th century in England and which still apply in Australia. ‘ We should not be relying in this day and age on the Riot Act of 1714. We should have a simple, modern law with moderate provisions such as are contained in this Bill.

Finally, this is a Bill which will mitigate the penalties. We have in force in this country these ancient laws where the penalty for tumultuous riot was originally death. Later it was modified to transportation for life and ultimately to life imprisonment. This is what the provision is at the moment. Anyone who votes against this Bill will be voting for the sentence of imprisonment for life to remain as the penalty for these types of riot with which this Bill, amongst other things, will deal. We want to mitigate these penalties and modernise the law. I suggest that if honourable members read this bill honestly they will on reflection support it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 3 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 4 (Definitions).

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– There , are many things that one could say about this Bill. Many of them arise out of a consideration of clause 4, although this is only a definitions clause. Clause 4 does not state anything in itself; it does not prohibit anything in itself. However, it does explain some of the terms that are used in other clauses of the Bill. By way of explaining what I want to say perhaps 1 could mention some of the matters that were touched on by the AttorneyGeneral (Mr N. H. Bowen) in the speech which he just made because they do relate to clause 4.

For example, the Attorney-General used the expression habeas corpus. He took some pride in this. Indeed, we are all proud that habeas corpus will not in any way be interfered with by what this Bill purports to do. I would like to give the Attorney-General one example. This is only a small example but if he looks at clause 23 of the Bill he will see a situation in which a person can be incarcerated for a not inconsiderable time. I put it to him that habeas corpus would not lie. I would like to read to the Attorney-General clause 23. It states: (1.) Offences against this Act, other than an offence against section 7 or section 16, are punishable on summary conviction. (2.) Proceedings for -

  1. the commitment of a person for trial on indictment for an offence against this Act; or
  2. the summary prosecution of an offence against this Act, shall be instituted only with the consent in writing of the Attorney-General.

I will have a lot more to say about this when we come to clause 23. Sub-section (3.) of clause 4 states:

Notwithstanding that a consent has not been given in relation to an offence in accordance with the last preceding sub-section -

a person may be charged with an offence against this Act;

And this Act is full of offences for which heavy savage penalties are provided. The clause continues:

  1. a warrant for the arrest of a person for such an offence may be issued;

That means that he can be brought into custody. He can be taken to the nearest police station. The clause continues:

  1. a person may be arrested for such an offence; and

The same situation applies here. The clause then states:

  1. a person charged with such an offence may be remanded in custody or on bail, but no further step-
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Mr Chairman, is this relevant to clause 4?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! I do not want to interrupt the honourable member but I cannot relate his points to clause 4.

Mr ENDERBY:

– If the Attorney-General wishes to hold me strictly to a relevancy rule I suppose I shall not challenge him on it. However I put this to him: If he looks at clause 23 he will see that there is linked up with the uncertainty that surrounds clause 4 a situation where habeas corpus will not apply and a person can be arrested by a constable of police, incarcerated through a series of remands, and denied bail because perhaps he cannot raise bail or bail might not be allowed in any case. Then the Attorney-General would not give consent for the proceedings to continue and no remedy would lie to that accused person. He would stay in prison for an indeterminate period of time. Where is the much prized remedy of habeas corpus in that situation? That is only a small example of what the Bill seeks to do.

I turn now to clause 4. To understand clause 4 one has to understand what the Bill seeks to do. It seeks to create a number of offences for which we already have laws. The Attorney-General said, incorrectly, that a number of speakers have referred to section 76 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act as touching on the law of trespass. Noone mentioned section 76 in that context. It was section 23 (b) of the Police Offences Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory which creates in a very savage form the crime of trespass in the A.C.T. That was the section that was referred to which puts the burden of proof on the defendant and which has been used time and again with great effect and success by the police force of the A.C.T.

That section is an example of so many other sections that the Bill seeks to duplicate. In Australia we have about 8 or 9 systems of criminal law. That is unfortunate We have systems of criminal law in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania, Queensland, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. Over and above those we have a system of criminal law which is contained in the Commonwealth Crimes Act. All those laws are different. The previous Attorney-General said: ‘We are going to clarify them, simplify them, modernise them and bring them up to date.’ What did the Government do? It created an additional system of criminal law over and above the existing ones. It did not repeal old sections such as section 24 (b) of the Police Offences Act of the Australian Capital Territory. It did not, and cannot, repeal the New South Wales Crimes Act. It did not repeal the Police Offences Act of the Northern Territory. It did repeal some legislation that the British lawyers have repealed and have not reproduced. The Government repealed that, but then it re-enacted it in modern guise and sharpened the teeth of it. It reduced the penalty a little and made it more acceptable, but the legislation is still barbarous.

What the Government did was to graft an additional system of criminal law onto the previously existing 9 systems of criminal law. It did a most peculiar thing. It took little islands throughout the various States - post offices, Commonwealth places and Commonwealth buildings in New South Wales, Tasmania, Victoria or somewhere - and said: ‘Although the States are quite competent to make laws for themselves, we will make an additional Commonwealth law and put it there.’ So a Commonwealth building in George Street, Sydney, is surrounded by State laws. Until this Bill becomes law, State laws made Commonwealth laws by virtue of the Commonwealth processes legislation which was passed by this House some time ago will operate there. Now the Government is grafting onto that an additional system of law. Honourable members opposite talk about clarifying the law ‘and’ making it simple. No-one will know where he is. In clause 4 the Government introduces notions of the vicinity of a building where crimes can be committed. Let us take a Commonwealth place in George Street or Pitt Street in Sydney. How far away from it would one have to be before Commonwealth law ceases to exist and New South Wales law begins? Would it be 50 yards, 100 yards or 200 yards?

The Government makes laws to deal with moving groups of people. Where does one set of laws stop and another one begin? My view is that this Bill was drafted probably before the equally savage piece of legislation, the New South Wales Summary Offences Act 1970, which reproduces all these things, was enacted. It contains trespass provisions which are criminal. It contains all the offences of obstruction which are criminal. It contains all the offences of violence which are criminal. It contains all the offences of damage to property which are criminal. Perhaps for public relations purposes, because the Government was hoist on its own propaganda of 6 months ago and could not get out of it, because it thought a swell was running towards anyone who came forward and talked about law and order, because it had committed itself to do so and could not get out of it, because it had watered the legislation down as much as it could but could not repeal it or because it had committed itself to the idea -I do not know and no-one would know because it is impossible to understand the thinking of the Government - the Government has duplicated and over-lapped the laws. Let me refer to the definition of unreasonable obstruction’ in clause 4 of the Bill. It reads as follows:

Unreasonable obstruction’ means an act or thing done by a person that constitutes, or contributes to, an obstruction of, or interference with, the exercise or enjoyment by other personsof their lawful rights or privileges (including rights of passage along the public streets) where, having regard to all the circumstances of the obstruction or interference, including its place, time, duration and nature, it constitutes an unreasonable obstruction or interference, and ‘unreasonably obstructs’ has a corresponding meaning.

Where is the balance that the Government talks about? It defines one right, the right of free passage, but it does not define the other right of free assembly. The legislation refers to anyone who interferes with one right unless it is reasonable in some way - which leaves a vague concept for the prejudices of a magistrate or a court. It is not for the Opposition to redraft the Bill and make it understandable, but I suggest a possibility for the consideration of the Attorney-General. He might consider putting in after the definition of’unreasonable obstruction’ the words’where, having regard to all the circumstances’-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I would like to continue the remarks of the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby)- not perhaps with his eloquence or clarity - although we are not dealing with a Bill that has anything to do with clarity. The Attorney-General (Mr N. H. Bowen) or his predecessor described the Bill as contributing to clarify as far as the law is concerned. On the question of unreasonable obstruction the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory said that the Bill attempts to define one right, the lawful right of passage along a street. Anything that obstructs that is an unreasonable obstruction. From the definition, an ‘unreasonable obstruction’ means just that: an unreasonable obstruction. One of the main contributions of this legislation and one of the principal reasons why we oppose it is the continuing labouring of the

English language in order to define the indefinable. What exactly do we mean by an unreasonable obstruction? Do we mean the enjoyment, including rights of passage, of a public street?

Is it an unreasonable obstruction if a person displays things for sale in a shop window which create great interest and causes a crowd to gather, thus stopping people moving along the street? Honourable members might say that it is not. After all, the display is there for a purpose. But what is the position if the thing displayed in the window is a nude picture to which honourable members might object or something like that which draws crowds from the Liberal Party and such places? Would that be an unreasonable obstruction? The whole objection to the Bill is embodied in its terminology. It is not good English. It is not a good definition. The honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory has worked out a definition. I do not know whether one can define these things. An unreasonable obstruction is just that. But the whole system that is being perpetrated is unreasonable. 1 wish that honourable members opposite would stop and take a look at the ordinary rights to which people in the community are heirs. It is true that the right of lawful passage seems to have become much more of an inalienable right than the right to lots of other things. There are all sorts of ways of going around when somebody blocks a street, but there are no ways of giving out a leaflet in certain areas if one is prevented from doing it because, it is considered to be an unreasonable obstruction. On the evidence 1 have from visiting courts of law and watching the results, particularly in the lower courts, I believe that there is no possibility of justice of any sort flowing from language such as this or a law such as this. Therefore the whole law ought to be rejected. But I believe that, as the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory has said, we are labouring the point; we are attempting to graft on to existing legislation systems of public relations which are completely irrelevant. 1 would like the Minister to explain exactly what he means by the definition of ‘unrea sonable obstruction’ and why he needs to labour such simple straightforward terms as that for simple unstraightforward magistrates who are perhaps to interpret them.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– I might just finish the point I tried to make before my time expired. It is that in his second reading speech the former Attorney-General spoke of balance of interests. Presumably the interests he had in mind were the right of free assembly, the right of someone to communicate a political point of view, a social comment, to someone else not by writing letters to the Press, not by someone perhaps standing up in this House as I stand up now, but in other ways - demonstrating, displaying placards, speaking at street corners, associating with his fellows or things of that sort. As against that, the former Attorney-General spoke of the right of citizens to go about their normal business - to drive their motor cars, to walk the streets unhindered and so forth’. There can be a conflict of this sort in our society; there is no doubt about it. But how can it be called a reconciliation of that conflict when the Bill defines one right and does not define the other? This is what the definition of ‘unreasonable obstruction’ has done.

The Bill uses vague terms like ‘unreasonable’, which are indeterminate references. They open up all sorts of vague uncertainties which probably should not be used in the criminal law in any event. In civil law, as we know, such terms are used and have been used for hundreds of years. It has only been in recent times that we have begun to fool around and tinker with this idea of reasonableness in the criminal law. Perhaps there is a better way, and I am suggesting that there is a better way. That better way is to spell out, as other systems of law have done - not the systems that the Attorney-General mentioned but the United States system and indeed our own system - the competing interests and then to direct the court to reconcile the 2 in the sense of holding the scales evenly, and so forth. I will read out my suggestion again and perhaps the Attorney-General can follow me. In that definition we create the right by saying: unreasonable obstruction’ means an act or thing done by a person that constitutes, or contributes to an obstruction of, or interference with, the exercise or enjoyment by other persons of their lawful rights or privileges (including rights of passage along the public streets)-

I stop there to say: Excellent. The Bill has touched on one person’s rights, the right of free passage along the streets. One would hope that the clause would then go on to talk about the alternative right of communicating political ideas. I am sorry if the Attorney-General looks puzzled. If what I am suggesting is novel to him I apologise for intruding on what might be conservative thinking. But the fact is that we go on to look for the alternative and to see where in that definition is to be spelt out the right of free assembly, the right to communicate ideas, the right to try to persuade people in a peaceful way. Ali that the Bill does is to say that a person commits an offence unless what he has done is reasonable.

Given that the Government has spelt out one right and left the other as a sort of residue, is it not only human nature for the magistrate, with the ordinary prejudices of humankind, to say: ‘What is reasonable must be read in the context of the paramount right, the primary right, which is the right of free passage’. That is the one on which the Government has concentrated and the one about which Government supporters have spoken. As 1 said, it is not for us on this side of the chamber to spell out an alternative, to amend the Act and make it as we would like to make it, because that would not make it what we really want. It is beyond that stage. I have a suggestion to illustrate the point. I suggest that there be put after the words ‘having regard to all the circumstances’ words such as these: . . including a proper consideration of the right and enjoyment of persons to peaceful assembly and peaceful protest and the public communication of ideas and social comment and a proper balancing of the interests they represent, it constitutes an unreasonable obstruction . . .

If that is done and a magistrate is called upon later on to read a definition of chat sort he will be able to see that Parliament has directed its attention to 2 competing interests and that it has directed its attention also to the importance of the magistrate achieving a balance between those 2 competing interests. If he is to see whether an offence has been made out he has to weigh them and, in a judicial manner, give effect to them. But the Bill has not done that. It has emphasised one interest, the one that ignores civil liberty. That one has been given paramountcy and primacy. The Government then says that anything left after that, to a perhaps non-political person or a person who attaches little importance to these rights, is left over for the person who wants to persuade people that his point of view is right and who wants to exercise his full rights in a modern democracy. That is the point I make, lt is an illustration of the faults in the definitions clause, in my submission, and it h of course one that continues like a black thread - not a golden thread - through this entire bill.

Mr N H Bowen:
AttorneyGeneral · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have listened to the comments of the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) and the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) on the definitions clause, particularly on the definition of ‘unreasonable obstruction’ but I point out to them that the only thing which is prevented is an obstruction which interferes with the lawful rights or privileges of other persons. A person is free to do anything else. Therefore there is only an exclusion. This has been the philosophy of the English law throughout our history. We have never set out to state the positive right, as the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory would desire, because we have realised the pitfalls that there are in this. You submit to the tyranny of words once you try to define a right. Indeed, the experience of countries which have attempted to state in a statutory form the individual’s positive right has been that they have succeeded in confining it. We do not confine it except to eliminate from the entire area of freedom this tiny corner where people are violent or are interfering with the rights of other people. Otherwise they are free. I suggest that this is a much more liberal way of dealing with this situation than what the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory suggests.

Finally I would point out, without delaying the Committee unduly, on what is a conflict in philosophy, that what is reasonable is to be determined by a court, and what is reasonable in terms of this type of activity is the common thing on which a court makes a determination. The courts are dealing with this every day, determining what is the standard of a reasonable and, in some instances, a prudent man. The courts are familiar with this concept. This is a thing which they can determine on the facts. Again in the definition, to make sure that the position of the demonstrator, the dissenter, or the person who is assembling or obstructing a street is safeguarded, it is said that regard must be had to all the circumstances of the obstruction or interference, including its place, time, duration and nature before a determination can be made that an act constitutes an unreasonable interference with the rights of others. Otherwise it is free. I suggest that this definition is not fairly the subject of the criticism which has been levelled at it.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I wish to make two points. One concerns the proposition put up by the AttorneyGeneral (Mr N. H. Bowen) that no necessity exists to define certain freedoms by certain positive statements because he considers that the method that always has been used in this country to be the more liberal way. I hope that Hansard when reporting that part of the Attorney-General’s speech will spell ‘liberal’ with a capital ‘L

The proposition that I wish to put to the Attorney-General is this: In clause 14 of this Bill positive statements are made as far as certain rights, freedoms and dignities in respect of protected persons are concerned. Apparently protected persons in this country in turn are entitled to certain freedoms and dignities. I have no objection to that. I certainly object to the proposition that apparently non-protected persons in this country are not entitled to those freedoms and dignities. Surely it is up to the Government to protect the freedom of the general population to the same extent as it is prepared to protect these specially declared people under this Bill.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– The Attorney-General (Mr N. H. Bowen) has much more faith than I have in the lower courts which will be making judgments in respect of this provision. I do not know what his experience in that field is. It may be ample, although I would expect that he has probably been appearing in a rarer atmosphere over recent years, f refer- to the recent incident in Victoria where a magistrate had to interpret the law in respect of people who were giving out leaflets in a building in Melbourne. What was the situation? Five women were giving out leaflets in a building in Melbourne. They were charged under a Victorian law. Let us presume that the law is there and that, therefore, it ought to be applied. The matter came before the court and the magistrate, as I understand it, had the power either to fine those women up to $500 or order them to serve 6 months in prison. He judged that case on the kind of judgment that the Attorney-General expects a magistrate to use. The magistrate sentenced those people to 14 days gaol. Now, on no reasonable ground could one sentence people of that sort to imprisonment for an offence of that kind, no matter how big the leaflets were or how vigorously they denounced the Government.

As 1 have pointed out in this House before, my office is not far from the Pentridge Prison. Practically every day that I am in my office I come across instances of people needing to be bailed out of that prison. In most cases these people have either had a prohibitive bail fixed by the justice of the peace or the magistrate or been discharged when, in the end, the term of imprisonment for the offence is challenged before a higher court. I do not believe that we should place upon magistrates courts, justices of the peace or any other body of that type the requirement to make the kind of judgment that the AttorneyGeneral is asking them to make in this instance, particularly in an area of public controversy such as this. I believe that we are trespassing into an area in which the Parliament, instead of being prohibitive, inhibitive and restrictive, ought to be protecting people’s rights as my friend from the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) and my friend from Prospect (Dr Klugman) said. We should not be trying to restrict those rights.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (When assembly is ‘in relation to’ protected premises or a protected person)

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– The Opposition opposes clause 5. It is a little unusual to oppose a clause containing this type of definition, but we do so for a reason which must be viewed in this context: Many of the offences that are created by the Bill have as an essential element the fact that certain conduct or something of this type happens in relation to protected premises. Clause 5 dennes ‘protected premises’ and ‘protected person’. On the face of it, it reads all right. Clause 5 commences:

For the purposes of this Act-

And whatever benefit comes from the first part is taken away by the second part on which 1 have put emphasis: . . but without limiting the operation of this Act-

  1. an assembly is in relation to protected premises if persons in the assembly are on protected premises, or are at a place in the vicinity of protected premises by reason of the fact that that place is in the vicinity of those protected premises; and
  2. an assembly is in relation to a protected person if persons in the assembly are at a place by reason of the fact that a protected person is present at or in the vicinity of that place.

I leave aside the ambiguity and the uncertainty of his clause to which I have objected already. The clause says: ‘All right, an assembly is in relation to something or other, if people are there because the premises are . there’. One would think not otherwise. One would think - this was my first impression on reading it - that the bystander or the passer-by who may have been a part of the assembly but who was just walking by and was not there, because a particular embassy was there but because he was going home, would not be caught up in any offence in relation to the protected premises. That seems to make sense.

But I refer honourable members to what is buried at the back of the Bill. Clause 5 is prominent. Perhaps it is window dressing right at the beginning of the Bill. But in clause 21 we find a provision that appears to destroy any goodness that may have been achieved, or contemplated or intended to deceive people by clause 5. The Opposition will be saying something about clause 21 (1.) later. Clause 21 (1.) must be read in association with clause 5. Clause 21 (1.) states:

In the proceedings arising out of this Part-

There is no limiting factor here because clause 5 refers to the whole of the Bill, and the second Part concerns offences related to embassies and buildings of that sort: . . evidence that persons taking part in an assembly were at a place in the vicinity of pro tected premises, or were at a place at which, or in the vicinity of which, a protected person was present, is evidence that those persons were at that place by reason of the fact that it was in the vicinity of the protected premises, or by reason of the fact that the protected person was present at or in the vicinity of that place, as the case may be.

Clause 21 (1.) completely destroys any goodness that the Bill might have sought to achieve by clause 5 because it states: ‘If you are there, in effect you are deemed to have been there because the assembly was in the vicinity of protected premises’. This brings clause 5 into play. One is there in relation to protected premises. That is the effect. Some may say that is a slight exaggeration. I do not think it is. I appreciate that it can be argued both ways. One thing is abundantly clear. If a defendant or accused person wishes to show that that is not the case that person must go into the witness box, say so and be believed. This means a reversal of the burden of proof principle. The burden is on the accused. In other words, the traditional concept in criminal law of the Crown having to make out a prima facie case is destroyed and removed. We oppose clause 5 because, read in conjunction with clause 21 (1.), it is meaningless. There is nothing good in it.

We also say that the concept of an assembly being at a place in the vicinity of protected premises is dishonest. Heaven knows how far away this is. It is indeterminate, ill-defined and unanswered notwithstanding all the speeches made on this point. If the provisions in any branch of the law should be certain, certainly any provisions introduced in relation to the criminal law, as this Bill proposes to do, should be certain. As I have said, this concept is wide and uncertain and, as I have asked, how far down Pitt Street does one need to go before one leaves the area of application of Commonwealth law and enters the area in which New South Wales law, with its different principles and different penalties, applies? Those are the principal reasons why the Opposition opposes clause 5.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– To illustrate the argument put by the Opposition in relation to clause 5 one needs only to take the example of the situation in Canberra outside the South African Embassy. There, a number of people have been on, what we might term, vigil for some weeks. If there are 10 of those people present and 2 people are walking by, we have the necessary dozen persons to be classified as an assembly. As my friend from the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) points out in relation to clause 21 (1.), the point is not made that the passersby taken before a court were not there to demonstrate outside the South African Embassy. As far as I can see from the reading of this Bill the prosecution has to prove only that they were there. The fact that they were there is proof that they were there for the purposes of the Act. I believe this is a very dangerous attitude. Does not the Attorney-General (Mr N. H. Bowen) understand how the law operates in situations where there are lots of people involved and where the police, if they have this reasonable apprehension; can take action against a crowd? Dozens of innocent bystanders are picked up and taken off to prisons and lockups every Saturday night. Does the Attorney-General not know that? Does he never go into the cities and suburbs where this kind’ of operation takes place of a Saturday night? Reasonable apprehension in the eyes of the police in these cases is often satisfied by the fact that there are people present. The people are picked up and taken off.

Do not say it does not happen and do not say it does not happen every Saturday night in the major cities of Australia. This is what could happen outside the South African Embassy. In Canberra we have dozens of protected places. All along Mugga Way there are protected places. If any people assemble in these areas for any purpose at all they may well be charged under this proposed law. My objection, apart from an objection to the whole approach of the Government, is that where we have an area of law which has to be interpreted by police on the spot and by magistrates in the courts it is almost inevitable that serious injustices and hardships will flow to innocent people and we should not tolerate this.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– This clause dealing with protected premises and protected persons is the beginning of the most objectionable part of the Bill as I see it because to my mind this is the main new feature in this legislation. I am not a lawyer but as I understand it all the other aspects have in fact been covered pre viously in other legislation. This is a new type of legislation. May I in passing make the point to the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) that an assembly is defined in this Bill as not less than 3 persons, not 12. The definition in the Bill reduces an assembly to not less than 3. Clause 5 must be read in conjunction with clauses 17 and 18. I am referring now more to protected persons than protected premises. In clause 17 we find that persons taking part in an assembly are breaking the law and that certain directions can be given if offences are committed against clauses 1 8 or 20.

Clause 18 is the objectionable clause. Clause 1 8 (c) states that where a person behaves in an offensive or insulting manner towards a protected person he is punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding $250 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months, or both. The AttorneyGeneral has said that it is quite clear what is offensive and what is insulting. I put to him that it is not clear. I would like some definition of these terms because their meaning is not obvious. There is political opposition to the point of view expressed by the Government as to what can be considered insulting or offensive to a protected person. I cannot see any reason why an amendment cannot be written into this legislation. It is quite obvious that if an anti-apartheid meeting is taking place and a South African protected person is in the vicinity of that meeting he could be insulted or offended by the sort of statements made at that meeting. If a protected person from the . Republic of China had been in this chamber when the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) referred to the Republic of China as Taiwan China he would obviously be offended and insulted because he does not like to have his country referred to as Taiwan China. The Prime Minister then would be a person who is behaving in an offensive or insulting manner and would be guilty of an offence.

I suggest that any sort of political meeting dealing with the affairs of other countries can be broken up by bringing a protected person into the vicinity of that meeting. When the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), who has just left this House, attends a meeting during Captive Nations Week, as he does each year and good luck to him, I am sure that the sort of statements that will be made by him and others present at the meeting will be offensive and insulting to the protected persons from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I have no objection to people making those statements. I think the Minister will agree, and if he does not I hope he will explain why I am wrong, that it would be possible for a protected person from the USSR to be in the vicinity of that meeting during Captive Nations Week. I take it that when an assembly marches, and anywhere on the street would be regarded as in the vicinity, then any persons taking part in that assembly or speaking to the assembly could be charged under this legislation.

Surely it must be obvious that none of us, and I hope no honourable member on the Government side, means this, legislation to imply that we cannot criticise policies of other governments. It must be possible for the parliamentary draftsmen to draft some clause which quite clearly deletes any reference to political opposition being treated as being insulting or offensive. I put it to the Attorney-General that he should consider this. I would be interested to get his opinion on this particular proposition when he is replying to the debate.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– In regard to clause 5 I presume it is the intention of the Government to do something about law and order because of the Government’s own inadequacies in this field. One can realise what is happening here by looking at this Bill against the background of the actions of the Government and the misuse of a Government department during a peaceful Moratorium Campaign demonstration outside this House last year, as a result of which we had in this House some rather childish and emotional speeches by the former Deputy Prime Minister who is now not concerned with this matter, but who, prior to leaving this House, committed the Government to do something as a result of pressure from some small thinking back bench members of the Government. We have now a small Prime Minister and truculence is a characteristic of small people.

I refer now to the clause under discussion, to the manner in which it has been presented and to the former Attorney-General’s second reading speech. Magistrates generally will be required to try people in the community who are apprehended by the police and they will no doubt say: ‘We are here, of course, to hear the submissions made on your behalf. We are not the legislators; we have not made the law. We are merely here to carry out the terms of the law in relation to punishment. They are guided then perhaps by the legislation itself and some may take it upon themselves to acquaint themselves with the second reading speech of the former Attorney-General. They may, of course, in their mad moments decide to read the second reading speech in which the former Attorney-General says:

An assembly is defined . . .

I support the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) who corrected a previous speaker - . . to mean an assembly of not less than 3 persons who are assembled for a common purpose, whether or not other persons are assembled with them and whether the assembly is at a particular place or moving. This follows in essence the common law concept of what is an assembly.

As far as I am concerned there is no necessity for such a definition in this Bill at all. Mr Chairman, I know you will probably pull me up if I transgress and move away from this particular clause we are dealing with. The honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Brown), who made a second second reading speech in this House last night, complimented his colleague the honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley), who made his maiden speech in the debate on this Bill because he was a legal eagle. That may be so, but coming down to common ground, we see the stupidity of this clause. Some lad, perhaps with long hair and dressed in the garb of the day for young people, may have entered the building which houses the Department of Labour and National Service in regard to a matter concerned with the National Service Act. He may have come out of the building to use the telephone and two more people may line up behind him in order to use the telephone. Under this Bill a policeman has the right to act in this regard.

Do not try to push it down my throat, as the Attorney-General or any one of his colleagues may well try to do later in this chamber, and say that in fact the Government would not do that, because we have witnessed the result of demonstrations in this country, and I am not referring to the extreme type of demonstrations to which a reasonably minded citizen could object. I am referring to the demonstrators who in fact feel keenly and as a matter of conscience about the war in Vietnam. As a result of the stupidity of the Government in committing the young people of this nation to the war in Vietnam, some young, people feel that they ought to object to the war. As an ex-serviceman who has gone away to serve this country, I object to it too. But coming back more closely to the Bill, the Government here is providing the situation for legal persecution of members of the public who want to think that they ought to have the right to demonstrate.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– Order! 1 point out to the honourable member foi Sturt that the term ‘protected persons’ mentioned in this clause relates to protected premises, diplomatic missions, special missions and consular posts. The honourable member’s illustration and hi* comment regarding assembly relate more to clause 3 which has already been discussed and voted on by this Committee. The matters raised by the honourable member do not relate to clause 5.

Mr FOSTER:

– Mr Chairman, 1 bad expected you to point that out to me much earlier. But as clause 3 had been discussed I wanted to make my point in regard to this question. What then is the difference in this? What is the difference in the remarks I have been making? Under the terms of this Bill the Government is providing for legal persecution of people who are going about what I and most reasonable members of the community would regard as a lawful pursuit and pursuing a lawful purpose. All right, I will not refer to the building in which the Department of Labour and National Service is housed; I will refer merely to a foreign legation or something of that sort.

There is a public telephone near the South African Embassy. Tf one of the people who are standing outside that Embassy at the moment - it has been under surveillance by members of the public for a number of weeks as a result of what has happened and as a result of this Government’s attitude to a number of matters that are now current so far as South Africa is concerned - walks into the telephone booth and if two of his mates or two innocent members of the public line up outside to use that telephone, will the Attorney-General stand up in this chamber and deny that under the terms of this Bill a policeman cannot grab them, once this Bill is passed by this Parliament?

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Of course he could not.

Mr FOSTER:

– That is all right. The Government puts the onus of proof on the kid whom the policeman grabs. That is what it does. Then it puts the onus on the magistrate who is hearing the charge in a lower court of this country, tf the AttorneyGeneral tells me that there is any justice in the lower courts of this country, then I will agree with what the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) said a moment ago, that the Attorney-General has never stood in a lower court in this country for a great many years. Tf in fact he stood in them in his younger days he would have seen some of the people who front up in lower courts on Saturday mornings. Some of them appear in a most deplorable condition. I witnessed this in Adelaide only a few weeks ago and I felt ashamed. That is what the Government is doing in this country. It is putting the onus on the magistrate who in fact will take ;;s a guide this so-called legislation that is now before chamber. The Government is doing no more than that.

The Attorney-General may get up and say that a young fellow has the right of appeal, that he has the right to go and get a legal eagle to represent him - he has a whole host of rights. But does he have these rights if he does not have the financial resources? If one can deduce that there is little or no justice in the lower courts and that there is justice only in the higher courts, one may add the rider that if one has sufficient finance one can avail oneself of the justice which may or may not exist iri the higher courts. I put it to the Attorney-General that the Government is here attempting to force through this chamber a Bill which I think. would have no parallel in the British Commonwealth of Nations. It is no good including in a second reading speech reference to the fact that this Bill replaces some aspects of British law going back to 1300. I suggest to the Attorney-General that he ought to read The Rum Rebellion’, if he has not read it, and then come back and relate it to what he is doing tonight. That is exactly as the matter stands, and I oppose the clause.

Question put:

That the clause be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 43

NOES: 41

Majority . . .. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (Assemblies involving violence, or apprehension of violence).

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– Sub-clause (1.) of this clause includes this heartening evidence of the justice of honourable members opposite:

Where persons taking part in an assembly that is in a Territory or is wholly or partly on Commonwealth premises conduct themselves, in the Territory or on the Commonwealth premises, in a way that gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that the assembly will be carried on in a manner involving unlawful physical violence to persons or unlawful damage to property, each of those persons is guilty of an offence, punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding Two hundred and fifty dollars or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or both.

I take it that a person charged with an offence could be charged in a lower court. I ask my legal adviser, the AttorneyGeneral (Mr N. H. Bowen) whether that is the position. I note that the Minister nods his assent. The principle upon which I propose to look at any legislation which conies before the Parliament-

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– Order!

Mr BRYANT:

- Mr Chairman, honourable members opposite make a greater contribution to parliamentary government when they are asleep or outside. I am asking honourable members to look at the simple proposition that no person on his own unaided judgment or unqualified judgment should be able to send another person to prison. For too long we have permitted legislation-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The level of conversation in the chamber is too high. I would suggest that if honourable members want to continue discussions at their present volume they go outside of the chamber to do so.

Mr BRYANT:

– I am putting the proposition, as a principle of law, that no person should be able to send another person to prison. This means that in a lower court where only a magistrate or a justice of the peace is sitting, he should not be able to impose prison sentences. If a prison sentence of 1 day, 20 years or life is to be inflicted on a person, this should be a matter for a jury. In the past it may well have been that people regarded prison sentences lightly. I have never heard or thought that that was so. I believe that a prison sentence of no matter what length is a completely different quality of punishment from a fine or anything else and we should not, in our judicial system, tolerate the imprisonment of one man by another. I put this as a proposition on which we should base all legal questions in this place. I will not argue the verbiage of the clause. My friend, the member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby), is probably better qualified to do that, but, as I have pointed out on many occasions, from the evidence that I and my friends have seen of judgments in the lower courts we must not allow to continue a system wherein one man can, on his own unqualified judgment, send another person to prison.

I am a firm believer in the jury system, lt has been tested over the centuries. Imprisonment is of such a quality of punishment that it should be regarded as a most serious matter to’ send a person to prison for even one day. We must not tolerate legislation of this nature on our statute books.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capita] Territory

– The Opposition opposes sub-clause (1.) of clause 6 but not subclause (2.) although I propose to express some remarks critical of sub-clause (2.). I think it is as well for me to read sub-clause (1.) because it does provide for an important departure from normal standards of criminal law. It reads thus: .

Where persons taking part in an assembly-

And this could be as few as 3 people - that is in a Territory or is wholly or partly on Commonwealth premises conduct themselves, i:i the Territory or on the Commonwealth premises, in a way that gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that the assembly will be carried on in a manner involving unlawful physical violence to persons or unlawful damage to property, each of those persons is guilty of an offence, punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding Two hundred and fifty dollars or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or both.

The gravamen of the offence is not doing something of violence, nor is it damaging property. The essence of the offence is what somebody else thinks about the 3 people who may be assembled together. In other words, what is taken as the essential element is the state of a man’s mind. It is axiomatic and fundamental when laws are made that behaviour is punished. If a man hits another person on the nose it is an offence as long as he intends doing it. However, he is not punished for what another man thinks. This is what sub clause (1.) creates: It is the apprehended violence in the mind of someone else. He may be an idiot. He may have a neurosis or a persecution complex. He is not even required to be a policeman. He may be any idiot walking along a street who says: ‘I apprehend violence because I see 3 people together’, or T apprehend that damage will be done to property’.

In my experience, which I do not think is limited, I know of only one section in one criminal statute - section 547 of the New South Wales Crimes Act, if anyone wishes to look it up - where there is anything remotely resembling the crime of apprehended violence. Even there it is calculated to meet the situation where if a person is threatened by a neighbour and fears him he can go to the court and get a binding-over order. However, he has to do that and the apprehended violence must be his. That is reasonable. That section is rarely used because it is so difficult to enforce. People are not put in gaol for this offence; binding-over orders are obtained. Sub-clause (1.) of clause 6 of this Bill goes further because it says that a person can be fined $250 or imprisoned for 3 months, or both, because of what someone else thinks he may be going to do. I ask honourable members to pause and reflect on this. Because of what someone else thinks a person is going to do that person can be arrested, brought before a magistrate’s court, put to expense, fined $250 and imprisoned for 3 months. I ask honourable members to reflect on the barbaric nature of such a law. The person who is arrested may not have done what another apprehended he might do.

I point out - and this touches on what the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) said - that this is not an indictable offence. It will be left to the decision of a single man - a magistrate. He may be a good magistrate; he may be a bad magistrate. But the jury system has that one great virtue. We have done away with the jury system too much in this country. We have watered it down. It has been abused perhaps, by lawyers, so it is said, and I do not seek to argue that here and now. But the jury system was an ideal. It was written into section 80 Of the Constitution. It has been watered down by a decision of the High Court which has been criticised by a number of learned authors.

I just want to read something to honourable members. I do not want to be legalistic about this but it is from two of the greatest jurists this country has ever produced, Sir Owen Dixon and Mr Justice Evatt, as he then was. lt was a dissenting judgment in the case of the King v. Federal Court of Bankruptcy ex parte Lowenstein, dealing with trials by jury. It read:

The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be jury.’

This is a reference to the section in the Constitution. It continues:

In this formula the difficulty lies not in the words ‘any offence’ but in the words ‘trial on indictment.’

This is because unfortunately the Parliamentary Draftsman put it that way and Parliament can come along now and create an offence that is not trial on indictment and in that way get it before a magistrate. That is the way we have watered down the ideal that is expressed in the American Constitution and that we, through shoddy draftsmanship - that is all it comes to - allowed to escape from us. The Americans have it firmly built into their Constitution. We allowed our Parliament to get away from it. These two learned judges went on to say: if there be an indictment, there must be a jury; but there is nothing to compel procedure by indictment.’ It is a queer intention to ascribe to a constitution; for it supposes that the concern of the framers of the provision was not to ensure that no one should be held guilty of a serious offence against the laws of the Commonwealth except by the verdict of a jury, but to prevent a procedural solecism, namely, the use of an indictment in cases where the legislature might think fit to authorise the court itself to pass upon the guilt or innocence of the prisoner.

I ask honourable members to listen carefully to this next passage. It reads:

There is high authority for the proposition that the Constitution is not to be mocked.’ A cynic might, perhaps, suggest the possibility that section 80 was drafted in mockery; that its language was carefully chosen so that the guarantee it appeared on the surface to give should be in truth illusory. No court could countenance such a suggestion, and, if this explanation is rejected and an intention to produce some real operative effect is conceded to the section, then to say that its application can always be avoided by authorising the substitution of some other form of charge for an indictment seems but to mock at the provision. But, even if this means of avoidance be allowable, what is meant by an indictment?

The passage then goes on to argue that an indictment does not mean what the majority of that High Court - it was 3 to 2 against, they were in the minority - said it meant. But they end up by saying:

What then is the essence of a ‘trial upon indictment’ which section 80 insists shall be by jury? For ourselves-

This is Sir Owen Dixon and Mr Justice Evatt- we should have thought that to find an answer it was necessary to look for the substantial elements common to the recognised forms of procedure so called and going to make up the conception of prosecution upon indictment. We think that the first of them would be seen to be that some authority constituted under the law to represent the public interest for the purpose took the responsibility of the step which put the accused on his trial;

They go on to say:

We should not have taken the view that section 80 was intended to impose no real restriction upon the legislative power to provide what kind of tribunal shall decide the guilt or innocence on a criminal charge.

In other words, they were critical of what this Government does time and time again and has done consistently since it came to power many, many years ago by not having jury trials and by creating more and more offences, making them summary offences and putting them into the hands of the courts of petty sessions to be tried by a single magistrate, be he a good man or a bad man but a human being just the same. There is authority of the highest kind saying it should not be done unless the offence is a serious offence because no man, as the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) said, should be deprived of his liberty unless 12 good men and true - his peers, if you like - check every possibility, bring with them the wisdom of the streets, say yea or nay and give him the benefit of the doubt. Yet time and time again we create these summary offences.

That is the principal reason why we oppose clause 6 (1.). It creates an offence, the essence of which is the state of another man’s mind. Even in the civil law, as the Attorney-General (Mr N. H. Bowen) knows, the civil courts are reluctant to give damages for nervous shock - for the state of another man’s mind - and yet here he enacts a criminal statute with a penalty of $150 or 3 months or. both for what somebody else thinks is going to happen even if it does not happen. And with a savage penalty like that he does not give the accused person the safeguard of a jury trial. As far as clause 6 (2.) is concerned I will simply say that it talks of an offence without lawful excuse. No-one has told this House yet that as far as lawful excuse is concerned it is not for the Crown or the prosecution to prove the absence of lawful excuse. Honourable members might think it does. They might think the burden of proving guilt always rests on the Crown. No-one has told this House that section 21c of the Commonwealth Crimes Act puts such a burden directly and squarely on the defendant.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I can understand the groans and moans coming from Government supporters when I rise to speak on these matters. I can understand that they are not in the least interested in legislation that cuts down the rights of others, rights which they from their positions of eminence no longer regard as necessary. This is an example-

Mr Brown:

– Who is the-

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I am thinking of men like the simple member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly), whose simplicity is becoming rather too obvious. This clause is yet another way ki which the rights of free assembly are being curtailed. Earlier tonight I heard the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) quoting evidence that in this country we have no rights of assembly. Freedom of assembly in this country is on sufferance of the Government, State or Federal, which has power to cut it down or destroy it at any minute. When I said that we would not need an additional line in the legislation in Australia to establish a police state I meant precisely this. There is enough power in the law for a police state to be established in this country if the will of the Government and the circumstances appropriate for it were there. We would not need additional law.

The thing that concerns me about the lawyers on the Government side and elsewhere who accept this kind of legislation is that this seems to make no appeal to them as something that should not be. I heard the Attorney-General (Mr N. H. Bowen) saying earlier that this Bill was really directed at violence. I dispute this completely. I think this clause is a perfect example of something which contradicts the position taken by the AttorneyGeneral, a position which I think may be taken by the Attorney-General and by others in an attempt to justify to themselves legislation of this kind. This clause 6 (1.) creates an offence out of an impression that one would give to somebody else. It does not create an overt act of violence to a person or to property, it creates as an offence some conduct which would give an impression to somebody else or which would create a state of mind or a reasonable apprehension in somebody else. It does not create an offence of actually doing something that may be violent. That is why I say that this Bill is not directed at violence. The essential core of the offence here is what someone else thinks about another person and what someone else thinks about another person in the context of an unlawful assembly of 3 persons or more. In that assembly if there are some people, and perhaps it could be only a few - perhaps it could be only one - who give a magistrate reasonable apprehension of violence everybody in that assembly can be found guilty.

Dr Klugman:

– They could be agents provocateur put in by the Government.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Yes. Everybody can be guilty. As soon as the demonstration of violence is created in or around the assembly or as soon as evidence given, perhaps, by the police can suggest to a magistrate a reasonable apprehension then everybody - and perhaps there are hundreds who have done nothing whatever to contribute to that atmosphere - can be found guilty of the offence.

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– That is not so.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The Attorney-General says that is not right. My impression of the law and the application of the law is that this is so. Even if an assembly is not unlawful under this clause there is still power in the Bill for a member of the police force to act against the assembly, to act against anybody in it and to use appropriate violence and even severe violence in order to disperse that assembly. If a member of the police force acts in this way he is acting against persons, and the probability of arrest is high. The probability of the arrest of someone who has taken no part in the assembly is high. I do not know how much experience the Attorney-General has had in this field. I have had a lot of experience in this field and I know of many people who have been arrested in circumstances akin to those people who bad not done anything, who had not contributed to any atmosphere of violence and who took no part in the assembly. I know from my own knowledge dozens of people who have been arrested and charged. It is of no use for the Attorney-General to tell me that this is not so. I have seen it happen on dozens of occasions.

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Yes, but have you read the clause?

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I know all about the clause and I am saying that under this clause it is possible that this will happen again. The provisions of this clause will hang over every assembly within the defined areas and I will guarantee that if they are ever applied it will be to some extent in this way. I know how the law is applied. I know more about the way the law is applied than quite a number of legal men who only come into the courts long after the incident has occurred and who have probably never in their lives witnessed the occurrence at the time it occurred. I say that with all due respect. I am not saying that there has been any failure on their part in not having that experience but this is what happens.

The second point I would like to make in relation to this clause is that I do not think we should give to one man - a magistrate - power to determine the guilt of a person- for a crime punishable by imprisonment for 12 months. The honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) has related this to the development of the law. He argued that there is a tendency today to increase the number of offences and the severity of punishment for those offences that can be determined by summary jurisdiction by a magistrate but which ought to be classified as indictable offences. I do not believe that any human being in Australia - perhaps it would be all right in some recognised police state - should be placed in a position where he can be tried by one man and sentenced by the same man for up to 12 months.

Mr Killen:

– lt happens in South Australia.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Does it now?

Mr Killen:

– Yes, it does. There are quite a number of Acts.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I do not agree with those Acts. Surely the honourable member for Moreton is not implying that because this happens in South Australia it is a contention against my argument. It should not happen even in South Australia, and it certainly should not happen here. To me this seems to be totally disproportionate. Australia in the year 1971 does not need this sort of thing. I am astonished an disappointed that men such as the 2 legal gentlemen who are sitting opposite me think that Australia does need this sort of law. 1 want to make a final point about subclause (2.) of clause 6. What sort of lawful excuse would a person need against a charge under this clause? What sort of lawful excuse does the Attorney-General consider a court would be willing to accept? The Attorney-General has been telling us a lot about the way in which our liberties have been defined and enlarged under the provisions of this Bill, but what sort of lawful excuse would he expect a court to accept as a defence as set out in sub-clause (2.) of clause 6? I find it difficult to accept-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– As the Opposition has already lost the argument that this Bill is unnecessary 1 will address my remarks to this clause which the Attorney-General has been so adamant is essential and necessary because there is no other adequate law. I agree with my colleague the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) that what is being introduced is being done on the basis that there is insufficient law to deal with the subject matter. The Attorney-General said that the English law is too harsh and unreasonable and therefore we must amend the law. What the Government is attempting to do is to introduce a law which is more harsh and more unreasonable than the existing law. The New South Wales Summary Offences Act makes provision for this type of offence. The penalty under that Act is less than the penalty in this Bill. Under British law the penalty for an unlawful assembly is lighter than the one in this Bill. The Attorney-General’s argument that we are only introducing this Bill to mitigate a harsh penalty which goes back to the 16th or 17 century is wrong.

Prom the point of view of the logic of the situation clause 6 deals in the main with Commonwealth premises. If we apply this clause to the State of New South Wales where I come from we would have the ridiculous situation that under the Summary Offences Act where an assembly in the street becomes unlawful a penalty could be imposed. If by some means the assembly gamed entry into a Commonwealth building and there was a reasonable apprehension of violence the persons offending would be subject to another penalty. This is crazy from any point of view. I think the Attorney-General will be the first to agree with me on this matter. If the premise is that there is no adequate law then we say that is wrong. The State law as it exists is adequate. If it is on the basis that the penalties are too harsh and unreasonable then the Attorney-General is wrong again because the State law would cover the situation.

Moving on to the phrase ‘reasonable apprehension’, this is something which has been well known and judicially determined over a number of years. It is very difficult to interpret the penalty to be imposed for this offence. The penalty can vary according to the size of the magistrate’s feet. It may depend on which magistrate the offender appears before. This Bill places a police officer in a difficult position. The police officer is the one who has to have a reasonable apprehension. One police officer who makes an assessment of the facts will have a completely different view to another. The honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory pointed out that under British law persons involved in what was deemed to be an unlawful assembly had the right to have their case determined by a jury. That is not the case in this country. The people of Australia are denied this right. Where is the force of the Attorney-General’s argument when he says that this clause must become law? This Bill will increase the penalty. Under the British system does an assembly become an unlawful assembly after lt has started off as a lawful assembly? The persons involved may become subject to a penalty if it is considered that there is a reasonable apprehension of violence but under the British system this is determined by a jury.

They are the points the Opposition makes. Under the British system an unlawful assembly is determined by a jury. The British common law is reasonable. The test of whether there has been any unreasonable act has to be decided by a jury. This Bill denies this right to the people of this country. Taking the Commonwealth situation and all the difficulties associated with a policeman determining whether there is a reasonable apprehension of violence, you can imagine the difficulties which would arise if a State policeman was involved. We can imagine his difficulties if he is the State policeman on the footpath one minute and the State policeman in a Commonwealth building the next minute. This policeman would have to apply a different set of circumstances because of the different Acts which apply. How ridiculous this is.

The State has the Summary Offences Act of 1970 which is an Act especially passed to deal with these offences and which provides for a penalty of $200 or 3 months imprisonment. The penalty set out under this Bill is $250. There is an increase in the penalty without the difficulty of reasonable apprehension. I submit that the first principle is this: The Attorney-General’s argument that there is no law does not apply here. Even he would agree with that submission. He is again wrong in his argument that the old law is more harsh than the present one. He is wrong on two counts - whether it be a State count or whether it be the British common law position. The AttorneyGeneral cannot deny that if it is an unlawful assembly within the common law position there is a right to have a jury to determine the situation. By these 3 factors, as has been mentioned, we have the right to say, firstly, that this clause is harsh and unreasonable; secondly, it is unnecessary because of the State Jaw; and thirdly, it takes away any rights that the accused might have had under the British common law system. For these reasons the clause should be opposed.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I wish to make some brief remarks. One of the more disappointing features of tonight’s debate is that none of the people on the other side of the House have taken part in the second reading of the Bill, although they earlier spent a lot of time patting one another on the back. The honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley) has been flattered by the people opposite for all his remarks. The honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Brown) also has been flattered. Why are none of them explaining exactly why we are departing from the principle of trial by jury in cases where people are being sent to prison? My friends the honourable members for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) and Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) have asked questions. Why are honourable members opposite not answering the questions that have been placed before the House by these honourable members? Why is there no answer from the Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock), erudite as I understood him to be before he became a Minister? Why has not the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) spoken? Is Boggo Road full of his customers so that he cannot explain the principles here? Why are we not receiving answers from all the people who must accept the responsibility for this serious departure from the general principles from justice? Are they under a hollow log or under the mat? Where have they gone? Why have they buried their concieces when we come to these issues?

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– I am not roused from my Trappist-like silence by the plainly offensive remarks of the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant). I have risen to my feet to deal firstly with the contumely heaped on the Committee by the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) who described, not myself, but some of my colleagues on this side of the House as simple members.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I am referring to only one.

Mr KILLEN:

– I will except myself from that. There is no comment that the honourable member can make even in favour or disfavour -

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Vehemence never makes up for logic.

Mr KILLEN:

– No, and you are desperately light on both counts. 1 am about to make this point-

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Full of potential and puff.

Mr KILLEN:

– I do not know whether the Committee is entitled to be subjected to this continual form of punctuation from the honourable member for Lalor.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! I ask the honourable member for Lalor to refrain from interjecting.

Mr KILLEN:

– I just want to make one point. As far as the honourable member for Lalor is concerned, and as far as the honourable member for Wills is concerned, if logic can possibly reach him, there are many statutes in this country.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– There will never be one of you.

Mr KILLEN:

– At least it would not be ebony like the honourable member.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– It will be cold and damp like you.

Mr KILLEN:

– Oh deary, deary, deary me. You have never been the same-

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– You are losing every exchange.

Mr KILLEN:

- Mr Chairman, really.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! 1. must ask the Committee to come to order. There are far too many interjections. The honourable member for Moreton is entitled under the Standing Orders to be heard without interruption. I ask honourable members to refrain from interjecting.

Mr KILLEN:

– There are many statutes in the country which make provision for summary penalties. Many of those statutes have been introduced and have been maintained by Labor governments.

Mr Bryant:

– Yes, I am aware of that.

Mr KILLEN:

– Here it is. The honourable members for Wills, Lalor and the Australian Capital Territory say that this is wrong, ls this a serious proposition which has been put that whenever there is . a penalty involving gaol this should be put to a jury?

Mr Enderby:

– The penalty is $250 or 3 months imprisonment or both.

Mr KILLEN:

– All right. Let me take the proposition that wherever a gaol penalty is involved the person who may be exposed to the penalty should have the option of electing to go before a jury. There are quite-

Mr Bryant:

– That is-

Mr KILLEN:

– Please, I listened to you with what I thought was almost impossible silence having regard to the impertinence of your language.

Mr Enderby:

– Will you vote with us in a few minutes?

Mr KILLEN:

– If you do not mind. There are some forms of courtesy which should be observed.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! I have already asked on several occasions for honourable members on my left to refrain from interjecting.

Mr KILLEN:

– Then why do you not throw a few of them out?

Mr Bryant:

– I would like to take a point of order. The honourable member for Moreton is doing what I asked him to do - that is, to explain this point. The point that wc were making was why must we continue to depart from the principle and the spirit of trial by jury? In other words, what is the explanation for that? The past is the past

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! There is no point of order in the honourable member’s submission.

Mr KILLEN:

– The whole of our society would be reduced to a full stop.

Mr Bryant:

– Ob, go on.

Mr KILLEN:

– You are an incredible individual.

Mr Bryant:

– 1 know that.

Mr KILLEN:

– Yes, you are. But the interpretation of the nuance of meaning I would give to ‘incredible’ would not necessarily coincide with yours. If every person in this country who was exposed to a penalty in terms of imprisonment said: T have the right to go before a jury’ he would have to take the consequences. Take the case of ordinary traffic offences.

Mr Foster:

– Yes.

Mr KILLEN:

– I am delighted that even the honourable member understands this. Let us take the case of a person who may face a penalty of $50 or 7 days in gaol and who says: ‘Ah, I have the right to go before a jury’.

Mr Foster:

– Yes.

Mr KILLEN We would have thousands of such cases.

Mr Foster:

– That does not matter.

Mr KILLEN:

– Really and truly, one would conclude that the honourable gentleman has lived a life of a recluse if this is his thinking.

Mr Foster:

– You are going to force people into living the life of a recluse.

Mr KILLEN:

– Look old chap, do not get yourself wound up. If you believe that you can maintain a modern society on the basis that every time a person who is exposed to a penalty involving gaol has a right to go before a jury this would be a bit unreal. I am thoroughly with those who argue that there must be a balance and that there must be a control of the powers given to a magistrate in terms of summary punishment.

Mr Kennedy:

– Yes, but - -

Mr KILLEN:

– Please, really and truly, you add nothing to the quality of the arguments of your side by these continued interjections. I am about to make this point: In the Queensland Parliament recently-

Mr Kennedy:

– Do you intend to make a point?

Mr KILLEN:

– I know that Bendigo manufactures ammunition but I did not think they would manufacture such illtuned bells like the honourable member.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! I have appealed several times within the last 10 or 15 minutes for the honourable member and other members who rise to speak to be heard in silence. 1 ask for more decorum in the Committee. It is completely out of order for honourable members to be continually interjecting.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I take a point of order on this. Is it in order for the honourable member for Moreton to engage in a direct debate with honourable members on this side of the House in the manner that he is doing? Should he not direct his remarks through you, Mr Deputy Chairman?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- It should be well known to every honourable member in this chamber that remarks should be addressed through the Chair. If honourable members on my left would refrain from baiting the honourable member for Moreton he would be able to state his case in a much more lucid way.

Mr KILLEN:

– I have set more traps in my day than they have ever contemplated.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Bears will always be baited.

Mr KILLEN:

– The skilled dialectician from Lalor is incredible. I was about to make this point before I was rudely interrupted

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Why don’t you sit on it?

Mr KILLEN:

– One would need to drive it through the honourable member’s skull at 20,000 revs a minute. Recently a statute was enacted in the Queensland Parliament which made quite elaborate provisions for summary punishment. It concerned a very sensitive part of society today, involving drugs. I thought that the provisions regarding summary punishment were unreal in giving to a magistrate the power to send a person to gaol for 5 years without trial, dealing with the matter summarily. Honourable gentlemen opposite would not have to argue that proposition with me too strenuously at all. But there are laws which have been on the statute books for 70 years. One can point to scores of statutes throughout the Commonwealth introduced by the Commonwealth or the States, by governments both Labor in kidney and non-Labor in political kidney. This is unreal. I say to the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) for whom, despite his Wallace Beery appearance, I have the utmost affection, that it is really about time he brought himself up to date and forgot about Christopher Columbus and all that.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Thursday, 22nd April 1971

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– I have earlier referred to the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) as the molecule from Moreton. I thought he was a man of substance. The way he has been carrying on tonight in the last 10 minutes, I doubt that. He made the point tonight that honourable members on this side of the House are opposed to this clause of the Bill and demand that an individual ought to have further rights in regard to a charge and the right to be tried by his peers. The honourable member is a legal eagle, I understand. He makes his living from the unfortunates in the community who perhaps have to be defended against the laws or who declare themselves to be innocent and run the risk of being declared guilty in accordance with the procedures of the lower courts to which I have referred earlier in this debate.

I direct the attention of the AttorneyGeneral (Mr N. H. Bowen) to this clause of the Bill. In the last 24 hours or so in America Vietnam veterans have been demonstrating in support of two senators in the American Senate who put forward the point of view that America should make more conclusive moves to be out of Vietnam by 31st December this year. I take it that these servicemen who have seen fit to cheer the senators would have been proceeded against under the terms of this Bill had they been in, near or about this building which I suppose could be referred to as Commonwealth property. I want to deal with clause 2 of the Bill which makes provision for a fine of $1,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both. The Attorney-General did not get up and answer my queries about the previous clause.

I think that the point made by the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) is a valid one, that apart from the speech - if I can refer to it as such - of the honourable member for Moreton a few moments ago and the unlawful interjections from the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) there has been no other contribution by honourable members opposite in this debate since the Bill reached the Committee stage. I have asked the AttorneyGeneral to clarify the terms of the Bill, the document that he is peddling through the House.

Mr McLeay:

– Look the other way.

Mr FOSTER:

– You can keep quiet. Your turn will come next. If you want to enter the debate, then you do so. You were defended earlier tonight in this debate by one of your own colleagues who did not quite put the record straight in regard to what you had to say in this House a couple of weeks ago.

Mr McLeay:

– I think you are a ruddy genius!

Mr FOSTER:

– I do not care what you say. That is the truth. Mr Chairman, I ask for a withdrawal if the remark passed was what I thought it was. Did you hear what he said, Mr Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Start will resume his seat. I ask the honourable member for Boothby to withdraw the remark.

Mr McLeay:

– I will withdraw it. I do not think he is what 1 said he was.

Mr FOSTER:

– So much for law and order when honourable members opposite cannot even abide by the laws which should prevail in this chamber. I want to say to the Attorney-General, who is well versed in legal matters, will he please rise to his feet and inform this House whether or not what 1 have inferred about the terms of the Bill is correct or otherwise. Is his mind so narrow–

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Sit down and I will.

Mr FOSTER:

– No. I have a couple more minutes on you yet. The Minister, as a so-called competent person, would know that many a member of the community has become the victim of the custodians of the law who are better versed in the law than those who fall foul of it. This Bill is no better than the old Army regulations, the Australian Military Regulations and Orders, under which you know that you are always damned well guilty. Will the Minister stand in this place and convince the House that what has been said by honourable members on this side of the chamber is not true, that a policeman or a magistrate will not be given the power under this Bill to do those dastardly things to almost innocent members of the public or to innocent members of the public, to which honourable members on this side of the House have referred since the Bill has been in its Committee stage?

If the Minister was so worried about what was going jo happen on Commonwealth property I would have thought he would have exercised his mind with protecting people on Commonwealth property rather than inflicting pains and penalties on them. 1 refer to cases under the Workers Compensation Act that the Government has messed about with for God knows how many years.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Sturt will resume his seat. I suggest to the honourable member that in this Committee he use language suitable to a debate in this Federal Parliament. I also remind the honourable member for Sturt that the subject matter that he is discussing before the Committee has no relevance to the Bill.

Mr FOSTER:

– I bow to what you have said, Mr Chairman, not wanting to take issue with you on that point. The matter to which I referred has some form of legality. I suppose it could be considered to be somewhat more relevant than the interjections during the speech of the honourable member prior to the speech of the honourable member for Moreton. I have made this statement twice tonight and I will keep reiterating if. The Government is attempting in the Bill to deny the rights of individuals because the Government is so far removed from the feeling of the public that one of these days there will be almost a riot in this country brought about by the actions of this Government and the type of legislation it is endeavouring to put ou the statute book.

I am not much concerned about the legalities of this and that and about what may have been said by some High Court judge 50 years ago or what may have been said in the fourteenth, fifteenth or sixteenth centuries. I am concerned, despite what has been said in this debate, about the denial of the right of assembly and about the fact that this Bill inflicts pains and penalties on people taking part in assemblies. Some magistrates who wilt be dealing with people who have offended under this legislation will be judging people on the way they comb their hair and the way they dress. That concerns me even if it does not concern some members of this Parliament. I say again that the Attorney-General should answer some of the matters that have been raised in this Committee so far.

Mr N H Bowen:
AttorneyGeneral · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Several propositions have been put in relation to clause 6 which I think require correction. The honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F.

Cairns) suggested that there could be an assembly which created an apprehension of violence and that everyone, even an innocent person, could be apprehended or charged under this clause. That is a complete misapprehension and misreading of the clause. If the honourable member read the section as I asked him to do he would see that under sub-clause (1.) only those persons taking part in the assembly who conduct themselves in a way that gives rise to the apprehension, that is to say only the persons who are causing the intimidation, fright or threat, can be charged. Under sub-clause (2.) only the person who does an act or thing by way of physical violence to another person or damage to property comes into question. I think these persons ought to be charged, and I do not think there is any substance in the suggestion that an innocent person could possibly be charged under this clause.

The honourable member for Lalor suggested also that rights were being curtailed by this clause. Let me point out to the honourable member that the present position in the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia is that the common law offence of unlawful assembly which is crystallised in this clause is punishable by unlimited fine or unlimited imprisonment. Let us get this clear. If honourable members opposite vote against this clause they will be voting for an unlimited fine for this offence. In point of fact, we have provided that the maximum penalty under clause 6 (1.) shall be a fine of $250 or 3 months imprisonment or both.

The honourable member for KingsfordSmith (Mr Lionel Bowen) suggested that in New South Wales the Summary Offences Act provided a lesser penalty than this legislation does. That is almost true but not quite. The position is that there is one provision in the Summary Offences Act in New South Wales which deals with processions. I suppose one could find a tiny section of overlap in section 45 of that Act. The honourable member for KingsfordSmith very glibly said that the New South Wales Act provided a lesser penalty. Let us look at it. It provides for a penalty of $200 or imprisonment for 3 months. The terms of imprisonment are identical - 3 months. Certainly there is a difference of $50 between the fines. This does not get away from the fact that the reality of the situation is that for the unlawful assembly generally in New South Wales the penalty is indefinite imprisonment. Honourable members opposite may vote against this mitigation of the law if they want to, hut let them know what they are doing. If they do they will be voting for life imprisonment instead of the penalties that we have provided.

Dr GUN:
Kingston

- Mr

Chairman-

Motion (by Mr Giles) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 42

NOES: 39

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the clause be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 42

NOES: 39

Majority . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7 (Causing actual bodily harm or damage to property.)

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capita] Territory

– The Opposition does not oppose clause 7 of the Bill although it is very critical of many parts of it. I shall illustrate our criticism. It appears at face value to be a straightforward enactment of the criminal law. The State laws in this Commonwealth are riddled with offences of this sort. The essence of the clause is that it relates to a person who ‘without lawful excuse causes actual bodily harm to another person; or damage, to an extent exceeding $200, to property’. Our statute books are full of offences of this sort. They can be found in the statutes of the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory and all the States. They cover situations of that sort. This clause adds the requirement that the offending person must be part of an assembly. The Opposition suggests that this adds nothing to the situation because if a person commits such an offence as an individual he commits it also if he is part of a group of 3 people while being a member of an assembly. This is a straightforward assault or damage to property situation.

Then is added the term ‘without lawful excuse’. What does ‘without lawful excuse’ mean in that context? If we look at the authorities - and I have about a dozen here collected from the States of Victoria, South Austraia, New South Wales and Queensland - we find a lot of uncertainty about the meaning of ‘lawful excuse’. It sounds reasonable and simple but there is enormous uncertainty about its meaning. Consider people breaking into homes with private inquiry agents. Is it lawful or unlawful to go onto premises? To go into a nurse’s chamber at the invitation of the nurse but not of the owner of the hospital - is that lawful reason or excuse to be there? The lawyers amongst honourable members will know what I am talking about. There is a lot of uncertainty but one thing is clear. It is a much narrower excuse, defence or exemption from the general offence that is created than, say, an exemption on the grounds of reasonable excuse.

Let me putit this way. Suppose we create an offence or prohibition and say: You shall not do something unless X happens’, if X is big the offence is small and if X is small the offence is big. The X in this context is lawful excuse. It is the exemption. It is obviously a much narrower exemption than reasonable excuse. To that extent it makes the offence bigger and more dangerous and the net is very wide. Why do we have such a wide net in this little pocket we are going to have in he area of the States and the Territories, so different from the existing territorial laws and State laws. We suggest that the reasonable excuse would be far more preferable than the lawful excuse. It is a wider exemption and it does not bring about the enactment of section 21c of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, to which I directed the attention of honourable members, which puts the burden of proving excuse fairly and squarely on the defence. It would be more consistent with enlightened legal thinking-

Motion (by Mr Giles):

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 42

NOES: 39

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the clause be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 42

NOES: 39

Majority .. .. 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Motion (by Dr J. F. Cairns) put:

That progress be reported.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 39

NOES: 42

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause 8. (l.)……

  1. Where-

    1. a direction is given under this section; and
    2. the assembly, to the number of not less than twelve persons continues after the expiration of fifteen minutes from the time of the direction, each of those persons who has, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with the direction is guilty of an offence, punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding Five hundred dollars or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both.
Mr KENNEDY:
Bendigo

– Only one person on the Government side other than the Attorney-General (Mr N. H. Bowen) has shown any interest in this Bill whatsoever. Yet it is a Bill which involves the fundamental liberties of Australian citizens. Only one honourable member on the Government side apart from the Minister is prepared to stand up and justify the obnoxious clause of this Bill. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) took part in the debate only because he was stunned into reaction by some comments made by the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant). This is one of the most dangerous and obnoxious parts of the Bill. In fact this is an incitement to violence.

By looking at sub-clause (2.) of this clause and at the power which it gives to civilians, not policemen, to disperse a riot, it can be seen clearly that it virtually grants a charter of liberty to any individual who cares to break up a demonstration or assembly of any kind. Why do I say this? 1 say it because a policeman only has to have reasonable grounds to apprehend that an assembly will be carried on in a manner involving unlawful physical violence to persons or unlawful damage to property or that the assembly is being carried on in a manner involving such unlawful violence and damage and the following situation occurs: A member of the constabulary gives a direction that the assembly will disperse and if the assembly does not disperse, in the case of those persons about whom the policeman has a reasonable apprehension any individual whatsoever can take part in dispersing the assembly. That is the situation where there is an apprehension by a member of the police force about violence or damage, but even worse is the situation where any civilian can break up an assembly where a direction to disperse has not been given by the police force. That is a most dangerous situation because it can be guaranteed that with powers like this it will be possible for agents provocateur, for members of the Democratic Labor Party, members of the Nazi Party and for other extremists of the right or, in other cases, extremists of the left, to cause violence. Civilians will be taking part in breaking up that assembly.

What is most obnoxious about this provision is that a civilian may take part in dispersing an assembly whether or not he has been invited to do so by a member of the police force. I stress that, because the provision simply states: . . it is lawful for a person to use such force as he believes, on reasonable grounds, to be necessary for that purpose and is reasonably proportioned to the danger which he believes, on reasonable grounds, is to be apprehended from the continuance of the assembly.

All that is necessary is an apprehension by a policeman and the reading of an order to disperse, or an actual situation of violence and without a direction by a policeman to disperse, and any individual can, without invitation or order by a member of the police force, use force to break up an assembly. There is no control over the behaviour of that individual in dispersing the assembly.

What this clause provides is an invitation to riot. Against whom can he take action? Not the people who are involved in the violence or who are apprehended to be about to cause the violence but every person who has refused, after 15 minutes, to obey the order to disperse. We could have a situation where 500 people are at a public meeting and 50 or 1 00 of their opponents are in the vicinity. The demonstration could be ordered to disperse. If it does not do so the 50 or 100 people could fly in with boots, fists and weapons. Of course it will be said ‘using such force as they believe, on reasonable grounds, to be necessary’. That, of course, can all be checked in court later, but by the time the matter gets to court there will have been a few cracked skulls and physical violence will have been done to people whose only offence under clause 8(l.)(a) was not that they caused violence or were about to cause violence but merely that they refused to obey or neglected to obey an order given by a member of the police force. That is the situation which the Government is creating by this legislation.

The Government says that this Bill is concerned with public order, but it is concerned with no such thing, lt is an incitement to riot; it is an incitement to violence; it is an incitement to public disorder. We see in the Bill the powers that are given to individuals and we find that it is lawful for a person to use such force as he sees fit. Many other things could be said about this provision. The first question which could be asked is this: On what grounds should an individual, other than a member of a police force, be involved in dispersing an assembly? Why are no limitations placed upon an individual? Why does the Bill not state that a civilian may take action if directed or called upon by a police officer so to do? The control of demonstration* requires tremendous sensitivity. It requires training. This is something that police officers must have. But what training have other individuals, such as members of the

Democratic Labour Party, members of the Nazi Party or members of any extremist right wing group whose aim is to destroy an assembly? What training, skill or sensitivity have they in the art of dealing with a demonstration. I leave that part.

Mr Hughes:

– Hoorayl

Mr KENNEDY:

– The honourable member for Moreton has just said something, but a while ago it took him 10 minutes to say nothing.

Mr Killen:

– I did not open my mouth.

Mr KENNEDY:

– Then I apologise, but the honourable member must admit that I had a reasonable apprehension that he had said something. There are many other obnoxious points about this Bill. Clause 8(1.) states in part:

  1. persons taking part in the assembly have conducted themselves in a way that has caused a member of a Police Force . . . reasonably to apprehend that the assembly will be carried on in a manner involving unlawful physical violence . . .

Many things could be said about that, but 1 shall have to leave other comments on this provision to honourable members who will follow me in the debate. What is this unlawful physical violence’ and this ‘unlawful damage’ which is referred to? Why is there no limitation on the amount of damage? No standards are set in this Bill. For example, if a group of 500 people are taking part in a demonstration and 2 of them are involved in unlawful violence or unlawful damage, is that sufficient reason for a police officer to break up the assembly and deny the rights of 49S other men? There is nothing in the measure to say on what grounds a policeman must base his decision to disperse the assembly.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I preface my remarks on this clause by saying that the Attorney-General throughout the remarks of the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Kennedy) was talking all the time to the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz). The honourable member for Bendigo was raising a serious question about a particular problem in this Bill and he is entitled to have, as is the Committee, an explanation from the Minister on the point he raised. I shall refer to that point in a moment. The 2 points that I wish to raise will not take long.I do not intend to prolong what I have to say, but I would appreciate it if the Minister would take this debate seriously. The first point is that this clause provides that where a member of the police force of the rank of sergeant or above reasonably apprehends something about an assembly, he is empowered to give it an order to disperse. Sub-clause (3.) (b) states that each person who is part of this assembly has to disperse unless he has reasonable excuse. The clause reads in part: . . without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with the direction is guilty of an offence . . .

I ask the Attorney-General, and I asked him previously in relation to clause 6 and he did not answer, what is a reasonable excuse in circumstances like this? We have a person who is part of an assembly. A member of the police force apprehends violence so he orders everyone in that assembly to disperse. What excuse could a member of that assembly have which would be a reasonable excuse so that he would not have to disperse on the order of the sergeant of police? What kind of thing does the Parliament have in mind, if it passes this Bill, that would be acceptable as a reasonable excuse? I think it is important that the Attorney-General give some indication of this because I think magistrates dealing with it need some guidance about what the Parliament intends, and there is no indication whatever in the Bill about what the Parliament does intend. All the way through this debate we have been told that this Bill is doing something about rights but nowhere has anyone on behalf of the Government said anything that would indicate what a right is. What is the right here in respect of a reasonable excuse?

The second point I want to make is the one that was dealt with by the honourable member for Bendigo about some aspects although at the time he spoke the AttorneyGeneral was not listening. Does the Attorney-General realise that in the latter part of sub-clause (4.) (b) he is giving to any person at all the power to use such force as he believes necessary to disperse an assembly that has been told to disperse by a member of the police force of the rank of sergeant or above? It is not a person who is asked to do so by a member of the police force and it is not a member of the police force, it is any person who is given power to use whatever force he believes to be necessary, reasonably proportionate to the danger that he envisages, in order to disperse this assembly. Does the Attorney-General consider that there is any danger in this? Does he not envisage and does not anyone else on the Government side envisage the possibility that when an assembly occurs, and a member of the police force of the rank of sergeant or above has what he considers to be a reasonable apprehension about it, and gives out an order to disperse, that then any member of the community, whoever he is, is entitled to use whatever force he considers to be necessary to disperse anyone in that assembly?

I think this is a most objectionable provision. I do not think I have ever seen a more objectionable provision than this in any law. Perhaps there is a precedent. Perhaps it has occurred somewhere else, but if it has I do not know of it. What is the background to this? Where did the Government get it from? I think those are two serious questions and the Opposition is entitled to some considered answer by the Attorney-General. I leave them with him and hope that he will have enough respect for the principles of law to provide an answer to them.

Mr N H BOWEN:
AttorneyGeneral · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The honourable member for Lalor (Dr. J. F. Cairns) referring to clause 8 of the Bill asked: ‘What is a reasonable excuse?’ This is a question which will be answered by the court before which the matter comes and, as I say, the standard of reason is one with which the courts are accustomed to deal. If the honourable member wants a particular example one could think of many. One could take the case of a man who is stone deaf. When the sergeant reads the direction the person charged does not hear it because he is stone deaf. If he were arrested and brought before the court and he proved he was stone deaf this would be a reasonable excuse. I do not attempt to list the types of situations involved because any sensible person would be able to understand them.

Then the honourable member referred to sub-clause (4) of clause 8. He said that any person has a right to use such force as he believes on reasonable grounds to be necessary to take part in the dispersal of a riot. This is so. The honourable member asks for authority or precedent for this proposal. This is the existing power in relation to riot situations. In fact, there is a duty upon citizens to preserve the peace. If one goes to the codes, as distinct from the common law, one can give as precedents for the honourable member section 262 of the Queensland Criminal Code, section 238 of the Western Australian Criminal Code, and so on. Section 261 of the Queensland Criminal Code and section 237 of the Western Australian Criminal Code provide that it is lawful for any person to use such force as is necessary to suppress a riot and is reasonably proportionate to the danger to be apprehended from its continuance. I think that is the information the honourable member was seeking.

Dr Klugman:

– Before the question is put, an amendment which has been circulated has not been moved as yet.

Motion (by Mr Giles) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 41

NOES: 38

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the clause be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 41

NOES: 38

Majority . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 (Unreasonable obstruction).

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– Mr Chairman,I put it to you that, when this clause is assented to, the kind of action which has been taken tonight by the Deputy Government Whip would make him liable.

Motion (by Mr Giles) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 41

NOES: 38

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 10 and 11 - by leave - taken together.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

Clause 10 (1.) states:

A person who, in a Territory or on Commonwealth premises, while taking part in an assembly and without lawful excuse -

has in his possession a weapon, a missile or a destructive, noxious or repulsive object or substance;

discharges or uses a weapon or throws a missile;

And so on. This is simply a continuation of all those things that we have been debating tonight. The most disgusting thing about this operation, apart from the behaviour of the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles), who is the Deputy Whip on the Government side of the House, is the absolute and unqualified silence of the people opposite. The honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley) at an earlier stage of the debate held up this legislation as a wonderful exercise in democracy. When it came to generalities he was all right but when it came to specifics he was silent. What about the honourable member for Diamond Vally (Mr Brown)? Where was his voice tonight when it came to defending these things?

What about the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes) who was the man who fathered this Bill and who is now disclaiming all paternity? He is as silent as the grave. First of all, as far as I can see, the essence of the contract is the disgraceful conduct of the people opposite. The Government has prejudiced the work of the Parliament by the continuing use of the gag. Each one of these clauses contains some very valuable principles which ought to be debated. What is wrong with the place? What is wrong with people who want to behave like this? The people go out into the streets because they feel they have to. We have reduced politics to the politics of confrontation. Unless people get out and wave flags and banners and march they feel completely helpless in the face of such operations. What can we do here in the face of such operations?

I do not know whether the Opposition will vote against this clause. I propose to exercise my rights under the Standing Orders. Mr Chairman, I think that you were a little cavalier in the way in which you put the last clause. I hadintended to exercise my rights under standing order 193 and have my dissent recorded in Hansard. I will not vote willingly for anything that includes the rights of lower courts to send people to gaol, particularly for offences such as this. I will not surrender my right to speak in this place and I will not place my imprimateur on the right of one man to imprison another, no matter how lucid the explanations of the honourable member for Moreton might be. These are the matters before the House tonight - the rights, privileges and freedoms of the community.

It is worth while looking at the Liberal Party policy and seeing what it says. That Party stands for freedom of speech, freedom of the individual and the rights of democracy. What a mockery! Honourable members opposite have subverted everything that democracy stands for. They have reduced this country to a state of derision as far as these things are concerned. We are debating these matters at this hour of the night because the AttorneyGeneral has not the energy, the guts or the enterprise to organise it so that we could debate the Bill continuously.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Wills restrain himself and withdraw that remark.

Mr BRYANT:

– Whatever I said about the Attorney-GeneralI withdraw. He is not worth note or even contempt in this place.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The Committee is not being helped in any way by some of the comments and interjections that are coming from either side of the House. I thought the honourable member for Wills might realise that the word I thought it was unwise to use was ‘guts’. Even at this hour of the morning honourable members might try to steady themselves and get through this legislation as reasonably as possible. That is why I asked the honourable member to withdraw what he said.

Mr BRYANT:

– I submit to your ruling, Mr Chairman. But that is not the issue. To debate the question reasonably we would have to debate each clause carefully and deliberately. The honourable member for Angas in his high powered position as Deputy Liberal Party Whip chose to gag the discussion without any debate. How can anybody justify that? How can the Attorney-General - the principal law officer of the Crown, as I understand it - justify that? Now the honourable member for Angas is rising in his place, drawn by the strings of some puppeteer. Apparently he has to get the legislation through the House. His principal occupation in life is training bulls. He is a master at it.

Motion (by Mr Giles) put:

That the question be put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 41

NOES: 38

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That clauses 10 and 11 be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 41

NOES: 38

Majority . , 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 12. (2.) A person who -

  1. engages in unreasonable obstruction in relation to the passage of persons or vehicles into, out of, or on Commonwealth premises, or otherwise in relation to the use of Commonwealth premises;
  2. being in or on Commonwealth premises, behaves in an offensive or disorderly manner; or
  3. being in or on Commonwealth premises, refuses or neglects, without reasonable excuse, to leave those premises on being directed to do so by a constable or by a person authorised in writing by a Minister or the public authority of the Commonwealth occupying the premises to give directions for the purposes of this section, is guilty of an offence, punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding Two hundred and fifty dollars or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or both.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– An amendment to clause 12 has been circulated in my name. I move:

In sub-clause (2.) (c), omit ‘of, insert ‘under’. The purpose of this amendment is to make a correction to paragraph (c) of sub-clause (2.) of the Bill. In this paragraph the phrase ‘public authority of the Commonwealth’ is used mistakenly. In the definition set out in clause 4 the correct phrase is used, that is, ‘public authority under the Commonwealth’. It is proposed that the word ‘of in the sub-clause be changed to under’ to make it consistent with the definition.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the clause, as amended, be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 41

NOES: 38

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses 13 to 16- by leave - taken together.

Clauses 13 and 14 - by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clauses 15 and 16 - by leave - taken together.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock)Order! In view of what the honourable member for Wills has said, I suggest that clauses 15 and 16 now be taken separately.

Question put:

That clause IS be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 41

NOES: 38

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clause 17 (Dispersal of certain assemblies.)

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– I want to oppose clause 17 of the Bill. I want to say at the outset that when one sees the way in which the Government has treated this Bill here tonight it is no wonder that people demonstrate in the streets. The first thing I want to say about clause 17 is that it reproduces a piece of legislation which the British have seen fit to repeal and not replace. Here we are replacing it and putting it in modern garb. What are we telling the world? Do we think that we have a state of revolution in this country which the British do not have? Just what are we trying to do? A group of conservative lawyers - perhaps not as conservative as honourable members opposite, but still conservative lawyers - saw fit to examine these ancient laws.

Motion (by Mr Giles) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 40

NOES: 37

Majority .. ..3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the clause be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 40

NOES: 37

Majority .. ..3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 18 to 20 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clauses 21 and 22 - by leave - taken together.

Question put:

That the clauses be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 40

NOES: 37

Majority . . . . 3

In division:

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Mr Chairman, I propose seriously that at this stage progress be reported because the Bill cannot be passed tonight.

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Only 2 clauses remain to be dealt with.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– But the Bill cannot be passed tonight. The Government would not have the numbers if we refused leave for the third reading to be moved forthwith. Would not that course be much more reasonable? Why should the AttorneyGeneral be so obstinate? We have 2 amendments which we wish to move and at 2.15 a.m. it seems quite unreasonable to persist with this obstinacy. Is it not a much fairer proposition to take a little time tomorrow and give the members who want to move amendments a reasonable opportunity to do so? Why does the Attorney-General maintain this obstinacy? I move:

Question put. The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 37

NOES: 40

AYES

NOES

Majojrity . . . . 3

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause 23. (1.) Offences against this Act, other than an offence against section 7 or section 16, are punishable on summary conviction.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– I move:

The purpose of the amendment will be obvious to honourable members. It is to give the accused person in a case of this sort, or a person who has charges brought against him under this proposed Act, the right, if he wants to exercise it, to a trial by jury. Offences of this type are very serious. Even the Government bases its case on that fact. It says that there is a need for the measure, but we say there is not. But the Government cannot deny that it creates a lot of laws and it creates very serious offences to go with all of them. Many of them are complicated offences.

Honourable members should look, for example, at the offences created in clause 17 to see not only the penalties imposed but also the elements, the ingredients in it which carry social content, matters upon which a jury is better qualified to express an opinion than a magistrate. There is an element of assembly in this clause, and it takes into account whether there are sufficient numbers, whether or not the premises are protected, whether the person who is supposed to have the demonstration directed against him b a protected person, whether the policeman concerned is of the rank of sergeant, whether he has the apprehension, inhis innocence or otherwise, that thereis going to be violence or that unlawful damage will be done. Then finally and most peculiarly, clause 17 is concerned with whether an offence under section 18 or section 20 of the Bill has taken place. If one examines that clause one sees that the offence could be anything - offensive behaviour, threatening behaviour, insulting manner, obstruction or harassment or even any of the trespass-like provisions that this Bill unfortunately creates.

Clause 20, which has to be considered with clause 17, is concerned with people who are found without lawful excuse on land. The Government is asking the court to deal with this mass of trespass situations. We have said over and over again that such things should not be regarded as crimes in this context But if the Government is going to treat them as crimes and is going to make them as complicated as they are, with all the social connotations and the need for assessment and giving of weight to evidence, surely the accused person should be given the right to say: ‘I want to be tried by people who understand what the real world is all about - my peers, and the people I work with.’ An accused should have the right to challenge any person because he does not like him or because he thinks that the person may dislike him. If an accused person appears before a magistrate he is stuck with him, and if the magistrate happens to be a bad magistrate he will be unable to get an adjournment of his case. This amendment seeks to give an accused person the right to choose a trial by jury if he wishes. I will not press it any further than that.

Mr N H Bowen:
AttorneyGeneral · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– This amendment is not acceptable. I can understand the reasoning that the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr

Enderby) has advanced. There are a number of difficulties in accepting the amendment. One difficulty is that under the provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act certain offences could not be indictable offences and to give a defendant the option of determining whether he should be dealt with summarily would mean that he could not be tried in any way if he elected not to be so dealt with. This would produce a farcical result. Another difficulty to which I call the attention of the Committee as briefly as I can is that these offences which are punishable by a fine of $250 or 3 months imprisonment are very much lesser offences than the more common offences which are dealt with summarily in the statutes passed by the State Parliaments and by this Parliament. In fact it has been customary, although this point has been taken in the Senate where more than 12 months imprisonment has been provided as punishment on summary conviction to endeavour to give an accused person this option, the position is that the Senate did not object to the situation where the gaol sentence does not exceed 12 months. There are various provisions in the States on this matter. For example, in Victoria a magistrate can gaol a convicted person for up to 2 years. I am not suggesting that this is something we would include in this Bill. In point of fact we have made provision in this Bill for the more serious offences to be treated as indictable offences. However, I do not think a case has been made out for the lesser offences which involve a fine of, say, S250 or 3 months imprisonment to be treated as indictable offences.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– Does not the Attorney-General (Mr N. H. Bowen) understand what prison means? If you are in gaol for 3 months that is a dreadful penalty.

Motion (by Mr Giles) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 40

NOES: 36

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Enderby’s amendment) stand part of the clause.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 40

NOES: 36

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– The Opposition opposes clause 23.

Question put:

That the clause be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 40

NOES: 37

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 24 and 25 - by leave - taken together.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– I refer to clause 24 which reads in part: (1.) Where a person charged with an offence against this Act punishable on summary conviction has requested the informant to furnish to that person further particulars of the conduct the subject of the charge, the court shall not proceed with the hearing of the charge until reasonable particulars of that conduct have been furnished to the person charged, and may accordingly adjourn the proceedings from time to time. . .

I move the following amendment, copies of which have already been circulated to honourable members:

In sub-clause (1.) omit ‘further particulars of the conduct of the subject’, insert ‘full particulars’.

Honourable members should know that what clause 24 in its present form seeks to do is to regulate the position that already exists. It is not lawyers’ law. It is a situation that probably now exists in the courts, although it took a long while to establish it. It took a lot of hard work and the hearing of a lot of court cases, certainly in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. One case concerned an incident that took place right outside this Parliament. That was the case of re Ball ex parte Hermes. Honourable members may recognise the name. It concerned a defendents entitlement to particulars of the charge that he has to face. All it means when we boil it down and strip the veneer away from it is that a defendant is supposed or entitled to know what the police or prosecution have said he has done. Honourable members may think that that is a simple matter and that the battle to achieve this condition should have been won hundreds of years ago. It was established after great effort only very recently, and there is still a lot of uncertainty as to the extent or the amount of the particulars to which a defendant is entitled.

If a person were charged with an indictable offence he would get those particulars at the summary proceedings, the committal proceedings before the magistrate. This is one of the arguments, in different form, that we have been putting tonight. If the offences under this Bill were indictable, or if the accused had an option, there would not be this problem of having to tell a magistrate to give an accused particulars of which his charge is so that he knows what the police case will be. If the offence were indictable he would get the particulars at the committal hearing, at which he would hear the police evidence and accusations. He would then have an opportunity to test them without peril to himself before he is actually put on trial. That is the whole purpose of committal proceedings when we have an indictable offence. Such a hearing precedes a jury trial. It is fundamental; it is terribly important. As I have said earlier in the debate tonight, this principle is enshrined in the American constitution. It was intended that it be enshrined in our Constitution. It has been watered down following a consistent policy, particularly of this Government but also of all other governments. I do not wish to specify only this Government It has been watered down and now we are making more and more use of summary convictions in the guise of saying that they are cheaper. Why should justice be cheap? Because of the guise of saying that it is cheaper one cannot help suspect that it is because convictions are more easy to come by if a case is put before a magistrate. If we did away with the indictable offence and the summary proceedings - the committal proceedings, as they are called - before the magistrate we would need an alternative system whereby the accused could learn in advance with reasonable notice what it is that he has to meet. As I say, the battle has been largely fought and largely won, although there is a lot of uncertainty about it. It is a sort of judge-made law, if one likes to think of it that way. Clause 24 recites the position as it has now been achieved in the courts. It states:

Where a person charged with an offence against this Act punishable on summary conviction has requested the informant to furnish to that person further particulars of the conduct the subject of the charge, the court shall not proceed . .

The court shall not proceed until the particulars have been furnished. Our amendment is short but we believe that the principle it embodies is important. It proposes that this clause will give a direction to the magistrate not just to ask for further particulars, because there is uncertainty in that, although clause 24 (2.) states that if reasonable particulars are not given the case cannot proceed. We want the clause to be a direction to the magistrate that the accused is entitled to full particulars of the charge. Some of the charges that are summarily triable under this legislation are terribly complicated. We can count 15 or 20 elements in some of those charges - not legal elements, not legal constituent parts but factual situations. An accused person is entitled and should in all common fairness and natural justice be entitled to full particulars. It may be that the magistrate will order particulars and that they will be given, lt may be that some magistrate will say. ‘Those particulars are good enough’. But what we seek is a direction to the magistrate that full particulars be supplied, because often in certain areas a magistrate is not as qualified as, say, supreme court judges or district court judges.

We seek that the magistrate direct that the accused person be supplied with full particulars of the conduct of which he is supposed to be guilty. That is the effect of our amendment. We put it forward seriously because the Government is insisting upon so many of the offences mentioned in this Bill being tried summarily without the accused having, the benefit of committal proceedings. If the Government insists upon that, it should do the right thing by the accused person and at least yield to the extent of saying that he is entitled to full particulars. What harm can it do? A direction that full particulars must be supplied would be a good direction. It would be helpful to the accused and to the magistrate. It would not leave the matter up in the air by simply having a reference to ‘further particulars’. This is like requesting in civil actions further and better particulars or additional particulars. It is not enough to put in sub-clause (2.), as perhaps the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Brown) is trying to indicate to me.

Mr Brown:

– I have in mind sub-clause (3.).

Mr ENDERBY:

– That relates only to a departure from the particulars. It does not really help. Why bring a man back to court time and again and put him to the expense of obtaining legal representation and getting adjournments while he has to argue whether the particulars are adequate?

Mr Brown:

– It is in there to protect hi« interests.

Mr ENDERBY:

– Yes, [ know. That battle has been won already in the courts. What I am asking the Government to do is to take a little step further and say that he is entitled to full particulars. Magistrates vary enormously. I have heard magistrates say. as I am sure honourable members opposite have heard them say: ‘But you are here’.

Mr Brown:

– I do not appear in courts of petty sessions.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I am sorry. I thought the honourable member may have appeared at one time. How often have honourable members heard magistrates say : But you are here. You must know why you are here. What do you want the police to tell you?’ This is absurd. All the Opposition asks the Government to do is to put a directive in the Bill to the effect that a person is entitled to full and complete particulars - the Opposition is not particularly worried about the word ‘complete’ - of the conduct that he is supposed to have committed.

Mr N H Bowen:
AttornevGeneral · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– If I thought that the proposed amendment would achieve an improvement in the legislation I would not be in my own mind opposed-

Mr Cope:

– You have not accepted an amendment in 16 years.

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Does the honourable member want to listen to what I have to say? I would not be opposed to the objective which the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) is advancing, but I would point out that the alteration which has been suggested in the form of an amendment is only in the form of the request and not in the consequences that flow. In other words, a person can request some particulars to be given but what would happen under subclause (1.) is that the court would not proceed with the hearing of the charge until reasonable particulars of the conduct had been furnished to the person charged. That is the consequence which would flow from the lodging of such a request. One could describe such an action in any way one liked, but the consequence that would flow from it would be that reasonable particulars would have to be furnished. The same position applies to sub-clause (2.). If reasonable particulars of the conduct the subject of the charge are not furnished within a reasonable time the court may, under sub-clause (2.), dismiss the charge. The safeguard a defendant has is that reasonable particulars have to be supplied, otherwise the charge will not proceed. The form of the request will not really alter that consequence. Therefore I will not accept the amendment in that form nor will I hold up the passage of the Bill at this stage. However, in view of what the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory has said, I will give further consideration to the matter if a similar amendment is moved in the other place. If an improvement to this provision could be achieved I would not be opposed to achieving that objective.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I think that the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Brown) indicated the difficulties in which people faced with a situation of this nature would be when he said that he had never practised - or whatever one does - in a court of petty sessions. He would be reasonably not au fait - I was nearly going to say ignorant, but that would not be the correct term - with what goes on. My impression is that the ordinary citizens who end up in such a position would have no idea of their rights. In 50 per cent of the cases these citizens would be unlikely to have legal representation. Therefore everything must be written into the legislation itself to protect their rights. It is no good the Attorney-General saying that a citizen can do this or that something else will happen; the rights of a citizen have to be written into the legislation. The debate this evening has demonstrated that the AttorneyGeneral and perhaps the officers of his Department but most certainly the people behind him have no idea of the situation that faces an ordinary citizen who is in court under these circumstances.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– I have only a short speech to make, ft is really in the form of a question to the Attorney-General. I ask: Why was the Opposition gagged on the very important clauses of this Bill and not on the less important ones?

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses agreed to.

Remainder of Bill - by leave - taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment.

Adoption of Report

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I ask for leave to move that the report be adopted.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · Darling Downs · LP

– I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the remaining stages being passed without delay.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

Again this is an example of the use of this contingency motion which I believe transcends the spirit of the Standing Orders. It seems to me that the system of placing on the notice paper a bag of generalised statements in order to get round the Standing Orders is against the spirit of them. The House ought not to accept this situation and the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) should not follow this course. The procedures of this House have been developed over a long period in order to protect the House and everybody beyond it against hasty judgments - so that there might be proper deliberation in which everybody takes a part. This is an example of this continual tinkering with the system. The House ought to reject the motion moved by the Minister. The Standing Orders Committee and all honourable members involved ought to take a very close look at the spirit of this idea of a contingency motion. I think that a contingency notice of motion of this kind offends the whole spirit of the English language and the Standing Orders.

Question put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. Sir William Aston)

AYES: 41

NOES: 37

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Mr N. H. Bowen) agreed to:

That the report be adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr N. H. Bowen) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I move the following amendment:

Omit ‘now’ and add ‘this day six months’.

Question put:

That the word proposed to be left out (Dr J. F. Cairns’ amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. Sir William Aston)

AYES: 41

NOES: 37

Majority .. ..4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question put:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. Sir William Aston)

AYES: 41

NOES: 37

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

House adjourned at 3.17 a.m. (Thursday).

page 1848

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Defoliant] Tariff Board Inquiry (Question No. 2576)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. Is the Tariff Board at present examining a case regarding the dumping in Australia of the defoliant used in Vietnam called ‘Orange’.
  2. Does ‘Orange’ contain equal concentrations of the herbicides (2,4,5-T) and (2,4-D).
  3. Is he able to say whether (a) the President of the United States of America has prohibited the use of’Orange’ in Vietnam and (b) there are members of the United States Air Force in Vietnam who are to be tried for ignoring this ban.
  4. Is he able to say whether there is any evidence that the use of ‘Orange’ in Vietnam has caused an increasein the number of teratogenic (deformed foetus) births.
  5. Is this compound being manufactured in Australia; if so, how much has been exported to Vietnam.
  6. Can he say whether the President of the United States has taken action to restrict’ the use of (2,4,5-T) in that country.
Mr Chipp:
Minister for Customs and Excise · HOTHAM, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. The Tariff Board has a reference under the Dumping and Subsidies Act on 2,4,5-trichloro- phenoxyacetic acid and its esters, salts (including amine salts) and goods based on the foregoing.

Orange’ comes within that reference.

  1. Yes.
  2. (a) I understand that the United States authorities took certain action in relation to 2,4,5-T and I quote from ‘The Washington Post’ of 16 April 1970:

No action is planned to stop the principal use of 2,4,5-T to control weeds and brush on non-agricultural and grazing land. However, precautions may be advised for use on pastures so as to protect against contamination of meat and milk. Surgeon General Jesse L. Steinfeld disclosed all of the actions at a hearing of a Senate Commerce Sub-committee following their approval by the Secretaries of Health, Education and Welfare, Agriculture and Interior.

Simultaneously David Packard, deputy defense secretary, announced that, pending an evaluation, the use of ‘agent orange’ - a defoliant composed equally of 2,4,5-T and a chemically related pesticide, 2,4-D is being suspended.’

  1. I have no knowledge of this aspect.

    1. I have no evidence on this aspect but see reply to Question 6.
    2. The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has advised that -

Production data are available for each of the herbicides 2.4,5-T and 2,4-D. However, data are not collected in respect of the production of mixtures of these herbicides. Hence the level of production of such mixtures in Australia, if any, is not known.

Herbicides and defoliants are not shown separately in Australian export statistics but are recorded under statistical items which include other chemical elements, compounds, materials and products. However, during the period 1 July 1966 to 31 January 1971, no goods were reported as having been exported to the Republic of Vietnam under the statistical items covering herbicides and defoliants.

  1. A circular on 2,4,5-T was published by the United States Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior, and Department of Health, Education and Welfare on 15 April 1970. The text of the circular is as follows:

page 1848

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

page 1848

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

page 1848

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Washington, April 15, 1970

Home Use of 2,4,5-T Suspended:

Secretary of Agriculture Clifford M. Hardin, Secretary of the Interior Walter J. Hickel, and Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Robert H. Finch today announced the immediate suspension by the Department of Agriculture of the registrations of liquid formulations of the weed killer 2,4,5-T, for uses around the home and on lakes, ponds and ditch banks.

These actions are being taken pursuant to the Inter-agency Agreement for Protection of the Public Health and the Quality of the Environment in Relation to Pesticides’ among the three Departments.

The three Secretaries also announced that the Department of Agriculture intends to cancel registered uses of non-liquid formulations of 2,4,5-T around the home and on all food crops intended for human consumption (apples, blueberries, barley, corn, oats, rice, rye and sugar cane).

The suspension actions were based on the opinion of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare that contamination resulting from uses of 2,4,5-T around the home and in water areas could constitute a hazard to human health.

New information reported to DHEW on Monday, April 13, 1970, indicates that 2,4,5-T, as well as its contaminant, dioxins, may produce abnormal development in unborn animals. Nearly pure 2,4,5-T was reported to cause birth defects when injected at high doses into experimental pregnant mice but not in rats. No data on humans are available.

These actions do not eliminate registered use of 2,4,5-T for control of weeds and brush on range, pasture, and forests or on rights of way and other non-agricultural land. Users are cautioned that 2,4,5-T should not be used near homes or recreation areas. Registered uses are being reviewed by the three Departments to make certain that they include adequate precautions against grazing treated areas long enough after treatment by 2,4,5-T, so that no contaminated meat or milk results from animals grazing the treated area.

While residues of 2,4,5-T in meat and milk are very rare, such residues are illegal and render contaminated products subject to seizure. There is no tolerance for 2,4,5-T on meat, milk or any other feed or food.

USDA will issue guidelines for disposal of household products containing 2,4,5-T. The chemical is biologically decomposed in a moist environment Background Information

Secretary Finch’s Commission on Pesticides, which reported its findings in November and December 1969, express concern that research conducted at Bionetics Research Laboratories, under the Direction of the National Cancer Institute, indicated that 2,4,5-T had produced a number of birth defects when fed or injected into certain strains of mice and rats. Because the test material contained substantial concentrations of chemical impurities (dioxins), the birth abnormalities could not be attributed with certainty either to 2,4,5-T, or to the impurities known to be present. Representatives of the chemical industry pointed to evidence of extreme potency of the impurities as toxic agents. They demonstrated that 2,4,5-T now being marketed is of a greater purity than that which had been tested in the Bionetics experiments and urged that further testing be undertaken to clarify the questions raised.

Responding to this suggestion and utilizing materials supplied by one of the major producers of 2,4,5-T, scientists at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences promptly initiated studies to determine whether 2,4,5-T itself, its impurities or a combination of both, had caused the earlier findings, and whether the 2,4,5-T now being marketed produces birth abnormalities in mice and rats. The experiments were completed last week and the statistical analyses performed over the weekend. On Monday and Tuesday of this week the analyses of the data were presented to the regulatory agencies of the Federal Government and to the members of the Cabinet.

The dioxin impurities and the 2,4,5-T as it is now manufactured, separately produced birth abnormalities in the experimental mice. Because absolutely pure 2,4,5-T was not available for testing, it is possible only to infer from certain of the observations that the pure 2,4,5-T probably would be found to be teratogenic if it were tested. But, since pure 2,4,5-T is not marketed and could not be produced in commercial quantities, this is not a practical issue for consideration.

Believing that prudence must dictate action in these circumstances, the regulatory agencies of the Federal government are moving to minimize human exposure to 2,4,5-T and its impurities. The measures being taken are designed to provide maximum protection to women in the childbearing years by eliminating formulation of 2,4,5-T from use in household, aquatic, and recreational areas. Its use on food crops will be cancelled, and use on range and pastureland will be controlled. Maximum surveillance of water supplies and marketed foods will be maintained as a measure of the effectiveness of these controls. These measures will be announced more specifically in the Federal Register shortly.

While the restriction to be imposed upon the use of this herbicide may cause some economic hardship, the Secretaries urged full co-operation to protect human health from potential hazards of 2,4,5-T, other pesticides and the dioxins.

The three Secretaries commended the chemical industry for its prompt and willing co-operation with the N1EHS in the studies to clarify questions raised by the initial studies of this herbicide and for working closely with the FDA in the other studies still under way. They urged the full support of industry, agriculture and the home gardener in insuring the safe use of 2,4,5-T and other pesticides which contribute in important ways to the welfare of the Nation.’

So far as Australia is concerned I understand that 2,4,5-T was considered last year by the National Health and Medical Research Council and that the Council made recommendations on precautions to be taken in the manufacture and use of that weedicide.

Dried Fruits Industry (Question No. 2571)

Mr Grassby:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. What stage has he reached in his consideration of dried fruits industry stabilisation proposals following the completion of his Department’s investigation of those proposals.
  2. Will he, having recently succeeded to the portfolio of Primary Industry, arrange to visit the dried fruit growing areas of New South Wales and Victoria and confer with industry representatives on the spot.
Mr Sinclair:
Minister for Primary Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

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

  1. and (2) I commenced discussions early in March with officials of the Australian Dried Fruits Association on the Association’s stabilisation proposals and conferred with them again on this matter when 1 was in Mildura on the 29th March to open the Salinity Conference. Consideration of the proposals is well advanced, and further meetings with the industry will be arranged as and when necessary.

Marihuana (Question No. 2289)

Mr Hayden:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Excise, upon notice:

  1. Did he say on 3 September 1970 that there is an abundance of evidence that marihuana is harmful, can be harmful and can have an effect on life expectancy.
  2. If so, what evidential sources did he have in mind.
Mr Chipp:
LP

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

  1. Yes.

  2. At the time I was discussing the action of certain overseas insurance companies which, after carrying out research into the subject, had adopted the practice of insisting that persons applying for life assurance complete a declaration that they were not users of marihuana or other drugs of dependence. As stated by the insurance companies such use was believed by them to decrease life expectancy. Of course, this report was not the only basis for my statement. For example:

    1. In 1969 a Special Presidential Task Force was set up in the United States to examine and report on, amongst other matters, ‘The Dangers of Marihuana’. The Chairman of the Sub-committee charged with this responsibility was Dr Stanley F. Yolles, Director of the National Institute of Mental Health.

The conclusions of the Sub-committee were as follows -

There is no question that the widespreaduse of marihuana represents a significant mental health problem.

There is no known beneficial result from the use of marihuana; there are, on the other hand, definite detrimental effects.

More research is needed to further our understanding of the effects of marihuana use. However,it is clear that, depending on the dose, the active ingredient found in marihuana may have substantial detrimental effects on both the mental and physical well-being of the user. In this connection it is important to point out that use of a combination of dangerous drugs may have a synergistic effect and may resultin the death of the user.

Medical evidence neither proves or disproves that marihuana is a cause of crime. Criminal records do establish clearly an accelerating rate of association between crime and the use of marihuana.’

  1. Dr James C. Munch, a member of the Advisory Committee to the United States Federal Bureau of Narcotics, stated in his paper The Toxicity of Cannabis Saliva’ that Humans smoking marihuana cigarettes, or ingesting leaves of cannabis or extracts therefrom, have developed hallucinations, delerium, progressive brain damage and death from cardiac failure.’
  2. In a report to the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Mental Health, Dr Vincent de Paul Lynch, Professor at St John’s University in Jamaica, Queens, New York, said his studies indicated that the ‘use of marihuana could have very serious consequences’ for human reproduction. Dr Lynch’s experiment was so calculated that experimental rats received the equivalent amount of marihuana that smokers would normally consume.
  3. Evidence of liver dysfunction was discovered in 8 out of 12 male marihuana smokers by

Dr M. C. Kew of the University of Witwatersrand, South Africa. None of the tested patients was a heavy drinker or an intravenous drug user.

  1. A report which I regarded as being of particular significance was that of the Expert Committee on Drug Dependence of the World Health Organisation to the 23rd session of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs in 1969. The Committee strongly reaffirmed the opinions expressed in previous reports that cannabis is a drug of dependence, producing public health and social problems, and that control over it must be continued.

Immigration Agreements (Question No. 2545)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for

Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Which countries have immigration agreements with Australia.
  2. In respect of each agreement what provisions apply regarding (a) annual intake of migrants, and (b) migrants’ (i) employment classification (ii) age (iii) education and (iv) health.
  3. Which non-European countries have sought immigration agreements with Australia and what was the result in each case.
  4. How many immigrants from non-European countries have been admitted to Australia over each of the last 10 years and from which countries did they migrate.
  5. In respect of which country’s migrants does Australia offer the benefits of the assisted passage scheme.
  6. Does the assisted passage scheme apply to immigrants migrating from non-European countries.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Australia has formal agreements involving provision of assisted passages, with the United Kingdom, Malta, The Netherlands, Italy, Germany (Federal Republic), Turkey and Yugoslavia.

  2. (a) In none of the Agreements mentioned above is any provision made regarding an annual intake of migrants from the country with which the Agreement is made. Annual immigration targets are determined year by year by the Australian Government and, where necessary, in consultation with the Government concerned.

    1. (i) The migrants selected under the Agreements cover a wide cross-section of employment classifications (skilled, semiskilled, unskilled) but in none of the Agreements are employment classifications stipulated. The migrants actually selected are in accordance with Australia’s known labour demands as determined annually in consultation with the Department of Labour and National Service.
    2. None of the Agreements, except that with Turkey, has a provision defining age groups for assisted migrants. However, age groups form part of the eligibility criteria which have been established separately to give effect to the assisted passage programme under each Agreement. These vary slightly in certain programmes and also may be modified where special circumstances warrant it, but generally speaking the age groups which apply are:
  1. The Agreements do not stipulate a standard of education but account is taken of the level achieved by prospective migrants in determining their general suitability for assisted passages.

  2. No health criteria are laid down in the Agreements. These are established by the Commonwealth Department of Health and each assisted migrant is examined by doctors to ensure compliance with these standards.

    1. Since Australia’s post-war immigration programme began, there has been one approach only at Ministerial level from a country with a predominantly non-European population. The approach was made in confidence and it would be a breach of that confidence to reveal the name of the country concerned.

Although Australia did not agree to enter into an agreement with that country, applications for settlement continue to be received each year from a large number of its citizens, many of whom are found eligible and duly admitted as migrants.

  1. Until the second hall of 1961, statistics were not maintained which recorded the number of non-Europeans admitted, during given periods. In addition, prior to 1966, statistics were maintained under four broad nationality headings only.

Available statistics covering the entry of nonEuropean people for residence during the period 1 July 1961 to 31 December 1965 are:

It is not possible to provide details of the countries of former residence, as until recently the annua] arrival statistics of people of nonEuropean descent were analysed according to their nationality, not the country from which they came. The detailed nationality statistics for the calendar years 1966 to 1970 inclusive are:

  1. In addition to the various assisted passage schemes for nationals of the countries with which Australia has bilateral agreements and who are resident in those countries, unilateral assistance is provided under the Special Passage Assistance Programme and the United States Passage Assist- ance Programme to certain other migrants who meet Australian criteria for the granting of assisted passages. These are principally guest workers in Western Europe, Scandinavians, French and United States and South Americans. (6) See (5).

Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications (Question No. 2827)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

On what dates, at what places, concerning what professions or branches of professions and with what results have there been meetings of the Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The Committee has met formally as a full Committee on: 1969- 10 April, 3 June, 1 July, 28 August, 23 September, 23 October, 20 November 1970- 19 January, 27 February, 12 March, 9 April, 14 May, 18 June, 13 August, 10 September, 22 October, 19 November, 10 December 1971- 28 January, 17 February.

The Committee met on 10 April and 28 August 1969, in Melbourne. On all other dates the Committee met in Canberra.

Members of the Committee have also met separately with representatives of the professions.

The professions concerned are:

Accountancy

Agricultural Science

Architecture

Chemistry

Dentistry

Dietetics

Engineering

Librarian ship

Medicine

Nursing

Occupational Therapy

Optometry

Pharmacy

Physics

Physiotherapy

Social Work

Speech Therapy

Teaching

Veterinary Science

In the course of its meetings the Committee has held discussions with a number of bodies in order to explore in depth the many aspects of assessment and recognition within each profession.

Amongst the ‘major authorities which the Committee has consulted are:

Accountancy: Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia; Australian Society of Accountants.

Agricultural Science: The Australian Institute of Agricultural Science.

Architecture: The Royal Australian Institute of Architects.

Chemistry: The Royal Australian Chemical

Board.

Dentistry: The Australian Dental Association; Chairman of State and Territory Registration Boards.

Dietetics: The Australian Dietetic Council; The New South Wales Institute of Dietitians; The Dietetics Registration Board of Victoria.

Engineering: The Institution of Engineers, Australia.

Librarianship: The Library Association of Australia.

Medicine: The Australian Medical Association; The Royal Australasian College of Physicians; Chairmen of State and Territory medical boards.

Nursing: The Royal Australian Nursing Federation; Chairmen of State and Territory registration authorities.

Occupational Therapy: The Australian Association of Occupational Therapists; The Occupational Therapists’ Registration Board of Western Australia.

Pharmacy: Presidents qf State and Territory Registration Boards.

Physics: The Australian Institute of Physics.

Physiotherapy: Representatives of the profession.

Social Work: The Australian Association of Social Workers.

Teaching: State Education Departments and representatives of the non-government schools.

Veterinary Science: The Australian Veterinary Association.

Contact has also been made with a number of other registration . . authorities and professional bodies.

To assist the Committee in the analysis of the particular problems of individual professions and to gather information useful to the assessing bodies, expert panels have been established in the professions of dietetics, librarianship, nursing, physiotherapy, teaching and veterinary science. An expert panel in pharmacy is also being established.

The Committee has no authority to impose its decisions on bodies having responsibility for the recognition of qualifications and any changes which may occur in the recognition patterns will be the result of co-operative endeavour by responsible bodies and the Committee. However, its assistance is being sought increasingly by the assessing authorities in the collection of information about qualifications on which an adequate assessment can be based.

Booklets are at present being printed by the Committee on the professions of accountancy, engineering and librarianship. These provide background information on the professions in Australia and detailed guidance on procedures for the recognition of overseas qualifications. Similar booklets are being prepared for the professions of agricultural science, architecture, dentistry, dietetics, medicine, nursing, physics and veterinary science.

National Service (Question No. 2666)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. How many cases of possible failure to register for national service has his Department investigated in the past S years.
  2. How many 20 year-olds have failed to obey the call-up.
  3. How many of those referred to in parts (1) and (2) have been (a) prosecuted and (b) convicted.
  4. How many of those investigated were found not to be in default of the Act.
  5. How many of those found to be in default of the Act have not been proceeded against.
  6. How many prosecutions have been (a) not proceeded with (b) dismissed and (c) withdrawn, and how many prosecutions are pending.
  7. How many investigations are still proceeding.
Mr Lynch:
Minister for Labour and National Service · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (l)-(7) I detailed the position regarding breaches of the National Service Act, including failure to register at the proper time, in my recent reply to a question by Senator O’Byrne (Question No. 870, Hansard 7th April 1971, page 805). For the convenience of the honourable member, I quote the relevant paragraphs:

Since some in the community are seeking to confuse the situation regarding breaches of the National Service Act it may help if 1 explain matters in some detail.

The more serious areas of default under the National Service Act are threefold: failure to register at the proper time: e failure to attend for medical examination: failure to obey a call-up notice and render service.

When it comes to my Department’s notice that a man docs not appear to have registered or bas not registered at the proper time the matter is investigated to ensure that national service obligations are not being avoided. It is in the interests of both those who are affected and the men who meet their obligations that investigations should be carried out vigorously and with the thoroughness and care essential in the circumstances.

Frequently, in cases ot apparent failure to register or to register at the proper time, no default is found. In many instances the man is nut required to register; he is in the Permanent Forces or has arrived in Australia after the registration date of his age-group. In other cases the ‘person’ turns out to be non-existent or when correctly identified he is already registered or may nol have been in Australia at the lime when his age-group was required to register, but has done so correctly on his return.

Some men register late, for example, because they were in hospital at the lime their age-group was required to register, others would be in prison and there are the mentally retarded. Where no mitigating circumstances exist, however, and the men failed to register at the proper time they are denied the benefit of the ballot. In addition, particularly where the men have registered only after coming to the notice of the Department or have refused to register at all, they are also liable to prosecution for their offence.’

The great majority of men register as required. During the last 3 years to the 31st December last when those opposed to national service have been most vocal: a 311,853 men registered for national service; my Department does not maintain comprehensive records of the number of cases where it had come to notice that men appear not to have registered or have not registered at the proper time, whether as a result of the men registering late voluntarily, its own systematic detection activities, or otherwise. However, the Department estimates that currently some 10,000 ‘investigations’ of such cases may occur annually; the nature of the investigations varies greatly, ranging from a routine but not necessarily readily obtainable check, for example, of a man’s birfhdate, to cases involving extended police enquiries. For the reasons already explained in my reply to Senator O’Byrne, frequently no default is found. 5,039 men. or 1.6 per cent of those registered, were penalised for failing to register at the proper time by being denied the benefit of the ballot. Of this number 684 men were prosecuted and convicted for failure to register, 43 cases were dismissed and in 33 the prosecution was withdrawn.

I went on to explain to Senator O’Byrne the position regarding failure to attend for medical examination and failure to obey a call-up notice and render service. Again for the convenience of the honourable member I quote the relevant parts of my answer:

When a man is called for medical examination to determine his fitness for Army service, he is asked to advise the Registrar before the due date if for any reason he will be unable to attend so that another date can be arranged. If he does not do so and fails to attend, he is normally sent another notice for a later date. He is also advised that the National Service Act provides in the event of prosecution for a fine and being sentenced to 7 days imprisonment if he persists in his refusal.

Again the great majority of men attend for medical examination when required to do so. Over the past 3 years to the 31st December last 66,780 men had been medically examined. 50 men, or less than 0.1 per cent. have been prosecuted.

Men who have been medically examined and found to be fit. or have refused to undergo a medical examination and been prosecuted for that offence and persist in their refusal, are called up for Army service. Otherwise no man is called up while any doubt exists regarding his eligibility for exemption or his fitness for service.

Some men do not attend on the date set down for their call-up because, for example, of illness, family death or other unavoidable causes. In these cases arrangements are made for their enlistment at a later date. Other men at the last minute apply for recognition as conscientious objectors or seek deferment on the grounds of exceptional hardship and are subsequently granted exemption or are enlisted. Men who refuse to attend for call-up normally have at least two opportunities to consider their situation and report for service. . . .

At each of the stages of medical examination and call-up, particular consideration is given to men who have indicated that they may hold conscientious beliefs which could entitle them to exemption from national service but have not applied themselves. They are considered for referral under the provisions which the Government introduced last August. Their cases are thoroughly examined before any prosecution action is launched. If such men are granted exemption, no further action is taken, otherwise prosecution proceeds as it does in other cases where reference is not warranted.’

Over the past 3 years of the national service scheme to the 31st December last: 25,487 men have been called up and enlisted; 11 men have been convicted of refusal to obey a call-up notice to render service; there were 59 cases involving refusal to obey a call-up notice to render service which were not finalised at 31st December. These include cases where prosecution proceedings bad been approved or commenced and men were awaiting hearing of cases for exemption on the grounds of conscientious beliefs. A number of these have since been finalised.

National Service (Question No. 2774)

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

ns asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Is 43,960 the cumulative total of those who have failed to register for national service to 31 December 1970.
  2. Was it found that there was no default in. 23,435 of these cases.
  3. If so, what are the main’ reasons why it was found that there was no default in the case of the 23,435 persons failing to register.
  4. Were explanations accepted in 8,374 of these cases.
  5. What were the main reasons why explanations were accepted in these cases.
  6. Had investigations been proceeding for more than 3 months in 7,276 cases and for less than 3 months in 2,888 cases.
  7. How many persons are engaged in making these investigations, and when is it expected that they will be completed.
  8. In how many cases have investigations proceeded for (a) more than 6 months, (b) one year, (c) one and a half years, (d) two years and (e) longer than two years.
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (l)-(8) Information regarding failure to register for national service at the proper time is included in my answer to question No. 2666.

As to ‘investigations’, these are carried out by departmental and police officers largely in conjunction with their other duties. The provision of precise information of the nature sought by the honourable member regarding such ‘investigations’ would require the diversion of staff resources which is not considered justified.

Alcoholism (Question No. 2809)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a statement by Dr Geoffrey Bennett, Chief Medical Officer of the British Department of Trade, that 2% of aircrew are alcoholics?
  2. Will the Minister take steps to ensure the compulsory testing of all aircrew before going on duty?
Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. The attention of the Minister for Civil Aviation has been drawn to a paper read by Dr Geoffrey Bennett, Chief Medical Officer to the United Kingdom Department of Trade and Industry before a conference of the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators in London on the 18th February 1971. In this paper Dr Bennett stated that ‘about two per cent of the (airline) Industry’s staff are alcoholics in the usually accepted sense, i.e., people whose social or professional life was affected by their drinking. The trouble is that this two per cent doesn’t include many charge hands - it is the managers and aircrew almost exclusively.’

Dr Bennett was referring to the British airline industry. There is no similar evidence in relation to the Australian airline industry.

  1. There is an Australian Air Navigation Regulation which prohibits any person from acting as a member of the operating crew of an aircraft engaged in a public transport service if his ability is impaired by alcohol. In addition, the regulation expressly prohibits the consumption of alcohol by such crew members within twelve hours of going on duty.

Detection of alcoholism is not a matter of a single test and it is therefore not practical to test each pilot before he goes on duty.

Civil Aviation: Townsville Airport (Question No. 3068)

Dr Patterson:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. What additional facilities and services would be needed to establish an international airport at Townsville.
  2. What would be the approximate capital cost of these additional facilities.
Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answers to the honourable member’s questions:

  1. It will be appreciated that Townsville is a first port of entry for Australia-Papua/New Guinea services and an international alternate aerodrome in the more general sense. It is now equipped to cope with those limited international commitments.

If the question relates to upgrading the international terminal and airport movement area to cater for unrestricted international operations, then that would involve Boeing 747 services. A new and much larger international terminal, a longer and stronger new runway, additional taxiways and enlarged apron areas would be required.

  1. To the order of $15m.

Civil Aviation: Sydney International Terminal (Question No. 3017)

Mr Stewart:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. Have requests been received from various employees’ organisations for the provision of a restaurant for Commonwealth employees at the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport International Terminal.
  2. If so, what consideration has been given to the matter.
Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) The Department has not received any such requests. A staff canteen has always been provided in the new International Terminal for all employees in the area. The canteen was established and is operated by the terminal food and liquor concessionaire as part of the concession contract.

Civil Aviation: Sydney International Terminal (Question No. 3014)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. Have complaints been received concerning the lack of airconditioning in the Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport international terminal.
  2. If so, by whom have these complaints been lodged.
  3. Have conditions In the new terminal justified the complaints.
  4. What action is contemplated to rectify the situation.
Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answers to the honourable member’s questions:

  1. Yes.
  2. Complaints were made by staff of the various organisations within the new terminal, by the Airlines, members of the public and, in a more general sense, through the medium of the press.
  3. The latest consensus of opinion supports full airconditioning. This is no doubt influenced by the recent but quite strong trend towards airconditioning all new public buildings. In that context the complaints are justified insofar as the hot and humid days of mid summer are concerned.
  4. The immediate action taken to reduce the problem, insofar as practicable, was to provide a number of large high-speed fans. The air flow system within the Arrivals Hall was also modified to improve air circulation.

Further action must take into account not only the consensus of opinion which now favours airconditioning throughout the building as earlier mentioned, but also the fact that when the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works originally considered this major building project as a whole, it did not feel that airconditioning throughout was justified, bearing in mind Sydney’s quite pleasant weather for most of the year. This full airconditioning was then estimated to have cost an additional $900,000.

We have re-examined the problem and we are now hopeful that an answer can be found at a cost of approximately $600,000. We therefore have in mind to recommend full airconditioning subject to normal Government and Public Works Committee reconsideration.

Pet Food (Question No. 2989)

MrUren asked the Minister for Primary

Industry, upon notice:

Is it a fact that several brands of pet food on sale in Australia use whale muscle as a major protein source.

Has his attention been drawn to the Endangered Species Act passed in late 1969 by the United States Congress and the list of endangered species, published in the Federal Register of 2 December 1970, which includes all the major species of whales and which has resulted in a ban on the importation of whale products into the United States.

In the light of the present severe depletion of whale stocks throughout the world, has the Government considered following the United States’ example by placing a ban on imports of whale products.

Will he consider taking action to enact in Australia a comprehensive measure similar to that in the United States to control the importation of products of oceanic species and foreign species known to be endangered and the export of Australian species similarly endangered.

Will he, in addition,immediately review the export of whale products from Australia and their import for pet food and other purposes and, at the same time, review the export of kangaroo products.

Will he also undertake a more comprehensive review of all Australian species and institute export guidelines for all species, based on sound principles of conservation.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. No.
  4. The Government considers that the enactment in Australia of a similar measure to that in the United States is not necessary because it is clear that the United States’ action will not in itself solve the problem of over-exploitation and will merely have a limited effect on the world market for the products. The Government supports a policy of international negotiation and cooperation in the rational utilisation of natural resources. With regard to whales Australia is an original party to the International Whaling Convention, has participated in every annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission since Its inception in 1949 and has continued to support the rational exploitation of the whale stocks based on scientific findings. It must be admitted that in spite of the efforts of the International Whaling Commission the stocks of some species of whales have been seriously depleted. However, in the last few years the Commission has achieved more realistic results and under the present international arrangements, the catching of both blue whales and humpback whales throughout the world is prohibited and the permitted catch of sei whales and fin whales in the Antarctic has been reduced below the sustainable yields of these stocks.
  5. A review of the export of whale products from Australia is considered unnecessary. Australian whaling is now limited to one shore-based operation at Albany in Western Australia where sperm whales are caught by three catcher boats and processed in the shore plant. There is no evidence of any serious depletion of the sperm whale stocks which are distributed over all oceans. However, the International Whaling Commission and its members are carrying out an extensive research programme at provide information on which improved management measures can be based. At present the minimum size limits agreed internationally protect the female sperm whales, which grow more slowly and attain a much lower maximum length than the males. This coupled with the polygamous nature of sperm whales, their wide distribution, and their ability to dive for long periods makes this species less vulnerable than other species of whales.

As you are aware, the Parliament has appointed a Select Committee to enquire into and report upon effect aspects of wildlife conservation, including the effect on the population of kangaroos of the trade in meat and hides. The Government supports this enquiry and will carefully consider the findings when they become available.

  1. It is considered that it would be premature to undertake such action until the Government has had the opportunity to study the report of the Select Committee on wildlife conservation.

Fisheries Research (Question No. 2960)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Prim ary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Does his Department assist the Stales by providing finance for research into the Australian fishing industry.
  2. Jf so, what form does the assistance take in regard to the South Australian fishing industry.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. In accordance with an undertaking given by my predecessor to the Ministers responsible for fisheries matters in each State the Fishing Industry Research Account was established under the Fishing Industry Research Act 1968. Under this Act the Commonwealth pays into the Account an amount equal to that raised by the States from the fishing industry and paid by the States into their own Fisheries Research Funds, which are administered by the States and used to finance State projects. The Commonwealth fund, which comprises the Commonwealth contribution only, is administered by me as Minister for Primary Industry and available to finance projects likely to make the most significant contribution to the fishing industry as a whole without regard to State boundaries.
  2. The first allocations from the Fishing Industry Research Account will be. made in the 1971-72 financial year and I expect to receive in the near future the recommendations of the Committee which was established under the Act and is now considering the various applications for grants. Applications from South Australia as from other States will be considered on their merits.

Meat Inspectors (Question No. 2948)

Mr Kirwan:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Prim ary Industry, upon notice:

  1. How many vacancies were available for farmers who trained to be meat inspectors under the recently held training scheme.
  2. How many applications were received from farmers to fill these vacancies.
  3. What evidence is there to suggest that the scheme was (a) welcomed by men seeking retraining and (b) successful.
  4. What other schemes are currently (a) operating to retrain farmers wishing to leave the land and (b) under consideration for retraining men from the primary industries.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. Two training schemes for meat inspectors were recently introduced.

The Western Australian Government sponsored a dual purpose course in Western Australia to rehabilitate persons who were in occupations relating to farming and to help overcome the shortage of meat inspectors in that State.

The Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry introduced a trainee meat inspector course aimed at overcoming the present shortage of meat inspectors in Victoria and Tasmania. No places were reserved in this course specifically for farmers wishing to be retrained.

  1. Records are not available which show how many applications were received from farmers for both courses, but of the 351 applications received in Western Australia approximately 300 were from persons who were in occupations relating to farming. Of the 1,185 applications received for the Victorian course, 672 were from persons resident in country areas. Of the 40 persons selected for the Victorian course, 23 persons resided in country areas.
  2. The number of applications received from persons residing in country areas indicates thai the courses were welcomed. As both courses only commenced in March this year, it is not possible at this stage to comment on the success of the courses.
  3. At present there are no Government supported schemes to retrain farmers wishing to leave the land. The Government is considering retraining measures for farmers obliged to leave their properties because they do not have prospects of successful operation even if assisted under the rural reconstruction proposals which are being brought to finality. The scheme to provide such farmers with opportunities to train for employment in other industries is at present being discussed by the Department of Labour and National Service with the appropriate Commonwealth and State authorities.

Customs Prevention and Detection (Question No. 2883)

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Cus toms and Excise, upon notice:

How many officers were employed in the Customs Prevention and Detection section on 30th June in each of the years 1960, 1965, 1969 and 1970.

Mr Chipp:
LP

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

Ice Cream (Question No. 2852)

Mr Hansen:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for

Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Can he say how often the retail price of half-gallon cans of ice cream has been increased in the past 3 years.
  2. What has been the total rise in the retail price.
  3. Has there been any corresponding incresae in the price paid to dairy farmers supplying the basic ingredientsto the ice cream manufacturers.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. and (2) The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has provided the following table which shows the average retail price of half-gallon cans of vanilla ice cream in each of the six State capital cities for each month from January 1968 to December 1970. As can be seen the prices of half-gallon cans vary frequently because of their use as ‘specials’ by retail stores.
  2. The basic dairy products used in the manufacture of ice cream are butterfat and skim milk powder. Under the ‘Equalisation’ arrangements manufacturers of ice cream have been able to obtain their requirements of butterfat (‘butteroil’) at a constant price over the past 3 years (1968- 70). The price of skim milk powder however was increased by about 10 per cent during this period. Dairy farmers would have benefited from the skim milk powder price increase. The increase that has occurred in the retail price of ice cream over the past 3 years therefore, apart from the 10 per cent increase in skim milk powder, must have been due to cost factors other than the basic dairy product ingredients.

AVERAGE RETAIL PRICES: HALF-GALLON CANS OF VANILLA ICE-CREAM

SIX STATE CAPITAL CITIES

(cents)

Naval Patrol Vessels (Question No. 2876)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

Is it the intention of his Department to station a naval patrol vessel at Port Lincoln or other ports in South Australia to guard against violations of Australian territorial waters by foreign fishing vessels.

Dr Mackay:
LP

-The following information is provided to the honourable member’s question:

It is not, at this stage, the intention of my Department to station a naval patrol vessel at a South Australian port. Naval patrol boats are deployed, whenever possible, to areas specifically designated for fisheries’ surveillance by the Department of my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry.

Ships of the RAN on transit through South Australian waters, or any other Australian waters are, however, required to report the sighting of foreign fishing vessels. They may, if operational commitments permit, also investigate and, if necessary, apprehend the foreign vessels.

Matrimonial Causes Act (Question No. 2536)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Attorney-

General, upon notice:

  1. Does he propose to introduce a Bill to amend the Matrimonial Causes Act.
  2. If not, will the Government facilitate the consideration of a Bill introduced by a private member to eliminate apparent anomalies and injustices which can arise under the existing Act.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. and (2) I refer the honourable member to the Governor-General’s speech to Parliament on 3rd March 1970 in which it was announced that the Government proposed to introduce legislation to reduce delays in the hearing of proceedings for divorce and to reduce the cost to litigants.

Matrimonial Causes (Question No. 2535)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Attorney-

General, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that as a general rule the Courts will require an innocent husband to pay maintenance to an adulterous wife, pending suit, in cases where she denies adultery in her answer.
  2. Is it also a fact that as a general rule the Courts will not require an innocent husband to pay maintenance to an adulterous wife, pending suit, in cases where she is not willing to commit perjury in her answer.
  3. is there any provision in the Matrimonial Causes Act to require an adulterous wife who, by means of perjury, obtains maintenance pending suit, to refund to the husband all such moneys received.
  4. If not, is there any merit in amending the law in such a way as to take the profit out of perjury.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. and (2) In determining claims for maintenance pending suit the Courts must act in accordance with rule 210 of the Matrimonial Causes Rules.
  2. and (4) The Matrimonial Causes Act does not specifically provide for the making of orders requiring such moneys to be refunded. However, I draw attention to the wide power of the Court under paragraph (1) of sub-section (1.) of section 87 and to the fact that the giving of false testimony is an indictable offence by virtue of seclion 35 of the Crimes Act 1914-1966.

Matrimonial Causes (Question No. 2534)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Attorney-

General, upon notice:

  1. Is he able to say whether the Matrimonial Causes Act permits a woman to leave her husband without just or lawful excuse and to engage in prostitution and become eligible in law to claim maintenance from her husband, pending suit, by the simple device of falsely declaring that she has not committed adultery.
  2. If so, does the Act or any other Act, make provision for any action to be taken against counsel who with full knowledge of these facts, becomes party to securing an agreement from the husband by fraudulent means and under duress, by which the husband is required to make a property settlement to his adulterous wife and to pay her maintenance while she is the de facto wife of another man.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. and (2) The question is based upon a false premise that it would be a ‘simple device’ for a woman to make a false declaration that she had not committed adultery. Such a declaration would in fact be an indictable offence by virtue of section 35 of the Crimes Act 1914-1966. State, or Territory, laws relating to legal practitioners would apply in the event of professional misconduct of the kind mentioned.

Matrimonial Causes (Question No. 2533)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Is he able to say whether it is competent for a Judge of the South Australian Supreme Court to give an authoritative and binding ruling on the constitutional validity of the Supreme Court Act and the rules of South Australia to confer the judicial powers of the Commonwealth on non-judicial officers of the South Australian Supreme Court as was done in the case of Nicholls v. Nicholls (1962) 3 F.L.R. 478, when Chamberlain J. ruled that the Master of the

Supreme Court of South Australia had power to make maintenance orders under the Matrimonial Causes Act. ! (2) Has the High Court considered this decision.

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. and (2) The question whether the provisions of the Supreme Court Act 1935-1970 of South Australia and of the Rules made under that Act enable the judicial powers of the Commonwealth to be exercised by the Master of the Supreme Court of South Australia has been raised for decision of the High Court in a Special Case stated by Mitchel], J. on 8th March, 1971 in proceedings under the name of Knight v. Knight.

Special Rate Pension (Question No. 2951)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for

Repatriation, upon notice:

  1. How many ex-servicemen were in receipt of the Special Rate pension at the end of February 1971.
  2. How many of these ex-servicemen are in receipt of a part service pension.
Mr Holten:
Minister for Repatriation · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

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

  1. 22,584.
  2. The exact number is nol readily available, however, it is estimated that 7,820 Special Rate pensioners are also in receipt of a part service pension.

Repatriation Benefits (Question No. 3152)

Mr Calwell:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for

Repatriation, upon notice:

Will he consider (a) making the payment of a grant of $250 a year to each ex-serviceman or woman who served on Gallipoli in World War I, (b) permitting all World War I personnel to receive free medical treatment in Repatriation hospitals whether their illnesses are due to war injuries or not, and (c) holding an investigation into the exorbitant charges made by undertakers to the relatives of ex-service personnel.

Mr Holten:
CP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. I have considered this proposal. However, such payments would not be in keeping with the basic principles of the Australian repatriation system which provides for the payment of compensation, assessed on the basis of incapacity suffered as a result of war service.
  2. In recent years the Government has received similar requests from organisations representing ex-servicemen but has been unable to give its approval. Medical treatment, including hospitalisation, is provided at the expense of the Repatria tion Department for all disabilities due to war service and, in the case of ex-servicemen in receipt of the 100 per cent General Rate of war pension, or above, or a service pension without recourse to the ‘tapered’ means test, for most disabilities whether war caused or not
  3. I was unaware that undertakers made higher charges to relatives of ex-service personnel, but the amounts charged for funerals are outside my jurisdiction.

Papua and New Guinea:

Entry and Exit Permits (Question No. 2418)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

External Territories, upon notice:

What new laws or practices concerning entry and exit permits have come into operation in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea since his answers to me on 8th and 15th April 1970. (Hansard, pages 891 and 1206).

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

The matter referred to is one which falls within the authority of the ministerial member for Trade and Industry in the House of Assembly for Papua and New Guinea. The Administrator, on the advice of the ministerial member for Trade and Industry, has provided the following information:

Following expressions of concern by members of the House of Assembly and the Australian Parliament and Territory magistrates about the number of undesirable persons apparently entering the Territory, a system of character checking of applicants for entry permits was introduced in August 1970 and the permit application form was amended in November 1970 to require applicants to declare convictions for criminal offences.

Papua and New Guinea: Housing (Question No. 2404)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. How many applications for housing were (a) lodged with the Papua and New Guinea Housing Commission in 1969-70 and (b) outstanding at 30th June 1970.
  2. How many houses were built for the Commission in 1969-70.
  3. In what urban areas, and for what minimum rents were the houses built.
  4. What percentage of indigenous residents in those areas can afford those rents.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

The matter referred to is one which falls within the authority of the Assistant Ministerial Member for Social Development and Home Affairs in the House of Assembly for Papua and New Guinea. The Administrator on the advice of the Assistant

Ministerial Member for Social Development and Home Affairs has provided the following information:

(a) 1,354

2,101.

1968-1969-279houses 1969-1970-118 houses.

In addition the Housing Commission took over 373 houses from the Administration in these periods.

The Commission built houses inPort Moresby, Lae, Madang and Rabaul. The minimum rents were:

for houses built by the Commission -

  1. for houses taken over from the Administration the range of rents is -
  1. It is known that many persons in lower income groups do not apply in the knowledge that they would not be allocated a house where the rent is greater than 25 per cent of their income. It is believed that approximately 70 per cent of the indigenous population in the centres where the Commission operates cannot afford the rental for the houses currently constructed by the Commission. The Commission is aware of this situation and is taking steps in the present year to construct a range of cheaper houses which should rent from approximately- $2.00 to $3.00 per week.

Industrial Accidents (Question No. 2513)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

What percentage of industrial accidents result in (a) permanent total disability, (b) permanent partial disability, (c) temporary total disability and (d) temporary partial disability.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

No statistics are available for the breakdown of cases specified under (a), (b), (c) and (d).

Industrial Accidents and Diseases (Question No. 2491)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

What amount has the Commonwealth spent in carrying out research and investigation in connection with industrial accidents and diseases in each of the last 5 years for which figures are available.

Mr Lynch:
LP

– The answer to the hourable member’s question is as follows:

No figures are available of the total expenditure by the Commonwealth on research and investigation in connection with industrial injuries and diseases. Expenditure is incurred separately by Commonwealth Departments, instrumentalities and agencies in their separate programmes.

Industrial Accidents and Diseases (Question No. 2492)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

What amount has the Commonwealth spent in promoting safety rules for the prevention of industrial accidents and disease in each of the last 5 years for which figures are available.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

No figures are available of the total expenditure on promoting safety rules for the prevention of industrial injuries and diseases. Expenditure is incurred separately by Commonwealth Departments, instrumentalities and agencies in their programmes.

Industrial Accidents (Question No. 2512)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

What was the number of (a) fatalities, (b) permanent total disabilities, (c) permanent partial disabilities, and (d) temporary disabilities resulting from industrial injuries in each of the last 5 years for which figures are available.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. The Departments of Labour Advisory Committee working in conjunction with the Commonwealth Statistician estimates on the basis of accident statistics from all States that fatalities caused by industrial injuries average approximately 400 per year.
  2. , (c) and (d) No separate figures are available for these categories.

Industrial Accidents or Disease (Question No. 2514)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. What was the total number of persons incapacitated as a consequence of industrial accident or disease in industries covered by (a) the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act and (b) each of the other employees’ compensation Acts in each of the last 5 years for which figures are available.
  2. What percentages of the persons affected by such industrial accidents or diseases were, as a consequence, absent from work for (a) 14 days and under, (b) 28 days and under, (c) 3 months and under and (d) 3 months or longer.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. (a) I am advised that compensation was paid in respect of the following numbers of new cases under the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act during the last 5 years.

Year ended 30th June 1966-20,078

Year ended 30th June 1967-21,659

Year ended 30th June 1968-21,584

Year ended 30th June 1969-20,878

Year ended 30th June 1970-20,910

  1. Figures for the States Compensation Acts were given in reply to Question No. 414 last year.

    1. Statistics are not available on which to analyse Commonwealth cases according to duration of incapacity. I am advised that, on the basis of statistics for employees covered by workers’ compensation insurance in the States, the overall estimated distribution for a typical year is approximately as follows: 1 day. and less than 1 week - 47 per cent 1 week and less than 2 weeks - 25 per cent 2 weeks and less than 4 weeks - 15 per cent 4 weeks and less than 3 months - 15 per cent more than 3 months - 2 per cent.

Workers’ Compensation (Question No. 2516)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Can he give the percentage of all wage and salary earners who work for employers who act as their own insurers against workers’ compensation.
  2. Is there any evidence to support the view that the incidence of industrial accident and disease is significantly lower in cases where the employer acts as his own insurer.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

I am advised that no statistics are available from Commonwealth sources which would provide an answer to this question.

Sick Leave (Question No. 2519)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

What is the estimated annual cost of paid sick leave throughout Australia.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

No reliable estimates of the annual cost of paid sick leave throughout Australia are available.

Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill 1970 (Question No. 2520)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

When will debate be resumed on the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill 1970.

Mr Snedden:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

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

Subject to leave being granted to withdraw the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill 1970 and the two associated Bills, it is intended to introduce a new Compensation (Commonwealth Employees’) Bill and new associated Bills into this House at the earliest opportunity.

Industrial Injuries: Loss of Working Days (Question No. 2641)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. How many calendar’ days were lost as a result of temporary disability only, due to industrial injuries, in each of the last 5 years for which figures are available.
  2. What was the average number of days lost per accident during the same period.
  3. How many days were lost on an actual age basis.
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) No separate figures are available for temporary disabilities only, or by age groups. However, the Departments of Labour Advisory Committee with the assistance of the Commonwealth Statistician estimated on the basis of all State accident statistics for 1967-68 that the time lost in the whole of Australia from all nonfatal industrial injuries was approximately 4,900,000 calendar days. The average period of disability on a 1-day minimum basis was estimated at 16 calendar days.

Question on Notice (Question No. 2670)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

What is the difficulty in answering question No. 1907 which has appeared on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 24th September 1970.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

See my answer to question1907 which appeared in Hansard for 7th April, 1971 at page 1638.

Housing (Question No. 2992)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice:

Will he bring up to dale the information on the (a) number of houses and (b) percentage of total houses completed in each State by State housing authorities (Hansard, 12 June 1970, page 3654).

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. and (b) Dwellings (houses and flats), and percentage of total dwellings, completed by State housing authorities in 1969-70.

National Service (Question No. 3012)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Minister for

Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. What is the time lapse between the medical examination of a prospective national serviceman and notification of his acceptance or rejection.
  2. If there is delay, what are the reasons fur it.
  3. Will he ensure that all prospective national servicemen are notified of the result within 48 hours.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. to (3) National service medical examinations are conducted by Medical Boards of two doctors in accordance with precise standards and instructions approved by the Director-General of Army Medical Services. Classification of a registrant is based on consideration of his medical history as made known to or elicited by the Medical Board, any medical evidence submitted and a physical examination which includes an X-ray examination of the chest. Provision is made for referral to a consulting specialist or obtaining evidence of past medical treatment in any case where the Board considers this desirable. No man is passed fit for service until the Board’s classification of fitness has been confirmed by the Reviewing Medical Authority in the State concerned. Men who have not satisfactorily completed the 9th year of schooling are also required to undergo tests of literacy and mental ability. Medical Board and associated examinations have to be conducted far and wide throughout Australia since there are no geographical restrictions on liability for service.

It will be evident that the time lapse between a man’s medical examination and notification whether or not he is fit for service may vary considerably. With some men it is possible to notify them of the result within 48 hours. On the other hand where specialist examinations are involved or there is a need to obtain evidence of past medical treatment the period may extend to some weeks depending on the availability of a specialist in the particular field of medicine or the time required to obtain the necessary information. Where there is likely to be undue delay in advising a man how he stands, the Department endeavours to keep him informed of the progress of events.

Educational Needs Survey (Question No. 3055)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Education and Science, upon notice:

To what extent has the Commonwealth been able to determine its own position on the Nationwide Survey of Educational Needs pending a reply by the Premiers of New South Wales and Victoria to the letters which the former Prime Minister sent them on 7th September 1970. (Hansard, 21st October 1970, page 2616 and 31st March 1971, page 1283).

Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

The Commonwealth’s position will be determined when it has considered all the material in respect of both Government and non-government schools.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 21 April 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19710421_reps_27_hor72/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant