House of Representatives
9 May 1973

28th Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Hod. j. F. Cope) took the chair at 1 1 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1847

PETITIONS

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There was a lot of audible conversation yesterday while the Clerk was reading the details of the various petitions that had been lodged for presentation. I ask honourable members to remain silent while he is doing so today. A total of 207 petitions has been lodged for presentation today. I believe that that represents the largest number lodged for presentation at any one time since federation.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers:

Abortion

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectively showeth:

  1. That grave concern is felt at the imminent introduction into the Commonwealth Parliament i of legislation to extend the situation in which [ abortions may be legally obtained and which i will, it is believed, result in a situation in Aus- > tralia where abortions are available on demand.
  2. That if as some argue the unborn child at the time abortions are performed does not constitute human life, then justice and reason demand that anyone so arguing has the onus of proof upon him and that this onus has not been discharged.
  3. That all have the right to life and that abortion is not merely another form of contraception but is the deliberate taking of innocent human life.
  4. That, while acknowledging that unwanted preg- nancies do often present serious problems, the answer lies not in the slaughter of the innocents but in fostering a genuine concern in the wellbeing of all our fellow Australians - with all that entails.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should not admit into the law of this land a principle which violates a fundamental right - the right to life.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Hayden, Mr Daly (2), Mr Uren, Mr Connor, Mr Grassby, Mr Morrison, Mr Anthony (2), Mr Sinclair (5), Mr Adermann (5), Mr N. H. Bowen, Mr Calder, Mr Coates, Mr Cooke, Mr Corbett, Sir John Cramer, Mr Davies (2), Mr Edwards, Mr FitzPatrick, Dr Forbes (3), Mr Fox (2), Mr Giles (2), Mr Hallett, Mr Hunt (5), Mr Katter, Mr Keogh, Mr Lamb, Mr Lucock (2), Mr McVeigh (4), Mr Maisey, Mr O’Keefe, Mr Olley (4), Mr

Riordan, Mr Eric Robinson, Mr Ian Robinson, Mr Street (2), Mr Wallis and Mr Whan

Petitions received.

Abortion

To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

That grave concern is felt at the imminent introduction into the Commonwealth Parliament of legislation to permit abortion on demand.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should not admit into the laws of this land a principle which violates a fundamental right - the right to life. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, by Dr Patterson, Mr Daly, Mr Charles Jones, Mr Beazley, Mr Stewart, Mr Lionel Bowen, Mr Anthony, Mr Sinclair (3), Mr McMahon (2), Mr Adermann (3), Mr Armitage (2), Mr Ashley-Brown, Mr Bennett, Mr Berinson, Mr Birrell, Mr Bonnett (5), Mr N. H. Bowen, Mr Bury, Mr Donald Cameron, Mr Chipp (2), Mr Coates (3), Mr Collard, Mr Cross, Mr Doyle, Mr Drummond, Mr Drury, Mr Edwards, Mr England, Dr Forbes (5), Mr Fox, Mr Fulton, Mr Garland, Mr Giles (2), Mr Hallett, Mr Hansen, Mr Hunt (3), Mr Hurford, Mr Jacobi, Mr James, Mr Keating, Mr Keogh, Mr Killen, Mr King, Mr Luchetti, Mr Lucock (20), Mr McVeigh, Mr Maisey (9), Mr Martin, Mr Morris, Mr Nicholls (3), Mr Oldmeadow, Mr Olley (4), Mr Sherry, Mr Thorburn, Mr Whittorn and Mr Wilson.

Petitions received.

Abortion

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of tha House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. That Australian citizens place great value on the sanctity of human life and the physical, mental and social welfare of mothers and children.
  2. That we are deeply concerned to preserve throughout Australia the law’s protection of human life from the moment of conception.
  3. That proposals to change the law to allow abortion on demand and the termination of pregnancy for non-medical reasons are unacceptable to the people of Australia.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the honourable House will not extend the laws governing abortion and will uphold the right to life of tha unborn child.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, by Mr Daly, Mr Uren (2), Mr Stewart, Mr Lionel Bowen, Mr Morrison, Mr Anthony (2), Mr Sinclair, Mr McMahon, Mr AshleyBrown, Mr Bury (2), Sir John Cramer, Mr Edwards, Mr Graham, Dr Klugman, Mr Lamb, Mr Olley and Mr Riordan.

Petitions received.

Abortion

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of various faiths (electors of the Division of Flinders) respectfully showeth:

  1. That citizens of this division place great value on the sanctity of human life, and on the physical, mental, and social welfare of mothers and children;
  2. That we are deeply concerned at proposals in the community to alter the law to allow the termination of pregnancy for non-medical reasons; and
  3. That extension of the law to allow abortion on. demand is completely unacceptable to the people of this Commonwealth.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will not extend the laws governing abortion and will uphold the right to life of the unborn child.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Lynch.

Petition received.

Abortion

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth humbly showeth:

That the undersigned believe that,

  1. The duty of Government is to give legal protection to human life before, as well as after, birth. We ask that legal protection be given to the unborn child.
  2. Recourse to abortion lessens respect for human life in the community. We stand firmly against the present attempt to change legislation on abortion.
  3. The responsibility of Government for the welfare of all citizens demands adequate social assistance programs for women contemplating recourse to an abortion.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should maintain the existing laws covering abortion.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Grassby, Mr Erwin, Mr Hamer and Mr Keith Johnson.

Petitions received.

Abortion

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Henty showeth:

That the undersigned believe:

That the unborn child from the moment of conception enjoys in full the right to life, and should therefore receive the full protection of the law against any violation of this right.

That legalised abortion at any stage of pregnancy is a violation of this right.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that you will oppose any legislation which would liberalise abortion in any circumstances. by Mr Fox (2).

Petition received.

Second Major Airport for Melbourne

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned electors of the division of Flinders respectfully showeth.

That concern is felt by electors in the said division at the prospect of a second major airport lo serve Melbourne being constructed in the area south of the Princes Highway and between a north-south line through Cranbourne on the west and a northsouth line through Yannathan on the east, because:

  1. The living conditions of residents would be detrimentally affected by

    1. the invasion of privacy and peace, both day and night;
    2. the pollution caused by the jet aircraft using the airport and also by industries established to serve the airport; and
    3. the ear-assaulting noise of the aircraft which would use the airport.
  2. The livelihood of residents would be adversely affected by

    1. a decrease in the value of real estate on the fringe of the airport;
    2. the emission of air oxidants known to affect crop yield and quality, from the jet aircraft which would use the airport; and
    3. the takeover of many viable farms, on some of the most productive agricultural land in Victoria as the site for the airport itself.
  3. The construction of the airport would mean the destruction of the Quail Island sanctuary and other bushlands which provide the ecological environment for native animals and birds.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to seek an alternative site for the proposed airport. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, humbly pray. by Mr Lynch.

Petition received.

Abortion

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of the undersigned residents of Darwin in the Northern Territory of Australia shows that certain citizens are concerned that the Commonwealth Parliament may legislate to deny the right to life to a class of human beings.

Your petitioners respectfully ask that no steps be taken to widen the existing grounds for abortion and that efforts be made to enforce the present law. And your petitioners as in duty bound do ever humbly pray. by Mr Calder.

Petition received.

Abortion

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of the undersigned residents of Katherine in the Northern Territory of Australia shows that certain citizens are concerned that the Commonwealth Parliament may legislate to deny the right to life to a class of human beings.

Your petitioners respectfully ask that no steps be taken to widen the existing grounds for abortion and that efforts be made to enforce the present law. And your petitioners as in duty bound do ever humbly pray. by Mr Calder.

Petition received.

Abortion

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled.

The humble petition of the undersigned men and women living in the Northern Territory shows that certain citizens believe that the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia does not have the right to authorise the killing of innocent human beings.

Your petitioners respectfully ask that the Parliament should not pass a Bill to extend the grounds for abortion in the Northern Territory.

And your petitioners as in duty bound do ever humbly pray. by Mr Calder.

Petition received.

Abortion

To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives. The Petition of citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth:

That there is a growing concern in the community about proposed changes in the law against abortion.

We the undersigned are against any relaxing of the law to allow abortion on demand and we request your earnest efforts to prevent any alteration of the laws.

Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will refrain from amending the present laws of Australia in this regard. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Charles Jones.

Petition received.

Prices

To the Honourable the Speaker and members ofthe House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens (electors of the Division of the A.C.T.) respectfully sheweth:

That the citizens of this Division are deeply concerned at the frequency and size of recent price rises over a wide range of consumer goods.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the honourable House will take immediate action in respect of the following issues:

  1. That the Joint Inter-Parliamentary Committee on Prices be established quickly and be instructed to expeditiously complete its enquiries.
  2. That pending effective Government action prices be fixed at the levels existing at the time the setting up of the said Committee was announced.
  3. That special attention be given to the relatively higher level of prices in the A.C.T. vis a vis the States.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hurford.

Petition received.

Abortion

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain Nurses of Australia respectfully sheweth:

  1. Australian Nurses place great value on the sanctity of human life, the physical mental and social welfare of mothers and children.
  2. That we are deeply concerned to preserve throughout Australia the law’s protection of human life from the moment of conception.
  3. That proposals to change the law to allow Abortion on Demand and the Termination of Pregnancy for non-medical reasons are unacceptable to the Nurses of Australia

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the honourable House will not extend the laws governing Abortion and will uphold the right to life of the unborn child.

Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Reynolds.

Petition received.

Abortion

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

  1. That citizens of Shortland place great value on the sanctity of human life and the physical, mental and social welfare of mothers and children.
  2. That we are deeply concerned at proposals in the community to alter the law to allow the termination of pregnancy for non-medical reasons.
  3. That extension of the law to allow ‘abortion on demand’ is completely unacceptable to the people of Australia.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the honourable House will not extend the laws governing abortion, and will uphold the right to life of the unborn child.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, by Mr Morris.

Petition received.

! ACTING PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA

Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Prime Minister aware that many people in Australia who are already dismayed by the left wing trend in this Government would be appalled if the Acting Prime Minister of Australia were at any time an open adherent of the communist cause, especially in the international context? What precautions does he intend to take to see that this eventuality does not occur?

Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr Speaker, I am appalled at the suggestion.

page 1850

QUESTION

INFLUENZA VACCINE

Mr BERINSON:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for Health received further complaints about influenza vaccine supplies, as reported in today’s ‘Australian’? If so, can he indicate the present supply position and whether he regards it as satisfactory? Will he comment on suggestions that the shortage to this stage has been contributed to by a serious incidence of batch failures in the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and also by a change of distribution arrangements by the Laboratories?

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Minister for Health · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– There has been an increasing amount of complaint from doctors, chemists and distribution organisations regarding the serious backlag in orders for influenza vaccine from the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. My inquiries indicate that several factors are behind this. Firstly, there seems to be-

Mr Street:

– I rise on a point of order. There is a question on notice referring to this matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

– What is the number of the question?

Mr Street:

– At the moment I do not know.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister will proceed until such time as I can determine whether the point of order is valid.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– There seems to be a widespread assumption in some quarters - certainly not in official quarters - which 1 have not been able to track down that when there is an epidemic in the northern hemisphere it necessarily is followed-

Mr Street:

Mr Speaker, the question is No. 463.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is out of order. It is similar to the question on notice.

page 1850

QUESTION

MIGRATION: OVERSEAS STUDENTS

Dr FORBES:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration. Does his answer to a question last week mean that in future private overseas students will be able to stay in Australia if employment is available? If the answer is in the affirmative, how in these circumstances does he justify these students occupying scarce places in Australian universities at the expense of Australians? If the answer is in the negative, can he state the present rules on this matter and how they differ from those of the previous Government?

Mr GRASSBY:
Minister for Immigration · RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I indicated in my answer that there had been a significant change in policy in relation to consideration of applications by overseas students to remain in Australia. It will be remembered that the previous Government initiated a scheme for students coming from our own region of the world to study here. There was a concept that this would be designed to provide them with skills that would help their own countries. This was predicated on the idea that, in effect, a man can be directed where to go and what to do once he has graduated, lt has not worked effectively, as the honourable member will know. In fact, in some cases the people who graduated from Australian universities wilh very good skills, after coming to Australia privately, desired to enter here the profession for which they studied. In some cases in the past they were required to leave even though there had been a great demand for their services in the Australian community. They were required to leave and they left, but they did not go back to their own countries. They went to other countries, particularly to North America and Europe.

We have reviewed the whole scheme - and the review is continuing - with a view to being a little more realistic about people and also to recognising that there is a great need and desirability to promote understanding in our own Australasian region. It is certainly not the view of this Government that we should close the doors to students. In our review we are looking at the human problem of students who come privately and with goodwill to be with us. It is not a case of taking it any further, in making more places available, than was done over recent years by the honourable member’s Party when it was in office. It is not possible to direct the human spirit or human resources and we will be looking at each and every case on its merits as it comes before us.

page 1851

QUESTION

DRUG TRAFFICKING AND ABUSE

Mr INNES:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for Health aware that drug problems are escalating rapidly in large urban centres, that heroin peddling is taking place on an increased scale in Sydney and Melbourne and has led to the deaths of some young people? Is the Government Contemplating a new approach to the question, in conjunction with the States or otherwise?

Dr EVERINGHAM:
ALP

– Several moves have been undertaken to combat the increasing problem of drug abuse. There has been an interdepartmental committee which I understand has produced a preliminary report which has not yet come to my table. My Department has appointed a specialist in drug problems who is at present attending an overseas conference on this matter. I have had conversations with Pastor Noffs of the Wayside Chapel who was instrumental in setting up a drug referral centre in Sydney. I have also had conversations with Dr Stella Dalton of Wisteria House in Parramatta, who founded the movement known as ‘The Way Back’ to assist people who have problems of addiction with alcohol and other drugs.

These informal and formal discussions <vill continue. I hope that some of the initiatives started by these people will ensure that Australia will not lag behind the world, and that perhaps we could even take the lead in some of our methods of handling these social problems of drug abuse, as well as medical problems. Fortunately we have to guide us the experience of overseas urban areas so that we may be able to prevent some of the more widespread disasters that they have experienced.

page 1851

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY: DISTRICT OFFICE AT TAREE

Mr LUCOCK:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. The honourable gentleman’s predecessor informed me towards the end of last year that it was intended to establish in Taree a district office of the Department. Can the Minister inform me of the progress that has been made towards the establishment of such an office? What is the present position?

Mr HAYDEN:
Minister for Social Security · OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I could point out to the honourable member the fairly obvious fact that there is a new Government in office now and that it identifies new priorities in many areas. The old programs of the last Government are not necessarily accepted. The program of decentralisation of office representation of the Department of Social Security is currently being reviewed, but I can assure the honourable member - although I cannot talk specifically about the town or city of Taree - that much greater emphasis will be placed on the needs of people in urban areas, which needs by and large have been neglected in the past insofar as the decentralisation of office representation of the Department of Social Security has been concerned.

page 1851

QUESTION

TAXATION: PROFIT ON RESALE OF PROPERTY

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Treasurer aware that on 16th April the Adelaide ‘News’ ran a story which stated, among other things, that the Treasurer would change the law so that the sale of things like houses would be regarded by the Taxation Office as income - which sales, of course, are now so regarded - if purchased for resale at a profit? Is he further aware, however, that this has been widely misinterpreted as meaning that any margin gained on the sale of the matrimonial home would be taxable? Furthermore, is he aware that South Australia’s ‘This Day Tonight’ program ran a segment to this effect? As his statement from which this misconception was taken said no such thing, will he please put the record straight once again?

Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

– I thank the honourable member for raising this matter because it gives me the chance to clarify what I did say. What I said on the ‘Federal File’ program recently - and what I had said in quite a number of other places previously - was that what I intend or hope to do iii the’ Budget session is to alter the definition of ‘income’, or to include as income in a 12-months period any capita] gain that is realised in the course of that 12 months. What I mean by that is that if a piece of property, real or personal, is purchased and sold within the space of 12 months and an increment follows, I would regard that as income. Surely it cannot be regarded as a long-term investment. It is speculation rather than investment. That is not a capital gains tax. After all, what exists in the income tax provision at the moment is uncertainty as to that kind of transaction. What I want to do is to clarify that uncertainty beyond doubt.

The question of a capital gains tax is a different proposition in respect of which so far the Government has not made any proposals. The matter is being considered within my Department and also by the Asprey Committee. A number of other parts of the world have capital gains taxation provisions under which, if an asset has been held and sold at a profit over a period of time, the increment is taxed at a rate less than the normal income tax rate. That kind of taxation is still being considered. If such a tax were to be introduced it would exempt entirely the first domestic dwelling of anybody, and I hope that that at least is understood. Sometimes I think that some of the so-called public forums, instead of illuminating a question, only obfuscate it further, and with all respect, I think that ‘This Day Tonight’ has a great habit of doing that.

page 1852

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT’S INTERNATIONAL POLICY

Mr McMAHON:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister because of his totally inadequate answer to the question asked by my colleague, the honourable member for Mackellar, and the contemptuous treatment of Parliament in the nature of the reply that the Prime Minister gave to that question. I ask the honourable gentleman: ls it not an acknowledged fact, a notorious fact, that the whole trend and direction of Government foreign or international policy has been changed during the course of the last 5 months? Has this change in direction occurred because of the orientation of Government policy toward the communist parties of the world and away from the recognition of the fact that we - the former Government, my own Government - believed that our interests were best served by deepest and continuing associations with the free world-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the tight honourable gentleman to ask his question.

Mr McMAHON:

– I am asking it, sir, but it needs a fairly long question to get a proper answer from the Prime Minister. 1 ask: Has there not been this reorientation away from the free world to the communist world as obviously indicated by the quick recognition of communist China, by recognition of North Korea and by recognition of North Vietnam?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The answers to the questions are: (1), yes; (2), no; (3) no. The right honourable gentleman referred to recognition of North Korea. This has not taken place.

Mr Wentworth:

Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I ask you, under the provisions of standing order 151, to exercise your discretion to enable me to ask the Prime Minister: Will he take precautions to see that Dr Cairns is never Acting Prime Minister of Australia?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! That is a point of view, not a point of order.

page 1852

QUESTION

TRANQUILLISER DRUGS: OVERCHARGING

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister for Health been drawn to the inquiry proceeding in the United Kingdom regarding the apparent overcharging by a Swiss manufacturing drug company for the tranquillisers librium and valium? In view of the wide use of these tranquillisers in Australia what action is proposed to ensure that the same overcharging is not taking place in Australia?

Dr EVERINGHAM:
ALP

– At the moment, valium happens to be the biggest volume prescription under the national health scheme and its cost, therefore, is of some concern to the Government, particularly as it is approximately twice the price which has been condemned in the United Kingdom. However there are limited means by which an Australian government can police this sort of pricing. For one thing, the Government does not have access to the accounts of the drug firms operating in Australia and certainly not of the parent firms in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Over recent years, my Department has obtained more favourable terms in the pricing of drugs available under the national health scheme. I think that the Department is becoming a little more expert in such negotiations and there is now more comparability between the price ranges in Australia and those in the United Kingdom and New Zealand although, by and large, we are still at some disadvantage but certainly not as at great a disadvantage as 5 or 6 years ago.

The only more effective way - I think this is the consensus in the Government - to make a substantial impact on charges which we suspect are excessive is to vary the marketing arrangements so that the Government has an inside knowledge of these costs. That is, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission, or some company in association with it, could enter the field of production of the drugs in question. The drugs

Valium and librium are patented. A patent is. of course, a legal form of monopoly. We believe this monopoly has to be modified. Other countries have done this by changing their patent laws by reducing the length of the patent, which. I think, is approximately 15 years in Australia. This period is possibly excessive and is being looked at. Italy is one country that has changed this law as have the United Kingdom and Canada.

Another method is to pass a law for compulsory licensing of competitors. That is to say, the patent would have to be let out to competitors to produce the drug under reasonable terms. All these avenues are being looked at by my Department in conjunction with the Attorney-General’s Department. The Government is exploring the possibility of acquiring one or more privately owned drug firms or entering into some marketing arrangements between drug firms and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. I am sure that the Government will be able to act more effectively in this field in the near future.

page 1853

QUESTION

APPEALS TO PRIVY COUNCIL

Mr KILLEN:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– My question, which 1 direct to the Prime Minister, concerns the Statute of Westminster. I ask the honourable gentleman: Is it correct that the proposal to request the United Kingdom Parliament to legislate to abolish appeals from the Australian States to the Privy Council is based upon a desire to remove all remaining vestiges of colonialism and, further, to give expression to the contemporary mood for Australian nationalism? If that is the case, would the honourable gen tleman accept an invitation to consider placing in the requesting Bill to the Imperial Parliament a further request that the Statute of Westminster be amended so that any further appeals to the legislative authority of the United Kingdom Parliament will be excluded?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I am attracted to the proposition that the honourable and learned member puts. I also appreciate the long interest that he has taken in the implications of the Statute of Westminster and, as I understand it, the support that he is expressing for the approach that I announced to the House last week. My difficulty in the present case is that I have discussed with the British Government the amendment I outlined to the House last week. I have not discussed with the British Government the amendment which he suggests. Therefore, I do not think i can incorporate it in that legislation at this time. However. I repeat that it is an approach which does appeal to me and at the first opportunity that 1 have to discuss such matters again with the British Government in the way in which I discussed the one that I outlined last week I will raise this matter as well.

page 1853

QUESTION

PETROL PRICE CUTTING

Mr KEATING:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The Minister for Minerals and Energy will be aware of the severe petrol price cutting war that is presently being undertaken in Victoria and other places in Australia. Can the Minister tell the House what he considers to be the issues involved in this petrol price cutting situation? What action is the Government prepared to take to see that motorists and other users of fuel in Australia are able to obtain supplies of petrol at a fair and reasonable price?

Mr CONNOR:
Minister for Minerals and Energy · CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have under consideration a report which has been prepared for the Australian Automobile Association. Personally I am gravely concerned by the marked disparity between the retail prices of petrol in Sydney and Melbourne. This matter will be pursued with vigour and to the full limit of the Government’s powers.

page 1853

QUESTION

TELEPHONE CHARGES

Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Prime Minister. I am sure it is a simple question and I expect a simple answer. As the Government claims to be a great believer in equality, I ask the Prime Minister whether he believes in the principle of equal telepone charges, including installation charges as well as call charges, similar to the practice of the postal section of the Postmaster-General’s Department with respect to postal charges. If he does, will he put these principles into practice as quickly as possible by reminding the Postmaster-General that telephone services are an entitlement of all Australians, not only of those who can claim that such services are an economical proposition?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– As the honourable member will know, the Government has appointed a Royal Commission, whose chairman is Sir James Vernon, to inquire into all such matters. I certainly can appreciate that it would be-

Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– It is not a Royal Commission.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes, it is a Royal Commission. It is an attractive proposition that people in Australia should be able to have telephone services at equal cost just as they can have a service for any classification of mail at equal cost. Nevertheless the implications of installing telephones are not sufficiently appreciated by the public, lt costs very much more, for instance, to put on an average telephone than it does under any proposals to get a colour television set. One of the virtues of Sir James Vernon’s Royal Commission is that it will enlighten members of the public, as well as members of the Parliament, on the very great cost of providing postal and telegraphic services in Australia and will, I trust, in a fearless manner raise the whole issue of the equitable financing of those services. I would not presume to anticipate the findings and the recommendations of the Royal Commission.

page 1854

QUESTION

TAXATION: PROFIT ON RESALE OF PROPERTY

Mr KEATING:

– I desire to ask the Treasurer a question supplementary to the question asked by the honourable member for Adelaide. When the Treasurer referred to clarification for the Commissioner of Taxation in relation to the sale of property within one year of purchase did the Treasurer mean, for instance, that if a person purchased a second home as a holiday proposition and then saw fit to sell the property within 12 months he would have to make this known in his taxation return and that any gain would be assessed for taxation purposes? Does the Commissioner have a discretion to determine whether the property was purchased with the intention of resale at a profit, or whether the property was sold later for a genuine reason? Under the proposition of the Treasurer is a person automatically taxed on the gain, or is the Commissioner left with any discretion?

Mr CREAN:
ALP

– I repeat the position. A house other than a residence is cited as an example. If somebody buys a house and then sells the identical property within 12 months and makes an increment, I can gee no logical case why the increment should not be treated as income. On the other hand, let us take the example of a man who has a job in one State and an employer who might translate him suddenly to another State. He has bought a piece of property with the original intent of living in it but, shifting his domicile from one State to another, he would be foolish to retain the property. I think that in that case a discretion would apply. I repeat that the intent is to remove any doubt arising from the discretion which at present resides in the Commissioner, that is, that some transactions of the kind I have mentioned are taxed and some are not. The Commissioner has to exercise what is sometimes a very difficult option for him to exercise. 1 want to remove that as far as possible. I repeat the facts: If any piece of property, real or personal, bought and sold within a 12-months period has an increment attaching to it, that increment would be regarded as income, in the same way as any other income received in the 12 months is so regarded. Beyond that point, if it is held for more than 12 months it then becomes a question of capita] gains, which will be looked at separately but upon which so far we have not come to any final decision.

page 1854

QUESTION

WESTMINSTER CONVENTION: GOVERNMENT PAPERS

Mr SNEDDEN:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

– My question, which is addressed to the Prime Minister, relates to the Westminster convention that the papers of previous governments - that is, Cabinet papers, ministerial comments and papers relating to the passage of views between Ministers - should not be available to an incoming government, or to anybody else, except with the consent of the leader of the party that constituted the previous government.

Mr Keogh:

– What have you got to hide?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The interjection makes it necessary for me to say that the reason for the convention, built up literally over a century or perhaps more, is that in the conduct of business governments and members of governments must be fearless in pursuing policy objectives and must not try to build monuments to themselves in the future or be fearful of putting a point of view. In answer to a question asked, by the honourable member for Moreton, the Prime Minister said on 28 th March:

Except in quite exceptional circumstances I accept the convention and I assure the honourable gentleman that I will observe it.

I ask: What action has the Prime Minister taken to ensure that all Ministers and departments are aware of the convention and will observe it by separating out those documents which, according to the convention, should be separated out, and will he explain his view of what constitutes ‘exceptional circumstances’? Finally, I want the honourable gentleman to understand that I am putting this question not in any adversary sense but for the purpose of sustaining a convention which clearly ought to be observed.

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– In the same spirit, 1 can inform the right honourable gentleman that I have not sought to see or seen any Cabinet documents of preceding governments. My Deputy, the Minister for Defence, has seen such a document about which I corresponded with the right honourable gentleman about a month ago. We seek his consent to table papers attached to a Cabinet document although not, as I understand it, the Cabinet document itself. I adhere to what I said in the answer to the honourable member for Moreton. I believe that there were exceptional circumstances last month on 2 occasions when former Ministers were attacking the competence or propriety of actions of my Ministers. In those circumstances I thought I was quite entitled to table letters which showed that, for instance, a former AttorneyGeneral and a former Minister for Foreign Affairs were in heated dispute about these matters which my Government is seeking to resolve. I might add that the former AttorneyGeneral appears to have taken public documents, even Cabinet documents, into his personal possession.

page 1855

QUESTION

BROKEN HILL: REPORTED NEW DEFENCE BASE

Sun’ which states that the Federal Government has been asked to set up an army and air force base near Broken Hill and that discussions with a senior official of the Royal Australian Air Force took place in Broken Hill last night? Owing to the scaling down of mining operations and the increase in unemployment in that city, will the Minister say that the Government will investigate the proposition and other forms of secondary industry for Broken Hill?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– I would like the question to be left until the Minister returns, which will be later today.

page 1855

QUESTION

ESTABLISHMENT OF AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPER COMMISSION

Mr LYNCH:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether it is the Government’s intention to establish an Australian newspaper commission? Has the honourable gentleman taken any action to initiate a feasibility study with respect to such a concept? If it is the honourable gentleman’s intention and that of his Government to establish such a commission, will he state what the objectives of the commission would be?

Mr WHITLAM:
ALP

– The Government has not considered this matter. It has not set in train any feasibility study on the matter.

page 1855

QUESTION

NATURAL GAS PIPELINE

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Minerals and Energy. When will he be able to indicate to the Par.liament the route that the natural gas pipeline will take from Gidgealpa and other centres in the heart of Australia to the eastern coastline? Will he in due course make a detailed statement to the Parliament setting out the precise nature of arrangements with regard to the distribution of natural gas and the timetable for the construction of the main features of the pipeline?

Mr CONNOR:
ALP

– My Department was represented at an environmental impact inquiry which has been concluded under New South Wales legislation. We still await the terms of the Commissioner’s recommendations before making our final determination as to what the route will be. I want to allay any fears that the honourable member may have that the provincial cities of Lithgow, Bathurst and Orange will not be adequately served. He may rest assured that, irrespective of the final choice of route, the necessary lateral service lines will be constructed. The legislation in respect of the pipeline will be introduced at a very early date. The remainder of his question will be answered in the course of the debate.

page 1856

QUESTION

WHEAT

Mr MAISEY:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware of the refusal of the Australian Wheat Board to permit cattle lot-feeders, chicken meat producers and pig breeders to procure wheat growing properties and grow their own stock feed wheat requirements? Is the Minister aware that this dog in the manger attitude being adopted by the Board is a complete reversal of the policy adopted last year and can only aggravate the current meat situation? As the stock feeders are asking for neither first advance payments of 120 cents a bushel nor the allocation of a delivery quota at the expense of traditional growers, will the Minister, in the interests of fostering the only effective long term solution to the current meat crisis, endeavour to persuade the Australian Wheat Board to adopt a more realistic attitude and revert to its 1972 policy? Finally, will the Minister treat an examination of this situation as urgent, as time is running out for these wheat and meat producers if they are to make an effective contribution to wheat and meat supplies this year?

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I am aware that last year permits were granted to producers to lease wheat growing properties and to grow wheat for intensive meat production. The substance of the honourable member’s question puzzles me because it would seem that there is a definite inconsistency in the attitude of the Australian Wheat Board last year and its attitude at the present time. I am not aware of which person or organisation has given the instruction not to allow permits this year. If, as the honourable member said, it is the Wheat Board, I can only assume that the Wheat Board considers that there may be or there is an infringement of the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Act or an infringement of the provisions relating to State or national quotas. With respect to the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Act, it could be argued that there could be an infringement regarding the delivery quotas or the first advance payment. But I fail to see how, in fact, the first advance payment could come into the situation under present conditions. I also fail to see how, at a time of great scarcity, there should be any restriction to supplying more wheat for intensified stock feed. As regards animal husbandry, we know that this is one of the best methods of increasing meat production provided that the grain-meat ratio is sound. Certainly this year it is. In relation to live weight gains per animal, by forced feeding or grain feeding, this is certainly one of the most important and quickest methods of increasing meat production. I have said many times inside and outside the House that investment in meat, beef particularly, is one of the best possible avenues for anybody in rural industry.

Frankly, I consider that any policy which restricts at this time of scarcity the production of wheat and meat is not a good policy. If the substance of the honourable member’s question is correct I shall take it up immediately with the Minister for Primary Industry to see whether this inflexible attitude can be corrected in order to allow increased wheat for specialised meat production on wheat properties. We will have a look at the Wheat Stabilisation Act to see whether it is necessary to amend it, always remembering that at a time of surplus - such as a bumper season next year - permits could, of course, be not granted in the circumstances.

page 1856

QUESTION

SYDNEY (KINGSFORD-SMITH) AIRPORT: AIRCRAFT NOISE

Mr MARTIN:

– Is the Minister for Civil Aviation aware that aircraft noise is still a problem in many areas of Sydney, particularly in my electorate? Will the Minister enlighten the House regarding the present position of proposals for the lessening of aircraft noise?

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Minister for Transport · NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I am aware that aircraft noise has been a major problem in all the suburbs in and around the Sydney (KingsfordSmith) Airport. One of the first things 1 did on becoming a Minister, in order to give these people some relief from that noise, was rigidly to enforce the curfew, particularly over the Christmas period. In previous years the aircraft had been allowed to operate into the late hours of the night and in the early morning. The airlines were instructed that they were to enforce the curfew rigidly. The result was that no aircraft breached the curfew and no passengers were left behind. This proved that it could have been done before and that it is a practical proposition. The same situation has applied on each subsequent public holiday. The airline companies have been directed to enforce the curfew rigidly, with one exception. This was at Easter when one of the airlines had a bad day. There was a number of breakdowns with no scheduled flights for the curfew hours. One airline was permitted to operate. I think the last flight was at 11 minutes past 11 p.m. The condition under which the company was granted that authority was that it conducted its operations over the bay. This meant that people were not disturbed in any way whatsoever. As far as flight plans are concerned, the airlines have been instructed to observe rigidly flight plans which direct aircraft away from people. On one occasion a church in Sydney was holding an important function. It wrote in advance with the result that on that day aircraft were directed away from the area of the function. We are doing ail we can to co-operate with organisations and councils to alleviate aircraft noise.

page 1857

DRIED FRUITS RESEARCH ACT

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development · Dawson · ALP

– Pursuant to section 18 of the Dried Fruits Research Act 1971, I present the first annual report on the operation of the Act for the year ended 30 June 1972.

page 1857

FISHING INDUSTRY ACT

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development · Dawson · ALP

– Pursuant to section 8 of the Fishing Industry Act 1956, I present the sixteenth annual report on the operation of the Act during the year ended 30 June 1972.

page 1857

FISHING INDUSTRY RESEARCH ACT

Dr PATTERSON:
Minister for Northern Development · Dawson · ALP

– Pursuant to section 19 of the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969, I present the third annual report on the operation of the Act during the year ended 30 June 1972.

page 1857

TARIFF BOARD REPORTS ON ITEMS

Mr CONNOR:
Minister for Minerals and Energy · Cunningham · ALP

– For the information of honourable members, I present Tariff Board reports on:

  1. Goods wagons (Dumping and Subsidies Act) dated 9 February 1973.

    1. Digital Clocks- By-law, dated 30 January 1973.
    2. Grain driers- By-law, dated 23 March 1973.

page 1857

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported: Social Services Bill (No. 2) 1973. Repatriation Bill (No. 2) 1973.

page 1857

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

New South Wales Grant (Flood Mitigation) Bill 1973.

States Grants (Water Resources Measurement) Bill 1973.

page 1857

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1973

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 8 May (vide page 1838).

Clauses 8 to 19.

Mr RIORDAN:
Phillip

– Some opposition has been expressed to the provisions of clause 17 of this Bill. I believe that the Committee should carefully consider what is contained in this clause. There has been some criticism that the Government in its proposal is allowing too much latitude or authority to individual commissioners in respect of the certification of industrial agreements. There has also been some criticism that this proposal means that the public interest will not be adequately catered for. It is important in my view that the Committee should remember that specific statutory functions are set out in the Act covering the functions of members of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

Section 18 of the Act states:

The Commission is empowered to prevent or settle industrial disputes by conciliation and arbitration.

This is the Commission’s function; it is the reason for which it is given life. That is the way in which the Commission is required to create good will in industry. Paragraph (c) of sub-section (1.) of section 40 of the Act, which deals with the procedures of the Commission, states: the Commission shall act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities and legal forms.

This is the provision which governs the conduct of the Commission and its members. It is the Commission’s charter. A member of the Commission takes an oath on receiving his commission to act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case. Surely it is not suggested that any member of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission would turn his face against the public interest in carrying out that charter. After all, what is meant by the words equity and good conscience’? He would not, without breaching his commission and his oath of office, certify an agreement which, as it were, took away the rights of one section of the community or infringed upon the rights of other sections of the community. But what the Opposition is suggesting is what former Ministers frequently said when there were decisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission of which they did not approve. The Opposition wants to make the Arbitration Commission an economic unit, an organisation of economic planing and control, rather than an organisation or a commission designed to establish good industrial relations. In that endeavour it must fail. Indeed, the history of this country shows that governments which have attempted to establish a commission for that purpose have failed miserably. They do not have the support of the Australian people in that regard.

All the amendment provides for in relation to this question of the public interest is its clarification. The matter involved must be a matter of major detriment to the public interest. The amendment requires also that in certain circumstances an individual commissioner, an individual presidential member of the Commission, may certify an agreement. Far too much emphasis has been placed by the Opposition and by the previous Government on the question of regulating agreements. The whole conciliation and arbitration system in Australian has been designed from the very early days to encourage agreements, to encourage amicable resolution of disputes. The principal object of the first Act in 1904 was to prevent strikes and lockouts. That was its purpose, and that was the purpose of those who were the architects of the system. In 1930 the emphasis switched. The emphasis was then expressed as being to create goodwill in industry. This is putting forward the same objective but in a more positive way. The most important feature of our whole process of conciliation and arbitration is to be able to achieve agreements. I congratulate - I have no hesitation in congratulating - the Minister for Labour (Mr Clyde Cameron) foi taking what is a bold’ and an imaginative step forward towards the objective of obtaining agreements and settlement of disputes.

We then have a clause in this Bill which has been ignored so far. It is one of the most important parts of the whole Bill and must be read in conjunction with the provisions which eliminate the discredited, useless and irritating penal clauses of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I refer to the provision which makes if obligatory for employees covered by agreements to be consulted. This is not just some piece of political window dressing. This is a provision which has a very real and very meaningful effect. AH students, practitioners, beneficiaries or combatants in the field of industrial relations today are seized with the importance of the problem of having a system under which industrial agreements, once made, will be honoured. All those concerned with industrial relations are perturbed that a number of the agreements which are made and which are beneficial in their result are not being kept. Unions are finding difficulty in some industries in having the men maintain the agreements. This amendment is designed to encourage, on the part of employees in particular industries, a personal involvement in and a personal commitment to an agreement or a code of working conditions covering their particular employment. It is based on a faith in the collective integrity and collective honour of men and women in our community. I believe that that faith will not be misplaced. I firmly believe, and my experience has shown, that where men and women employees of an industry understand that they have made an agreement or commitment to an industrial code, the commitment is almost invariably kept. No citizen desires to create the impression that he is breaking his word or breaking an agreement which he has freely entered into.

The alternative to the far-sighted approach contained in this Bill is the old approach which has always proved to be impracticable - the imposition of fines and penalties. The imposition of a fine on a union when a group of workers is defying the union leadership is useless. It causes irritation and bitterness and achieves nothing. A problem with workers in defiance of a union is not resolved, by fining the union. Some people say that the next step to be taken is to fine the individual employees. That is a marvellous suggestion. The only problem is that not one employer in Australia, with the possible exception of a previous Postmaster-General, has shown any willingness or readiness to apply for a penalty against individual employees. A former PostmasterGeneral decided to take this action but when the matter was explained to him in some detail and in some depth he withdrew from the action, as he was well advised to do.

No employer is interested in imposing penalties on individual employees. An employer involved in an industrial dispute is interested in obtaining a resolution of that dispute so that production can be restarted and continued. This Bill is designed truly to create a situation where we may achieve goodwill in industry. It is designed to ensure that employees understand and are part of the commitment, and that they understand, accept and support the industrial code which will govern their conditions of employment during the period for which it is made. 1 ask that the Committee endorse this proposal, accept it and reject the criticisms made.

Clauses agreed to.

Mr LYNCH:
Flinders

– I seek the indulgence of the Committee and the Chair for a suggestion I want to put for the Minister’s consideration. It is clear at this stage of the consideration of this Bill that time will not allow the full amplification of the proposals which the Opposition wished to put forward in the form of a series of amendments which, of course, have been tabled and circulated. So that consideration of the Bill should now be able to concentrate on those major areas wherein there is a sharp demarcation of policy between Government and Opposition I ask leave of the Committee and of the Minister for Labour for the incorporation in Hansard of all of the Opposition amendments which have been circulated. I do this on the basis that the Minister, in his turn, will agree to examine the merits as he might see them of those proposals, with a view to the Government’s moving amendments in the Senate, if he believes that that would be an appropriate course of action at that stage.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– Order! Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The proposed amendments read as follows) -

Mr Killen:

– We want you to look at it.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I was coming to that, Your Honour.

Mr Wentworth:

– You will come to it.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Thank you. I am obliged to you for your assistance. I will come to it. I will study the proposals put forward by the Opposition and I assure the Committee I will give them serious consideration. I can say, very much off the cuff, that I see some merit in portion of clause 7, as proposed, which sets out to provide that, where only 2 candidates nominate for a position and the office holder of that position dies before the ballot is completed, fresh nominations ought to be called. Very often the best people might refrain from nominating against the sitting officer even if he were very old because they felt it would be a little ghoulish to move in against a man who had served his union well for very many years; and then somebody who was not so considerate could get under their guard and, because the office-holder died before the ballot was actually 2 days off completion, by default.

The only thing I would suggest to the honourable member, if he proposes to have this moved in another place, is that he ought to think of the situation of a sitting officer who withdraws from the ballot as well as one who dies. 1 have seen instances of officers who intended to retire keeping their retirement a dark secret until nominations for the position closed, their special friend was the only other nominee and then the office-holder withdrew. He did noi die but the effect is the same. This proposal has some merit. I know of cases where the procedure I outlined has happened. In fact, Mr Dougherty would have been very quick to remind me that I got the position of secretary of the Australian Workers Union in South Australia in much the same way. The ballot was conducted, he would get the job. When the votes were counted 1 had won but technically it could be said that I won the position by default. We altered the rule after that to correct that situation. However, unions sometimes do not anticipate this sort of exigency and therefore there may be something to be said for the proposal. We will look at it carefully to see whether it has any merit and if it has we shall be pleased to adopt it.

Mr Wentworth:

– Would it be possible to have a couple of small amendments of my own treated in the same way?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Certainly.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Leave is granted. Could the honourable member for Mackellar please provide the Committee with copies of the amendments which he wishes to have incorporated?

Mr Wentworth:

– I certainly shall.

The CHAIRMAN:

– You should do so when you seek leave to have them considered; then we shall have the matter completed. We cannot deal with them on the basis that at some time in the future you will provide them.

Mr Wentworth:

– Thank you. I shall see that it is done within a few minutes.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Will you seek leave when you wish to incorporate them?

Mr Wentworth:

– Yes. 1 am very much obliged to the Minister for Labour.

Mr Lynch:

– 1 thank the Minister for the comments he has just made about the Bill while at the same time regretting the manner in which we have been forced to deal with the matter in this House. I had been very strong in comment on this during the second reading debate. 1 do not restate those comments now. 1 wonder whether with the leave of the Committee it might be possible to take the balance of the clauses in the following order: Firstly, clauses 20 to 49?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Could you put them in this bracket so that we can deal with them as we proceed?

Mr Lynch:

– I accept what the Minister has said and 1 ask the Committee to deal with clauses 20 to 49.

Clauses 20 to 49 - by leave - taken together.

Mr LYNCH:
Flinders

– The balance of the clauses which we are now considering bring into very sharp focus the whole question of the sanctions provisions covered in clauses 21, 27, 35, 36, 42 and 42. As the Committee is well aware, the Bill seeks to remove from the Act all of the provisions under which a penalty can be imposed on a trade union, or a member of a trade union, because the union is involved in or threatens a strike, ban or limitation of work. In simple terms, the Government now is proposing that the observance of awards on the part of unions and members of unions in the future will rest, should this legislation be passed - I would not, of course, predict that for one moment - solely on the good faith of unions and officials who cannot be called to account if they breach agreements into which they have freely entered.

I make it perfectly clear on behalf of the Opposition parties that we are totally opposed to the abolition of the sanctions in the terms in which the Government has proposed in this legislation. I believe it is important to reflect that we on this side of the House have long and consistently believed that sanctions are an essential, indeed a fundamental, feature of our Australian system of conciliation and arbitration. Nothing that has been submitted by the Government during the course of the debate on this Bill in the Committee stage has shaken this very firm view. It is a view which is predicated on the proposition that the central element of the Australian system is that industrial disputes in regard to remuneration and other conditions of work should be the subject of settlement by an impartial tribunal, the decisions of which shall have the force of law. 1 challenge the Government to articulate its policy in relation to this matter. Arbitration is a form of legislation and, as we have consistently reiterated in the second reading debate, no law in this country can be effective unless it is enforceable and its enforceability must rest upon the existence of some form of sanction against its breach. We see in the Government’s proposals a desire to provide a cloak of respectability for what we believe will not be a new province of law and order but rather a province of disorder and industrial anarchy. This is because under the proposals brought down by the new Government, the trade unions will be able to strike with impunity against awards of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. If we also take into account the proposal, which I do not debate here, to confer civil immunity in certain circumstances on trade unions and their members, we have a situation in which there no longer will be any sense of restraint upon the principal parties, particularly the trade unions, having regard to the very potent nature of the power that they wield at present.

These are principles which we believe to be so clear as to be self-evident. That they are so is proved by the simple fact that since 1904 sanctions in one form or another have always remained in industrial legislation under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Those sanctions have been maintained by governments of all political persuasions. When the Labor Government was asked in 1947 to remove the sanctions from the Act, the then Attorney-General, the late Dr Evatt, said that the Government ‘rejected suggestions that all existing disciplinary powers of the court itself should be eliminated’. We appreciate that, at present, State industrial legislation contains sanctions provisions. Up to the time when the Australian Labor Party went out of office in New South Wales in 1965, as honourable gentlemen on the other side of this House will be well aware, the Labor Party resisted efforts to have such provisions removed from the Industrial Arbitration Act.

I say to the Minister for Labour (Mr Clyde Cameron), and seek his response during the Committee stage of this Bill, that he is a man who understands full well the need for some enforcement in relation to industrial agreements. In fact, if honourable members look at the comments that have been made by the Minister in recent years, they will see that it is a matter of public record that he supports, as a private view, the concept of sanctions in the industrial jurisdiction. I do not argue here the particular form of sanctions which he might have in mind. But it is a matter of record that they took the form of fines against individual trade unionists. In talking about the removal of restraints in October 1971, the Minister stated:

No one with authority to speak for the Australian Labor Party has ever committed the Party to such a course.

Later in the same year he stated:

It cannot be denied that hundreds of thousands of unionists hold the view that some form of enforcement is necessary in industrial relations.

This debate provides the Minister with a unique opportunity not to act as a captive to the force of trade unions outside the House and to tell us, in a spirit of complete candour and frankness, what is his real view about the need for a form of enforcement in the industrial area. If we look at the extensive Press reports of the Minister’s debacle in this matter in Caucus, if that is the word to use, we see that he was quoted as saying on the television program ‘This Day Tonight’ - again it is a matter of record - that the present position did not meet with his satisfaction, but was the decision of the Caucus. Of course, that was a reference to the humiliating rejection by Caucus of not only the policy that he, as the then shadow Minister and spokesman on industrial matters, brought forward but also the policy that was blessed by the Leader of the then Opposition, the present Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). It is a policy that has been repudiated completely simply because of the pressures which have been brought to bear outside of the Caucus room by the officers of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and some of the more militant trade unions.

We say, in brief, that in this country no law can work effectively unless there is some form of enforcement. That concept, simple in the statement but not always simple in the application, depends very much on the whole question of sanctions in the industrial area. If the Minister and other honourable members opposite do not believe that the existing sanctions provisions are those which best meet the policy which they have in mind, at least they might provide the House with an opportunity to assess what policy they would have on the enforcement question - a very central issue in the whole industrial jurisdiction. Because of the tremendous power that trade unions wield in the community, they cannot be allowed to strike with impunity in the conciliation and arbitration area or, indeed, in the civil jurisdiction because the public interest is very much at stake. In recent years the Australian public has been very concerned at the major increase in industrial unrest - the number of strikes, the number of man-days lost and the extent of wages lost by Australian wage earners - not simply because of the impact of these statistics in themselves but also because of their total impact upon the inflationary spiral.

It is a matter of record that, whereas the degree of industrial unrest fell sharply in 1972, it has shown a marked increase this year. I believe that the increase has taken place against a realisation by the trade union movement that now it has in power a government prepared to support its strike activity and which, in respect of the enforcement of awards, will take no effective action against the unions but certainly will take strong action against the employers. This is a question of equity in terms of both sides. I do not believe that equity, fair play and the traditions of the conciliation and arbitration system are well served by the Government bringing down legislation to abolish the sanctions provisions. We are vigorously opposed to their abolition because we believe it will lead to a further promise of industrial anarchy and union irresponsibility, not just at the present time but in the period ahead.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

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

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a document setting out the wording of amendments to clause SO and clause 55.

CHAIRMAN - Order! Is leave granted? There being no objection leave is granted. (The document read as follows) - Clause SO after the end of paragraph (d) add new paragraph (da): shall provide that where a person who is or who has been a scrutineer at any election makes an application to the Industrial Registrar under the provisions of section 159 of this Act in connection with such election, then the organisation and every officer of the organisation shall be obliged to make available to the Industrial Registrar all relevant documents and information within their possession or control.’

Clause 55, sub-section 5, after the end of paragraph (b) add new paragraph (c): prejudice to the employment or employment prospects or future employment prospects of a person’.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Workers will go on strike whatever the law may have to say about it. That is the clear experience right throughout history. It is the clear experience of the history l,’ compulsory arbitration in Australia. It is the clear experience of the history of industrial relations in every other country. Indeed, workers will in certain circumstances go on strike notwithstanding guns and armoured tanks. They will go on strike where they believe that they have a grievance that it is no longer possible to bear, and it is only proper that free men should remain free enough to be different from slaves in this regard.

Mr Wentworth:

– I agree.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I thank the honourable gentleman. Our experience coincides with experience in other countries such as the United States, England and the European industrial nations. The common law of conspirancy and the statutory prohibitions which flourished in the 19th century in England and in America were impotent to suppress strikes. Pitt’s Combination Act failed to suppress trade unions. Whether or not a strike takes place may be seen, to some extent, to depend upon the strength of a country’s army or police. But outside a totalitarian dictatorship no government can suppress concerted stoppages of work and no democratic government should want to stop concerted stoppages of work by people who can no longer bear the burden of wage injustice. Mr Justice Higgins in 191 1 put the position succinctly when he said:

The power of the employer to withhold bread is a much more effective weapon than the power of the employee to refuse to labour.

Mr Edwards:

– When was that?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-It was said in 1911 and it is as true today as it was then. That is a statement by the late Mr Justice Higgins who was very properly quoted yesterday with approbation by a speaker on the Opposition side of the chamber.

Mr Edwards:

– I will comment on that later.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Thank you. He remarked on the fact that although in theory the court had the power to decrease wages as well as to increase wages every case he had ever handled had been to interfere by making an increase in wages. I quote him again:

The reason seems to be that the employer needs no court to enable him to reduce wages, he has simply to refuse to give employment at wages which he thinks are too high.

What the judge said is perfectly true. The employer cannot be forced to employ at a rate that he thinks is too high. An employee ought not be forced to labour at a rate that he considers to be too low.

Mr Edwards:

– Agreed.

Mr Viner:

– We agree.

Mr Killen:

– Agreed.

Mr Wentworth:

– We agree.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Thank you. I should like the names of the 4 gentlemen who agreed recorded in Hansard. They are: the honourable member for Stirling, the honourable member for Berowra, the honourable member for Moreton and the honourable member for Mackellar. A strike is not an end in itself to the working man. It is a means, at great sacrific to his pay packet and to the proper support of his family, to achieve social and industrial justice.

A lot has been said about the penalty which I did propose a couple of years ago for people who breached voluntarily negotiated agreements which had been submitted to the rank and file for approval and had then been registered. But without any statutory penalty, as was then proposed, there is a penalty today that is oddly enough almost identical with the penalty that was then proposed. Today a man with an average weekly earning of $100 can be penalised that amount. It so happens that by coincidence the amount of pay that he receives when he is working is about $20 a day. If the strike lasts for 5 days the penalty that he has to pay and the penalty that his wife and little kiddies have to pay is $20 a day. They pay this penalty just as effectively as if any other form of penalty were imposed. Why on earth people believe that men who go on strike to rectify a deep seated grievance do so merely to be cantankerous is completely beyond me.

No one in this Parliament who has not been on strike without pay and who has not known what it is to go home empty handed each day has any right to pretend that he knows what sort of anguish and what kind of sacrifice a working man must endure to exercise his right to strike. He is not paid social service benefits. He is not entitled to strike benefits from his union because there are very few unions in Australia today with sufficient funds to afford to pay strike pay. The richest union in Australia today could not afford to pay strike pay for any more than 10 days if the whole of its membership went out on strike and needed strike pay. The richest union by far would finish up insolvent after 10 days. So it is idle nonsense that we hear from the Opposition side about the right to strike and the need for strike penalties. Never forget when talking about strike penalties the penalty that a working man pays every day that he is on strike because he gels no wages during thai period.

If the Opposition succeeds in destroying this aspect of the Bill by having it eliminated in another place, the responsibility for all the industrial disturbances that follow will be sheeted fairly at its doorstep. I say on behalf of the Government that we cannot ensure sensible industrial relations if, by using its power in another place, the Opposition forces the Government to try to administer a law that incorporates this form of penalty. The Government says bluntly that if the provisions that it now asks the Parliament to approve are refused, or if the Opposition denies to the Government the amendments to the Act for which it is seeking approval, it cannot ensure industrial peace and tranquillity in this country. Even with these amendments it cannot guarantee that there will be no strikes at all. I have never said that there is within the wit of man the power to evolve a statute that will eliminate all strikes, but I do say that without the powers that the Government is now seeking and without the amendments to the Act that it is asking the Parliament to grant in this Bill, the Government cannot maintain industrial sanity and it will not be the Government’s fault if it fails to do so. It will be the fault of the Opposition parties.

They will be the ones who will have to carry the responsibility for refusing the Government the implementation which I now seek of the mandate that it was given. Oliver Wendell Holmes in a decision of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in 1896 wrote something which has never been quoted in this Parliament but which should now be recorded. The learned judge said:

Combination on one side is patent and powerful. Combination on the other is the necessary and desirable counterpart, if the battle is to be carried on in a fair and equal way … If it be true that working men may combine with a view, among other things, to getting as much as they can for their labour, just as capital may combine with a view to getting the greatest possible return, it must be true that when combined they have the same liberty that combined capital has to support their interests by argument, persuasion, and the bestowal or refusal of those advantages which they otherwise lawfully control.

Let us always remember, when we are talking about penalties against men who withdraw their labour because they discover they are not being given for their labour the amount which they believe the market will yield or which they believe their labour is worth, that the right of the working man to strike is a very essential element in his armoury of protection against arbitrary action by his employer. Let us never forget that the history of relations between master and man is replete with examples of arbitrary changes in the task to be performed, the times allowed in which to perform it and the reward paid for performing it.

Change without consultation has been one of the most significant sources of industrial disputes right throughout the industrialised world. The main cause today of industrial disputes is failure to consult - management standing on the so-called sacred rights of managerial prerogatives and saying that the worker is nothing but a servant, that the manager is the master, that the old 18th century relationship between master and servant still survives and that no spiritual, temporal or any other power of the Parliament, unions or anybody else should interfere with this long-established but longoutmoded so-called right of managerial prerogatives. Even though there may be more consultation nowadays than there was in the past, change without consultation still remains the greatest source of provocation and is frequently the cause of strikes.

Strikes are very often caused not by what is done but by what is done without consultation. Trade union leaders, particularly those at the factory floor level, are sensible enough people to understand when the facts are put to them what is fair and what is unfair. My experience has taught me - since I have been a Minister I have had further exemplification of it - that when a person puts the facts fairly to the union leadership they will accept them. Even though the facts spell out some change that is detrimental to the union they will accept those changes if people will but take the trouble to confer with them. People should consult fairly, honestly and meaningfully with union and labour leaders.

In such a situation as we have today where consultation is not considered to be a necessity, a strike can often prove to be far more expeditious than any legal procedure in meeting and overcoming an unacceptable decision taken unilaterally by management. Where management acts unilaterally it has no cause to complain if labour reacts unilaterally. It is as simple as that. In such a situation the sanction is the kind of self help which the law is often too slow to supplant. The strike weapon is the equivalent of managerial prerogative. Whatever the law may say, it cannot suppress spontaneous action in response to unilateral change in the exercising of a claimed managerial prerogative. People who may not withdraw their labour are in effect being compelled to work by the law. It is conscription of the purest form. The converse meaning of the law stating that a person must not with- draw his labour is that he must work and work under conditions of provocation and of deeply felt injustice. Many strikes appear to occur as a release of psychological tension. The coal mining industry before mechanisation, especially in the days of hand hewing in low and awkward seams, was commonly the scene of a large number of spontaneous stoppages the true explanation of which was the need of the miners to get out of the dark into the sunlight where other mortals live, work and, if they are privileged, play.

This amendment and the other amendments I have mentioned which grant immunity from the law of torts are quite crucial to the Government’s industrial relations policy. If we are denied the tools which we require to give effect to our undertaking to bring about a more healthy industrial relations climate in this country, the fault will lie with those who refuse to give us the tools. Give us the tools. If we fail to deliver the goods then honour able members opposite can fairly blame us, but they cannot blame the Government for failing to give effect to its undertaking to introduce a more healthy climate in industrial relations if they refuse to give us the tools which we say we need to do the job.

Mr McMAHON:
Lowe

– I speak on this clause because I think that it is complementary to the other 2 clauses about which I spoke yesterday. They related to the operation of the law of torts as it applies to members of unions and to the privileged position in which it puts trade unionists who state that they are acting in the interests of the union either on the factory floor or in any other place. In my view the Minister for Labour (Mr Clyde Cameron) is living in a world of his own, in a fantastic world and in a dilemma of his own creation. No one can deny that today the position of the trade unionist has changed dramatically as compared with the position in the 18th or 19th century. I think that the mind of the Minister for Labour is still in the 18th or 19th century and that his physical presence is in the 20th century. I strongly believe in the philosophy which the honourable gentleman has stated to the Committee relating to the views of the late Mr Justice Holmes. We all, I think, believe in fairness and in equality in industrial relations for working men. We believe in their right to combine in order to achieve their industrial purposes.

That part of the Bill to which we are referring, clause 27 which seeks to insert in the Act new section 46a, deals with a totally different proposition from that which the honourable gentleman has argued about. The truth is that proposed new section 46a and the related section 119 of the Act are directed towards observance of awards. They are not directed specifically to the problems of strikes which can take place outside of an award, for a political purpose or because the unionists are incited to strike by those trade union leaders who usually are of socialist left persuasion. So we look at the clause in this way: We believe that once there is an award there is an obligation on both parties to observe it. They have received the benefits of the award. While they receive the benefits of the award they should accept the responsibility of adhering to it. The opposition does not agree that is difference between the propositions put by the Minister and those that we on this side are putting.

Taking it a stage further, I think most thoughtful people in this House will agree that in philosophical terms there is no radical difference between the views of the Government and the views of the Opposition - the views that we put when we were in office and the views that we knew the Opposition leaders were putting when they were in opposition. We say that if an agreement or the law provides that there shall be an obligation on an individual, there should be a deterrent to the breaking of the agreement or of the law. No one should doubt that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Minister for Labour when in Opposition agreed that there should be an ability to impose fines under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, particularly when there was a voluntary agreement under which was a condition that a fine should be imposed, and the agreement or the law in fact was broken. This is where we come to common ground. I believe that the philosophy of the 2 Parties is identical.

I thinkI can speak from a great deal of administrative experience of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I had the honour to administer that Act for about 8 years. With the possible exception of the late Mr Harold Holt, I think I held the. portfolio for a longer period than anyone else. I dealt with very many redoubtable trade union leaders in that time, particularly the late Mr Jim Healy. I remember well when we were having a period of unparalleled industrial disputes, particularly on the waterfront. I confronted the late Mr James Healy and his executive, including some of the members of the present executive. We were under compulsion to tell Mr Healy that unless he was prepared to ensure better industrial relationships on the waterfront we would introduce legislation similar to the Chifley Coal Industry Act in order to ensure industrial peace, greater production and greater productivity. I remember the anger of Mr Healy when I informed him of the Government’s intentions. In the few years subsequent to the threat of bringing down legislation for the imposition of penalties, sanctions and deterrents against the union unless it adhered to the existing awards, we had the greatest period of industrial peace that I believe we have known in postwar years.

Mr Riordan:

– Not one fine was imposed as a result.

Mr McMAHON:

– No, because there was industrial peace and there was no necessity to impose fines. If the honourable member listened a little more attentively to me yesterday and today he would not make that kind of fatuous interjection. I was referring to my personal experience. We believe that if tnere is an award there must be some means of instituting deterrents. There must be some means of ensuring that the terms of the award are carried out. We regard this clause as being of critical importance and one on which the Committee should divide if the Government is intent on pursuing it to finality.

What does the proposed new section 46A provide? It provides that no longer will it be possible to put into an award that is duly made a bans clause to prevent certain types of action by members of the trade union movement. The exact words are these:

The Commission is not empowered -

to include in an award, or to vary an award so as to include, a term, however expressed, by virtue of which engaging in conduct that would hinder, prevent or discourage -

the performance of work in accordance with the award; . . . is, to any extent, prohibited;

In other words, it completely neutralises one aspect of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act; that is the power to ensure that awards are regarded as contracts that have to be observed by both parties. The new position also gives the opportunity for complete neutralisation of the award and thus destroys effectively that part of the operation of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which relates to listening to the parties and negotiating an agreement, or if that is not possible, to arbitrating thus ensuring that the conciliation or arbitration process will be made effective. I believe that this power - that is the power to include a bans clause and also the power to be able to ensure its effectiveness - is so vital tha unless we in this chamber are successful in having the clause retained we will have no alternative but to divide and to vote against the Government’s proposal.

In the minute and a half remaining to me I want to point out that we know that today the power of the trade unions is infinitely greater than the powers of management. We know that under current circumstances and in contemporary life there has to be one or perhaps two organisations or institutions which can ensure that there is justice and equity for all. That is the function of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and, for that matter, it is the function of the Government itself. The whole trend and thrust of the Bill now before the committee is to reduce the capacity and power of the Government and of the Arbitration Commission and to give greater power to the trade union movement, to make it a law unto itself. I believe that the Bill will give to the trade union movement a power that can not only gradually change social conditions in this country but can also create the elements, the basis upon which inflation will become permanently part and parcel of our economic and social life. This will gradually destroy our capacity to produce and gradually compete us out of international trade. Therefore, this is one clause on which the Opposition is determined to divide the Committee.

Mr RIORDAN:
Phillip

– The right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) is so confused and his recollection of history is .so vague that he has made a horrible blunder. He has referred to his conversation with the former general secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation, the late Mr Healy. He has recounted how he bad Mr Healy trembling in his shoes as he threatened to bring in legislation.

Mr McMahon:

– He did in fact tremble in his shoes.

Mr RIORDAN:

– Yes, I am sure he did, but the right honourable gentleman must have magnificent powers because when he was threatening Mr Healy he had already been dead for 4 years. The right honourable gentleman has now left the chamber, I think knowing of his error.

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

– He ran without a threat.

Mr RIORDAN:

– I am indebted to the Postmaster-General for that interjection. The facts of the matter are that the legislation to which the right honourable gentleman referred before he hurriedly left the chamber was introduced in 196S, and the late Mr Healy died in 1961. There are the facts. The right honourable gentleman, with his great and supernatural power, had the late Mr Healy trembling in his shoes. So that is the power of the right honourable gentleman. He is hopelessly confused. Of course, what he did not bother to tell the Committee was that having made these threats - I think to Mr

Fitzgibbon and not to Mr Healy - and having introduced his far-reaching and repressive legislation in 196S, he then agreed to a request of the executive of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, of which I was a member, to establish a conference between the warring parties to try, by conciliation, to resolve what appeared to be the interminable disputes in the stevedoring industry. To their credit, the right honourable member for Lowe and the then Prime Minister agreed with that proposition and there was established what was called the Woodward Committee. Subsequently it was enshrined in legislation by the right honourable gentleman’s successor and called the Ntaional Stevedoring Industry Council. The Woodward Committee - subsequently the Council - has so arranged employeremployee relationships in the stevedoring industry that disputes are now very rare in that industry.

There was a revolution in working conditions on the waterfront. By 1967 casual employment in all the major ports either had been eliminated or was in the process of elimination. Permanent employment was introduced. Security of employment replaced insecurity and uncertainty of employment. Of course the disputes disappeared but was that because of the threats that the right honourable gentleman claims to have made to Mr Healy or to somebody else or because of his legislation or is it not more legitimate to claim that the disputes disappeared because of the sensible, intelligent working arrangements made as a result of conciliation and negotiation. The notion that sanctions prevent strikes is nonsense and history clearly establishes it to be nonsense. The worst era for stoppages and strikes in the metal trades industry was in 1968 at a time when the greatest number of penal sanctions ever used in that industry were invoked. The greatest number of fines ever imposed was in that era - 1968-69 - following the metal trade’s margins decision. Did that stop strikes? It certainly did not. The highest number of penalties imposed equates with the greatest period of industrial disputation.

In 1972 the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia decided to change away from imposition of penalties and sanctions and to try to work out the differences by conciliation and negotiation. The honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street), who is sitting at the table, will recognise that what occurred during the period, when he was Minister assisting the Minister for Labour and National Service, was a new era of industrial peace in, the metal trades industry - an era of industrial peace which had not been seen in a quarter of a century. Wages disputes are rare in the industry now because agreements are made and kept by both sides.

Of course, the suggestion that all sanctions are being removed from the Act is not true. What are being removed are the discriminatory, unfair and harsh sanctions which flow from the most fictitious form of contempt imaginable in the English speaking world. There is no other legal process where contempt of court may be manufactured in the way that it may be under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The honourable member for Corangamite is shaking his head. I ask him to nominate when he speaks one other section of the law in Australia where contempt may be manufactured in this way. It is a fictitious contempt and every legal practitioner who has had some experience in this field agrees that it is a fictitious contempt. What is being eliminated is the process of this fictitious, manufactured contempt of court, where there is a whole series of steps which parties must tread - steps which must be taken in order to create a contempt which is not otherwise there.

What honourable member could seriously suggest that a strike is holding a tribunal up to ridicule and hatred? It is nonsense to suggest that. A strike is not an argument with a court or a judge - particularly a court or judge which has no jurisdiction to settle the dispute. A strike is the result of an industrial dispute between employer and employee. Whether we go back in history to the methods used to transport recalcitrant workers to the colonies - and this did not prevent strikes or the organisation of trade unions; whether we look at the steps taken in Nazi Germany to send such strikers and workers to the concentration camps; whether we look at the tactics in eastern Europe where strikers were slaughtered with the guns and tanks of the Soviet Army; or whether we look at these miserable, contemptible and harsh penalties which have been divised through this legislation, none has ever resolved an industrial dispute. Whether we use the jackboot or the wig, the dispute itself has to be settled and the imposition of penalties will not resolve the matter.

As the Minister for Labour pointed out, the employer is not compelled to operate a business that is not so profitable as to encourage him to continue its operation. Unless the business is sufficiently profitable and gives the employer the sort of reward that he feels is justified, he is not compelled to operate the business. On the other hand, the employee who offers his labour for financial reward can be compelled to continue to work for a particular company or a particular corporation. These are not figments of imagination. The examples are enshrined, if that is the word, in the case law of this country. Employees who have refused to offer for work or employees who have sought to leave their employment have been held to be on strike and their unions have been fined. Nowhere has an empployer who decided to close down his business or to move it elsewhere or simply not to operate a particular line of production any further been fined under our arbitration laws. Such is the discrimination against which we fight, will continue to fight and hopefully will see eliminated from the legislation of this Parliament in this session.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

– The clauses that we are now debating illustrate why this Bill is a travesty of industrial legislation. I go back to the circumstances in which conciliation and arbitration legislation was originally introduced in Australia. This history has been referred to by previous speakers on this side and also by the Minister for Labour (Mr Clyde Cameron). I think a fair proposition would be that the original conciliation and arbitration legislation had as its objective the bringing of order and reason into a situation then sadly lacking in order and reason. The Minister for Labour will be well aware of the turmoil of the shearers’ strikes of the late 19th century, out of which the conciliation and arbitration legislation evolved. I think the Minister would agree that it is fair to say that at that time the balance of power lay with the employers. One of the original objectives of the conciliation and arbitration legislation was to redress that balance. I do not think anybody would seriously disagree with the proposition that the balance has completely changed. This is what makes the speech by the Minister a moment ago when referring to events many years previously and in other countries totally irrelevant in the Australian context today.

All that the Minister for Labour said would lead the House to believe that all strikes were just strikes in support of reasonable wages and/or working conditions. This also was the thesis of the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Riordan) in the speech which he has just delivered. He made a supposition that all strikes were just strikes in support of wage or working conditions justice. My point - and I do not think that it has been made yet in this debate - is that those are not the only kinds of strikes. In recent years in particular many strikes which have gravely affected the public interest and the national economy have had nothing whatsoever to do with wage claims, working conditions or anything of that sort at all. Sometimes these strikes are referred to as political strikes or perhaps more accurately as strikes to press political aims. The point I make is that those strikes have nothing to do with the sort of situation about which the honourable member for Phillip has just been speaking. The provisions of this legislation would enable such action to take over the function of government.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2.15 p.m.

Mr STREET:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting for lunch 1 was pointing out that the case that the Government was putting for the removal of all penalties under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act was based on a fallacy because the case put forward by the Minister, and also by the honourable member foi Phillip, was that all strikes were just strikes, that they were all in support of wage claims or working conditions which could be considered fair and reasonable. The point I was making was that in recent years particularly we have seen a different sort of strike, many strikes gravely affecting the public interest and not having anything to do with wage claims or working conditions but which were, in fact, in pursuit of political aims. I pointed out that this legislation would enable such action to be taken to take over the function of government. The action taken by a small number of people in the circumstances 1 have just described, people not elected - 1 emphasise this - by the electors of Australia, would take out of the hands of the Government of this country the proper conduct of our national and international affairs. This legislation would put an apparent seal of approval on and would lend an air of legality to such action. It could be indulged in, as has been pointed out by other speakers, with complete impunity. I believe that no govern ment worth the name should allow itself to be associated with such legislation, yet this Government has not only introduced it but has also very strongly advocated its adoption.

But there is another side to this legislation - to this proposal to eliminate all sanctions provisions - which 1 think needs emphasising as well, and that is that in the Government’s efforts to render all sorts of strikes legal the Government has rendered all lockouts legal. In other words, so far as industrial legislation is concerned, the provisions the Government is now putting forward would take us back to square one. Strikes and lockouts, for whatever reason, would by the Government’s proposals become respectable. The principal bugbear of industrial relations prior to the introduction of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act was strikes and lockouts, yet by this legislation we are going back 70-odd years and we are liable to find ourselves in a situation which the original industrial legislation, in which Australia at that time was one of the leading nations of the world, was designed specifically to overcome. Bui of course now, compared with the situation in 1904, there is one very important difference, and that is the balance of industrial power to which I referred before lunch. This balance of power has now completely changed. No longer are the unions in a defensive position as they could have been considered to be then; they are now in an offensive position, and there is overwhelming contemporary evidence to show that on occasions they are willing and ready to abuse the balance of power they now hold. If the Government has its way this sort of irresponsibility, this abuse of power, will be encouraged. So the Government is cynically prepared to run the risk of lockouts because it feels, probably with some justification, that union power is such as to make lockouts in fact very unlikely. That is why the Opposition is so concerned at the biased nature of the philosophy embodied in these clauses that we are debating now and that is why we intend to oppose them.

Question put:

Tha’ clauses 20 to 49 be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 57

NOES: 44

Majority .. .. 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Section 133 of the Principal Act is amended -

(1)…

(1A) . . .

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I move:

After proposed sob-section (1A) insert the follow ing proposed sub-sections: (1b) Where, at an election in respect of an office within an organisation, being an office referred to in paragraph (a) of sub-section (1), no valid nomination has been received -

except where paragraph (b) applies, the com mittee of management of the organisation; or

where the members entitled to vote at the election are some or all of the members of a branch of the organisation, the committee of management of that branch, may, notwithstanding the rules of the organisation, within the period of 12 months that commenced on the closing date for nominations in the election, appoint an eligible person to hold the office for a period not exceeding the remainder of that period of 12 months, but a person shall be elected to the office in accordance with the rules of the organisation within, or as soon as practicable after, the period of that appointment as if the holder of the office had died and the appointment shall cease upon the election of such a person. (lc.) Sub-section (1b.) applies in relation to an election in respect of which nominations closed before the date of commencement, of that sub-section as if the references in that sub-section to the period of 12 months commencing on the closing date for nominations were references to the period of 12 months commencing on the date of commencement of that sub-section. (1D.) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.), the rules of an association or organisation may make provision in accordance with sub-section (1B.).’.

I indicate that my Party’s industrial committee at its meeting yesterday decided that there were some technical defects in the drafting of clause 5. This deals with the definition of office’. When giving our instructions to the Draftsman we injected into the definition of office’ an element which was not intended by the instructing committee. It takes the position of ‘office’ far beyond that which my Party intended to apply. Just one example of this is in relation to the Federated Ironworkers Association. They have a situation where officers are people who attend their federal conference and their councils. They are elected indirectly by the membership through what could be described as a collegiate system. This is not what we were aiming at. We were aiming at management committees. This will also have a direct bearing on some of the things contained in clause 50 which will be amended by what I am now suggesting. My Party will be looking at this. The drafting committee of my Party will be meeting and it is almost certain that some changes will be made. But we will indicate this in another place rather than hold up the proceedings of the Committee at this stage. I mention this now to give honourable members a warning of the fact that the committee will be bringing down some amendments. I cannot indicate the nature of those amendments just yet but they will be indicated to the Senate.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

– We are not opposing this clause. I would like some clarification on a couple of points from the

Minister for Labour (Mr Clyde Cameron). Clause SO (1b.) (b) states: where the members entitled to vote at the election are some or all of the members of a branch

I presume that the phrase ‘some or all’ is used in the same sense as it is used in proposed new section 133 (1a.) which states that the rules of an organisation may provide that in certain circumstances at certain elections for officers those eligible to vote are only a certain number or section of a union. Is that the correct interpretation?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer is yes.

Mr STREET:

– I thank the Minister. The only other matter is this: The Minister has pointed out that in certain circumstances a union position may be vacant for some time. In many cases the union rules provide specifically that when this sort of situation occurs an appointment may be made under the union rules to fill that vacancy for an interim period. The amendment which the Minister has circulated seems to have been through more editions than the ‘Encyclopaedia Britannica*. I notice that the last amendment mentions a period of 12 months during which this appointment may be made, notwithstanding the rules of the organisation. The Minister made the point that where the union rules do not provide that an appointment may be made, this amendment allows that to be done. What about the situation of a union which may have had an unfortunate experience of an official being appointed under its rules as they were and then saying: By golly, we are not going to get caught like that again. We are not going to allow that to happen.’ The amendment includes the words: Notwithstanding the rules of the organisation’. Even if the organisation has had an unfortunate experience and specifically excluded the possibility of this happening, as I understand this amendment will enable an appointment to be made. I ask the Minister to consider whether there may be yet another drafting amendment which could take account of a union which did not omit this possibility by oversight; it omitted it deliberately because of some previous experience. I ask the Minister to take this into account.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The answer is no. Where the rules of the organisation provide for it the rule will operate. It is only where the rules of an organisation do not provide for it that, notwithstanding the omission on the part of the union rules, the vacancy can be filled by the management committee of the union pending another election. That is all. It would mean that where no provision was made in the rules for this action to be taken this amendment would enable it to be done. Otherwise the office would have to remain vacant till the end of a 3-year term. The amendment is to cover this situation only.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– I will take only half a minute of the Committee’s time for the express purpose of congratulating the Minister for Labour upon his massive sense of modesty. One of the amendments proposed by clause 50 of the Bill concerns the situation where 2 candidates submit nominations for a position in a union and one dies before the poll is held. The amendment proposes that nominations will be called afresh. The Minister, because of this very gracious sense of modesty, has refrained from telling us of his own very bitter personal experience. This distressed my friend no end when he was placed in that circumstance and became the State secretary of the Australian Workers Union in South Australia. When his opponent for that position died the honourable gentleman took the position by default, and from that day to this it has been a source of acute anxiety to him. Today when he indicated in his typical urbane gentle way that he was prepared to concede that there was merit in this proposal, it brought to an end a long period of agony for the honourable member for Hindmarsh, who is now the Minister for Labour. It is because of that possessing sense of modesty that 1 thought 1 must at least acknowledge on his behalf what has happened.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– Now that the Minister for Labour has cleared his conscience of guilt in the natter to which my friend the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) has so graciously referred, may I ask the Minister’s indulgence to give consideration to an amendment which I wish to move now and which I believe will be in accordance with his own wishes.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

– Order! The honourable member would be out of order in moving an amendment while there is another amendment before the Chair.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– 1 beg your pardon, Sir.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I would like to move an amendment which I hope would commend itself to the Minister for Labour who, when speaking to clause SO, said that he was trying to ensure fairer elections. 1 move:

In proposed new sub-section (1) of section 133, after the end of paragraph (d) add new paragraph (da): ‘shall provide that where a person who is or who has been a scrutineer at any election makes an application to the Industrial Registrar under the provisions of section 159 of this Act in connection with such election, then the organisation and every officer of the organisation shall be obliged to make available to the Industrial Registrar all relevant documents and information within their possession or control’.

I am sure that if the Minister really wants fair elections in unions this provision will commend itself to him. I hope that he will see fit to adopt it. All he will be doing will be to say: If a scrutineer at an election thinks that there has been any misdemeanour in regard to that election, and if he makes as he can under the Act an official complaint to the Industrial Registrar, the rules of the union shall provide, that all information and documents within the control of the union and every one of its officers shall be made available to the Industrial Registrar for examination. We ask for a fair go - that is all.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) has made a very worthy contribution to the debate. I do not dismiss out of hand the proposal that be has put forward. I do not, of course, adopt it either. It is a pity that the honourable gentleman was so shy about this amendment, that he kept it such a dark secret until a few moments ago. Had the honourable gentleman felt so keenly about this matter, with his long experience in Parliament, he would have known that where a member wants something adopted the technique to adopt or the political finesse that one has to follow is to go to the Minister concerned a few days before the debate is called on and say: ‘Well, Sir, 1 have a proposal here and I would like you to consider it’. That is the fair, sensible thing to do. If it were done in that way my committee would have looked at it in depth and if the committee, in the fullness of time and in its judgment, believed that what the honourable gentleman put forward had merit in it we would be in a position, of course, to adopt it. But it is not fair of the honourable member to throw a thing into the. ring at this late stage and say: Adopt it or else’. I am sorry I cannot oblige the honourable gentleman. If he had been a little more co-operative than he has been in this matter perhaps we would be in a position to say: ‘Yes, we have considered it and it has some merit.’ I am sorry, but in the circumstances I cannot entertain it.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I must thank the Minister for his urbane approach to this matter, but when he has been in Parliament a little longer he will realise that a Bill does not become law until it has been passed by the Senate, and he will have ample time between now and when the Bill is before the Senate to address his mind to this amendment. If after examining the amendment the Minister comes to the conclusion that it contains a worthy suggestion, as I believe it does, no doubt he will be cooperative in seeing that the necessary amendment is moved when the Bill is before the Senate. There is ample time; when the Minister has had more experience he will realise this.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 51 to 55 - by leave - taken together.

Mr VINER:
Stirling

– Clause 55, which is included in this group of clauses, provides for the insertion of a new section 146a which is intended to grant what has been briefly described as civil immunity to unions and to union officials from any harm that is done to other persons by industrial action, except in certain specific cases mentioned in the section, namely, death or physical injury, physical damage to property or threats of that kind, or defamation. This is something about which I spoke at the second reading stage but clearly it is tied in with the intention of the Government to give unions immunity not only from civil action but also from any penalty in the face of strikes, whether they be strikes against awards or strikes against agreements. It is significant to note that the amendments that we made to the chief objects of the Act did not seek to remove altogether sub-paragraph (d) which says that one of the chief objects of the Act is to provide for the observance and enforcement of agreements and awards made in prevention or settlement of industrial disputes. It would be interesting now to hear the Minister tell us how this Bill is intended to provide for the observance and enforcement of awards and agreements in the face of the removal of sanctions and the provision for civil immunity. It is easy for the Minister to say: ‘Why should unions be subject to any civil action when they have and ought to have a right to strike?’ It was most illuminating to hear the honourable gentleman speaking on the sanctions provisions in language which I bad always understood to come from the 19th Century. But we are in the 20th century and we have come a long way since the battles were fought for the right of workers to organise into trade unions.

I remind the Minister that there is no need to fight those battles today. They have been fought and they have been won. Everybody recognises and acknowledges the rights of employees and the rights of unions. But why should unions, their officials and their members be placed in any different situation from other members of the community when by their deliberate, calculated conduct intended to harm a person, that person is injured? I use the word ‘injured’ here in the sense of financial harm. Why should deliberate action intended to produce a particular result which financially injures a person be free from any civil action? Why should the person who is hurt not have resort to the ordinary courts of law? I think that when a question is posed in that way no really satisfactory answer can be given to justify an ordinary citizen - man. woman or child - being deprived of a right of relief in the civil courts of- this land.

As I said in my second reading speech, a person can suffer financial death at the hands of a union, a group of union officials or of union members, just as easily as a person can suffer financial death from the direct action of individuals who are not unionists or officials of a union. So why, in one case, should a person who is not a unionist or an official of a union be liable in the courts of law and, in the other case, a union official or union member not be liable? I ask the Minister: Where is the point of distinction? There is none. There can be none, ff all persons in the community are to be equal before the law and to have equal rights before the law, they must also have equal obligations before the law.

These provisions, no doubt, are designed to avoid, for example, the situation in which unions found themselves in the United King- dom where a union sought to deprive a man of his employment because he would not join that union.

Mr Killen:

– The case of Rookes v. Barnard.

Mr VINER:

– As the honourable member for Moreton points out, that was the celebrated case of Rookes v. Barnard where the tort of intimidation was acknowledged to be available against a union. In that case the individual - the employee, the person for whom the Minister spoke most highly this morning and in great indignation because he thought it was his exclusive preserve to speak in favour of individuals who are employees - was fortunate enough to find that the agreement that the union had entered into with the British Overseas Airways Corporation contained a nostrike clause. The legislation proposed by this Government expressly says that an agreement entered into to settle an industrial dispute cannot contain an anti-strike clause. That means that in Australia a person who is deprived of his livelihood because of direct union action would have no remedy available to him. So in this case the Minister has shown that he knows the law. At least we can acknowledge that. But the point is that an individual can be deprived of his livelihood, and by this legislation he is to be deprived of any legal remedy. Fortunately, members of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom, enlightened judicial gentlemen as they are, held that that man had a sufficient remedy, so a person in that situation in Australia ought to have the same kind of remedy.

The Minister for Labour is seeking in effect to introduce the provisions of early United Kingdom legislation which protected unions from conspiracy and other tortious acts done in furtherance of industrial action. That Bill was introduced in the United Kingdom in 1906. No legislature in Australia, except for the Queensland Parliament, has sought to introduce that law into Australia. No State court or Federal Parliament has sought this, but here we have this Government, some 66 years after the United Kingdom legislation, trying to introduce the same provision into Australia. It has taken a long time for that attempt to be made. Let us hope that it will take a very short time for that proposal to be effectively killed. But then, the Government has the numbers and no doubt it will steam roller it through as it has done throughout this debate by the use of the guillotine.

Mr Killen:

– Power used with utter insolence.

Mr VINER:

– Not only the Parliament but also individuals have been treated with utter insolence, for it is the individuals who suffer at the hands of direct action. To say this is not to condemn unions. It is not to allow the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Riordan) to rise in indignation and say that he, and only he, can speak for the workers of Australia.

Mr Sherry:

– He speaks very well, though.

Mr VINER:

– Indeed he does, but still his arguments do not carry any greater weight for that. It can be said that we on this side are the ones who, in this case, are seeking to uphold the rights of individuals, be they members of a union, be they employees, be they any other members of the community. It is the Government which is seeking to take away established rights of individuals in Australia, rights which have been, as I have said, with Australia and with the people, apart from Queensland, for the whole of this century. No satisfactory reason has been given by the Minister in his second reading speech for the civil immunity that his Government proposes to introduce by this legislation.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I think this is the most important section of the Bill.

Mr Lynch:

– That is revealing.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes, there is no doubt about its being the most important because unless this section of the Act is attended to in the way that we propose, and if employers continue to resort to civil actions and to sue for damages from torts alleged to have been committed in respect of industrial action, the whole conciliation and arbitration system will collapse.

Mr Lynch:

– That is an outrageous statement.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-It will collapse.

Mr Viner:

– What about injunctions?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The honourable member for Stirling interjects and asks: ‘What about injunctions?’ Always, when resort to civil actions is taken the 2 things that are asked for are that liability be found by the courts and that an injunction be issued against the person in the box - the defendant - to refrain from continuing the action which he is then taking. Time and time again we see that this is the method which is used. What is the penalty for failing to carry out the injunction? It is goal.

Mr Enderby:

– Look what happened in America with injunctions.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– As my learned friend, the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Enderby), points out, look what happened in America with injunctions. It must be understood that what we are really proposing here is that we should not permit the provision for monetary penalties for strike actions to be taken out of the Act and another provision put in its place - in fact we do not need to put anything in the Act; we need only let the law stand as it is - that will be far more severe than the mere imposition of monetary penalties upon a union or a corporate body. What this clause proposes is to prevent the replacement of monetary penalties upon a union with a law that allows individual penalties of imprisonment upon officials of unions because the simple process - to follow the interjection of the honourable member for Stirling who knows the law so well - is to make an application for an injunction, having first of all established liability for torts, and then if the person does not refrain from the action which the injunction seeks to restrain him from continuing he is arrested and taken to prison. Mr Robinson of the Builders Labourers Federation has already been one victim in Adelaide. He stayed in prison. The only thing that unions can do in these circumstances is to have somebody take the place of the man who is gaoled and for him to give the instruction for the boycott to continue, and as each person who gives the fresh instruction is prosecuted, tried, issued with an injunction and gaoled, somebody else will take his place until the gaols are full of honest, decent hard working men who have never committed a crime in their lives but who find themselves standing side by side with murderers, common thieves, pickpockets and prostitutes. Is this what you want to do to honest decent working men? That is what will happen if the law of torts is to be applied to union officials in respect of industrial actions.

I endorse the conclusion of 2 English scholars who in a recent publication of the Fabian Society wrote:

The imperative need for a social power, countervailing that of property, over-shadows everything else. If the workers are not free by concerted action to withdraw their labour, their organisations do not wield a credible social force. The power to withdraw their labour is for the workers what for management is its power to shut down production, to switch it to different purposes, to transfer it to different places. A system which suppresses the freedom to strike puts the workers at the mercy of the employers. This - in all its simplicity - is the essence of the matter.

That states the position fairly so far as I am concerned. The law of torts serves the primary purpose of deciding who must bear a loss caused by accident or design - the party who suffered the loss or the party who brought about the state of affairs which led to the loss. That is the basic principle of the law of torts. In its application to industrial disputes the law of torts must be regarded as defective if it does not harmonise with the accepted standards of industrial conduct. And it does not harmonise with accepted principles or standards of industrial conduct if you envisage a law which gives courts the right to serve an injunction upon a man who has no intention of observing :t and then arresting him ‘and having him incarcerated as a common criminal.

As I have pointed out the effectiveness of the organised working people to protect and advance their conditions of life is based to a significant degree on the power of their unions to organise a withdrawal of labour as the last resort. The occurrence of a strike in itself signifies a break down of industrial relations in the industry in dispute, and even with the best will agreement may not be possible. A serious negotiation may not even have been attempted. A disputes procedure may be wholly inadequate for the problem in hand. The strike may be the culmination of a long period of mistrust and resentment or it may be totally unexpected. There may be a considerable gulf between the merit of the case in industrial terms and the rightfulness of the action taken in point of law. Who would have thought there would have been a strike flare up at Pilkington’* in the United Kingdom 3 years ago after a period of more than a century during which there had not been one single day’s stoppage? Suddenly, without any change in the officials of the union concerned, there was a strike involving some 8,000 men.

Mr Viner:

– What caused it?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-It was caused by somebody forgetting to include dirt money in a man’s pay envelope and not correcting the omission when the next pay was due. Because of a failure to pay 3 shillings in dirt money a strike blew up at Pilkington’s after 100 years of peace and quietness. A prime consideration for reform in this branch of the. law lies in the fact that the law of tort can do little to promote good industrial relations, but bad law can cause a lot of harm. I warn those honourable members opposite who are really concerned about good industrial relations that resort to the law of tort will not bring them about. It will exacerbate the position that now operates and we will go from a bad position to an even worse one.

Union officials and strike leaders should not be penalised for inherent defects in our system of industrial relations when industrial action has been taken for the purpose of furthering the strikers’ legitimate interests. Over recent years we have seen a number of cases brought to recover damages and to restrain action taken in respect of an industrial dispute. A fear - a genuine fear - is held by trade unionists that employers will, with the aid of the civil courts, introduce a new weapon which will turn the history of this country back just as the working people are coming out into the light.

Acts against the combination of working men were passed on several occasions between the 14th century and 1800. The judges of that time regarded union organisation as criminal conspiracy. Mr Justice Grose., in the famous case of the Crown v. Mawbey, said:

As in the case of journeymen conspiring to raise their wages: Each may insist on raising wages if he can, but if several meet for the same purpose it is illegal and the parties may be indicted for conspiracy.

Mr Viner:

– Does the Minister not have anything better than that to rely upon?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have been asked whether I have anything better than that to rely upon. The law, as exemplified in the decision in the case of Rookes v. Barnard, rested upon digging into the graveyards of legal history and dragging out and rattling the bones of skeletons long since interred, with, in most cases, the disgrace which they brought upon the judges that gave vent to them.

In the case of Rookes v. Barnard, to which I have just referred and which was decided in 1964, the plaintiff claimed that he was dismissed from his employment because his fellow employees, who belonged to s. union from which he had resigned, had intimidated the employer into making a decision to dismiss the plaintiff by threatening a strike which was in breach of their contracts of employment. A breach of contract was an unlawful act. The threat of an unlawful act had caused the employer to take the step of dismissing the plaintiff. He claimed damages as compensation for his loss of employment. The defendant employees were, of course, enforcing the principle of the closed shop. The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff had no cause of action. The House of Lords held that he did and overruled the Court of Appeal. The law is riddled with injustice. ‘Injustice Within the Law’ is what Judge Evatt called one of his books. One has only to read it to realise that this is one of the greatest injustices of all.

It is not for English lawyers to like or distrust the principles of the closed shop, for they are all members of a society which itself lives within and thrives on the principle of the closed shop. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) raises his eyebrows and thinks of the lovely brief he got a couple of weeks ago. He will smile more when his solicitor gives him a cheque for his work. He would not be in the fortunate, privileged position in which he is now but for the closed shop among the legal fraternity. The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Viner) sits in his seat pursing his lips, smiling and getting ready to write out a bill for undertaking his next brief, ls it any wonder those honourable members smile? What a wonderful thing it is to be a lawyer. It is all right for lawyers to have a closed shop. It is also all right for doctors to have one.

Mr Enderby:

– Particularly in Queensland.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am again obliged to the Minister for the Capital Territory and Minister for the Northern Territory. It is all right, particularly in Queensland. But it is a bad thing for the unions. The attitude is: ‘If we find them doing it we will take action for torts against them. We will get an injunction served on them. If they do not give way we will shoot them into gaol with all the pickpockets, prostitutes and criminals there and treat them as ordinary criminals - not as decent, upright and honest working men but as criminals of the worst order’.

Mr COOKE:
Petrie

– I wish to say a few words about clause 55, the clause about which the Minister for Labour waxed so eloquent a few minutes ago. lt represents another part of the. plot by the Labor Government to destroy the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The protection it is now :oUght to afford to union officials and others for actions in tort is part of the general scheme to dismantle the Act. At the Committee stage we have dealt with the exclusion of hans clauses from awards. The clause with which we are now dealing seeks to make an employer even more helpless in the face of irresponsible union action. Earlier in the Committee stage the Minister gave us a little lecture on the right to strike. No one denies that right, but I think the Minister would buy an argument from honourable members on this side of the House on whether most strikes are responsible or whether the union leaders who call their people out on strike are acting for legitimate reasons.

I think it is very poor for a man of such far sightedness and modern thinking as the Minister to cast back to 1906 for a precedent for clause. 55. In this day and age we have moved into the industrial era and I would have thought that a better proposal would have come from the Government if it is as concerned, as it claims, with fostering better and more harmonious industrial relations. I am always puzzled when faced with a clause like clause 55 to know what is meant by a tort that has to be protected. The Minister spoke about what happens when people are forced into civil courts. He has had some experience himself in that respect. If, as is to happen under this legislation, bans clauses are to be taken out of awards, industrial agreements are to be completely obliterated and no sanctions are to be provided for their enforcement, the Minister may find that certain actions for breach of contract will be brought. I suppose that then we will be faced with further amendments to the Act to exclude liability for breach of contract as well as tort. 1 do not think it is very profitable to speak as the Minister did about what has happened in the past. He should be looking forward to some sort of statement of fair labour practices so that we do not have to resort to some of the archaic forms of action which originated in the 19th century. We expect leadership from the Government, which the Minister says is promoting harmonious relations by the protection given in this measure to union representatives. I will give an example first of intimidation. A union shop steward may go to an employer and say that unless a particular employee is sacked the factory will go out on strike. Because of the provision we are discussing the employer will be able to do nothing about it. A union representative may say to an employer: ‘Unless you force every one of your people in this shop to become members of a particular union we will take all the workers out on strike. Not only will we do that, we WIN also set up a secondary boycott by taking out the workers of the suppliers of the materials and put pressure on you to come to heel.’

I turn now to sympathetic strikes which by this amendment will be legalised under an umbrella of respectability. There is also the more pernicious aspect of picketing. Union representatives will be able to picket private individuals’ homes, to parade up and down the street intimidating wives and families, throwing stones on the roof. Such behaviour normally would be classified as torts but because of this legislation, allegedly in the interests of industrial harmony, it will be carried out with impunity, as 1 am reminded by a colleague. Those are the sorts of things that this Bill will allow to happen with complete impunity. What we want to hear from the Minister for Labour is some reasonable statement which is consistent with modern practice. We want some system which will eliminate these legal difficulties.

I do not want to give the Minister any advice about drafting at all but this particular section may find itself in court in the not too distant future. The Minister may find that the protection which he hopes to give to some of his colleagues and pals in the union movement does not exist. Other legal actions may also be followed. I urge him to consider the question of getting some sort of code of fair labour practices so that employers will not have to think up legal ruses to get into court, because they are not able to get into the industrial court any more. They can be made party to an award and they have to comply with it under the present proposals otherwise they are liable to a fine of $1,000. A union on the other hand, may break the award immediately after it has been made. A union can breach it with complete impunity. A union may breach it by simply refusing to work under it or by bringing illegal pressure to bear by some tortious action on a customer or other person involved with the employer at the time. These are the features from which the Minister for Labour is seeking to exempt the unions, so as to give them a completely free hand. An employer will be left absolutely helpless at the mercy of some irresponsible unions.

The Minister has said that strikes cannot be stopped because they usually originate from deep seated grievances. We had an example in Queensland not long ago when a manager of a meat works was concerned about the absenteeism of some of his workers every Wednesday. This gentleman went to the Bundamba races on a particular Wednesday afternoon, saw those employees who were persistently absent from work on Wednesday and dismissed them. As a result of that deep seated grievance, the workers went on strike. This is the sort of reason that is being advanced as to why the unions must be allowed to have a completely free hand - must be free from any sanction being imposed by way of a bans clause in an award, free of any clause in a voluntary agreement which would enable the employer to hold them to their agreement and freed completely from any tortious liability in the pursuit of their activities.

This Bill will, in my humble opinion, give rise to more industrial unrest than we have ever seen before. The Minister for Labour was well aware of that in October 1971. It is probably a chapter of his biography that he will read with less than pleasure. But he was prepared to say at that particular time that there was a necessity to have some sanctions in industrial agreements to restrain a frivolous approach to them. He announced his policy and within 48 hours he was repudiated by his caucus. Yesterday afternoon while we were debating the Bill in Committee I was a little fearful for the Minister because often he was the only Minister in the chamber and on one occasion he had only one supporter. I thought for a minute that he had been dumped again. Fortunately there are a few more of his colleagues in the chamber this afternoon to give him some support. Honourable members will remember what he said in those days in 1971. I mention some of the newspaper headlines of those days. For instance: ‘Hawke again scorns Cameron plan’; ‘Cameron quit call’; Stand by ALP or be destroyed, unions told’; Cameron’s new move on penalties - Unwilling to lie down, the Shadow Labour Minister Mr Clyde Cameron is continuing to press for the inclusion of some penalties for breaches of agreement made under Labor’s proposed conciliation system’; and ‘Whitlam booed over strikes’. The last mentioned was a headline which appeared in the ‘Daily Telegraph’, on 8th November 1971. In the ‘Financial Review’ of 20th November 1971 the headline “A quiet Clyde’ appeared. The article beneath this heading stated:

Some of the best friends of Federal Labor’s spokesman for industrial relations, Clyde Cameron, are telling him ‘for God’s sake stop talking about the penal clauses in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act’.

Later in the report it stated:

Heffernan said Cameron was using a ‘lawyer’s trick’ to get around the decision of the federal ALP Conference which barred sanctions.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes:

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

Mr DOYLE:
Lilley

– I have listened and heard a lot of emotional talk by members of the Opposition.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The time for the debate has expired.

Question put:

That clauses 51 to 55 be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr G. G. D. Scholes)

AYES: 58

NOES: 49

Majority .. .. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

That the remainder of the Bill and amendments and new clauses circulated by the Government be agreed to and that the Bill be reported with amendments.

Government amendments and new clauses.

Clause 66.

Section 168 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (5).

The Schedule.

Sections 4 (1) (definitions of " Full Bench ", " Industrial dispute " and " Inspector "), 9 (3), 30 (3), 34 (9). 35 (2), 36 (I), 39 (2), 41a (1) and (2), 45 (4), 46 (2), (3), (4) and (5), 71 (I) (definitions of " industrial matters " and " seaman "), 74 (2), 76 (definitions of " employee " and " the specified area "), 80 (2), 86 (1) and (3), 88 (2), 88a (definition of " industrial matters "), 88d (2), 88n (definitions of " declared body " and " inter-State industrial dispute ") 88q, 88r (2), 88s, 88t (1), 88v (I) and (4), 88z (2), 88za (9), 88zb (2), 88zc (3). 96a (2), 103a (3), 104 (2), 108 (1), 109 (1), 111 (2) and (4), 114 (1), I 17a (2) and (3), 125 (3), 126, 133 (2), 141 (7), (8) and (9), 141b (1). 1 43 (3b) and (3c), 144(4), 152(1). 1589 (t), 158m fi), I58r, 158u. 159(3), 162a (1), 168(4), 170 (6) and (ll), 170a (1), (3), (3a) and (4), 171 (3), 181 (1) and 194. Sections 4(1) (definitions of " Full Bench " and " Inspector "), 9 (3), 1 1, 23 (5), 27 (3), (4) and (5), 30 (3), 34 (9), 35 (2) and (4), 36 (1), 39 (2), 41a (I ) and (3), 45a (3), 46 (2), (3), (4) and (5), 47 (3), (5) and (7), 58 (3) and (4). 71 (I) (definition of " industrial matters "), 74, 80, 86 (3), 88, 88a (definition of " industrial matters "), 88d, 88m (definitions of " declared body " and " inter State industrial dispute "), 88n, 88q, 88r (2), 88s, 88v (2a), and (4), 88z (2), 88za (9), 88zb (2) and (3), 94. 95 (5), 96a (2), 103, 104 (2), 108 (I), 111 (2) and (4), 113 (3) and (4), 1 14 (I), 117a (2) and (3), 119 (3), 124 (3), 125 (7), f26. 133 (2) and (4), 140 (5), (7) and (9), 141 (8) and (9), 141 b (lj, 143 (3b) and (3a), 144 (5a) ,152 (1), (4) and (9a), 158m (1). 158k, 158u 159(3), 162a (1), 168(4), 170(6) and (11), 170a (1), (3), (3a) and (4), 171 (3) and 194. Proposed new clauses and amendments. After clause 56 insert the following new clause: 56a. Section 158f of the Principal Act is amended by inserting after sub-section (1) the following subsection: "(1a) Notwithstanding section I58e or any other provision of this Act - In clause 66, omit 'sub-section (5)', substitute sub-sections (4) and (5)'. After clause 66 insert the following new clauses: 66a. Section 170a of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) and substituting the following sub-section: "(4) The expenses incurred by the person conducting an election or taking a step in or in connection with an election under section 165a or section 170 shall be borne by the Commonwealth.".'. 66b. After section 170a of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: "170b. (1) If, at an election in respect of an office being conducted under section 165a or section 170, no valid nomination is received, the person conducting the election may make a further call for nominations and give such directions as he thinks necessary for the purpose of, or purposes arising out of, the further call for nominations. In the Schedule, page 23, paragraph 2, omit 168 (4), 170 (6) and (11), 170a (1), (3), (3a) and (4)', substitute '170 (6) and (U), 170a (1), (3) and (3A) In the Schedule, page 23, paragraph 3, omit 168 (4), 170 (6) and (11), 170a (1), (3), (3a) and (4)', substitute '170 (6) and (11), 170a (1), (3) and (3a)'. Question put. The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr G. G. D. Scholes) AYES: 58 NOES: 49 Majority . . . . 9 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. >That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would preclude the movement of and immediate debate upon the following motion: 'That the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill - {: #debate-24-s22 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honourable member does not have the call. Bill reported with amendments. {: .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth: -- **Mr Speaker,** I move: >That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would preclude the movement of and debate upon the motion: 'That the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! {: .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth: -- be now recommitted and the debate upon it- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! {: .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth: -- . . proceed forthwith in accordance with standing order 226.' {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! If the honourable gentleman does not contain himself I will take appropriate action. The honourable member knows that when the Speaker is on his feet he must resume his seat. The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. {: .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth: -- **Mr Speaker,** I rise on a point of order. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! {: .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth: -- But I have put a motion. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! {: .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth: -- On a point of order;I have moved for the suspension of Standing Orders. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order!I warn the honourable member for Mackellar that if there is another outburst from him I will name him. {: .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth: -- But I had moved a motion. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Report adopted. {:#subdebate-24-0} #### Third Reading {: #subdebate-24-0-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! By resolution of the House, the time for the Bill has expired. Question put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The House divided. (Mr Speaker- Hon. J. F. Cope) AYES: 59 NOES: 49 Majority . . 10 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. {: #subdebate-24-0-s1 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar **- Mr Speaker,** I move: >That so much of the procedures and Standing Orders of the House be now suspended as would authorise the transmission of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill to the Senate for its concurrence until it has been recomitted in accordance with standing order 236. I have moved this motion because of the completely disgraceful way in which this Bill has been railroaded through this House. We have not had a chance to speak on it in Committee. In all the time I have been in this House I have never seen a government guilty of this kind of disgraceful performance and what the Minister for Services and Property **(Mr Daly),** who is now at the table, refers to as 'the brutal use of numbers'. I know that in the past a guillotine has been used but a guillotine has never been used in any situation even remotely resembling this one. Only this morning, the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** was reported as stating that he regarded this as a vital Bill. He said he regarded it as a Bill in relation to which there might even be a double dissolution if the Senate did not do exactly as the Government wanted it to do. Nobody could pretend that this was a trivial Bill and yet only a few hours have been devoted to its consideration in Committee. This is not only one of the most important Bills to come before the House; it is also one of the most complicated. There are some 70 clauses in the Bill, many of which are long, many of which are of a technical nature and many of which refer to amendments to the main Act. It is almost impossible to follow the nature of those amendments without a great deal of consideration. One would have thought that a government which meant to deal fairly with the people and which boasted of open government, as this Government does boast of open government, would, in its arrangements of the business of the House, have given the House an opportunity to examine the clauses of this Bill in some detail. But -I say this with a great deal of regret - this was not done. We have had the most perfunctory opportunity to look at this Bill in any detail. Amendments have been moved by this side and they have not been debated. Indeed, for our protection we had to take the precaution of putting these amendments in the Hansard record because it was obvious that, in the time allotted for debate, we would not have been able to debate them. This is something of which 1 believe the Government should be properly ashamed. But an even more important aspect is involved. The Minister for Labour **(Mr Clyde Cameron)** spoke at length during the Committee stage on the general principles and philosophy behind this Bill. Members on this side of the House would agree with some of the things he said. But many of the things the Minister said would cause great disagreement. I think that everybody on this side of the House would assert that workers in the community have a right to withdraw their labour. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honourable gentleman is speaking to his motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. He should not debate the subject matter. {: .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH: -- As one of my honourable and learned friends reminds me, I am trying to give a brief illustration of the kind of thing which should have been debated and which could not be debated because the time to do so was not allowed. I think it was very wrong that when the Minister for Labour went to great lengths to explain the Government's philosophy behind the introduction of this Bill, no adequate opportunity was given to members on this side to reply. I give the illustration of the kind of thing the Minister was saying. I wanted to make it clear that I did not disagree with everything that the Minister said, but there were some things he said with which I and, I think, most honourable members on this side, would find themselves in grave disagreement. We have not been given any opportunity to express our disagreement or to put before the House the reasons why we believe that certain clauses of the Bill require drastic and substantial amendment. Clauses 55 to 71 - the last clause in the Bill - were put forward in one packet and not one word in debate was spoken on them. This is a travesty of the procedures of this House. 1 can recall that when previous guillotines were brought down, the Government of the day allotted time for, say, clauses 1 to 10, clauses 10 to 20 and so on. But to bring down a blanket of this character and say that the entire Committee stage of the Bill has to be concluded by 3.15 p.m. appears to me to be a complete denial of the rights of this House and a contempt for this House. Under the Standing Orders, there are procedures - **Mr Speaker,** thanks to your ruling I am now availing myself of one of them - under which we have the right to make some protest. As you said a moment ago, **Mr Speaker,** it is not within my power now to debate the substance of the matter. There is plenty of substance which I would want to debate. There are things in this Bill which I believe should be brought to the light of day and should receive the widest public scrutiny. There are things in this Bill which I believe, if the House understood them - even members on the other side - it would be inclined to reject. This is made the more true by the fact that we know that the Minister for Labour himself has changed his mind and recanted several times on these very crucial matters. It is a matter of concern not only to members on this side of the House but also to the country, that when the Minister recanted from his original proposition and when he left the ground he had in common with members of the Opposition and introduced this Bill against his own previously expressed convictions, be did so in line with what the left wing and the communists wanted. I do not regard this Bill as in any way an industrial conciliation Bill. It is not a conciliation and arbitration Bill. This is a Bill which will cause industrial disruption. I do not accuse the Minister of doing this deliberately. I do not think he really wanted to do it because he has done in this Bill what, in his earlier capacity, he said he would not do. But the point is that his deviation from his previous stand has been all to the left. This is another example of the way in which the forces of the Left are able to sway this Government and determine its policy. I believe that when the House comes to consider this matter more soberly it will agree with me. I believe that even honourable members opposite, or many of them, are ashamed of the way in which the Minister has veered to the left in this Bill. He has brought in a Bill which, as I said, is contrary to so many of his previously expressed ideas and which at the same time veers always in the direction that the left wing or - to use the word which is the appropriate word - the communists, who control so many of the trade unions, want him to go. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the motion seconded? {: #subdebate-24-0-s2 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr KILLEN:
Moreton -- I second the motion. I do so very briefly. As all honourable members know, harshness of language upsets me and of course I eschew it. On this occasion I shun it instinctively and happily I find myself in that position. While I may admire and agree with the substance of the language used by my friend the honourable member for Mackellar **(Mr Wentworth)** happily I have not had it thrust upon me to resort to any ascerbity of expression. The Minister for Labour **(Mr Clyde Cameron)** is about to go abroad. He is going to Geneva. If you close your eyes for a moment you can almost see the soft snow falling on the high hills within sight of Geneva. But as assuredly as the snow is falling there, a sense of remorse has swept over the Minister for Labour. One would never have imagined that he was particularly susceptible to the intrusion of remorse. But on this occasion he has fallen ready prey to its ravages and the honourable gentleman this afternoon is absolutely consumed with a sense of remorse. He has found himself put in a position where he arranged for the Bill to be pushed through this House with a haste that one can only describe as being thoroughly indelicate. Honourable members will notice the softness of the language for which I have a preference. This has worried the honourable gentleman and as I have looked at him in the last half hour that remorse is starting to manifest itself in that gracious charming countenance of his. I think that the Minister for Labour would welcome a recommittal of this Bill. I think that he has a decided wish- {: .speaker-KN9} ##### Mr Martin: -- I take a point of order and I seek your guidance, **Mr Deputy Speaker.** As a Christian fellowship man I quote the text: Let him who hath not sinned cast the first stone.' **Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti)Order!** No point of order is involved. {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr KILLEN: -- I did not know until this moment that the honourable member for Banks was a quarry proprietor. Plainly the Minister for Labour has been greatly troubled by the circumstance in which he has found himself. But I am sure that it is our ready wish and our clear anxiety to try to help him. Here is a man seeking redemption for what he has done in the course of the last 2 days. Never before in the whole history of federation has there been put through this House with such indelicate haste a measure of this nature. The honourable member seeks redemption. Remorse consumes him. It sweeps over him assuredly as the gentle snow flakes sweep over the alps. Surely we must heed the instinct for charity to try to help him, to rescue, to succour and to save him. If the Minister has now come to the realisation that a leisurely approach is needed to consider the significance of this Bill - if that is his wish - I think we should do everything possible to accommodate him. {: #subdebate-24-0-s3 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property · Grayndler · ALP -- The more I hear the honourable member for Mackellar **(Mr Wentworth)** the more inclined 1 am to think that if the honourable member for Diamond Valley **(Mr McKenzie)** were to make retrospective the legislation which he proposes to introduce tomorrow I might vote for it. Today we have heard the prize humbug in the Parliament holding up the business of the Parliament. Before dealing with what he aid let me remind him of this. He is misusing the powers of this Parliament and the Standing Orders in respect of motions for the suspension of Standing Orders. I just warn him that if he continues I shall follow the infamous example of my Liberal predecessors in this House and move that only Ministers may move for the suspension of the Standing Orders, thus putting a stop to what is nothing more than the deliberate holding up of this Parliamant by one who knows no rules, no dignity, no respect, and who is merely here to disrupt the organisation of this Parliament. The honourable gentleman says he did not get a fair go in the Committee stage of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. Today the honourable member spoke 3 times in Committee. He spoke once yesterday. He had all his amendments incorporated in Hansard. What humbug he is. On the second reading debate of this Bill 13 honourable members spoke, 8 from the Opposition and 5 from the Government side. In the Committee stage 15 Government supporters spoke and there were 17 from the Opposition. That was yesterday. Today there were 18 speakers in the Committee stage. The length of the debate was 4 hours 40 minutes on the second reading as against an average time of 4 hours 3 minutes. A period of 3 hours 23 minutes was allowed for discussion in the Committee stage as against an average time of 1 hour 22 minutes which this great democrat supported. Overall the debate extended over about *12b* hours. The honourable gentleman today talks about what we are doing. Does he remember the time when the previous Government guillotined 17 Bills in 20 hours - one hour for each Bill - and he sat in his place as silent as the grave? And today in Opposition he is like a roaring lion. He was like a rabbit suffering from myxomatosis when he was on this side of the chamber. The honourable member and other honourable members on that side have had a lot to say about the suspension of the Standing Orders. Who will ever forget the way their Government restricted votes? Who will ever forget the health Bill of a couple of years ago when dozens and dozens of amendments were pushed through this Parliament under the guillotine but none was allowed to be moved by the then Opposition? Now that honourable members opposite are on the receiving end it is getting a bit hard to take. The honourable member knows nothing but disruptive tactics. Never in his time in this House has he contributed anything worth while to a debate. In matters of conciliation he sees a 'com' under every table. I am reminded also that with all his great outcry he still sat silently by while the Australian Country Party sold its wheat to Red China - as it was called at that time - and he did not utter a word of protest about that at any stage. The honourable member has 2 standards, one for the Opposition side and one for the Government side. The fact of the matter is that he has had a very good go in the debate on this issue. When the debate came on last night, instead of taking up the time intelligently the honourable members saw fit to take one clause at a time. Had he taken the Bill as a whole and moved the amendments, about 40 speakers could have participated and everything would have been done. But no, the honourable member and others did not want to debate the issue. All they wanted to do was to disrupt the Parliament and to try to prove that it was unworkable or something to that effect. 1 will give you the good oil. I will accept your challenge any old time on that issue. I warn the honourable member that a continuance of this conduct may force us to adopt the tactics which the previous Government did and that will restrict completely the rights of honourable members opposite. We have no desire to do it but the honourable member knows that these things can happen and he tries to force this state of affairs to occur. The honourable member has been in this place since 1949. Between 1951 and 1972 on debates on the Conciliation and Arbitration Act his Government gave an average time of 5 hours 25 minutes. The debate on this Bill has spread over 12± hours. I could search the Hansards until I went blind and I would not find one word uttered in protest against the conduct of the previous Government when we on this side were being hammered into the ground. What a phoney argument to put up today. It has been pui up only to disrupt the proceedings of this Parliament. There is no other purpose whatsoever. In every way the conduct in this Parliament of the honourable member for Mackellar does him very little credit. The fact of the matter is that we on this side of the Parliament have endeavoured to give effect to effective legislation and we do not intend to permit the honourable member for Mackellar to prevent us from doing so. Let us consider what he did today. The honourable member for Mackellar does not respect even his Leader. The Government had an agreement with the Opposition that, at the conclusion of the debate on the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill, the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Snedden)** would be given an opportunity to make a special statement to the Parliament concerning a motion I moved for the printing of a paper. The honourable member for Mackellar has ignored and defied his leader and disrupted the arrangements which were made. In effect he has said: 'I am more important than the Leader of the Opposition'. In effect, he would not obey the arrangements which were made. He would not give me. as the Leader of the House, the opportunity of seeing that they were fulfilled. The Leader of the Opposition, who had arranged with the Government to make an important statement, has gone into the wilderness. He will not be able to make it because the honourable member for Mackellar has taken his time. I do not know how the Leader of the Opposition puts up with him. It is hard enough for honourable members on this side of the House to put up with him, but it must be a nightmare to be in the same Party as the honourable member for Mackellar. I do not mind talking. 1 am now talking in the time allocated to the Leader of the Opposition. I inform the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Lynch)** that the arrangement which was made earlier will no longer apply because of the actions of the honourable, member for Mackellar. When they are in their Party room I hope that members of the Opposition will remember that humbugs like the honourable member for Mackellar are the people who get them into trouble and that the good statements which the Opposition want to make are not made because the Parliament has to put up with the type of rot spoken by the honourable member for Mackellar. I am sorry for the Leader of the Opposition. I am also sorry that such conduct has come from an honourable member opposite. Honourable members opposite should not complain to me that they have not had a fair go from the present regime. They have had an opportunity to discuss General Business and to participate in adjournment debates. There has been a vote on every General Business day. Honourable members opposite have had adequate time for debate. Any honourable member who has already spoken 4 times in the Committee stage of a debate on a Bill wants to think twice before attacking the Government. The Government received from the Opposition a list a mile long of members of the Opposition who wanted to speak on the motion for the second reading of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill; yet when the debate went into the Committee stage one could not have found most of them with a searchlight. To make up for the lack of Opposition speakers in the debate some members of the Opposition, including the honourable member for Mackellar, had to talk two or three times. In other words, the Opposition put forward a phoney proposition. The Opposition did not want to debate the Bill but, in putting in a long list of speakers, it. wanted to say: 'Look at what the Government did to us'. Anyone who runs through the list will see that only a few of the members of the Opposition listed took advantage of the opportunity to talk about the Bill in the Committee stage which was lucky for the Government because those who took advantage of the opportunity know nothing about the Conciliation and Arbitration Act anyway. A phoney list was presented. When the Government guillotined the debate some of those members of the Opposition whose names were included in the list probably said: 'That's good. We don't have to excuse ourselves now for not speaking on the Bill'. I wonder whether honourable members opposite can cast their minds back to the famous day when Parliament first sat with the Gorton Government in power. It has been said that the 21 -gun salute which was given lasted longer than the Governor-General's Speech. The Gorton Government continually gagged the Opposition during that one-day sitting. Quite frankly it is a pity that the Gorton Government was not defeated that day because if it had been it would have finished with a better record. That is an example of the things that were done by the people who are complaining now. As far as this type of action is concerned, after 23 years of being on the other side of the fence 1 know that no matter what J and my colleagues do honourable members opposite would do better. I hope that the honourable member for Mackellar will not get up and put such a phoney argument again. I remind him and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that he substituted today for the Leader of the Opposition, who had an arrangement with the Government. The honourable member for Mackellar defied that arrangement. The Government keeps its arrangements but the Opposition did not. {: #subdebate-24-0-s4 .speaker-KB8} ##### Mr GILES:
Angas -- I would like to point out that the Opposition has not made a flippant move and that there are honourable members on this side of the House who deprecate the attitude adopted today by the Leader of the House **(Mr Daly).** It is no argument to say that in government the Liberal-Country Party coalition averaged so many hours and so many minutes of debate over a 15-year period. The last Bill that was introduced concerning the Conciliation and Arbitration Act was nowhere near as serious a matter as this one. The Opposition has every right to object to the fact that it has not b:en able to move the amendments to the Bil) that the people of Australia would expect it to move, let alone be able fully to debate the Bill. This has not been the fault of the Opposition. It has been the fault of the Government and the Leader of the House for wasting time early in the session and not bringing forward for debate Bills of importance. A Bill as important as the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill should properly be aired and debated. I do not think it is a fair crack of the whip for the Leader of the House to be frivolous this afternoon and to accuse the Opposition of being frivolous. **Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti)Order!** The time allowed for the debate has expired. Question put: >That the motion **(Mr Wentworth's)** be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr A. S. Luchetti) AYES: 49 NOES: 58 Majority . . . . 9 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. {: .page-start } page 1886 {:#debate-25} ### NUCLEAR TESTS {:#subdebate-25-0} #### Ministerial Statement Debate resumed from 2 May (vide page 1562), on the following paper presented by **Mr Whitlam:** >Radioactive Fallout - Ministerial Statement, 2nd May 1973- and on motion by **Mr Daly:** > >That the House take note of the paper. {: #subdebate-25-0-s0 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr SNEDDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Bruce -- I wish to inform the house that I have seen the French Ambassador to Australia this afternoon. I have presented to the French Ambassador a letter from myself to President Pompidou of France expressing the adamant opposition of my Party and of the Australian people to any further nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere. I believe that the people of Australia and the people of the Pacific region are unanimous in their opposition to the continued testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere. For this reason I believe that political parties in Australia should present a united front to the French Government in opposing these tests. For all Parties the main issue is to preserve a safe and secure environment for the Australian people. My Party opposes atmospheric nuclear tests by any country, anywhere. When in government we ratified the partial test ban treaty and supported moves for a more comprehensive treaty. Our position has not changed. We must condemn all countries carrying out atmospheric nuclear tests which are contrary to the interests of all nations, contrary to the interests of mankind. When in government the Liberal Party, with its coalition partner, took the initiative as the first government to oppose France's resumption of tests in 1972. This protest, as with similar protests in previous years, was conveyed in the strongest terms, and the French nuclear weapon tests at Mururoa Atoll were repeatedly deplored and condemned by the Liberal-Country Party Government. We joined with other nations in opposing the tests and asking the French Government to cease testing. **Mr Bowen,** the honourable member for Parramatta, the previous Foreign Minister, arranged for a meeting in New York of 16 Pacific nations during thelast General Assembly of the United Nations. He chaired this meeting jointly with the New Zealand Foreign Minister. As a result a resolution was ultimately passed by an overwhelming majority in the General Assembly. I ask for leave to table a copy of that resolution. **Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti)Is** leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. {: .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr SNEDDEN: -- We took all possible action by the appropriate diplomatic means and in accordance with proper international action. In rejecting these reasonable representations and this expression of United Nations opinion, by continuing atmospheric testing in the Pacific and by announcing that further tests are yet to be held, the Government of France has shown what I can only describe as an inexplicable disregard for the welfare, well being and the clearly expressed views of the people of Australia, the Pacific and the littoral states of the region. My Party endorses the statement by the countries of the South Pacific Forum issued on 20th April 1973 that they are - and I quote directly from the resolution - unanimous in expressing their deep concern at the apparent continuing failure of the French Government to comprehend the extent of opposition to the conduct by France of its tests in the Pacific area and to respect the wishes of the peoples of the area. They reaffirmed their strong opposition to these tests which exposed their peoples as well as their environment to radioactive fallout against their wishes and without benefit to them, and which demonstrated deplorable indifference to their future well being. They urged the Government of France to heed the call of the United Nations General Assembly and its obligations under international law by bringing about an immediate halt to all testing in the area. Members expressed their determination to use all proper and practicable means open to them to bring an end to nuclear testing particularly in the South Pacific. Under the present circumstances we do not dissent from the Government's action in taking this matter to the International Court of Justice. France has rejected the jurisdiction of the Court in this matter and the practical effectiveness of any decision it might make in such a case must be doubtful. However, we support any responsible action, and in terms of the South Pacific Forum resolution, proper and practical means which might serve to curtail French nuclear testing in the atmosphere in the Pacific - but it must be responsible, proper and practicable. There is evidence available from several sources that the nuclear tests which France has carried out in French Polynesia, and which it now proposes to continue, have added to the radioactive fallout to which people in this region are exposed. The fact that the level of additional fallout might be small cannot make the tests acceptable. No matter how effective safeguards may be, and we assume that the French Government is planning to take the most effective precautions, further nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere remain unacceptable. The Australian Academy of Science has produced a report on the biological effects of nuclear explosives fallout' which the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** tabled on 2nd May. This report does not question earlier estimates of radioactive fallout from the French tests on the basis of which we, when in government, advised this House and the people of Australia. The Academy of Science has concluded that: >Though the average levels of radiation due to the French explosions are unlikely to make a statistically detectable increase in the cancer or genetic effects in Australia, we emphasise that there should be no unwarranted exposure to radiation. Further, with the long-lived isotopes produced as the result of nuclear explosions in either the Southern or Northern Hemisphere, the effects on the Australian population, though small, would be cumulative. The last word cumulative should be stressed. The Academy has suggested that: >Australia, as the result of the French tests which have already taken place could have one case of thyroid cancer per year due to the isotope iodine 131 and 1 to 4 other cancer cases per year due to strontium 90, caesium 137 and carbon 14. We are faced with a situation in which there could, according to the Academy's report, be adverse effects on future Australian generations as a result of the French tests. While it is to be recognised that these are possibilities and that the conclusions reached are subject to qualification, nevertheless, it should be selfevident that any pollution of the environment carrying with it the possibility of endangering human life and welfare, should be avoided. It is regrettable that one nation should regard its own interests to be so over-riding as to neglect or ignore the physical well-being of people everywhere. Such an attitude is unreasonable. We would therefore ask the Government of France to take a responsible attitude in this matter and to treat their fellow men with dignity and compassion. We have always valued our relationship with France. We have bonds of friendship which we wish to be strengthened. We share with them membership of the free world. My Party's policy is directed to preserving our role in the free and democratic world. But we cannot acquiesce in any compromise affecting the welfare or safety of the Australian people. We must condemn the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere at the same time that we continue to seek the co-operation of the French Government. The French Government's action in continuing nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere in the Pacific is contrary to the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that all people 'should act towards one another in the spirit of brotherhood'. All we ask is that the French Government does not act in contravention of this declaration. Debate (on motion by **Mr Hansen)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1888 {:#debate-26} ### PRICES JUSTIFICATION BILL 1973 Bill presented by **Mr Crean,** and read a first time. {:#subdebate-26-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-26-0-s0 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP -- I move: >That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the undertaking in the policy speech of the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** to establish a Prices Justification Tribunal. Before explaining the measures provided for in the Bill, J want to say something about the problem that these measures, among others, are designed to help overcome - the problem of inflation. For many years inflation has been a world-wide phenomenon. A large number of governments believe that it has now become the most formidable and most intractable problem of economic policy. In Australia we have experienced a marked quickening in the pace of inflation in the 1970s. Through the 1960s the consumer price index rose at an average annual rate of *2i* per cent, quickening somewhat in the latter half of the decade. In 1970-71, however the index rose by nearly 5 per cent and in 1971- 72 by nearly 7 per cent. Such high rates of inflation not only give rise to serious social problems but also encourage expectations that they will be maintained indefinitely. There was once a widespread view - it is still held by some - that inflation of prices and costs can be cured by creating a pool of unemployed. Even if this was true, the Government would unhesitatingly reject such an approach - the cure would be worse than the disease. {: .speaker-K9L} ##### Mr Garland: -- Who holds that view? {: .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN: -- I suggest that it is still held by some. If the honourable gentleman does not hold it my remarks are not directed at him. {: .speaker-K9L} ##### Mr Garland: -- 'Name one who holds that view? {: .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN: -- Later I may be able to accommodate the honourable member. In any case, there is no single solution - practicable or impractical, just or unjust - to the problem of inflation. In introducing this Bill the Government is certainly not pretending that some simple solution has been revealed to it. We have, it is true, learned a good deal from experiences elsewhere, and one of the most obvious lessons is that policies to contain inflation must be broad and multi-pronged. It is in this context that the present Bill must be viewed. It alone does not constitute a policy for the control of inflation, lt is but one element - a very important element - in a broader strategy. The Government has already taken, or has foreshadowed, a number of measures to counter inflationary pressures - the revaluation of the Australian dollar, restraints on overseas borrowings, domestic monetary measures including the call to statutory reserve deposits by the Reserve Bank, and the establishment of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Prices. In the longer-term, policies in other fields - for example, on tariffs, restrictive trade practices and consumer protection - will also have a favourable impact. The Government appreciates fully, from experience here and in other countries, that a central and essential element of an overall or anti-inflationary strategy must be effective demand management. In the longer haul the responsibility obviously is to avoid the emergence of overall excess demand, and to aim by budgetary and credit policies to hold total expenditure within the capacity of the economy. I quote from the Government's submission in the recent national wage hearing: . . in applying its demand management policies, the Government will aim to facilitate a lift in the level of economic activity sufficient to ensure maximum operating efficiency in industry but - and we stress - will not allow excessive pressures on overall resources to develop. What is the special contribution of the prices justification machinery? In no sense is the rationale of this Bill the wholesale replacement of the market by controls. On the contrary, it is in an important sense directed at improving the functioning of the market. There is in much pricing behaviour, particularly by large firms, a considerable element of discretion - scope to adjust prices without close and detailed discipline of the market. Competition policies, no matter how vigorously pursued, can make only a limited contribution to overcoming this, especially in the short-term. The exploitation by large firms of this scope for price adjustment can obviously play an important part in the mechanism of inflation. In being required to justify price increases large firms will be obliged to identify the range of discretion available to them, pay closer attention to the justification of prices and recognise fully the extent of their wider, public responsibilities. The prices justification procedures should increase awareness of the problem of inflation, both in the business community and the public at large. I turn now to the principal features of the Bill. One of its key features, of course, is the establishment of the Tribunal, which will consist of a chairman and such other numbers of members, either full or part time, as experience shows to be necessary. No qualifications for membership are specified. This will enable persons with a wide variety of experience and skills to be appointed to the Tribunal. Members will hold office for not less than one year, nor more than 5. They will, however, be eligible for re-appointment. The functions of the Tribunal are stated quite simply in clause 16 of the Bill. They are to inquire and report to the Minister, in any case where either the Tribunal or the Minister considers it desirable to do so, whether either existing or proposed prices for goods or services are justified and, if not, what lower prices would be justified. It will be noted that either the Tribunal itself or the Minister will have the power to initiate inquiries. The Bill lays down certain procedures for companies wishing to increase prices after the Act comes into effect. Broadly, any company to which the Act applies - I shall elaborate on this later - must notify the Tribunal of any proposed price increase or, in the case of new products or services, of the price it proposes to charge for those products or services. The Tribunal must decide, within 21 days, whether or not to hold an inquiry. If the Tribunal decides not to hold an inquiry, it will inform the company and the company will be free to go ahead and implement its proposed new price. The company will also be free to proceed 21 days after notifying the Tribunal, if by that time the Tribunal has not indicated that it proposes to hold an inquiry. If the Tribunal decides to hold an inquiry, the company is not free to implement its proposed new price until the Tribunal has completed its inquiry and reported to the Minister and the Minister has made the Tribunal's report public. The Tribunal must, however, complete its inquiry within 3 months, although that period can be extended if the company has failed to supply sufficient information to enable the inquiry to be completed, and the Minister must make the Tribunal's report public within 14 days of receiving it. On publication of the Tribunal's report, the company will decide whether to proceed with the proposed price increase, and must inform the Minister of its decision within 14 days of the report being published. The Minister will then make public, within a further 14 days, particulars of the company's decision. The above procedures will apply in the case of any proposed price increase by a company subject to the Act. However, for this purpose a price increase is defined as the supply of goods or services at a price higher than the highest price charged during the preceding month. This means that a company may reduce its prices for a period of up to a month, and then revert to its normal prices without having to comply with the notification procedure and face the prospect of an inquiry by the Tribunal. We have no wish to discourage price reductions, such as when retail stores hold clearance sales. The Tribunal's power to inquire and report will not be confined to proposed price increases subsequent to the date on which the scheme comes into effect. The Tribunal will have the power to inquire into prices being charged by a company at any time. This will enable the Tribunal to investigate cases where circumstances suggest price reductions should have occurred, but have not and, importantly, to inquire into and report on price increases implemented by companies prior to the measures coming into force in the hope that in this way they would avoid scrutiny. I would expect the Tribunal to devote particular attention to cases of the latter kind in the early period of its existence. The Tribunal will be required to give public notice of its intention to hold an inquiry, as well as notifying the company concerned. An inquiry might be held by the full Tribunal, or by a division of the Tribunal, which could consist of one or more members. Thus more than one inquiry might be proceeding at the one time. All inquiries will be held in public, with evidence taken in public on oath or affirmation, and submissions made in public. The Tribunal may permit evidence or submissions to be made in writing, but the contents of such statements will also be made public. However, if any party objects to evidence, either oral or written, being made in public, the Tribunal can take such evidence in private if it considers that justified. Any person or body of persons may apply to be made a party to an inquiry, but the Tribunal will have the power to grant or refuse such applications. Parties to an inquiry will be entitled to give evidence, call witnesses, and make submissions. The Act will apply only to companies or groups of companies whose receipts from the supply of goods or services, or both, exceed $20m in the preceding financial year, that is to say, in the last financial year prior to the time at which the company, or group, proposes to increase its prices. In 1970-71, there were over 350 companies in Australia with business receipts in excess of $20m, and their total business receipts aggregated more than $21,000m. The number of companies involved would now be greater, of course. The limit of $20m has been struck to ensure that the scheme will be administratively manageable, and yet bring under scrutiny prices charged by the major companies which are the 'price leaders' in the community and whose activities can have a significant impact on price levels generally. It will be apparent that the scheme provided for in this Bill is one of price justification, as distinct from a scheme of price control. Companies will be required to justify their prices and price increases in the eyes of the public. The emphasis will be on full public inquiries and reports by the Tribunal, and there will be reliance on the force of public opinion following publication of the Tribunal's reports. It will not be mandatory for companies to comply with the Tribunal's findings. We do not believe compulsion to be necessary. The major companies involved are, we feel sure, conscious of their corporate image and of the impact that their actions can have on the economy, and we would expect them to act responsibly and to have full regard to the Board's findings and the force of public opinion in deciding their actions. If our confidence in them in this respect turned out to be misplaced, we would of course consider the matter further. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by **Mr Street)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1890 {:#debate-27} ### SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1973-74 Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by **Mr Crean,** and read a first time. {:#subdebate-27-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-27-0-s0 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP -- I move: >That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate moneys to carry on the necessary normal annual services of the Government during the first 5 months of the financial year 1973-74. The total amount sought in this Bill is $1,556,348,000 comprising: These amounts do not, of course, include the requirements for expenditure under special appropriations for which standing parliamentary authority is available under the relevant legislation. The amounts included for salaries and payments in the nature of salary represent estimates of the payments which will be made at existing rates of pay and employment levels over the 11 pay days falling within the supply period. The amounts included for administrative expenses and other services are limited to commitments which departments will be required to meet in the supply period. A provision of $15m has been included for the payment of defence forces retirement benefits under the proposed revised procedures in legislation to be introduced during the current session of Parliament. An amount of $30m is sought to enable the Treasurer to make advances which will be recovered within the financial year and to make moneys available to meet expenditure on ordinary annual services of the Government, particulars of which will afterwards be submitted to Parliament. This Bill also contains a special appropriation of an unspecified amount, subject to certain limitations, to cover such salary and wage increases as become payable after the Bill was prepared for which specific provision will not, of course, have been made. This is an alternative to substantially increasing the Advance to the Treasurer which in recent years has been called upon to provide substantial amounts to meet salary and wage increases. It is hoped that this special appropriation will become a permanent feature of future Supply Bills. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by **Mr Street)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1891 {:#debate-28} ### SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1973-74 Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by **Mr Crean,** and read a first time. {:#subdebate-28-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-28-0-s0 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN:
Treasurer · Melbourne Ports · ALP -- I move: >That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate $404,973,000 for certain expenditures to carry on the necessary services of the Government for the first 5 months of 1973-74. The total amount sought comprises: The amounts sought for capital works and services are in general to meet continuing commitments. However, provision has been made for an appropriation of $54m for the purchase of pipe and associated equipment for the Moomba-Sydney gas pipeline. In addition an amount of $17,500,000 has been included for expenditure under the National Urban and Regional Development Authority Act 1972. The amount sought for payments to or for the States includes $2.1m to give effect to the Government's recent decision to provide emergency post-revaluation adjustment assistance to producers of export apples and pears and canning fruits. Three million dollars has been included for initial expenditure on the school dental scheme. Other amounts included for payments to or for the States are based on existing arrangements for approved payments from annual appropriations. Generally, they do not exceed five-twelfths of the1972- 73 appropriations but where the arrangement is for quarterly or half-yearly payments provision has been made accordingly. Further payments to or for the States will be made from special appropriations and the Loan Fund. An amount of $30m is sought to enable the Treasurer to make advances which will be recovered within the financial year, and to make moneys available to meet expenditure on services of the Government, particulars of which will afterwards be submitted to Parliament. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by **Mr Street)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1891 {:#debate-29} ### SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS {: #debate-29-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY:
Leader of the House · Grayndler · ALP -- I move: >That, contingent on a Medical Practice Clarification Bill being presented on general business Thursday No. 3 and a motion being moved for its second reading, so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent: > >the debate on the second reading ensuing forthwith and being continued past15 minutes to 1 o'clock p.m.; > >the time for debate on the second reading, including the time of the mover, being limited to 3½ hours; and > >on the expiry of that time, such question or questions then being proposed, without further debate or amendment, as will bring the second reading stage to a conclusion. I intend to speak only very briefly on this matter as I think the purpose of the motion is apparent to all honourable members. Subject to this motion that the Bill be called on tomorrow, it is desired to proceed for a period of3½ hours in accordance with the announcement 1 made to this Parliament a short time ago. Because of the complexities of General Business day it was not possible, had we done it in advance, to lay down the exact time when3½ hours would finish from the time the debate was commenced. This preliminary arrangement will allow the debate to continue tomorrow uninterrupted by matters of procedure if this motion is carried by the House today. I hope that all honourable members will agree to it. With other honourable members, I realise that 3½ hours is a very limited time. I have no desire to curtail the time of this debate. Indeed I would like to see a much more lengthy one. For instance, I and probably some other honourable members will be disappointed that we will not be able to speak on the Bill. But with the limitations imposed it was necessary to make certain that at least the minimum time set aside by the Government could be followed. Therefore we are taking these preliminary arrangements at this stage. One of the purposes of moving this motion that 3) hours be set aside for the debate is to give as many members as possible the opportunity to speak in the debate. I would hope that those who desire to participate or to take part in the debate will voluntarily restrict their contribution to, say, 10 minutes or maybe less. If that is done we will be able to provide the opportunity for about 20 speakers, including the mover and seconder, to take part in the debate. I know that some honourable members are quite seriously thinking of moving this way. We on this side of the Parliament do not intend to do so because this is a private members' Bill and we have no desire to restrict the actual conduct of the activities of private members personally on this measure. 1 have moved today what is only a Party decision on procedure, that is, that Standing Orders should be suspended so as to permit a debate of 3i hours on this measure. In accordance with what I think is a non-partisan or free vote approach I appeal to honourable members not to move motions to restrict debate to 10 minutes but to restrict themselves in that way. I will not speak at further length. I have formally moved the motion. I hope that it will be carried without a division, because it has been moved with good intent. {: #debate-29-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr SINCLAIR:
New England -- This afternoon when the House had before it legislation which is of very profound significance to this country the Government chose to abort the opportunity for adequate debate. Now we have another motion from the Government which relates to a measure which has probably generated greater concern in the Australian community, and certainly a greater volume of correspondence for honourable members, than any other legislation or matter that I can recall since I came to this Parliament. For that reason I regard it as most unfortunate that there should be any curtailment of the opportunity afforded to members of this House to express their point of view on this measure. The Leader of the House **(Mr Daly)** has suggested that there is in the moving of the motion a good intent on behalf of the. Government. The only good intent is that the Government wishes apparently to dispose of the Bill as soon as possible. It is interesting to note, although one must be suspicious of the fact that the 2 honourable members who will move and second the private members' Bill had a total sitting time in this Parliament of 6 days when they first gave notice that they intended to introduce this legislation and consequently could not possibly be expected to have been fully aware of the procedures of this place, and hence that obviously this Bill is being supported widely by the Labor Party. It is a Labor Party inspired Bill, lt is a Bill which emanates from the Labor Party. Yet the Labor Party is not itself prepared to act as the sponsor of the Bill. There is very real concern at the hasty way in which the Bill has been drafted, the inaccuracies that are included in it and the extent to which the Bill itself does not provide an adequate re-examination of all the circumstances that relate to the present Crimes Act of New South Wales which is the Act at the. moment which operates with respect to abortion in the Australian Capital Territory. For that reason I regard as quite unacceptable the proposition that we should have a reduction in time for speaking on this Bill to the degree to which the Leader of the House has moved. I believe that we in this Parliament need to give a hastily conceived Bill even greater consideration than we would give to a normal Bill. Legislation which comes before us covering such significant matters of high moral and social principle cannot be dismissed lightly. After all, a Bill which is designed to introduce abortion on demand is something which affects- {: #debate-29-s2 .speaker-KN9} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES Order! I think that under Standing Orders the Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party is not entitled to talk about the Bill itself. He should restrict his remarks to the motion which is now under discussion. I remind the honourable member that the Bill has not yet been presented to this House. {: .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr SINCLAIR: -- Thank you, **Mr Deputy Speaker.** Of course, it is necessary that people look at the Medical Practice Clarification Bill to determine why it is necessary to shorten the debate. The motion before us brings up the question as to whether the Medical Practice Clarification Bill, which I think might well have the short title of the abortion on demand Bill, should not be given adequate consideration. I believe that there is reason for every member of this place to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I believe that it would be preferable for the speaking time of honourable members not to be curtailed. Further, I believe, that there is a necessity not only for members of this place to talk about the Bill but also for the whole community to have an adequate opportunity to examine it. J believe that by shortening the debate to the extent that is intended in the motion we will deny the opportunity for parliamentarians here and for the Austraiian community at large to have their point of view and the legislation considered adequately. There is no doubt that if one has a look at the existing legislation one would see that there is a wide area which I think many people would like to have updated. I think it is necessary that we should not only consider the matter in complete detail in regard to the Australian Capital Territory but also, bearing in mind that this is a national Parliament, should consider its ramifications in our individual electorates. Are we to be denied the opportunity to do that? Of course we will be if the debate is to be restricted, lt is important that the Labor Party, having put forward a Bill such as this, should give the members of this place an opportunity to discuss this legislation. 1 am interested to know why the Leader of the House, in the motion that he has proposed, is concerned only about the debate on the second reading. Presumably his motion means that the Bill can continue without restraint in the Committee and third reading stages. I would be interested to hear the comments of the Leader of the House on this aspect. The second reading stage, of course, is only part of the procedures normally involved in this House for the passage of a Bill. It seems strange to me that we are not to be given an adequate opportunity to consider the whole of this matter at the second reading stage. But it seems even stranger that, if the Government wishes to curtail the debate, the time for consideration during the Committee and third reading stages should not also be restricted. Apparently the Government intends that only the second reading debate is to be restricted. I find this to be quite peculiar. The fundamental point which I wish to raise is that I oppose restraints on speaking time in this House. 1 believe that there should be every opportunity for us to be able to consider and discuss a matter of this character which is of such tremendous interest to the community. 1 think thai the community needs to be able to consider and examine this legislation. I do not believe '.hat a motion of this character reflects credit on the Leader of the House or provides for due consideration which should be given to such a tremendously significant matter. If you had not been so harsh on me, **Mr Deputy Speaker,** I would like to have spoken about the consequences that I can see of an inadequate consideration of a Bill of this sort. But, of course, I must accept the ruling that you have given. I guess I will be one of the members who will not be allowed to take part in the debate on the Bill. This is something which I think that members of our electorates and the Australian community need to recognise. The Labor Party, having presented a Bill, is now denying us the opportunity to speak to it. The Labor Party, having generated the biggest flow of correspondence that I think any member of this House can recall in recent times, and the Labor Party in government, not having given us the additional secretarial assistance that I think we would all need to enable us to reply adequately to this correspondence, will now not give us time even to talk about the Bill. There is no doubt that the Labor Party has generated this abortion by consent Bill, as I like to think of it in its short title form. It is a Bill which certainly needs adequate debate in this Parliament. I believe that we each need to be able to discuss the matter. It is a Bill which is of tremendous community interest and which cannot be passed in the way that perhaps some other Bills can without full and adequate debate. For that reason I am very concerned with the form of this Bill. I understand that a motion is proposed which will enable the Labor Party, if it wishes to impose a restraint on the conduct of the Bill, to allocate the time available for honourable members to speak to it. Personally I am opposed to any restraint on the time for the debate. I believe that it would be far better if this motion were defeated in its entirety. {: .speaker-KN9} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin: -- I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. {: .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: -- **Mr Deputy Speaker-** {: #debate-29-s3 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -I called the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I did not see any honourable member on my right rise to speak. I naturally looked to my left. {: #debate-29-s4 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr LYNCH:
Flinders **- Mr Deputy Speaker,** I pay tribute to the impartiality which you always display on these occasions. I rise simply to enjoin the support of the Liberal Party Opposition in the opposition which the Deputy Leader of the Country Party **(Mr Sinclair)** has expressed to the motion which is now before the House. I believe that the facts of this issue are very clear indeed. The amount of time which as been allowed by the Government for the debate on this legislation makes a total farce of what to so many people is a matter of great fundamental importance. It is one of the most sensitive issues to come before this House for a long time. It is a matter of great regret that although it is not a Government Bill - I do not seek here to score any political points from the Government - the Government nevertheless is in charge of the business of the House. I do not seek to take any points from the Leader of the House **(Mr Daly).** I would hazard a guess that perhaps he is in favour of a greater period of time for the discussion of this matter than that which has been allowed. It was suggested by one of our colleagues that this matter might be the subject of an agreed amount of time for debate by the mover of the motion and a person nominated by the Leader of the Opposition (MrSnedden) in accordance with Standing Orders, and then there would be an opportunity for a number of other honourable members to speak, but for a briefer period of time - for, say, approximately 10 minutes. But my understanding is that this proposal is not acceptable to the Government. In that context my present understanding is that such a procedure will not be adopted. I simply place on record the strongest criticism by the Opposition parties- {: .speaker-3V4} ##### Mr Chipp: -- Has the honourable gentleman asked the Leader of the House whether the Government will agree to that procedure? {: .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr LYNCH: -- In reply to the comments made by my colleague, I have. That course has been sought from the Leader of the House but it has been rejected. Again, I simply express the deepest regret that this matter has been subject to a constraint of time which will not allow the issues, either for or against, to be given any adequate canvass by the House. {: #debate-29-s5 .speaker-3V4} ##### Mr CHIPP:
Hotham **- Mr Deputy** {:#subdebate-29-0} #### Speaker- Motion (by **Mr Nicholls)** put: >That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker - Mr V. J. Martin) AYES: 58 NOES: 48 Majority .. ..10 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the motion be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker - Mr V. J. Martin) AYES: 58 NOES: 48 Majority .. ..10 AYES NOES {:#subdebate-29-1} #### In Division {: #subdebate-29-1-s0 .speaker-KN9} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin: Order! 1 do not think there is any substance to the point of order. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- On the point of order, **Mr Deputy** Speaker; if this motion is not carried the debate will conclude at 12.45 p.m. tomorrow. Does the Opposition want us to reduce the time allowed for debate? {: #subdebate-29-1-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! 1 do not think there is any substance to the point of order. Question so resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 1895 {:#debate-30} ### SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS {: #debate-30-s0 .speaker-3V4} ##### Mr CHIPP:
Hotham **- Mr Deputy Speaker,** I move: I will not detain the House more than 3 minutes but 1 deeply resent being gagged in the previous debate, and I know that other honourable members on this side of the House were also gagged. I will not be pushing this motion to a division therefore taking up the time of the House. I merely want to make one or two points in three or four minutes. In my time in this Parliament, I do not know of any social issue that has been brought before this House - it has not been brought before the House by honourable members on this side but by 2 honourable members on the Government side - which affects humanity and social living standards as does this Bill. Millions of women, men and children, both born and unborn, can be affected by this Bill which will be introduced by those 2 honourable members. There has been no greater social issue since I have been a member of this Parliament- {: .speaker-K9J} ##### Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP -- I take a point of order. I understand that in moving to suspend the Standing Orders one has to give the reason but not debate the substance of the matter. As I understand it, the honourable member is in fact debating the substance. {: .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch: -- I wish to speak to a point of order. The honourable gentleman is certainly not doing that. The context in which this debate is taking place is pertinent to all of the comments which the honourable member for Hotham has made. {: #debate-30-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! The House will realise that I have just this moment resumed the chair. But I think I understand the position. I ask any honourable member who moves a motion of this sort to keep to the terms of the motion. {: .speaker-3V4} ##### Mr CHIPP: -- I am speaking to the reason why the Standing Orders should be suspended so that honourable members on this side of the House may express a view on the Government's action in gagging the debate. I content myself by concluding in this way. I know of no other social issue in my 12 years in this place that has brought forward more representations from deeply concerned constituents all over the nation. Honourable members opposite are saying by way of interjection that this is rubbish. I for one do not regard as rubbish a situation in which people are spending a lot of money and a lot of time in writing to members of Parliament, sending telegrams and letters and waiting on deputations on an issue that deeply concerns them. Yet the debate on this matter tomorrow will be streamrollered through in *3i* hours after it has been moved and seconded. There will be about 3 speakers from each side. I have mentioned the word 'jackboots' before in this place since this Government came into office. It has never been more appropriate than it is at this moment. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Is the motion seconded? {: #debate-30-s2 .speaker-MI4} ##### Mr PEACOCK:
Kooyong -- I second the motion. I will be even briefer than the honourable member for Hotham **(Mr Chipp).** No matter has been dealt with in a more restrictive and appalling way than the manner in which this contingency motion regarding a matter that is to be brought up tomorrow has been gagged. There will be fewer than onefifth of the members - either on this motion or on the matter tomorrow - who will express their views. Do not tell me that that is symptomatic of an expression of the institution of Parliament on one of the greatest social issues placed before this Parliament. There has been no opportunity for people to put views on this contingency motion which was gagged, foreshadowing a gag or a limitation of lime on the matter of substance tomorrow. I do not know what speaking arrangements are to be organised for tomorrow but I have the feeling that very few honourable members will get the opportunity to express their views, which I am not entitled to put in speaking to this motion. I put in the strongest and firmest terms my opposition to the gagging of this motion. It is a denial of the inherent right of honourable members to speak in this Parliament. It is a denial of a right to speak on the most important social issues that has come before the House in decades and it is a denial of the persons who have indicated their concern to receive their members' views as expressed in this assembly. AH honourable members - no matter what their views on the matter tomorrow - who support the gag on this contingency motion are preventing members of Parlia ment from giving to their constituents their avowed and expressed intent on the Bill and their opportunity to speak on a matter of great importance. I protest in the strongest possible terms. {: #debate-30-s3 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY:
Leader of the, House · Grayndler · ALP -- At least tomorrow we will give to those honourable gentlemen who moved and seconded this motion something that they never gave us when we were in opposition. They will be able to stand and be counted on this great social issue. Standing order 104 makes provision for General Business. Let me bring the honourable member for Hotham **(Mr Chipp)** and the honourable member for Kooyong **(Mr Peacock)** up .o date. Standing order 104 reads: >Unless otherwise ordered, government business shall, on each day of sitting, have precedence of all other business, except that on the sitting Thursday alternate to the sitting Thursday to which standing order 106 applies, general business snail have precedence of government business until IS minutes to one o'clock p.m. Under the Standing Orders this debate is limited to lj hours to 2 hours tomorrow. This Government is extending the time for the debate. A few moments ago the Opposition even voted against a period of 3i hours. What a lot of baloney. The great social reformer, the great democrat who moved the motion to suspend the Standing Orders, the honourable member for Hotham, when Leader of the House put General Business at the bottom of the notice paper and we never got a vote on it at all. I will tell the House why this motion has been moved. Honourable members on this side are looking at the frightened men. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! The House will come to order or there will be a lot of frightened men. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY: -- **Mr Speaker,** they did not think there would be a vote tomorrow. And now these 2 young hopefuls in the Liberal Party who have been discarded for the time being, the social reformers, are there. Nobody on that side has moved for an extension of the debate to 2 days or 3 days. They have only criticised the time of 3 J hours. Why did not some democrat opposite move that we sit on Saturday, Sunday and Monday? Why not sit for 2 or 3 weeks? I hope that tomorrow all honourable members opposite will be. in the House to vote. I hope also that we will not have these phoney expositions of wrath which we have bad today from these 2 honourable gentlemen. Did you ever see the fury of the honourable member for Hotham. All this is another device to hold up the business of the Parliament. I formally advise the honourable member that this may be the last time in this session that a motion to suspend the Standing Orders will be able to be moved by a private member because honourable members opposite have misused this procedure. Do you know what I am going to do? I am going to put on the business paper- {: .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP -- He is a thug. {: .speaker-MI4} ##### Mr Peacock: -- What did you say he was? {: .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP -- A thug. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honourable member will withdraw that remark. {: .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP -- 1 withdraw the remark that he is a thug. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY: -- 1 am going to put on the business paper what was put on it by the Opposition when it was on this side of the House. Later on - not at this moment - I shall give notice that I shall move that standing order 399 be suspended for the remainder of this period of sittings except when the motion is moved, pursuant to the standing order, by a Minister. You have forced me to do that and your Government did it when it was in office. You are responsible for that because today this House has been held up by 2 examples of what I would call disruption the like of which I have seldom seen. Whatever people on the opposite side think of me, I have never been afraid to stand and be counted on any issue. On this issue tomorrow, on which I have very strong feelings, I will be voting according to my conscience. {: .speaker-MI4} ##### Mr Peacock: -- Will you speak? {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY: -- I will have a better chance of speaking tomorrow than I would have if the Liberals were in office. Do honourable members know what these gentlemen opposite will do after tomorrow? They will go back to their electorates and say: 'You know. I would have spoken against it but they would not let me.' And when they go home to their wives at night they will say: 'Thank God for the Labor Party, they saved me.' This is what we have come to. Have honourable members ever heard such phoney talk? Anyhow, who wants to listen to them any more. I move: >That the question be now put. - **Mr Garland** - This is the most appalling Leader of the House that we have ever had. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. {: .speaker-K9L} ##### Mr Garland: -- He has just moved the gag on this motion which- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. {: .speaker-K9L} ##### Mr Garland: -- I protest against his behaviour. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! I name the honourable member for Curtin. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- I do not know whether the honourable member for Curtin, who has just left the chamber, is interested, but I am a man of peace. {: .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony: -- You hypocrite. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! The Leader of the Australian Country Party will withdraw the remark 'hypocrite'. {: .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony: -- I will withdraw it, **Mr Speaker,** but you heard the manner in which I said it. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- I know that you were provoked into naming the honourable member for Curtin, **Mr Speaker,** but I would suggest that the honourable member should be given the opportunity of apologising to the Chair. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! I was not provoked in the sense of entering into an argument. The honourable member for Curtin was named simply because he refused to abide by a ruling of the Chair that once the Speaker is on his feet honourable members must resume their seats. He refused to acknowledge the Standing Orders and the Speaker's authority. If the honourable member wants to apologise, I will accept his apology. {: .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony: -- I rise to order, **Mr Speaker.** 1 think your ruling is very sound and good and I am sure that the honourable member for Curtin will withdraw his remarks, but if the Opposition is to be provoked by the actions of the Leader of the House there is going to be a lot of disruption in this chamber. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! I ask honourable members to contain themselves. If they do not they will leave me with no alternative but to leave the Chair and suspend the sitting until 8 o'clock. {: .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony: -- That would be a good idea. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I am asking honourable members on both sides of the House to contain themselves. If the honourable member for Curtin wants to withdraw and apologise, I will be only too happy to accept. {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen: **- Mr Speaker,** may I speak to the motion before the House? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- There can be no debate on the naming of an honourable member. {: .speaker-3V4} ##### Mr Chipp: -- There has been no motion to that effect yet. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- But no debate is permitted on the naming of an honourable member. {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen: -I want to speak to the motion moved by the honourable member for Hotham. {: .speaker-YI4} ##### Mr Ian Robinson:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975 -- I rise to order. As I understand it **Mr Speaker,** you named the honourable member for Curtin, butI am quite certain from sitting here in this chamber that the customary motion has not been moved. Therefore you are obviously out of order. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order!I am very thankful to the honourable member for Cowper for his guidance, but I thinkI can manage the situation quite well. The Leader of the House has indicated that he will not move a motion to the effect that the honourable member for Curtin be suspended from the sitting of the House if the honourable member cares to apologise. If such an apology is forthcoming a motion will not be proposed to name the honourable member for Curtin. It is up to the Leader of the House to move such a motion and he has indicated what he is prepared to do. {: .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch: -- Of course, **Mr Speaker,** the honourable member for Curtin has left the precincts of the House. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- In that case I inform the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that no action will be taken on the naming of the honourable member for Curtin if he apologises immediately upon his return to the chamber. {: .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony: -- Thank you very much. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The question is 'That the question be now put'. Those of that opinion say aye; to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it. {: .speaker-3V4} ##### Mr Chipp: -- **Mr Speaker,** may I ask whether that motion was moved and, if so, who moved it? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The motion was proposed by the Leader of the House 'That the question be now put'. The question now is: >That the motion be agreed to. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker- Hon. J. F. Cope) AYES: 45 NOES: 59 Majority . . . . 14 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. {: .page-start } page 1898 {:#debate-31} ### AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP BILL 1973 {:#subdebate-31-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 11 April (vide page 1314), on motion by **Mr Grassby:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-31-0-s0 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr LYNCH:
Flinders -- Under our democratic system the people have a number of basic and inalienable rights. One of the most significant of those rights is that of the concept and application of Australian citizenship. Most people who are born here rarely need to give that concept and its application a great deal of thought, but it is of fundamental importance to persons born elsewhere who freely chose to leave their own country and to settle in Australia. For those people it is of special significance to become an Australian and to be vested with the rights and privileges which that concept entails. It is in this context, recognising the importance of citizenship, that we debate the Government's latest legislative initiative in the area of immigration. In summary, the main points of the Bill are as follows: Firstly, it establishes a uniform qualifying period for citizenship which will apply to all migrants. Secondly, it provides that all prospective citizens except children under 16 years must take an oath or affirmation of allegiance. Thirdly, it proposes two changes to the form of the oath or affirmation of allegiance. Fourthly, it substitutes the term 'citizenship ceremony' for the present description used in the legislation: naturalisation ceremony'. Finally, it lowers the age of citizenship to 18 years. The Opposition rejects the major provisions of this Bill for a number of fundamental reasons. The legislation seeks to remove the position of preferment which British migrants have enjoyed since the inception of Australia's immigration program. It is a particular disincentive to British migration, which is already suffering a marked reduction as reflected in the number of inquiries received. We believe this is a result of the attitude displayed by the Labor Administration towards Great Britain. Next, it constitutes a form of double standard. On the one hand, the Government alleges a desire to remove discrimination in various pieces of legislation, particularly the immigration program; on the other hand, it continues legislation, particularly in the immigration area, which in fact perpetuates a number of those provisions which the Minister for Immigration **(Mr Grassby)** could well have removed if he was prepared to take upon himself the burden of undoing any sense of preferment "which is currently enjoyed by British citizens. The Minister is looking somewhat nervously into the air. {: .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby: -- I am puzzled. {: .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr LYNCH: -- It was a curious expression that you had on your face, if I may say so. {: .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby: -- I am very rarely puzzled. {: .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr LYNCH: -- That might be the case. The Minister has a very glib answer for most things in this field, and we will deal with that at a later stage of the debate. The Minister might well reflect on the terms of preferment for British people. If he seeks to bring down some universal application across the board in the field of immigration, perhaps I could put into his mind, if only in passing, the question of the visa system. He knows full well that that might occur to him as being something quite akin to and consistent with what I have indicated as a type of double standard. He might also reflect on a reference by inference in his second reading speech, as I recall it, to the question of the voting preference which is extended to British subjects at a much earlier period than it is to those people who come from other countries. {: .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby: -- That is a different Act. {: .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr LYNCH: -- That is a very revealing interjection. What the Minister is saying- to this House is this: 'Do not be critical of me. Be critical of my colleagues.' Is the Minister seeking to tell the House that he has one intention and his colleagues have another? As I recall the Minister's second reading speech - my colleague the honourable member for Barker **(Dr Forbes),** a former Minister for Immigration, may also recall it - he sought to put the criticism very much on the shoulders of other members of the Ministry. I pass from that point. The provisions which the Minister has included in the Bill represent a further unco-ordinated step towards the development in Australia of republicanism. The measure will considerably harm the long term level and composition of our migration program. Finally, it will further weaken the special relationship that Australia has long enjoyed with Britain at a time when closer ties with that country ought to be fostered following its entry into the European Economic Community. Since the days of first settlement immigration has been a feature of Australia's development. In our brief history people have come here from many nations and territories around the globe. Yet it ought not to be forgotten that our early arrivals, with relatively limited exceptions, came almost solely - willingly or unwillingly - from the British Isles. In the years since, even as the base of our immigration program has broadened as never before, British migrants have continued to be the cornerstone, the very real base, of immigration to this country. The reason is not hard to ascertain; there is clear evidence that people from overseas who share with their new host country a common language, a common history, a common tradition and common institutions are very markedly advantaged in respect of integration. I am certain the Minister would be the first to recognise that the pattern of immigration ought to be at the rate of integration in this country. Statistically, people of British extraction make up easily the largest single national group to settle in Australia. In the 5-year period between 1967-68 and 1971-72, for example, there were 332,987 British migrants in the total of 801,011 people who came to make their homes in Australia. That figure represents 41.57 per cent of total arrivals. But what has happened under the new Administration? That question might well be asked during this debate. British applications for migration to Australia are lodged at Australia House, London. Officials of Australia House say there has been a significant decline in interest among British people contemplating coming to this country to make their homes. {: .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes: -- Who would blame them? {: .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr LYNCH: -- That is right. 1 hope that they will continue to come here in large numbers, but there is a good reason which one might unconditionally state for such a marked fall. I can see you smiling, **Mr Speaker.** I know of your close understanding of questions affecting all migrants. {: #subdebate-31-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- That is the beef rissoles I had for lunch. {: .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr LYNCH: -- If you think of what has been put down by the Minister I believe this is an appropriate context in which to make an observation. Figures for the first two months of this year show a 22 per cent fall in the number of applications for assisted passage from Britain. In January and February of last year a total of 26,477 British persons lodged applications at Australia House. During the same period of this year only 20,849 applications were lodged. There are 2 reasons why the number of inquiries has been subject to so marked a diminution. First, a feeling is already well developed in Britain that the present administration in Australia is anti-British. Secondly, a continuance in Australia of the life style British people formerly endured under a Labour Government in Britain is a clear disincentive to British people seeking immigration to Australia. This is a major disadvantage at Australia's current stage of development when trends in our current employment pattern indicate a growing need to recruit experienced, well qualified, skilled workers to overcome industry shortages in many parts of the country. These shortages could be greatly alleviated if more British migrants could be persuaded to come to Australia. Unquestionably British migrants become Australians far more easily than do any people of other national groups. In addition their educational and trade qualifications are more readily recognised because of similarity in the systems of education and trade training in our 2 countries. The concept of Australian citizenship is, of course, of comparatively recent origin. Until 1948 there was no such person as an Australian citizen; we were 'British'. In that year the Commonwealth Parliament passed what was, for this nation and for our national identity as a people, historic legislation. It established for the first time, the principle of Australian citizenship. Recent decades have seen a loosening of the ties binding Australia to Britain, and Britain's entry to the European Economic Community does put our relationship is an entirely different perspective. But it does not fundamentally alter the fact of our British heritage. What it does mean is that with Britain in Europe there is a greater need than ever before for Australia to retain a dimension of that special relationship with Britain which it has enjoyed for so long. To achieve that end Australia should continue the position of preferment which has characterised that relationship, particularly having regard to the overall basis of our immigration policy. The Opposition parties believe this to be not so much a matter of discrimination as a simple fact of the differing bases upon which integration can take place in Australia. The Government seems intent on ending that special relationship and the position of preferment. It is clear, of course, that a number of the earlier decisions made by the present Government indicate an intention of rapidly developing in this country a movement towards republicism. We believe that influential sections of the Australian Labor Party want to see the establishment of a socialist republic of Australia with the current Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** as its founding father and first president. I can well imagine the feelings of the present Prime Minister with his Napoleonic arrogance and his sense of divine destiny, but I can tell the Minister for Immigration **(Mr Grassby)** that those expectations might well be 'hope springs eternal' so far as the Prime Minister is concerned. If the Minister and his colleagues are intent on developing republicanism in Australia let them stand and be counted. Let them develop a coherent approach to the question because what one sees is a series of different steps taken by stealth, all of them seeking to attain a common objective. The Opposition believes that because of the strong historic and constitutional links between Australia and Britain - and the other factors I have mentioned - the preferment for British subjects should be continued. In their case the present period of residence for citizenship should remain at 12 months. The Opposition believes the period of residence for people from other than Commonwealth countries - that is, non-British subjects - should be reduced from the present 5 years to 3 years. For the same reasons the Opposition would like to see a continuation of the preferential treatment afforded to British subjects in relation to the proposal that an oath or affirmation of allegiance be taken by all except children under the age of 16 years, regardless of their former nationality. We have the right to assume that because of their British nationality British subjects already are loyal subjects in the terms of the existing legislation and, therefore, swearing a separate oath on arrival in Australia is superfluous. I have already indicated that the Opposition is opposed to the proposal to delete all references to the Queen from the oat-h of allegiance taken by migrants at citizenship ceremonies. It is equally opposed to the Government's proposal to omit the renunciation of allegiance to another country. While we may agree that loss or retention of former citizenship depends on the law of the migrant's former homeland, it is felt that their renunciation of allegiance to that country materially strengthens the new settlers' bonds with their new chosen homeland. The Opposition supports the change of name for the function at which migrants become Australians from 'naturalisation ceremony' to 'cit izenship ceremony', lt supports also the move to lower the age at which a person becomes eligible to citizenship, from 21 to 18 years. It is proper and desirable that a new settler who has become an Austraiian should not be treated differently from any other Australian with respect to voting and other rights. It would be more than charitable to say that this Bill was well conceived or, in terms of its importance, warranted priority in this Parliament over the significant measures being considered by the Government. It indicates a failure by the Minister for immigration and the Government to put before this House and the people of Australia a cohesive and meaningful immigration policy. The Minister knows full well that some weeks ago he was deliberately challenged - I confess the use of the word 'deliberate', **Mr Speaker** - to bring down in this House a comprehensive statement of Australia's immigration policy. But the weeks pass on and that statement has not yet been provided. All that the Opposition parties and the Australian people are presented with is a series of Press statements day after day, week after week. It is a matter of record that since he assumed the Immigration portfolio, the Minister has been one of the Government's most prolific purveyors of what is loosely called news. But in a period of almost 5 months he has produced little of significance which was not foreshadowed by the former administration. As 1 have pointed out in this House, he has acted in a discriminatory manner towards migrant groups. By his statements during the first crisis involving the now discredited Attorney-General **(Senator Murphy)** he has caused division. I do not suggest that he has done this consciously but that has nevertheless been the impact of his presence in that issue. He has divided the migrant community and, by his outrageous statements on possible deportations, he Kas been responsible for spreading throughout the migrant community a very real sense of fear and apprehension. If we think back over recent months we recall his statement about 'some people' being under threat of deportation. That number was increased to 30, to 50, to 300 and then to 415. Perhaps it is now 500. When will the Minister come forward and indicate the result of his investigations? Or is this sense of fear and apprehension in the migrant community to continue while the Minister sits cosily in his office, busy with other matters. I say to the Minister that there is a sense of very real concern felt by members of the Opposition parties. Migrants are worried and concerned. They are not certain what the Minister has in mind, but they believe it is high time he made up his mind and announced to the migrant community, and other Australians, exactly what he is about. Because what he has been about so far, consciously or unconsciously - I accept that it is probably an unconscious approach - has created a sense of apprehension that no person in Australia should experience. Opposition members have spoken to migrants who have that apprehension and on behalf of the migrant community we call upon the. Minister to indicate where he stands. {: .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby: -- I rise on a point of order, **Mr Speaker.** We are dealing with the Australian Citizenship Bill. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has raised a number of queries related to a statement which he asked me to make, which 1 undertook to make and about which he said there was no hurry when I last spoke to him. 1 do not mind his covering the whole range of these matters at a proper time, but I submit that he has strayed a little far from the Australian Citizenship Bill which is before us at the present time. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! 1 think the Minister would have the opportunity, in reply, to deal with those matters. {: .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr LYNCH: -- I was about to observe, **Mr Speaker,** that if the Minister is saying that the question of. citizenship is a matter of irrelevance to the problems he has caused a number of Australian citizens who came from some countries overseas and who have been featured in the news recently, he could not be further from the truth in that conclusion. The Minister continues to implement proposals put forward by the Liberal-Country Party Government in the immigration field without ever conceding a word of credit to it. I know we are involved in the field of politics. I do not mind the Minister's taking a marginal amount of credit for the things which he has not conceived and initiated in the Immigration portfolio, but 1 ask him in the name of truth, in which no doubt he believes, to state where the credit lies. I fee' a little embarrassed for the officers of the Department of Immigration who are here. A fine body of men sit in the advisers' box. The officers of the Department of Immigration in this country are unparalleled in their dedication to duty. I feel embarrassed that I should be making these comments because, as my colleague the former Minister for Immigration, the honourable member for Barker **(Dr Forbes),** points out what a terrible time it must be for them. They know full well what a public relations exercise the present Minister has been involved in. What embarrassment they must feel when they see Press statements being trundled out on the machine and sent to them. 1 do not know why on earth they would be sent to them, but what a real sense of embarrassment they must feel. Perhaps I should restrict my comments in relation to this matter. And perhaps the Minister might be impelled, the next time he issues a Press statement, to make certain that there is some aspect of that statement for which he can really take the credit. If one were prepared in this debate to go through chapter and verse and to take each of the Press statements which the Minister has put out on the question of citizenship directly relevant to this Bill, or on other matters - as my colleagues will do later - one would find that very little of what has been claimed as initiative on behalf of the Government can, in fact, be traced back to the initiative of the present Minister. {: .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP -- He is a pirate. j , {: .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr LYNCH: -- He is a pirate. 1 {: .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes: -- He is a walking public relations exercise. {: .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr LYNCH: -- I am encouraged to have those comments from my colleagues who are here for this debate, because they know that this is a matter of substance. I will close because other honourable members have a very real interest in speaking in this debate. I indicate that the Government proposes a Bill, the major provisions of which we in the Opposition reject. {: #subdebate-31-0-s2 .speaker-KM8} ##### Mr OLDMEADOW:
Holt -- I rise to support the Bill. I do not share, and we on this side of the House do not share, the alarm expressed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Lynch).** 1 believe that it is abundantly clear to those with an eye to see that in the Bill there are no disincentives to immigrants from Great Britain. It is a figment of the imagination for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to imply that there is something inherent in the Bill which suggests a move towards republicanism. He speaks of double standards and uses other similar cliches. I rise to support the Bill. I believe that it observes not only the machinery of wise and impartial legislative procedures but also the necessary and contingent provisions for an Australian citizenship which, through the evolutionary processes of our history, indicate a course of action free from discrimination. In using the word 'discrimination' it would be unfair and unjust to accuse ourselves of deliberate prejudice. It would serve little purpose to castigate ourselves or our forebears for actions taken under the influence of different times, conditions and the national and international tempers which were then prevailing. Let us remember that it was within our lifetime that the status of the Australian citizen was created in law. The principal Act has since been variously amended. It is essential and appropriate at this unique point in our history that it should be further amended. The amendments proposed are not violations of early rudimentary concepts. They are clear recognitions of sociological change and national adulthood. It becomes apparent as one shares with migrants their hopes and their aspirations that all but a tiny minority - I submit that such a minority can be found among the old as well as the new citizens - contribute energetically and effectively to the nation's work force. They are acutely aware of the problems and responsibilities of governments. Who more than these in our society see the need for better housing, better welfare provisions, better health and better planning for the future? They have a stake in the future. Their decision of confidence in Australia's ability to compass the needs of the late 20th century was made long ago in a distant land. The decision to emigrate was primary, but it was also one of extraordinary turbulence and disturbance. Any subsequent exploration into the possibility of citizenship status brings with it the complex and emotive considerations of previous loves, loyalties and ethnic attachments. They cannot, and I say they should not, be eradicated by the insensitive and harsh demands of public renunciation. It is at this point that I would comment upon the Bill's intention - I stress the word intention' and not the sorts of things that were drawn out of it by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition - to omit references to other allegiance. The Minister for Immigra tion **(Mr Grassby)** has already carefully pointed out that renunciation of former citizenship serves no legal purpose. We, that is the Government, cannot determine either loss or retention of former citizenship. It is entirely a matter for the governments of the countries concerned. On practical grounds alone the omission of renunciation requirements is both logical and consistent. There is, however, another factor - again I stress it - and it is the human factor, one that seemed to be lost sight of by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Early environments, influences and traditions ate the undergirding factors of a'l human life. It is not only inconceivable but also manifestly foolish to make a demand up..'/; citizenship which virtually sets at nought a:l that is strong and tender in previous life and circumstance. Renunciation destroys the past and mocks at memory. A nation which has come of age, which has confidence in its future and has successfully emerged from the shadows of colonialism neither requires nor will accept such a sacrifice. Australian citizenship must always be preserved and solidified by its highest common factors. These include reasonable and uniform periods of residence, good character, knowledge of the language, rights, privileges and duties of citizenship and an honest intention to make Australia a permanent home. Such qualifications, we believe, are essential and would commend themselves to all people of integrity. Surely there can be no other requirements than these. We would expect that all previous attachments and loyalties, far from being in conflict with Australian citizenship, would illumine and strengthen it. The Bill repudiates the negativism of renunciation. It clearly and confidently emphasises affirmation of allegiance Whilst on the subject of the oath or affirmation of allegiance it is worth stressing that it is to the Constitution of Australia 'hat allegiance is to be sworn. 1 believe it woui-1 be tragic if this provision were misunderstood. Australia's birth was within the framework of a great colonial empire. The British system of a constitutional monarchy with its centuries of continuity was naturally and inevitably passed down to its colonial peoples. It is easy for United Kingdom settlers to accept these historical features For settlers from other countries, I submit, the issue is less clear and probably less important. The Bill omits references to 'the Queen, her he.ri and successors'. Again it would be unfortunate if this omission were interpreted as an affront to the Throne. {: .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes: -- Which it is. {: .speaker-KM8} ##### Mr OLDMEADOW: -- It is not. I propose to show that to the honourable member if he has the courtesy to listen. There are doubtless many sentimentalists and some political opportunists who see a fox behind any traditional holly bush. 1 suggest that the honourable member for Barker **(Dr Forbes),** who interjected, is such a person. The oath or affirmation clearly states: 'I will faithfully uphold the Constitution of Australia'. As the honourable member well knows, the Constitution of Australia requires full allegiance to the Throne. Although the amendment could not and does not desire to change that requirement, it does remove an embarrassing and sometimes burdening condition which affects some migrants more than others. The omission clarifies a previously confused issue. The Minister made reference to this in his second reading speech. Another aspect of the Bill about which I want to comment is clause 5, which is a list brought up to date of Commonwealth countries whose citizens have the status of British subjects. This clause is to be read in relation to clause 8, by which Australian citizenship is to be granted under a new and uniform set of conditions. Migrants from the 31 countries listed in clause 5 have, up to the present, enjoyed privileges and opportunities not available to migrants from other countries. The present opportunities include the process of notification. British subjects who have been resident in Australia or New Guinea for 5 years - providing no crimes have been committed which render them liable to deportation - may merely notify their desire to become Australian citizens. Registration whereby a migrant with the status of British subject or an Irish citizen who is eligible to be granted a certificate of citizenship may be granted if he satisfies the Minister This may become effective without an oath of allegiance being taken in any public naturalisation or - as the Bill now describes it - citizenship ceremony. Try as one may, one cannot find a word other than 'discrimination' to describe and assess the process briefly mentioned. All the details are to be found in part III of the Principal Act, to which I refer honourable members. This Bill provides for the repeal of these anomalous provisions. Satisfactory provisions are made in the Bill for a transition period. The Minister has given an undertaking that these new conditions will be carefully and widely publicised. The Government feels that this is particularly necessary, for many British migrants are under the mistaken impression that their United Kingdom background and their long residence in Australia automatically confers Australian citizenship upon them. Not only is this misconception seriously misleading but also continued ignorance of the position denies them the opportunity to identify and confirm their essentia] commitment to the country to which they have given and desire still to give their full allegiance. Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 8 p.m. {: .speaker-KM8} ##### Mr OLDMEADOW: -- Before the suspension of the sitting I was making the point that many United Kingdom settlers are under the mistaken impression that long residence in our country automatically confers upon them Australian citizenship. Ignorance of their true position has denied them the opportunity to identify and affirm their essential commitment to the country to which they have given and desire still to give their true and effectual allegiance. If I have earlier in my speech spoken on the non-British migrant and his second-class citizenship, it would be a serious omission on my part if I did not indicate that the interests of the British migrant are safeguarded in this Bill. He must not be discriminated against either by our laissez-faire attitude of the past or our assumptions for the future. The British migrant will reap the full benefits of the new proposals. After a satisfactory period of transition during which all shades of difference will be phased out, he will be tested, approved and finally received under exactly the same conditions as his non-British counterpart. If comparatively few British migrants have in the past sought Australian citizenship either by notification or registration, we as Australians have only ourselves to blame. Whilst we have, accorded non-British migrants citizenship under the official Commonwealth orders and ceremonies, we have left the British migrant to be welcomed by Good Neighbour Councils and other non-governmental bodies. Can we wonder that some British migrants have looked a little wistfully at our citizenship ceremonies and have wondered why they were not encouraged to participate in an oath or affirmation of allegiance. At a time when the British Government is revising its immigration rules the British migrant to Australia expects a clear and definite revision of Australian citizenship. This Bill, which will amend the Citizenship Act, demonstrates how seriously we regard our citizenship and how warmly we welcome migrants free from the indignities of special inducements. That Australia welcomes all migrants as candidates for citizenship under common and uniform conditions for all countries will, I know, appeal to an inbuilt British sense of justice. The British Home Secretary, **Mr Robert** Carr, on 25th January in the House of Commons said: >I must say that the very fact that we have announced that we are to make a review of the whole British citizenship laws is an indication that we think the time may have to come when changes will be needed. It is perhaps an interesting coincidence that the British Government and our Commonwealth Government have such proposals before their parliaments. Surely this is an indication of the needs of modern immigration, as individuals desire to become a part of another country within the framework of its laws and constitutions. This Bill is more than a series of amendments which seek to tidy up the machinery of citizenship law. It is a symbol of our independence and a guarantee of our nation's continued dignity. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by **Dr Forbes)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1905 {:#debate-32} ### STANDARDS FOR THE PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS {:#subdebate-32-0} #### Ministerial Statement {: #subdebate-32-0-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Prime Minister · Werriwa · ALP -- I seek leave to make a statement on standards for the protection of consumers. {: #subdebate-32-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- In the policy speech which I delivered on behalf of the Australian Labor Party at the last Federal election, I made particular reference to the policies of a Labor government in relation to prices. In this context I referred to the importance of consumer protection activities. Consumer knowledge of the properties and quality of 13368/73- lt- P4J products can serve as a powerful restraint on unjustified price increases. The Government's approach will follow two principal paths, namely: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Through the formulation and implementation of a framework of standards designed to protect both the physical and economic interests of consumers; and 1. Through a framework of appropriate laws. My purpose at this time is to furnish information on the progress that has been made in regard to the first of these broad approaches. The Government is actively assessing both the needs of consumers and its own existing capabilities in regard to meeting those needs. This examination is proceeding. Both progress and plans for future action will be reported to the House at appropriate times. Concerning the question of standards for the safety, quality and effectiveness of consumer goods, the Government recognises the need for such standards to be at the one time both realistic and effective. The considerable body of scientific and technological expertise now existing in Australia has much to contribute to the achievements of acceptable balances between the needs and rights of consumers on the one hand and the problems of manufacturers on the other. The Government will therefore move to exploit the capabilities of its own scientific and technological resources. Various divisions of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organisation and laboratories of several departments are repositories of expertise on which we can capitalise in formulating soundly based and realistic standards for consumer goods. The Minister for Science **(Mr Morrison)** will be responsible for co-ordinating the establishment of consumer standards and he will shortly outline the activities of agencies, within his Department, of relevance to consumers. I propose suggesting to State Premiers at the Premiers Conference tomorrow that they ask their appropriate Ministers to meet with the Minister for Science to discuss ways of arriving at uniform standards and ensuring that the accepted standards are observed. I have drawn attention over many years to the potential role of the Defence Standards Laboratories in the Department of Supply. Many of the items tested by the Laboratories were raw materials and other products not generally of consumer interest. On other occasions, tests have been commissioned by private organisations, the results of which became the property of the organisations concerned. Nevertheless tests have been conducted of products which could be of interest although they did not include all brand names reasonably available nor did they generally relate to all properties of the goods. The Defence Standards Laboratories has, for example, tested kitchen knives, bicycle components, hacksaw blades, herbicides, shoelaces, toothbrushes, pencils, detergents and cleaning components, sunglass lenses and floor tiles. Other Australian Government laboratories have conducted tests particularly in relation to procurement of stores for the Commonwealth Service. The Commonwealth Stores Supply and Tender Board has tested a wide range of office equipment and such other matters as electric lamps, clocks and towelling. Many of these tests were conducted for the Board by the Postmaster-General's Department which has, in its own right as a major procurement department, conducted other tests such as assessments of the value of retreaded tyres. The laboratories of the Department of Works, to give a final example, have tested anticorrosive coatings and floor tiles. Unfortunately, the tests conducted have not been in accordance with consumer product testing practice. Many have been directed simply to determine compliance with contractual specifications and others have not been designed to provide comparative results. The most severe restriction for consumer protection purposes arises from the fact that the products tested were not purchased from sources of supply available to the general public. Tests conducted by the Laboratories generally involve products supplied by the manufacturer and, as is well known, consumer organisations would not consider such tests as definitive. The Australian Government's laboratories and agencies will proceed with a review of tests conducted in the recent past that may be of consumer relevance and appropriate for public release. The Commonwealth Paint Committee, which is serviced by the Department of Supply, was originally established by the Australian Government in the late 1940s, for the purpose of ensuring that the paints bought by the Government for all purposes, gave a satisfactory service. In time a number of other Australian Government bodies, including the Postmaster-General's Department, the Department of Housing and the Department of Civil Aviation and a number of Victorian Government departments and authorities, joined the scheme in a collaborative way. In the early years of the scheme the CPC issued specifications for paints, tested manufacturers' products offered as conforming to those specifications, and circulated amongst its members lists of those approved products that tests showed did conform. Each participant, when he bought a batch of approved paint, checked it for conformity with the specification. All this testing work was shared between the members according to their interests, testing facilities, and paint use. All results and experience were shared. In recent years there has been an evolutionary change in the scheme as the capabilities and facilities of the manufacturers have increased. Now the emphasis is on requiring manufacturers to produce a certificate of test, from a laboratory certified as competent by the National Association of Testing Authorities, demonstrating that the paint conforms to specifications. The Department of Supply recently wrote to authorities in those States which are not at present participating in the CPC scheme, informing them of these developments and inviting them to reconsider, if they wish, their participation in the revised arrangements. In consultation with all relevant authorities we shall investigate the applicability of the CPC scheme for consumer protection purposes. The testing practices of the various laboratories and agencies will be reviewed from the same perspective. Their work will make a contribution in the development of a national consumer standards scheme. I have asked the Minister for Science **(Mr Morrison)** to continue his investigation of the development of consumer standards and the testing of consumer products. In conjunction with relevant State authorities, the resources available to the Australian Government will be applied to the development of consumer information which will serve as an important restraint on unjustified price increases. I present the following paper: >Standards for the Protection of Consumers - Ministerial Statement, 9th May 1973. Motion (by **Mr Morrison)** proposed: >That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by **Dr Forbes)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1907 {:#debate-33} ### CONSUMER STANDARDS {:#subdebate-33-0} #### Ministerial Statement {: #subdebate-33-0-s0 .speaker-009DB} ##### Mr MORRISON:
Minister for Science · St George · ALP -- by leave - As the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** has pointed out the Government is examining ways of promoting the interests of consumers. This is a matter which touches everyone in the community. The Government has already initiated action in relation to prices. Proposals will be forthcoming in other aspects such as unfair trading practices, misleading advertising and so on. TonightI want to deal with an important aspect of consumer protection - consumer standards. A consumer standard is an agreed statement of quality and/ or performance that a product should have. It is based on research and takes account of what is necessary for safety and what is realistically achievable in manufacture or production with the current technology. The public can use consumer standards as a guide for purchasing if the goods are properly marked and tested to ensure they comply with the standard. Related to this is the legal enforcement of standards where this is thought necessary. The Constitution gives the Australian Government powers in the field of weights and measures. On the advice of the National Standards Commission, which comes within my portfolio, the Australian Government provides the standards in weights and measures. This assists consumers through quantity control. We have amicable relations with the States in dealing with quantity control. We shall be looking to see if we can also make progress with the States in quality control. In the packaging field, the Standing Committee on Packaging was set up in 1968 at the request of the States to achieve rationalisation in the requirements for statements on packages offered for sale. The National Standards Commission provides the chairman and secretariat for this Committee. The purchaser of a packet of breakfast food can thank the Standing Committee on Packaging for the fact that the weight will be quoted in the same way on the packet, irrespective of the State in which it is purchased. This rationalisation lowers costs by giving larger production runs. We shall be inquiring whether uniformity should be sought in areas not covered by States' weights and measures laws, such as in the fields of poisons and agricultural and veterinary chemicals. The success of the Standing Committee on Packaging shows what can and should be achieved in seeking this sort of uniformity. Honourable members may already know of the work of the Standards Association of Australia in the field of consumer standards. This is an independent body which receives an annual grant from the Australian Government through my Ministry. In 1971-72 this grant amounted to $687,000, which was 42 per cent of the Association's budget. This body formulates standards in many fields including consumer standards. It operates through a number of expert committees which include representation from all interested groups: Industry, government, and consumer organisations. The Standards Association frequently formulates its standards on the basis of research carried out in Government laboratories. For the information of honourable members, I am tabling 3 consumer standards published by the Association. These are for toothbrushes, sunglass lenses and children's night clothes. I mention those items as an example of the sort of work which is being done by the Association and which can prove useful to honourable members also. They illustrate, particularly the last two, the contribution made by research in Government laboratories to establishing standards. The standard for sunglass lenses is based on research conducted in the Defence Standards Laboratories. That for children's night clothes is based on a standard for the flammability of fabrics involving an entirely new method of measuring the ease of ignition of textiles. This method originated in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Division of Protein Chemistry. I propose that this contribution of research in Governmentlaboratoriesto consumer standards should be developed. CSIRO has an important role to play and I am at present considering establishing a unit within the Organisation to co-ordinate research work into the establishment of consumer standards. The Standards Association has responded favourably to the Government's interest in its work in the consumer field. The Association's Consumer Standards Advisory Committee recently met following our expression of interest and is considering the preparation of standards for the performance requirements of domestic electrical appliances, for detergents and bleaches, dentifrices, colour television, fire guards for heating appliances, child-proof bottle closures, petrol and contraceptive devices. The Association is also looking into ways of promoting further the use of its AS (Australian Standards) mark to go on products which pass approved tests. We shall assist this work also, both in promotion and testing. The field of foods, drugs, liquor, pharmaceuticals and other such preparations involves the statutory responsibilities of other areas in the Australian Government and the States. The safety aspect is already covered for many of these products, but much remains to be done in setting quality standards and efficacy standards. The Government intends that its scientific resources and laboratories will contribute increasingly to the establishment of standards. As the Prime Minister has already indicated, we shall be seeking the active cooperation of the States. The Analytical Services Branch of my Department, formerly the analytical laboratories within the Department of Customs and Excise, is active in certain fields of product testing. For the information of honourable members I now table reports of the laboratories' tests on: Trace metals in canned fruit and vegetables and microbiological quality of baby foods. I draw attention to the fact that these reports were not prepared with a view to their public release, but they illustrate what my Department can do in the consumer field. We would see the Department continuing in this work, in co-operation with other bodies. We shall publish the results of such tests in an appropriate format, when they can be related to a published standard, so that their significance is easily understood. In conclusion, let me emphasise again that we are all consumers, and that the Government accepts a responsibility to protect the consumer. The Government recognises that standards cannot be set overnight. However it is our intention to give a higher priority to such activities than hitherto. I present the following paper: >Consumer Standards - Ministerial Statement, 9th May 1973. Motion (by **Mr Les** Johnson) proposed: >That the House take note of the statement. Debate (on motion by **Dr Forbes)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1908 {:#debate-34} ### AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP BILL 1973 {:#subdebate-34-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed (vide page 1905). {: #subdebate-34-0-s0 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr FORBES:
Barker -I compliment the honourable member for Holt **(Mr Oldmeadow)** on the speech he made on this Bill. I disagreed with almost everything he said, but it was a well thought out, intelligent and obviously sincere contribution. For my own part, I find this Bill thoroughly and completely objectionable. I believe it to be bad in principle, and that it will be inimical to the interests of the nation in practice. The second reading speech of the Minister for Immigration **(Mr Grassby)** reeks with nauseating hypocrisy. Let me cite to the House just one of many examples of this. The Minister stated: >This means that migrants from all the 31 Commonwealth countries will now have the same opportunity as other migrants to take part in citizenship ceremonies suitably marking the important occasion of their becoming citizens. At these ceremonies, so well known to honourable members, the community in which the new citizens live will welcome them into the community and the family of the nation. It will end a situation of active discrimination against e'nthusiastic Commonwealth of Nations applicants for Australian citizenship who have been denied the same welcome as has long been afforded others. This conjures up a picture of tens of thousands of British migrants seriously disaffected because they do not have the privilege of being naturalised at a naturalisation ceremony and, instead, are seriously discriminated against by being able to acquire citizenship by registration. It conjures up a picture of thousands of would-be British migrants deterred from coming to Australia because they will face this fearful discrimination. Just who does the Minister for Immigration think he is kidding? Since when did people who are placed in a privileged position object because there was discrimination in their favour? This sort of nonsense would be laughable if it were not so serious. If I had stated that sort of thing when I was Minister for Immigration, the bright young men of the Press would have laughed me out of court. What the Minister is trying to do by weaving words such as those contained in this inane second reading speech is to avoid any justification of the new arrangements he proposes in terms of objectives which are nationally valid. I want to dwell on this point because it is about time that the people of Australia woke up to .the fact that this is what this Minister has been doing ever since he took over his portfolio. He has been making Press statements at the rate of three or four a day. He is the greatest promoter of Dorothy Dixers in the House. {: .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby: -- I do not have a Press secretary. {: .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr FORBES: -- 1 said 'he', not his Press secretary. Words pour out of him in a never ending stream. Of yes, he gets the headlines because he is an expert at that. So did Hitler get the headlines for the same reason. He coins emotive phrases such as 'the family of the nation', whatever that means, and 'absence of discrimination', with which people in a vague sort of way can identify themselves, but which mean very little unless their consequences are spelled out. The Minister never does spell out those consequences because the words - endless words - are designed as a deliberate smokescreen to distract people's attention from what actually is happening. While the Minister fiddles, or rather talks, our traditional immigration program is crumbling into ruins. Mesmerised by the Minister's words, people are not aware that his actions have seriously reduced the supply of good quality British migrants of European origin, that the composition of our immigration program has changed rapidly so that there no longer is a predominance of people from western Europe, Britain and North America of European descent arriving in Australia under the program; that the proportion of people with skills and professional qualifications has fallen and given way to people who have no other qualification than a relative in Australia who is prepared to sponsor them. That is what the Minister for Immigration has been doing while he has been talking. That, in cold hard fact, is what has been happening. What it means in essence is that while the Minister has been big-noting himself by claiming the previous Government's initiatives in migrant integration as his own, and emphasising the importance his Government attaches to immigration, he is by his actions in relation to the program storing up formidable integration problems for the future. It is from this point of view that I want to examine this Bill. The Government, by proposing to alter the traditional system whereby British subjects of European origin are required to be in Australia for only one year before naturalisation, has adopted, whether deliberately or not, a stance Which will be widely interpreted as being unfriendly to British migration and as a deterrent in some cases to British migration. For what reason? I have already exposed the explanation given by the Minister for Immigration for the hypocritical humbug that it is. {: .speaker-KN9} ##### Mr Martin: -- **Mr Speaker,** I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 303. (c) which states: >If any Member has- > >used objectionable words, which he has refused to withdraw; I seek your ruling on this matter, **Mr Speaker.** The words which the honourable member for Barker has used are objectionable to me. He has used words during his speech which have likened the Minister for Immigration to Hitler. He has used words;- {: #subdebate-34-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! The Chair heard every word that the honourable member for Barker said. The honourable member did not use those words against the Minister personally. There is no substance in the point of order. {: .speaker-KN9} ##### Mr Martin: -- **Mr Speaker,** I take a further point of order. I know that you were paying due attention to the debate, as you always do, but the honourable member for Barker likened the Minister for Immigration, as I believe Hansard will show, to Hitler. He also used other words which, in my view, were objectionable. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! There is no substance in the point of order. It is an established principle that unless words of that nature are aimed personally at another honourable member they are not objectionable. {: .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr FORBES: -- The only possible explanation can be that they are doing this in the name of a mindless uniformity and in the name of an abstract principle called 'absence of discrimination'. Perhaps also, in his twisted way, the Minister sees the removal of discrimination as promoting the integration of non-British migrants. If this is the reason then I profoundly disagree with him on every count. What is wrong with treating differently people who are differently placed? What is wrong with discrimination when there are valid overwhelming reasons to discriminate? People from Britain historically have been treated differently because they integrate more quickly into the Australian community than any other national group. And so they should, given the similarity of institutions, language, history and way of life generally between our 2 countries. Migrants from other countries are the first to appreciate this. To them it is a sensible recognition of the facts of the situation to which, so far as I am aware, there has been no objection. What form of madness has overtaken the Minister to pretend that these differences do not exist and to frame legislation based on that view? There is another more fundamental danger - again in the integration field. The Minister, as I mentioned earlier, places great emphasis on measures to promote integration into the Australian community. He is quite right to do so. But what he has lost sight of is that only a small proportion of this integration effort is required for British migrants. Largely speaking, they integrate themselves. Indeed, the fact that we have been able, largely successfully, to digest a migrant intake in the post-war years that is proportionately greater than that of any other country in history, or modern history anyway, is due to one cardinal feature of every migration program in every year since 1945, that is, that the proportion of British migrants has never fallen below 50 per cent of the total and in many years has been considerably above it. Never let us forget this because it is fundamental. Arthur Calwell, the architect of the program, believed it to be fundamental. And if Arthur Calwell is not avant garde enough for the Minister, let him ask the wise and experienced officers in his Department because I know that they hold it to be an article of faith. The Minister has done a pretty good job already in making sure that British migrants will be a smaller proportion of future programs. I refer to the cessation of advertising in the United Kingdom, the trumpeting abroad of higher standards - mostly phoney - the publicity given to absence of discrimination in selection and admission, and the general impression in Britain that the present Government is anti-British. I am opposed to this provision of the Bill because it will add to the cumulative effect of these other actions and attitudes in deterring migration from Britain, both in total and as a proportion of the program. I am doubly opposed to it at the present time when the effect of entry into the European Common Market is in any case creating uncertainty about the willingness of Britons to migrate to Australia. I am opposed to it in the current economic conditions in which it is obvious that there will have to be a step up in our migration program if we are not to be overwhelmed by inflation and accept a serious decline in our rate of economic growth. If I may sum up the extraordinary achievements of the Minister. In the name of promoting integration he has introduced a measure which will, when taken with other actions of the Government, strike a larger blow at the fundamentals of integration than everything done by his predecessors together during the last 25 years. When you come to think of it, **Mr Speaker,** that is not a bad achievement in a few short months. It is a substantial tribute to the Minister's eloquence that this fact has gone unnoticed. It is, however, a tribute neither to his wisdom nor the way in which he has discharged the responsibilities of his office. Having said something about the proposals in the Bill to make it more difficult for people from Britain to become citizens of Australia let me say something about the provisions designed to make it easier for migrants from every country other than Britain to become Australian citizens. I refer particularly to the shortening of the period of residence from 5 years to 3 years, the proposal that it will no longer be necessary to renounce 'all other allegiance' and to make it unnecessary to swear allegiance to the Queen. I will say little about the reduction in the period of residence except to make the point that we are about to make Australian citizenship cheaper than the citizenship of almost any other country. So far as I am aware, there are few countries which require a period of residence of less than 5 years. I hope that the Minister is proud to be the architect of this act of cheapening Australian citizenship. He certainly has not given the House any valid reason for it. The Minister appears to be infatuated by the proposition that there is something reprehensible about a situation in which people choose to reside in this country but not to acquire citizenship. I see nothing reprehensible in it at all. Indeed, it can be claimed that a substantial proportion of the people who do not take out Australian citizenship, particularly those from Britain, settle in Australia so successfully and naturally that the act of acquiring Australian citizenship does not occur to them, or if it does it does not appear to add anything of significance to their life in Australia. By all means encourage people to acquire Australian citizenship by every means, that is, by every means short of those contained in this Bill, by cheapening the value of Australian citizenship because that is what it is. I say flatly that if persons are not prepared to renounce all other allegiance or to swear allegiance to the Queen they should not become citizens. One can understand their reasons and sympathise with them but these are things which the vast majority of Australians hold very dear. Citizenship is an act of identification with the adopted country and with the values and mores of its inhabitants. Persons who cannot accept these things have not sufficiently identified as to be ready for citizenship. That is no criticism of them. It does not make them any less desirable settlers. It is just a determination that citizenship should be acquired only on our terms and in the light of our values, not those of anyone outside Australia. I am just not prepared to downgrade the Queen as part of our life, of which loyalty to her is an essential part, so that the Minister can preen himself that he has improved the citizenship statistics. This act of the Labor Government, if it were more widely known, would give deep offence to millions of Australians. If the Minister wants to turn Australia into a republic he should be a man and get up and say so. not try to introduce a republic through the back door. Of one thing I am sure: The vast majority of Australians would be utterly revolted at the thought that a migrant who is not prepared to swear allegiance to the Queen should become an Australian citizen. This is particularly so when the specious argument used by the Minister has been exploded by his own Leader's announcing that the Royal style and titles are to be changed to refer formally to the Queen as the Queen of Australia. The Opposition will have no part in cheapening either Australian citizenship or the Queen. This Bill does both. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-34-0-s2 .speaker-KEI} ##### Mr KEOGH:
Bowman -- As the honourable member for Barker **(Dr Forbes)** was making his speech this evening I expected him to break out at. any time into a verse from 'Rule Britannia'. My colleague, the honourable member for Lilley **(Mr Doyle),** said to me when he walked into the chamber that he felt sure that he must have been in Rhode sia listening to Ian Smith. I am sure that the Minister for Immigration **(Mr Grassby)** will be able to deal with such a racist speech when he rises during the course of this debate. I want to say initially this evening that Australia is fortunate to have had a change of government. It is fortunate from the point of view of natural born Australians and of people who have sought to come here and adopt this nation as their homeland. The inequalities and discriminations that this Bill will eliminate have been in existence for far too long. It is reasonable to assume that all Australians - apparently with the exception of the Opposition - should be proud of their nation and would welcome these proposals. In his second reading speech the Minister said: >If we are to maintain our great tradition that every citizen should be equal before the law, it is surely essential that everyone seeking to become a citizen, after being lawfully admitted for residence in Australia, should find they are equally treated when they try to become citizens. > >So it is that this Bill provides for all, regardless of origins, the same requirements as to residence, good character, knowledge of the language and of the rights and duties of citizenship, and intention to live here permanently. Surely that is both reasonable and desirable. Could any loyal and proud Australian object to that aim? Yet we find that the Opposition is opposed to the passage of this Bill. From the previous Minister for Immigration we heard this evening adequate reason for us to say with every certainty that the Australian immigration program was in a shambles because of the attitude of the previous Government. It is easy to appreciate the massive task that the present Minister had to face on assuming his portfolio in setting out to lift the standard of our immigration policy in the eyes of the rest of the world. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Lynch)** outlined this evening the Opposition's very weak case for opposing this Bill. It is clear that the members of the Opposition continue to live in the past and think in outmoded terms. They have tried to suggest on many occasions in recent years that the White Australia policy was dead. If so, it was certainly revived in the speeches this evening of both the honourable member for Barker and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. They desire to maintain the inequalities and discriminations that they introduced and enforced during their term in office. In one respect the Opposition has been at least consistent. In office its supporters consistently applied a principle of discrimination that is perhaps better described as the equality of liberalism, that is, that everyone was equal as long as a select and favoured few were more equal than anyone else. Having passed through nearly a quarter of a century during which that principle was consistently and rigidly applied, it is a wonder that there were still people from other countries throughout the world who desired to migrate to this nation when the Australian Labor Party came into office. We have the shameful results of the policy that the previous administration enforced enshrined in our legislation and administrative processes. The number and variety of inequalities are unimaginable. They include inequalities between pre-school children, depending upon whether they live in the Australian Capital Territory or in the various States; inequalities between our children, depending upon which school they attend; inequalities between men and women; inequalities between the wage earner and the prices setter, inequalities between the electors in the State electorates and particularly in Commonwealth electorates, depending upon the electorate in which they leave; inequalities between migrants, depending upon the country of their origin; inequalities between overseas visitors and more particularly between migrants, depending upon the country of origin; and, of course, inequalities between applicants who seek eligibility for citizenship under the terms of the Act enforced by the previous Government - the Act which this Bill seeks to amend. The existence of these inequalities has in the past often deterred migrants from even seeking naturalisation. That is patently obvious from the fact that in recent months - since the changes announced by the Minister earlier this year - applications for citizenship have more than doubled. Applications from people seeking to derive the benefit of living in this country under a Labor Governent are more than double the number prior to 2nd December of last year under the previous regime. Under the previous Government discrimination did not cease when the immigrant was naturalised; it continued beyond the date of the ceremony. In many instances it still continues. I must compliment the Minister on the fact that he has taken steps to attack the discrimination that exists in the various States by the establishment of various task forces to look at the problems involved. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred this evening to the adverse effects that the proposals contained in this Bill have already had and will continue to have on the number of migrants coming to Australia from the United Kingdom. I am reminded of the fact that during the time the Government of which he was a member sought to attract migrants from Great Britain it never at any time achieved any more than a 50 per cent migrant intake in one year. I have some figures in front of me from which I would like to quote. These figures were supplied today to my colleague **Senator Mulvihill.** They indicate the interest that still exists in the United Kingdom on the part of people seeking to come to Australia. The figures that were made available today show that in February of this year there were 11,435 people awaiting interview, 7,609 awaiting determination and 2,886 awaiting movement to Australia. That certainly indicates that people from the United Kingdom are still at least as anxious as they ever were under the previous Government to come to Australia. I also have figures in front of me which I will be seeking to have incorporated in Hansard that show the position in the years 1960 to 1962 as compared with the years 1971 to 1973. The figures are from the first 3 months of each of those 6 years. The figures are fairly consistent, even though there were fluctuations. The fluctuations are consistent and comparable within the 10-year period to which the figures relate. I seek leave to have those figures incorporated in Hansard. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The figures read as follows) - United Kingdom Application Rate 1960- January, 5,234; February, 5,008; March, 6,227. 1961- January, 9,774; February, 13,510; March, 11,238. 1962- January, 5,400; February, 6,771; March, 6,771. 1971 - January, 9,974; February, 6,499; March, 12,471. 1972 - January, 11,109; February, 12,200; March, 13,177. 1973- January, 8,566; February, 10,153; March, 10,215. {: #subdebate-34-0-s3 .speaker-KEI} ##### Mr KEOGH: -- The immigration policy of the Government seeks to rid the nation of the inconsistencies, inequalities and discrimination that we believe should no longer be allowed to exist when we are seeking to bring people from various countries and to welcome them as citizens in their own right in Australia. We want to welcome them here and to give them an opportunity to live in this nation with all the privileges that are available to natural born Australians. The previous Government had no intention ever to do that. It did not make any pretence that it was interested in receiving migrants except from certain selected countries. We believe that a great deal of attention must be given now and in the future to the fact that this nation is located in the Asiatic region of the world. We can no longer give offence to the people of those nations as the previous Government was prepared to do in the past. In the interest of peaceful co-existence in a mixed world, to enable us to play our proper role in world councils and to broaden our knowledge of the customs and cultures of other nations, all Australians have a duty to resolve to work towards the complete removal from within of all individual prejudices and ideas of superiority. There is no scientific basis for the often held belief that one race is superior to another race. As we discard prejudices, so will we improve our capacity to assimilate migrants from all countries of the world. This is essential in Australia if we are to grow in respect as part of the Asiatic section of the world in which we live. This Bill represents a very important step towards that objective. If the Opposition were not so biased in its acceptance of the fact that this Government has been prepared to do what its predecessor had not been forthright enough to attempt, despite the statements that previous Ministers and the present leaders of the Opposition made when they were in office, it would acknowledge that the present Minister for Immigration has been prepared to tackle this problem and to recognise the fact that these things need to be done speedily. I therefore have much pleasure in supporting the Bill and commending it to the House. {: #subdebate-34-0-s4 .speaker-JUS} ##### Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs -- The speeches of the honourable member for Flinders **(Mr Lynch)** and the honourable member for Barker **(Dr Forbes)** were like an oasis in a desert of desperation. Those 2 speeches were outstanding when compared to the speeches made by disciples on the opposite side of the House. Although they were excellent in tone and preparation, the speeches of Government supporters vainly tried to defend the indefensible. The Bill before the House is another one in a chain which has given growing cause for concern and decreasing reason for confidence. Whilst we of the Opposition have no disagreement with some of the machinery items and provisions contained in the legislation, we object in the strongest possibly way to 4 areas. The first is the change in the format of the oath of allegiance. The second relates to the disadvantages to and the downgrading of people of British descent contained in the various clauses and sub-clauses. The third is the deletion of the necessity for people seeking Australian citizenship to renounce their allegiance to the land of their former citizenship. The fourth concerns dual nationality. At this stage I would like to foreshadow on behalf of the honourable member for New England **(Mr Sinclair),** who is Deputy Leader of the Australian Country Party, 2 amendments which he will introduce at either the second reading stage - if the guillotine is not applied - or the Committee stage. The amendments are designed to restore the renunciation by a new citizen of his former citizenship and the otah of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen of Australia. The first amendment arises because of recent incidents involving Yugoslavs of dual citizenship. The second amendment is designed to make the measure far more purposeful and appropriate. The history of British civilisation is a proud one. Its fundamental base is justice - civil, legal and distributive. It preserves the inalienable rights of individuals as human beings. The traditions of our basic British ancestry imply standards, ideals to be realised, and a continuity of social, religious, civic and intellectual atmospheres. They suggest, at the very least, the humility of the sterling scholar, the surrender to the realised truth, tolerance for the other man's point of view if honestly held, the ability to make allowances and reluctance to condemn. These are the threads that run through our history, bound together by our simple act, expressed at almost every function one attends. I refer to the loyal toast, an act of allegiance to the Queen. This is a tradition which is based on friendship and kinship, a friendship and kinship which saw the coming of age of our country on a cold, grey morning at Gallipoli on 25th April 1915. That friendship and kinship have been cemented on numerous world battlefields and in naval and air battles. It is remarkable, **Mr Speaker,** how much effort has been expended by the present Government to denigrate our great traditions. The Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam),** in his deliberate attempts toward centralism, has suggested that all appeals to the Privy Council be no longer heard, completely disregarding the rights of the States. We in Queensland, whilst upset at the cavalier attempts of the Prime Minister to downgrade in a rather facetious manner the forthcoming visit to the United Kingdom of the honourable Jo Bjelke-Petersen, the Premier of Queensland, know that our State will have its constitutional rights safeguarded by the appeal of our Premier to the authorities to have the rights of our federal system preserved. They should not be abrogated by the whims of a Prime Minister who is savagely bent on a deliberate aim for centralism and complete disregard for tradition. We object to the change in the form of the oath which indicates, as do so many other actions of the Government, that there is to be a swing away from our loyalties of the past to giving undue significance to the communist bloc. This was evidenced recently by the actions of a senior Cabinet Minister in playing host to a team of North Vietnamese and Vietcong people. {: .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP -- Shocking. {: .speaker-JUS} ##### Mr McVEIGH: -- It is shocking. No possible objection can be made to the proposition that all Australian citizens, whether natural born Australians or immigrants, should be equal before the law. However, the proposition is surely feasible and clearly logical that Australian citizenship is not granted merely for the asking. In justice, those people who live here surely have the right to lay down the conditions. Based as we are on a predominantly British heritage it is reasonable to expect and to ask that other ethnic groups have to fulfil a longer term of residence to absorb our ethos, to grow accustomed to our customs and to do things in the Australian way while enriching our lives with their own culture. I ask: Is Australian citizenship to be got on the cheap, on terms, as it were, or is it to be granted when worthiness is proved? In his second reading speech the Minister made the following remarks: >So it is that this Bill provides for all, regardless of origin, the same requirements as to residence, good character, knowledge of the language and of the rights and duties of citizenship and intention to live here permanently. Later the Minister said: >People from any of the Commonwealth countries - now numbering no less than 31 - have in the past been in a distinctive and, in my view, an anomalous position in regard to the conditions under which they would become Australian citizens. An examination of the 2 quotes surely will provide the answer that the latter position should be so, as it is implied in the first quote that the number of years is not the only yardstick or criterion but other factors are included, such as knowledge of the language and of the rights and the duties of citizenship. People have to be equal in these, otherwise an anomaly would exist. The Minister appears to have been imbued with only one item - the time factor. He has tried to spell out in years of domicile rather than in progress of assimilation. He has had, as one might say, a perilous plurality of logical argument. One could be excused for thinking, in this instance, that his brain was a supermarket of political innovations. A person who has entered Australia as an immigrant, in the course of time and by force of circumstance will cease to be an immigrant and become a member of the Australian community. More precisely, what are those circumstances which indicate that the erstwhile immigrant is now absorbed into the surrounding community? I submit it is more than expecting an immigrant only to settle into the Australian community for the purposes of the immigration laws. Surely the guide posts should direct us to more concrete factors, less vaporous ones than that. Surely they should assist us in making an informed guess, which is about as much as we can do in law, and in a great deal of our knowledge, in assessing when a particular person from a particular country should be granted citizenship. Absorption into the Australian community is a vague conception, for the process of absorption does not consist in the unilateral act of the immigrant. The community is the final arbiter, lt is the body which grapples with the slippery concept of assimilation, lt is one thing to talk about domicile of choice, but a domiciled person is not necessarily a citizen. It is our opinion that whilst we agree with the intended legislation to make citizenship available in 3 years on certain conditions, we submit it is reasonable for British descendants to require a shorter period of residence before applying for citizenship. The honourable member for Flinders **(Mr Lynch)** and the honourable member for Barker **(Dr Forbes)** spelt out quite specific reasons why this should be so. They detailed the necessary conditions and the great traditions and ties that we have had with those countries so it would be superfluous for me to recount the points made by the honourable members so excellently and so eloquently. I want now to deal with the removal from the form of citizenship of the words: 'Formally renouncing allegiance to one's former country'. The Minister commented on this by saying that it is meaningless. I point out the anomalous position of Australian citizens. From the Australian perspective it is not possible to retain Australian nationality after having voluntarily acquired, except by way of marriage, citizenship or nationality in another country. This provision is contained in section 17 of the Citizenship Act, which states: >An Australian citizen of full age and of full capacity, who, whilst outside Australia and New Guinea, by some voluntary and formal act, other than marriage, acquires the nationality or citizenship of a country other than Australia, shall thereupon cease to be an Australian citizen. In other words, Australia does not seek to retain the allegiance of her nationals who have given allegiance to another State. Australia does not assert any political or legal claim over her ex-nationals. An erstwhile citizen of Australia is relieved of all the legal obligations of Australian citizenship and, of course, he loses the rights that accrue with that Australian citizenship. Australia's position is clearly sensible and fair. However, it is by no means the universal position. One example of a nation that seeks to retain its hold over its one-time nationals is Yugoslavia. The procedure for divesting oneself of Yugoslav citizenship is arduous. The fact of having embraced another nationality in no way abrogates Yugoslav citizenship. Thus a naturalised Australian citizen of Yugoslav origin is legally subject to the obligations of Yugoslav citizenship, no matter how long he has been a resident in and a citizen of Australia. The claims of Yugoslavia extend even to the children of foreign nationals of Yugoslav origin. A child born of parents who are Yugoslav citizens automatically acquires Yugoslav citizenship. It does not matter that the parents may have settled in and be citizens of another country. The law of Yugoslav citizenship translated from the official gazette of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, No. 38, 23rd September 1964, pages 733 to 735, states: >A child born in a foreign country whose one parent at the moment of its birth is a Yugoslav citizen by origin shall acquire Yugoslav citizenship if, by the time the child completes 18 years of age, it is reported for registration as a Yugoslav citizen with the responsible Yugoslav organ in the country or abroad, or if the child permanently settles down in Yugoslavia. I now ask the Minister a question to which I hope he will reply later in the debate. What is the position of a student of, say, 20 years of age, of a naturalised Australian father, born in Yugoslavia, who travels to that country on his mother's passport and is there for some months? How long does he have to be there before Yugoslavia claims him as a Yugoslav national? I hope that the Minister will answer that question during his reply. It is clearly in the interest of Australia that our grant of citizenship be an exclusive one, that our political rights and obligations be the only ones to which naturalised Australian citizens are subject. This Bill seeks to remove the provision in the oath of allegiance whereby the new citizen renounces allegiance to all other lands. But we should be wary of any implication from this that Australia tolerates any other nation, including the new citizen's nation of origin, interfering with the liberties to which an Australian citizen is entitled. Determination of nationality is primarily a matter for each individual nation. There are, however, certain multilateral treaties in existence which regulate aspects of the law relating to nationality. For example, there is a 1930 League of Nations treaty dealing with aspects of military obligations in the case of persons with double nationality. There is another 1930 League treaty which addresses certain questions relating to the conflict of nationality laws, but that treaty begins with the words: >It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals. Since this treaty there has been no multilateral treaty which has significantly rationalised the international position on nationality. Steps are open to the Australian Government to try to ensure that our naturalised citizens enjoy the full rights that our other Australian citizens enjoy. The Australian Government is able to conduct negotiations with all those nations whose laws on nationality work to the disadvantage of Australian citizens. It may be possible to negotiate bilateral arrangements with those countries whereby the acquisition of Australian citizenship cancels the original citizenship. This arrangement is simply the one which we ourselves have under section 17 of the Citizenship Act. The Government might also seek to have the present unsatisfactory situation redressed through a multilateral treaty. In this regard I draw the attention of the House to the bilateral agreement between Yugoslavia and Soviet Russia signed at Moscow on 22nd May 1956. Article 1 of the convention dealing with the complex problem of dual nationality states: >This Convention shall not apply to persons who, possessing the citizenship of one Contracting Party, have acquired that of the other Contracting Party without first obtaining permission to renounce their former citizenship, where such persons are resident in the territory of the Contracting Party. . . . What both countries require is for the citizen seeking a new nationality to renounce his previous citizenship. Yet Australia places her new citizens in a singularly unique position. I ask the Minister whether we are the only country in the world, when this Bill becomes law, to not require a new citizen to renounce his former allegiance. I would like the Minister to answer this question. Bilateral agreements are in force between various countries, and I suggest that this is what we should be doing. Our efforts should be channelled, our energies expended. We of the Country Party stand for one class of Australian citizenship for all - the same privileges and the same responsibilities. We want no first, second or third class citizens. We want one standard, one sense of values, a citizenship to be prized and honoured, a citizenship in the greatest country of all, Australia, where loyalties are undivided and where all are equal. {: #subdebate-34-0-s5 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr MORRIS:
Shortland -- After listening to speakers from the Opposition side I think that any reasonable and tolerant Australian could only be astonished and amazed by some of the contributions they have made. The honourable member for Darling Downs **(Mr McVeigh)** spoke of the proud record of the United Kingdom-Australia relationship, but the present immigration policy of the United Kingdom towards Australia certainly is not a proud one. That is something I will mention a little later. The other matter that the honourable member mentioned was the desire of the Australian Government to abolish the right of appeal to the Privy Council. It is interesting to note that the same opinion is held by a former Prime Minister of this nation, the right honourable member for Lowe **(Mr McMahon),** so at least that is one matter on which the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** and the previous Prime Minister are in concert. The comment that was made about the attainment of citizenship on the cheap is a remark which I feel many persons in this country presently who were not bom here could only regard as a slur. There is no suggestion or intimation that citizenship can be gained along those lines, and that kind of comment can do nothing but hurt and harm to all of those people contemplating Australian citizenship. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Lynch)** spoke of the special preferment and special relationship existing between the United Kingdom and this country. I would like to read to the House an extract from the immigration policy of the United Kingdom presented in the House of Commons on 25th January by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, **Mr Robert** Carr, which is reported at page 654 of the House of Commons Hansard. After talking about the interdependence of Commonwealth countries, the United Kingdom, the colonies and immigration policy he said: >With this in mind, it is all the more important to reduce the immigration of citizens of other countries - both Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth - to the inescapable minimum. He went on to say: >The Government wish to make clear, in particular to employers in this country, that work permits under the 1971 Act will be issued very sparingly indeed and that this stringency will apply to Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth countries alike. I do not know where the special preferment and the special relationship to which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred fits into that statement. **Mr Carr** went on to mention that the maximum period of a work permit that is allowed on entry into the United Kingdom is 5 years. We have heard of this preferment or alleged entitlement given by the United Kingdom to Australian citizens, but in fact under the present immigration laws of the United Kingdom Australian citizens do not have any automatic entitlement to United Kingdom citizenship. The United Kingdom does not use the term 'migrant' as we use it here. It refers to a person going to the United Kingdom for the purpose of settlement, and a person going to the United Kingdom for the purpose of settlement must have a job waiting for him in the United Kingdom, his prospective employer must apply to the Department of Employment in London for a permit on the applicant's behalf, and the time that elapses from the time application is made by the employer to the time of issue of permit is approximately 7 weeks. The maximum period for a work permit is 5 years. The initial permit is for only one year, and thereafter a renewal has to be sought. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition commented on the reduced number of people entering Australia for the purpose of settlement. I draw his attention to the fact that despite a lower intake of persons into this country in the current year, the decision to stay has been taken by a much greater number of people. We can say simply that a lot fewer people are coming to Australia but certainly a lot more are deciding to stay. I venture to say that the decision to stay, many of which have been made in recent weeks, has been made as a result of the announcement by this Government of an enlightened approach to the whole subject of Australian citizenship. We are doing away with the inequalities and the discrimination that have existed for far too many years in this country. On the economics side, the decision of a lot more people to remain in Australia after having arrived here means a great saving to this country in terms Of the cost of immigration, housing and assimilation. I mentioned earlier a statement on immigration policy by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the United Kingdom speaking on behalf of the United Kingdom Government. I would like now to quote from a speech in the House of Commons by a member of the Opposition on 21st February, a few weeks ago. On page 618 of the House of Commons Hansard he is reported as having said: >I have always adopted the view that we should exercise a control policy which is seen to be fair. The best way would be to base it on work opportunity here. I do not believe in the kith and kin idea. It can go as far as one generation. However, I do not see why a rogue from Australia should have absolute free entry and unfettered right of settlement here while we are obliged under the rules to turn down worthy people from other parts of the world who are likely to make a great contribution to our economy and society. We have heard what the Government in the United Kingdom says and what the Opposition in the United Kingdom thinks. {: .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby: -- They seem to be unanimous, do they not? {: .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr MORRIS: -- I would think so. 1 thank the Minister for his comment. It seems a reasonable conclusion to draw that there is a unanimity of opinion in the United Kingdom that the door has to be closed to Australians. We have to comply with the same kind of restrictions on entry as do members of any other Commonwealth of Nations country. I have been unable to get figures from the sources available here in Australia on the number of Australians whose applications for United Kingdom citizenship in recent years have been rejected. They will become available, but I think it would be reasonably accurate to say that the number is in excess of several hundred. It is expected that the number will be in excess of 1,000 in the current year. I say all these things to show that the image that the Opposition is trying to create - of preferment and compatibility, of the supposed exchange of rights between the United Kingdom and the Australian Governments - is false. It does not exist, it has not existed for a long time. The present situation in the United Kingdom is that Australia is a long way down the list. Since the United Kingdom entered the European Economic Community the people of all the EEC nations have had freedom of entry into the United Kingdom. They can go in any time they wish. They do not need a work permit. They have right of entry to the country. They have the right to seek work. They have the right to take their families with them. They have the right to select their place of residence anywhere they wish in the United Kingdom. That does not apply to Australians, but apparently the Opposition says there is some sort of preferment for Australians. I would very much like to be made aware of it. We have also heard mention of renunciation - of people having to renounce their allegiance to their country of origin. The act of renunciation is meaningless. It is distressing to persons who have come to this country to make it their permanent home and who have relatives left in their country of origin. It does not really mean anything to the Australian citizens here. It is made all the more meaningless by the fact that dual nationality exists in some countries and that the country of origin sees fit not to recognise a renunciation. It is interesting to look at all the countries that do not require renunciation. In New Zealand, which would be a sister country to Australia in terms of immigration policy, renunciation is not required. Renunciation is not required in Canada, the United Kingdom, Sweden or Italy. The only comparable country at the moment that requires a person taking a citizenship to make an oath or a statement of renunciation of his country of origin is the United States of America. This act is distasteful and unpleasant to persons who used to be required to make it, as is evidenced by the fact that there has been an increase in the number of applicants for Australian citizenship since the proposed amendments to the Act were announced. When one gets to know people who have come from other countries and one understands their feelings, one also comes to understand the discomfort caused to some of them by having to renounce their country of origin. For all practicality, here in Australia it makes no difference to their relationship with the Australian government or with other Australian citizens. The other matter I would like to mention is the citizenship ceremony, the emphasis on it in the Bill and the importance that the Minister for Immigration **(Mr Grassby)** has been giving to it. lt is a most important day and a most important event in the lives of all our new Australian citizens when they take their citizenship oath. Probably in many cases it is their first contact with people in public office in Australia. I think it is a responsibility and a duty of all members of this House to participate in these ceremonies whenever they can and to help to make them important and memorable to the candidates taking their citizenship. I believe that the amendments proposed to the Act will assist materially in making those persons who were not born here and who want to avail themselves of Australian citizenship more readily and more strongly able to feel that they are going to become members of the Austraiian family and that they are able to identify with all other Australians. The amendments will strengthen the projection of Australia's national identity, and this nation will become identified more and more as Australia, the island in the South Pacific and not the third island of the United Kingdom or the fifty-first State of the United States of America. {: #subdebate-34-0-s6 .speaker-JWI} ##### Mr FOX:
Henty -- This Bill deals with Australian citizenship. Since the postwar immigration scheme started nearly 4 million migrants have come to live in Australia. Over 2.5 million of them have been British subjects. Of those not British subjects and eligible to aply for Australain citizenship because they have resided in Australia for 5 years, 701,448 had applied for naturalisation up until a little earlier this year. That is not as many as we would have liked, but it represents about 71.5 per cent of those who are eligible to apply for Australian citizenship. This Bill makes a number of changes. In the first place it changes the name of the ceremony from a naturalisation ceremony to a citizenship ceremony. This is an item with which I am thoroughly in accord and I believe that it meets with the approval of the Opposition. A number of migrants have asked me: 'What does naturalisation mean? Does it mean that until we become naturalised we have been unnatural?' I think this is an understandable change and a very happy one. The Bill also changes the age at which a person may apply for citizenship in his own right from 21 years to 18 years. I think this is a very sensible change, because at 18 years of age a person is now eligible to vote. The Bill seeks to reduce the period of residence after which a migrant may apply for naturalisation from 5 years to 3 years. Again I, am heartily in agreement with that. At the present time British subjects may apply for Australian citizenship by notification after having resided in Australia for one year. Alternatively they may apply for registration after 5 years. This Bill seeks to make it uniform for people of all nations to become eligible at the end of 3 years. I can see merit in making a uniform standard but I am not happy with taking away the preference which previously applied to British people enabling them to apply for citizenship after 12 months if they wished to do so. I am well aware that they lose no tangible advantages by having to wait 3 years. The Electoral Act provides that they should enrol for voting after 6 months, and they are entitled to vote whether or not they choose to become Australian citizens. I am well aware that they do not lose any opportunity to apply for permanency in the Public Service. Their British citizenship gives them that right. But we are basically a British country. We were settled by British people. I believe that we are losing or weakening another link with Britain by taking away the preference' which British migrants presently enjoy. For the same reason I am not happy with the deletion in the oath of allegiance of all reference to Her Majesty the Queen. This again is just another broken link in our ties with Great Britain. I think this is a great pity. As was mentioned by the honourable member for Darling Downs **(Mr McVeigh),** the Opposition will be moving an amendment to this clause. I am not happy with the deletion of the oath of renunciation. The honourable member for Darling Downs mentioned dual citizenship. If there is any merit in deleting the oath of renunciation I do not believe that now is the right time to do it because of the trouble we have been having at the present time with respect to Yugoslavia and dual citizenship in general, which applies to a number of countries. I believe that some Australian citizens could be placed at a disadvantage if they should return to the countries from which they came without having renounced their former allegiance. I believe that they ought to be able to go to those countries as Australian citizens on an Australian passport having made it quite clear that they have renounced their citizenship. I believe also that a lot of them are happy to renounce their former allegiances because they want to identify themselves with Australia. They have adopted Australia as their country and they are happy to become Australian citizens. They want to become part of the community in which they live. I do not believe that they are assisted by having divided loyalties, a situation which exists under dual nationality. This Bill cannot change that. It is something which can be changed only by the laws of the countries which at present recognise dual nationality. But I believe that we would make the position of migrants from those countries a bit stronger by including in the oath or affirmation of allegiance the act of renunciation. I think we ought to be encouraging migrants if we want them to become Australian citizens. I have already said that while 71.5 per cent of those eligible is a reasonable figure this is not as high a percentage as any of us would like to see. I think the best way for us to encourage migrants to take out Australian citizenship is to point out to them the advantages of becoming Australian citizens. I know that this is not a tangible advantage, but surely it is worth something to become part of a community in which one resides. Migrants cannot really become part of a community unless they participate on a level with their fellow Australian citizens. I think that most migrants would want to be at one with their children, and their children, whether the parents like it or not, surely will grow up as Australians. I think it is a great thing for the parents to be on a parity with their children. When migrants become Australian citizens they have the advantage of being able to choose the Government of the country in which they live. I do not believe that anyone should be in a position to criticise the government, from whatever side it may be drawn, if he has not cast a vote in the election of that government. In becoming Australian citizens, migrants have just as much say in choosing the government as anyone else. Their vote is just as valuable as that of any other citizen. If they choose to offer themselves as candidates they have an equal opportunity with other Australians to be elected as members of this Parliament, the State parliaments or local government councils provided that they get enough people to vote for them. I am one of those who believe that migration has contributed a very great deal to Australia's development. Migrants have changed Australia's eating habits. They have influenced almost every aspect of Australian life. They have added to Australia's culture and have become Australian in their outlook. I am not one who believes, as do some of the critics of our migration program, that migrants contribute to unemployment. On the contrary, I believe that they have created employment. It is a fact that at the time when Australia was taking its greatest number of migrants we had the lowest percentage of unemployment. I am sorry that the present Government has seen fit to cut the intake of migrants. I think that this is a mistake and I am not inconsistent in saying this. I said the same thing to the previous Government when it reduced the intake of migrants. I believe that our previous policy contributed to the employment of people but that if anything the present policy will contribute to unemployment. The present Government has announced that its main criterion in selecting migrants will be the unification of families, and that migrants should be nominated by families already in Australia. I think that on humanitarian grounds this criterion is quite sound. But I believe that if that becomes the main criterion and we discard our selectivity on the basis of employment, skills, and if qualifications are not essential, it is possible that many of our migrants could add to the pool of unemployment. If this is the case they will not become happy citizens and they W,11 be added to the pool from which likely returnees are drawn. In saying that, 1 want to point out that I do not believe that we ought to worry too much about migrants who return to their homelands. 1 believe that every country which has embarked upon an immigration program has had this experience. After all, people are very much more mobile today than they have ever been before. Many of the countries of Europe from which migrants have come are experiencing very much greater prosperity than before, and there are always people who are not prepared to settle in another country. Some of these people have the money and the mobility to get around and look at countries. If they like a country they may stay there. Many migrants want to retain their right to move around. If we want to retain the largest possible number of migrants who come to Australia we ought to be encouraging them to seek naturalisation and to want to belong to Australia. The Opposition is not opposed to quite a number of the changes which the Government seeks to bring about in this Bill. But we strongly oppose some aspects of the legislation, and, as has been mentioned, we will be introducing amendments to this effect at a later stage. **Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)I** call the Minister for Immigration. {: #subdebate-34-0-s7 .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr GRASSBY:
Minister for Immigration · Riverina · ALP -- **Mr Deputy Speaker-** {: .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP -- Is this the end of the debate? {: .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr GRASSBY: -- Yes. {: .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP -- Well, there we go again - gangsters and gaggers {: #subdebate-34-0-s8 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -I think there are some other speakers. {: .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr GRASSBY: **- Mr Deputy Speaker,** I do not see them. {: .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP -- Well, here is one right now. {: .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr GRASSBY: -- Well, you were a little bit late, **Mr Deputy Speaker.** {: .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP -- I thought that an honourable member from the other side of the House would speak next. A speaker from our side of the House has just resumed his seat. {: .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr GRASSBY: -- The honourable member is tardy as usual. It is not my responsibility. I suggest that he should attend to his duties. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! The Minister will come to order. {: .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr GRASSBY: -- 1 will give the honourable member an opportunity to speak. But I tell you that if he abuses the privilege again it will be the last he will get. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member for Griffith should have been more sprightly in rising. Nonetheless I call the honourable member. {: #subdebate-34-0-s9 .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP -- Thank you, **Mr Deputy Speaker.** One would imagine fairly that when this Party on the other side of the House that has come to government after wandering in the wilderness for 23 years- {: .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby: -- I raise a point of order. I have deferred to the honourable member to enable him to make a speech on the Australian Citizenship Bill. I suggest that be has begun his remarks by not referring to the Bill at all. If he is going to use his privilege, I suggest that he should come back to the Bill right away. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! I point out to the honourable member for Griffith that the previous speaker was from the Opposition side of the House. Accordingly, when the Minister for Immigration rose as the next speaker from the Government side of the House - he rose before any other honourable member, particularly any other honourable member from the Opposition side of the House - naturally he was called. However, the Minister has been magnanimous and has deferred to the honourable member. I suggest that the honourable member should keep this in mind. {: .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP -- I am overwhelmed by the generosity of both yourself and the Minister, **Sir.** {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- So you should be. {: .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP -- The list of speakers contained another three or four supporters of the Government who have yet to speak. I do not think I was incorrect in assuming that one of those honourable members would be next to speak. But, nevertheless {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! The Chair does not know of any list of speakers. {: .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP -- The Chair knows best, too; I recognise that. We have heard this evening and during the latter part of the afternoon a most interesting debate to which members from both sides of the House contributed. I sincerely hope that the import of this debate is not lost on the Australian community because whether we like it or not vast changes will be made if this Bill becomes law. The Opposition side of the House does not oppose the Bill simply on light grounds; it opposes it for very strong and traditional reasons. I was rather amused to listen earlier this evening to some honourable members on the Government side of the House condemn out of hand previous Ministers now on this side of the House and heap tons of praise upon the present Minister for Immigration **(Mr Grassby)** who is wandering around the chamber at the moment. I would appreciate it if he took his seat and listened to some of the things 1 am about to tell him. The only thing that the Minister has done since assuming office has been to introduce this Bill. The many things used by the Minister to grandstand and to promote his image as a goer and doer not only were suggested by Liberal governments but also had been put into practice by them. The Minister, with his light purple coloured suit and his dark hair- **Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Order!** {: .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP -- I was describing him. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -The honourable member for Griffith has already had one point of order taken against him by the Minister for Immigration because he was straying from the Bill. I assure the honourable member that the personal appearance of the Minister, be it good or bad, is in no way associated with this Bill. 1 suggest that the honourable member should confine his remarks to the Bill. {: .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP -- Taking all things into consideration and discounting the Minister's appearance, one must look back on recent events and the Minister's claims to have done so much. The Minister has attempted to portray himself as a man of initiative. 1 should like to refer to 5 initiatives which he claims but which are not even his. Firstly, there was a policy statement on the selection of migrants which the Minister made on 31st January 1973. In that statement he outlined 5 broad basic requirements which each prospective migrant would need to meet. Because of the limitations of time and the fear of being sat down, I do not propose to repeat those requirements now. However, it must be pointed out that some of them are continuing requirements which were first laid down as long ago as 1947. Would you mind coming back, **Mr Minister?** {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! I have already told the honourable member for Griffith that he should confine his remarks to the contents of the Bill. {: .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP -- 1 am. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -The fact that the Minister may move around the House has no association whatsoever with the Bill before the House. I do not want to have to warn the honourable member again. I insist that he does not stray from the Bill. {: .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP -- Not one of the requirements mentioned by the Minister is substantially different from the requirements insisted on by the previous Government. But by a misuse of the public relations technique, the Minister has made it appear that they are something new and different. They are not. Secondly, there was a news release issued by the Minister on 14th February detailing what he described as 'new initiatives on population policies'. In the news release he referred to population studies 'being carried out at the Australian National University under the direction of Professor W. D. Borrie'. The fact is, as this House would be well aware, that the studies by Professor Borrie, and other investigations to provide the facts necessary to determine future patterns of migration, were announced on 26th June 1970 by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Lynch)** the then Minister for Immigration. One could almost describe the Minister as a con man for claiming suggestions which were not really his. The third example was also a Press release. It was issued by the Minister on 18th February under the heading 'Nation's First Emergency Interpreter Service'. I say no more about this matter, which again the Minister sought to present as a new initiative, than that it was conceived by the former Government and announced in the House of Representatives on 31st August 1972. How do you explain that? Just shake your head as though you were in an incubator. **Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order!** The honourable member will please address his remarks through the Chair. He has been warned repeatedly during his speech. He will not be warned again. {: .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP -- The Minister then spoke of an on-call telephone interpreter service to provide a 24-hour service for urgent community needs. Two days later he was at it again. On 20th February he issued yet another Press release in which he sought free publicity for his opening of a new migrant education centre in Perth. In the third paragraph of that release he described the project as 'a further new initiative'. It was not. I can see you looking aghast, **Mr Deputy Speaker,** that a Minister of the Government and a member of your Party should claim to have initiated ideas that were not his. I'do not blame you. This proposal was announced on 31st August 1972 by the honourable member for Barker **(Dr Forbes).** {: .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby: -- I rise on a point of order. I regret having to do this, but we are debating the Australian Citizenship Bill. The honourable member has dealt with every subject but that one. If he has nothing to say about the Bill I suggest that he should defer to honourable members on his side of the chamber who do have something to say on the Bill. I suggest that he be directed to return to the BUI. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- There is substance in the point of order. I invite the honourable member to return to matters contained in the Bill. {: .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP -- I appreciate your assistance and guidance, **Mr Deputy Speaker.** I have cited 4 examples, having indicated earlier a willingness to mention five. I think that anybody who studies Hansard will appreciate that I have been stopped after mentioning 4 examples. Some of the changes proposed in the BDI give us reason for concern. As was stated earlier by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, this Bill is an example of the new Government directing Australia towards becoming a republic, but it is doing so through the back door. Those historical ties which we once had count for nought with the new Government, and there cannot be less than nought. This is the situation today. The new Government has introduced certain changes which are to the disadvantage of our traditional migrants, that is, the British. Whether Government supporters agree with it or not, Australia has been built largely on British stock. When we look back on recent years, we see that between 1967 and 1968 more than 46 per cent of the 137,000 migrants who came to Australia were from the United Kingdom, in 1968-69 the figure was 44 per cent, in 1969-70 it was 39 per cent, in 1970-71 the figure was 36 per cent and in 1971-72 more than 40 per cent of Australia's migrants were from the United Kingdom. This has been our traditional base. Yet reports from London indicate that in recent months, since the new Government has come to power, there has been a decline in the number of people indicating an interest in migrating to Australia from the United Kingdom. I have many good friends living in Asian and South East Asian areas where the new Australian Government is attempting to place great emphasis. In my own electorate there are approximately 5,000 people who are of Greek origin or who are Greek by birth. There are approximately 2,000 people of Russian origin or of Russian birth in my constituency. So I have some reason to be able to claim to understand the viewpoint of our recent settlers. The new Minister for Immigration was elected to this House in 1969 and set about convincing the Italian Embassy, the Maltese High Commission and anyone in the migrant community whose ear he could blow into that he was a great worker. He was quickly rewarded by the Italian Government with an order of Italian solidarity, and recently he received an award from the Maltese Government. The Minister is very proud of those awards. Right? {: .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby: -- I hope so. Of course, yes. Do you denigrate them? {: .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP -- I realise that these communities require additional assistance - more so than the British or the normal United Kingdom settler - because they have come from a different background. The Minister for Immigration should admit that the British migrant is different from the Italian, the Greek and the Yugoslav. I see the Minister's eyes light up when I mention Yugoslavia. He thinks of Croats and all that. The Minister has a sorry record in that direction. He has stated that great differences exist, yet this Bill sets out to destroy any advantage that a United Kingdom migrant may have had in the past. Frankly, as an Australian, I resent a British migrant being able to come to this country and, after residing here for only 6 months, having the right to vote on the affairs of this nation, just as I believe as an Australian that I should not have the right to vote in a United Kingdom election after living for only 6 months in that country. I hope that the new Government will see fit to change that provision. The point is - the Minister has lost sight of this - that the previous Government was not practising discrimination against nonUnited Kingdom migrants because it applied a different time factor for qualifying for naturalisation to the non-British migrant. The previous Government was recognising that the United Kingdom migrant, who had come from a country with a Westminster system of Parliament and practices a way of life this country has followed, was more easily able to assimilate to the Australian way of fife than were many non-British migrants who, after 3 years in this country, perhaps could not even speak the English language. The Minister for Immigration with his purple suit and dark hair is jumping around like a day-old cockerel, drawing everyone's attention to the time. In view of the request made by my Whip to keep my speech short, I conclude by saying that the Opposition is opposed to this Bill. Many of the good reasons we have for opposing the Bill have been stated by other speakers. Instead of sitting there smirking and smiling the Minister should set about considering some of these issues, because I am sure that if he had been given a British Government award he would not have half the pride in it as he has- {: .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby: -- I do have one. {: .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP -- You are not one? I said that the Minister looked like a day-old cockerel. I conclude simply by saying that the Minister has proved himself to be one who has paraded around making claims of giant steps forward which in fact were steps initiated and introduced by the previous Government. The only thing to which the Minister can lay claim is the Bill which is now before the House. Frankly, if it were my Bill, I would not be proud of it because it is a retrograde step for this country. The Minister and all of the members of his Party should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for trying to drive this country into becoming a republic and for pulling the wool over the eyes of each and every Australian. {: #subdebate-34-0-s10 .speaker-KJO} ##### Mr JAMES:
Hunter -- I do not intend to detain the House for any length of time. {: .speaker-KB8} ##### Mr Giles: -- Why not? {: .speaker-KJO} ##### Mr JAMES: -- I believe that I can make my submissions in fewer words than probably could others. I disagree entirely with the censorious remarks directed by the honourable member for Griffith **(Mr Donald Cameron)** to the Minister for Immigration **(Mr Grassby).** I believe that the present Minister for Immigration is one. of the most progressive, energetic, sincere and hardworking Ministers that the Parliament has had for many years. He is a down to earth practical man who has eliminated superfluous red tape from the Migration Act which many Australian people had requested the previous Government to do when it was in office. It will be a true Australian Migration Act and it will not be tied up with the red tape and rigmaroles of the previous Act for which the former Government was responsible. It will make the oath of allegiance more practical and simpler and will bring uniformity to the processes through which migrants must go to become Australian citizens. The Bill will simplify the procedures in a proper way in accordance with the wishes of th. overwhelming majority of Australian citizens. Having said that, let me now say that I sometimes get disturbed about procedures in the Department. I must pay some credit to the efficiency of immigration officers in Australia in the manner in which they issue passports. However certain people in our community are still able to obtain passports by false or fraudulent means. Knowing human nature as I do, I know that the most foolproof scheme that can be implemented in any immigration office or bank is not foolproof unless the honesty of those enforcing the scheme or carrying out their duties is beyond reproach. Since I have been in this Parliament, I have always held that view. I have heard the same thing said by a former member for Batman, **Mr Bird,** who advocated in this Parliament that people in trustworthy positions which allowed them to be subject to corruption should be required to declare regularly their assets. He said that this should apply to members of Parliament, public servants, taxation officials and people in positions of trust. I believe that if we members of Parliament keep harping on this issue, eventually one day we will have a system - if. we are to preserve our democracy we should have such a system - by which men in high positions of trust, even the judiciary and other men in high, influential legal positions, should have to declare their assets when they accept a responsible position and every 3 years thereafter. I believe that this should be applied not only to people in the immigration office, about whom I am not making serious allegations. Every honourable member of this House knows that from time to time some of the spivs in the community are able to obtain passports to leave the country when the law enforcement authorities are looking for them. Ronald Biggs is a name which is paramount. He was one of the participants in the great train robbery. He apparently entered Australia and left Australia with the law enforcement authorities looking for him all over the place. I know that what I am now about to say may be repugnant to most Australians and to most honourable members of this House. I say to the Minister for Immigration that I should like to see the principle sold to the Australian community and to this Parliament that people obtaining a passport or responsible migration documents should be invited to submit voluntarily their right index finger print or their left or right thumb print. {: .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- No. {: .speaker-KJO} ##### Mr JAMES: -- I know that this will be frowned upon and I know the arguments that can be used against it. Some would say that it would be treating the Australian people or visitors to this country as criminals. I know that the honourable member for Parramatta **(Mr N. H. Bowen)** being a legal man, and believing as I do in the liberty of the subject, would be able to use a powerful argument against such a concept. But it would have a preventive effect in these days when the democracies of the Western world are suffering from the highest crime surge in their histories. This is occuring in Britain, America, Australia and Canada. I believe that one day the Australian people will ask for the voluntary surrendering of the fingerprint of a person on an important document such as a passport, because a fingerprint is the only known positive identification of mankind. I do not believe that fellows like Biggs and other interantional crooks would be able to move in and out of the United States, Australia, Canada and Great Britain if this policy were adopted and eventually implemented because with positive means of identification such as the left thumb print or the right or left index finger print it would make it virtually impossible for such people to obtain somebody else's passport. Tactful officers could obtain the prints more quickly than a person could sign his signature in the ordinary way. I should like the Minister to inform the House, if he can, whether any other country has adopted a system of identification, voluntary or compulsory, on passports or important migration documents along the lines I have suggested. I congratulate the Minister on the principles of this legislation and I again praise him for his practical, down-to-earth implementation and modification of the Australian Citizenship Act. {: #subdebate-34-0-s11 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr SINCLAIR:
New England -- I thank the Minister for Immigration **(Mr Grassby)** for granting me an opportunity to say a few words on this Bill. I will try to curtail my remarks because I know he wishes to reply before the second reading debate is concluded. My first concern about the Bill is its title, the Citizenship Bill. To my mind naturalisation is something which accords to the person who is naturalised and who is a newcomer to this country equal status with a natural born Australian. That is something worth working for. It is something worth achieving. It is a pity to destroy it, and that, of course, is one of the purports of the Bill. The second matter of concern to me is in a broader field. To me migration has been the great catalyst for development in Australia. It has provided for Australia a breadth which in the days up to 1939, 1 guess, and even to the end of World War II we lacked. We lacked this breadth because we did not have the stimulus of the many people of diverse countries, diverse ethnic origins and diverse cultures to provide the stimulus which has given to our country something of the greatness to which I think it can lay claim today. It is a great pity that in the operation of this policy the present Minister for Immigration has maintained a continued restraint on the level of migrants. I am opposed to the changes which he is introducing in the origins of those migrants. J am concerned that in this Bill we are not seeing extensions which I believe are necessary for us to be able to maintain that impetus which was given under the right honourable former member for Melbourne, **Mr Arthur** Calwell. I believe that the origins of **Mr Calwell's** administration and the administration of successive Liberal-Country Party Ministers, pursued in the immigration portfolio, was tremendously important in developing this country in the years after World War II. As to the substance of the Bill - and it is to that in the short time that I intend to speak I wish to concentrate my remarks - I intend in the Committee stage to move certain amendments to the schedule. I should like to explain to the House the reasons for these proposed changes because I think the substance of them is important. First, I seek to retain in both the oath and the affirmation the requirement that a person taking an oath or affirmation should renounce existing allegiances. At the momet we are all horrified by the execution of 3 Australian citizens in Yugoslavia. Dual citizenship is something which does complicate relations between countries. The only basis 1 can see on which we can do away with this requirement of renunciation in taking an oath or affirmation is a resolution of that problem with each of the countries which today fail to recognise what we see as the privileges and rights of an Australian citizen. If we remove that renunciation requirement I do not believe we will be in the same strong position in discussions with either the Government of Yugoslavia or the government of any of those other countries in which there is a maintenance of this concept of dual citizenship. I can understand an individual migrant having difficulty in renouncing existing allegiance. But it is not denouncing; it is renouncing. They are not in any way destroying their parentage. They are not destroying the heritage of which they are justly proud. They are renouncing their formal allegiance to the constitution, the president, the monarchy or whatever it was in their own country of origin. In so doing, I believe, they are giving themselves more meaning in their assumption of Australian citizenship. I believe it is important that there is more meaning in the assumption of Australian citizenship, and more so at this time when it is important that we resolve the very complex position of dual citizenship. The second aspect of the change relates to my belief that it is not sufficient that a newcomer swear allegiance only to the Australian constitution. In this changed form of oath I have expressed it as allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of Australia. Adding the words 'of Australia' provides a form which all migrants should be able to accept. After all, we as members of this Parliament under the terms of the Australian Constitution are required to take an oath of allegiance to the monarchy. The monarchy is still a part of our Constitution. It is to the monarchy that the members of the armed forces swear allegiance. It is to the monarchy that we as members of the Parliament swear allegiance. The monarchy is the symbol of the state. The monarchy represents the state. After all, in legal proceedings it is still the Queen versus whoever the particular litigant might be. I believe it is important that in the oath the role and responsibility of the person of Her Majesty the Queen of Australia be expressed in that form. Accordingly it is my intention to move in the Committee stage those amendments which incorporate those 2 principles - the preservation of the renunciation of all other allegiances and the swearing of faithful and true allegiance to the person of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of Australia. I acknowledge the opportunity which the Minister has given to me to say a few words in this debate. There are many other aspects of this Bill on which I should like to speak but I hope to have some opportunity to refer to them during the Committee stage. {: #subdebate-34-0-s12 .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr GRASSBY:
Minister for Immigration · Riverina · ALP -- in reply - The Opposition has attempted tonight to turn back the tide of history. It has rejected the concept of Australian citizenship as the badge of a free, strong and independent people. Instead it has returned to the past, particularly the last 2 Ministers for Immigration in the previous Government. The Opposition has given the impression of wanting to drag Queen Victoria from the tomb and set her up again to preside over the empire. I have searched my mind and my memory for an analogy to the present situation. As the people and successive governments of Britain have warned us - the imperial legions have been recalled. The sun has set on the empire. The Government of Britain has taken that country into the European Economic Community bound by the laws and statutes as laid down by the treaty of Rome. The reaction of the Australian Government fresh from receiving a strong mandate from the Australian people is to proclaim proudly our own independence and self-reliance. The reaction of the Opposition is to emulate those ancient British chieftains in the year Anno Domini 446. Four years before that date the last of the Roman legions had been withdrawn to defend Italy. The withdrawal had begun 44 years previously when Constantine the Great gave the orders for the first of the legions to return from Britain. Forty-four years later the ancient Britons were still holding on to the coat tails of the disappearing empire. Vortigern and other ancient British chieftains made the last fruitless appeals for the legions to return. Vortigern's successors in this Parliament might be reminded that he so lacked confidence in his own country's ability to survive outside the Empire he invited in the Saxons to help and they promptly took over and destroyed the ancient British kingdoms. The Australian people can be assured we will not follow in the footsteps of that ancient Briton Vortigern. The Opposition opposes the abolition of discriminations. It has said, in effect, today that it wishes to retain the past where racial discrimination was the factor which dominated our citizenship laws. Depending on where you came from and what colour you were the last Government gave out citizenship on a basis of one year, 3 years or 5 years. The whole racist structure was taken to such lengths that photographs were required to show whether applicants were light enough skinned to be welcomed. That led to the merry little practice of underdeveloping films so that Suzie Wong appeared lighter than the driven snow. The discriminations were primitive. They have been ended. The patron saint of Australia's migration and citizenship program today could well be Robert Burns, who once wrote: 'A man's a man for a' that and a' that'. Each individual is assessed today on his or her merits. There are still one million people in Australia who are eligible to become but who have not become citizens. The Government is saying to them all: 'Join the family of the Australian nation through citizenship based on one cri terion, one oath and one ceremony with all discriminations banished'. We ask the Parliament to vote for Australian citizenship, one and indivisible. How could any Minister responsible for immigration and citizenship go out to the million here now and the tens of thousands still coming and draft them off like so many sheep and cattle, saying: 'You go to the one year pen; you to the 3-year pen; you to the 5- year pen. Italians, Dutch, Germans, Greeks and Lebanese to the right and wait for 3 years; Tongans, Zambians, Canadians, British and Indians to the left and wait for one year if you are light enough and 5 years if you are not*. That spectacle is a tragic one. It must not happen in future. The Opposition has talked more about British migrants than any other. Yet during its long term of office it left many British migrants completely in the dark about their citizenship status. It failed to tell them that they were not automatically citizens. It failed, indeed, to tell Australians that they had ceased to be British citizens when the Imperial legions began to leave our region 24 years ago. While it permitted tens of thousands to remain in ignorance of their status it merrily deported 2,481 Britons, among the 9,000 it deported from 1954 to 1972, because they had committed offences and were not citizens. At the same time it kept on the statute book the provision in the Crimes Act which permitted Australian citizens to be deported. We will wipe out this disgraceful provision and thus ensure that no Australian Government, now or in the future, can deport Australian citizens. I appeal to all members of the Parliament to look at this citizenship legislation in a nonpartisan manner rather than on the basis of narrow party politics. The Bill simply proposes that all discrimination be eliminated from the requirements for the grant of Australian citizenship to migrants. I was both surprised and sorry to hear that the Liberal Party of Australia, as a party, would oppose this Bill. The present Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Snedden),** when Minister for Immigration, introduced a citizenship Bill in 1969 which showed a progressive outlook for that time by recognising the growing importance of the status of an Australian citizen. That Bill specifically provided that an Australian, when asked to state his nationality, had only to say: 'I am an Australian citizen'. The Government now puts to the House in the form of the present Australian Citizenship Bill that it is time we progressed still further towards reality by ending the artificial discriminations in the present Act. I want to point out that there is no difficulty at all in relation to the subject of renunciation. It is vitally important to recognise that there has been a complete misconception about this matter. Any renunciation required by our law does nothing to deprive the individual of former citizenship. That is determined solely by the law of the former country. I add here that the Government is acting towards a solution of that position. Australia does not in fact recognise dual citizenship. Those Greek or Yugoslav citizens, for example, who in the past have been made to renounce their allegiance to their former countries at our citizenship ceremonies have still remained Greek or Yugoslav citizens. All that the requirement has done is cause a great many migrants to refrain from applying for citizenship because they find it a severe emotional obstacle to appear to renounce culture, background and home. Finally, there has been an objection to the omission of a reference to the Queen in the oath or affirmation to be made at citizenship ceremonies. Can there truly be any objection in principle to our new citizens undertaking to uphold our Constitution? As the Opposition well knows, our Constitution gives prominence to the position of the monarch and no Act of Parliament can change that without a referendum of the people. 1 ask again that the Opposition consider the position of the settlers who want to become citizens. From one end of Australia to the other there has been an enthusiastic welcome by the majority for the provisions of this Bill. Even today from the Returned Services League - from a sub-branch in Victoria of British exservicemen who have settled here - there has been an enthusiastic welcome for this legislation. They have wanted it, they have asked for it and they support it. I appeal to all members of the Parliament to build national unity, end discrimination and promote a proud independence for Australia. Debate interrupted. {: .page-start } page 1927 {:#debate-35} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-35-0} #### Wool Industry - Meat Inspectors - Newspaper Deliveries to Remote Areas - Television Services^ - Nambour Post Office - Papua New Guinea National Airline {: #subdebate-35-0-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! It being 10.15 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House of 1st March, I propose the question: >That the House do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-35-0-s1 .speaker-KET} ##### Mr KING:
Wimmera -- I regret that the honourable member for EdenMonaro **(Mr Whan)** is not present in the chamber tonight. On 11th April last in an adjournment debate he made a series of ill-considered charges about the present industrial dispute in the wool industry and the policy of the previous Government in relation to the wool industry. Since that time I have made numerous inquiries and ascertained that all of the charges were inaccurate, as I intend to prove to the House tonight. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro claimed, firstly, that the present industrial dispute within wool stores followed a deliberately engineered plan by the government to displace men employed in wool stores from their jobs; secondly, that there was no consultation between the Australian Wool Corporation and the Federated Storemen and Packers Union and other people employed in the woo] market on potential marketing changes which would lead to greater marketing efficiencies; thirdly, that wages paid to storemen in wool stores are the lowest within *the* award and that there is a high turnover of labour as a result; and, fourthly, that the National Council of Wool Selling Brokers and Dalgety Australia Ltd, through **Mr William** Vines, dictated wool policy to the Australian Country Party. When he came to this House the honourable member for Eden-Monaro had some sort of reputation. He was a member of the Australian Objective Measurement Policy Committee and the Australian Objective Measurement Technical Committee. Both these committees developed the marketing changes he so bitterly attacked. His intemperate statements since his arrival make me wonder whether his reputation was based on achievement or personal embellishment. Take the charges the honourable member has made as a member of the 2 objective measurement committees. It would have been apparent to him - he has been often quoted as saying so - that there would be a considerable savings in wool throughput in stores throughout Australia if the findings of the committees were introduced. In his charges that the introduction of objective measurements could lead to possible redundancy the honourable member chose to overlook the fact that next year and the year after only 10 per cent and 30 per cent of the national wool clip would be affected by these changes. As a result few men, if any, will be affected. I am quite sure that any men affected will be found employment elsewhere in the marketing and handling of wool. On the grounds of non-consultation with the men in the wool stores, has the honourable member forgotten what he learned when he was a wool research worker - that it has been the men in the wool stores who have been involved in making the Australian objective project measurement succeed and that consequently they have, with the researchers, learned first hand of how the techniques work and are in the course of evolution? Does the honourable member know that the union has been kept fully briefed of the situation regarding the development of these techniques and that on 22nd March union officials, together with broker representatives, went to a Wool Corporation store in Sydney to examine the progress of the Corporation's jumbo bale development? On the question of wages, does the honourable member know that there are 5 grades of storemen and that the award levels he quoted are the minimum rates? Does he know that the minimum rates have increased 15 per cent in the past year or so? Does he want to know that the decision which flowed out of the Arbitration Commission placed rates for wool store employees within the medium range paid for comparable labour elsewhere? Does he expect the Commission to place the rates at the upper level of the awards, thereby forcing the wool growers he claims to represent - I will say more about that later if I get an opportunity - to pay more in handling charges? Does he care to know that in wool stores the seasonal nature of handling means overtime payments, which greatly increase the wages he so selectively quoted? Does the honourable member know that 35 per cent of the men employed receive over award payments and that of this number 74 per cent receive award payments of $2 or more while 27 per cent receive over award payments of $5 or more? Does he know the turnover in the industry is nowhere near as great as he has claimed and that, whatever turnover occurs, occurs within that section of the wool store work force which is engaged for seasonal labour? I turn now to the personal charges made by the honourable member. They were made, of course, under privilege. He attacked by name a man and his company which gave time generously to lead a massive rescue effort for the wool industry only 2 years ago. I refer to **Mr BDI** Vines, a man well known to honourable members, in whose debt we are permanently placed for the marketing strategies he developed as chairman of the Australian Wool Corporation. That body prevented wool prices from crashing through the bottom of the market and set the stage for the resurgence of the wool industry. As well, **Mr Vines** led the process of change to improve the efficiency of marketing. The honourable member claimed that **Mr Vines,** his company - Dalgetys - as well as the National Council of Wool Selling Brokers, dictated policy on wool affairs to the Government. Does he remember that the policy was developed of consultation and not confrontation with the industry? That is something that the Labor Party could try if it wants to succeed. The smearing of **Mr Vines** has no basis. Nor has the smearing of **Mr Sandy** Neville, a director of Port Phillip Mills, which the honourable member claimed went bankrupt. Why does not the honourable member find out that Port Phillip Mills has never been bankrupt? It is owned 50/50 by Dalgetys and William Horton and Sons. It is a pity that the honourable member will not get his facts correct. Port Phillip Mills is a viable Australian company which is committed to building the Australian wool industry. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro in his address on 11th April last made certain claims, as I stated earlier. He said: >The honourable member for Wimmera is quite right in saying that the woolgrowers voted me in. That was said in answer to an interjection and illustrates how some people will take remarks out of context. I said that he was voted in by the wool growers by mistake. I want to prove just how they did vote the honourable gentleman in by mistake. In 1966 a Country Party candidate was in the field. Out of formal votes totalling about 41,700 cast on that occasion the Country Party candidate received 3,618. I do not have accurate figures for the last election but my memory is clear on the subject. At the election held on 2nd December last, the Country Party candidate came within about 400 or 500 votes of winning the seat. Does that indicate how true my statement is that the honourable member was voted in by mistake and that he did not receive the unanimous support of woolgrowers? It proves the point again that he was misleading this House and the people he represents. I urge people who are interested in the wool industry to read the speech of the honourable member for EdenMonaro reported at page 1354 of Hansard of 11th April 1973. I also urge the honourable member's constituents to read that speech and to read my statement. They will then be able to form their own conclusions about whether I was correct in saying that the honourable member was elected by wool growers to this House by mistake. {: #subdebate-35-0-s2 .speaker-K5A} ##### Mr O'KEEFE:
Paterson -- I wish to bring to the notice of the House tonight a matter which is causing people in the meat industry in Australia great concern. On Monday, 9 April, representatives of the Commonwealth meat inspectors Australian body met in Sydney to discuss wage increases for their members. At the meeting it was decided that initial industrial action be taken by working to regulations as from Monday, 15th May, if a satisfactory reply was not received from the Public Service Arbitrator on or by 14th May. The Victorian section of the union dissented as they required direct industrial action. The meeting took a strong stand with regard to salary claims. The New South Wales section demanded an immediate strike unless a 12 per cent interim increase was granted. As I said, Victoria did not want to settle for anything less than strike action. The major decision arrived at was initially to try a work to regulations policy. It was emphasised that the killing rate in all abattoirs right across the country was to be reduced by at least 50 per cent for this type of action to be successful. The only alternative would be strike action if wage justice was to be achieved. The report of the meeting has been sent to all shed delegates, both metropolitan and country. They have been asked to comply with the instructions. Work to regulations can be achieved by the inspectors' slowing down their normal inspection work so as to cut in half the output of any export abattoir or any abattoir handling both export and home consumption meat. I will give instances of how this can be achieved, turning first to the ante-mortem inspection. The following action is specified: Each animal shall be observed both at rest and whilst in motion. Both sides, head and rear of each animal shall be examined. Members on antemortem duty shall rigidly observe this instruction and shall not sign an ante-mortem card until the examination is carried out in complete detail. This indicates that the inspectors can slow down the operation by taking considerably more time on that side of their inspection duties. I turn now to the post-mortem details. This section must be rigidly enforced in every detail, according to the meeting. It decided that sterilising the knife means more than just dipping it into a steriliser. The knife should be agitated and held in the steriliser for a reasonable period - a minimum of 30 to 60 seconds. In regard to the washing of hands the meeting decided that hands must be thoroughly washed at all times. If the work to regulation procedure comes into operation with a consequent slowing down of production, the result will be that our great export trade in beef, lamb and mutton will be seriously affected. Valuable export income will be lost to the nation and the income of primary producers will be seriously affected. The price of meat on the local market must increase as, with the slowing down of abattoir throughput, the costs of producing and preparing meat will increase because of work to regulations or strike action. It will be a serious national problem. The salary claims are before the arbitration authorities at present. I will quote a telegram which was sent to the Australian Meatworks Federal Council in Sydney from Melbourne on 8th May. It states: >Exploratory discussions which took place in Melbourne on 7th May between Commonwealth Meat Inspectors Association Department of Primary Industry and Arbitration Division of Commonwealth Public Service Board likely to lead to further meetings with Meat Inspectors Association next week. I ask the Government to examine this very serious situation which has developed in the meat industry. It is one of our greatest export industries and also serves Australians right across the nation. I ask the Government to take immediate steps through the Minister for Primary Industry **(Senator Wriedt)** to have a look at the situation, to investigate it from every angle, and to talk it over with the people concerned with a view to preventing a much more serious situation developing. {: #subdebate-35-0-s3 .speaker-K5O} ##### Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa -- I rise tonight to draw attention to one of the disabililies suffered by people in the far western part of my vast electorate of Maranoa. I refer to the difficulty of people residing in the town of Quilpie getting newspapers as regularly as they deserve to have them - newspapers which I feel should be able to be provided for them. In the past, newspapers have been brought from Brisbane by a Trans-Australia Airlines flight on Saturdays so providing people with papers for the weekend. {: .speaker-AV4} ##### Mr Hurford: -- Government newspapers? ; **Mr CORBETT-** In those remote areas people sometimes might even go to the trouble of reading government newspapers because newspapers are of such value to them. However they would be hard up to read government newspapers that are available at present. The need for the carriage of freight by air to such areas is such that every effort should be made to cope with the requirements. At present a Twin Otter aircraft is servicing the area. The Fokker Friendship aircraft would be the type of plane to cater for the available passenger and freight traffic on this route. I realise that freight traffic is not as profitable as passenger traffic and that one must always take into consideration the economics of any operation. I am not overlooking that aspect but the fact is that the Government has seen fit - I might mention that the previous Government also saw fit - to provide a subsidy for air traffic to far western areas. It would not cost much more if a larger capacity plane were to be provided for the available traffic. Quilpie was not included in stage 7 of the television expansion to the western areas of Queensland. It is a matter for regret that it was not included because it is the largest town in the western area. Because the residents do not have television, newspapers are of special value to them, especially at weekends. Workers in the surrounding areas come to the town at weekends and if newspapers are available they can study the form. I am not advocate of punting nor am I against it but if people want to indulge in this form of relaxation or recreation they should be enabled to do so. The provision of newspapers by that Saturday flight would enable them to engage in this activity. I would urge TAA to give serious consideration to providing a better plane service. I have spoken of this matter to TAA officials in Queensland. They have indicated that they will consider it. My reason for speaking on this subject tonight is to encourage them to look at it perhaps sooner and more closely so that the people who live in this area and who are so severly handicapped by the lack of amenities may feel that they are not being completely forgotten. I mentioned that Quilpie was not included in stage 7 of the expansion of television facilities. The Postmaster-General **(Mr Lionel Bowen)** is in the chamber, but this matter is no longer within his area of administration. Television now comes within the portfolio of the Minister for the Media **(Senator Douglas McClelland).** I am sure that if he were to see the advantages derived from television in those remote towns which have it, he would be inclined to give consideration to a further expansion of television facilities into remoter areas. Quilpie is one of the towns yet to be serviced. Other towns in that area also missed out. The residents of these towns naturally are disappointed and wonder why they missed out. I know that the provision of television facilities is based on the cost per person and that the further out such a facility is taken the greater the cost. Nevertheless, since television is in the area and as the cost would be reduced in some instances because the micro wave links are closer than they were previously, I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to a further expansion of television facilities in that area. I know that an examination is being made of the whole of the operations of the Post Office, including telecommunications, but as stage 7 is programmed to be completed by the end of this year I hope that the Minister will examine the possibilities of a further expansion of television into this area. Members of the Country Party often are accused of speaking about parochial matters, but this is common in an adjournment debate. If I were not able to speak on behalf of the people for whom I have made a plea tonight their requirements might not be made known. Not many members represent people in such communities. I can see one or two members in the chamber who represent vast areas and who would be sympathetic to the case I have presented. I take to task those people who sometimes criticise honourable members for dealing with matters which have a major rural content or which have application to country towns. Because few people are concerned about such matters I often feel that I must speak on such subjects when, in fact, I would be pleased to speak on matters of greater and wider import - matters of great national importance. But the few representatives of remote areas have to raise matters concerning their electorates and they are sometimes precluded from taking part in debates of national importance. I resent the suggestion that such members are concerned only with matters which affect the people in the areas they represent. We have to be concerned for those people and for that reason we sometimes are not able to talk on subjects of wider import. I would be talking more frequently on matters which affect the whole Australian community if the local subjects were able to be taken up by more members as is the case with matters involving metropolitan areas. {: #subdebate-35-0-s4 .speaker-ZE4} ##### Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Last evening I promised the honourable member for Fisher **(Mr Adermann)** that I would reply to certain queries he raised in respect of what was happening about the proposed Nambour Post Office. As I indicated last night, I did not know that he intended to raise the matter nor did I have a chance to hear the first part of his speech. I have now read it in the Hansard record and I am disappointed that the honourable member commenced his speech last night by querying why I was not in the House at question time yesterday. I thought that he understood from the Leader of the House **(Mr Daly)** that I was representing the Government at a conference in Albury and that a member of the Opposition was at that conference to represent the Opposition. I would have thought that if he knew that, he might have at least understood why I was not here at the time. Further, I knew nothing about the matter until he raised it. Now he has given me the opportunity to find out the position. He also indicated in his statement that the Government was somewhat at fault. He indicated further that there had been some problem in the sense that the Government, since it had taken office, was not showing the interest he would have expected in matters associated with the welfare of those using postal and telecommunication facilities in his electorate. It is on that basis I now state these facts. I discussed the matter with the Director, Posts and Telegraphs in Queensland who after all s> the man responsible and the man who would be charged with the obligation of providing postal facilities at Nambour as expeditiously as possible. He has now given me an answer which I think is reasonable. It is that the existing post office and engineering building are on the same site a little out of the shopping centre, and it is proposed to erect a post office on departmental land but another site has to be acquired. So early in 1971 - I emphasise the date - the Vogue Theatre site was selected. In August 1971 it was valued at $80,000 but the vendor would not sell. Final agreement was reached in mid-1972 for a sale price of $92,375. I emphasise that in mid-1972 agreement was reached. Central Office agreed. The Department of Services and Property, which is the acquisition authority, not the Post Office, did everything possible. An Executive Council minute was signed. So the previous Government did all that was reasonable and I emphasise that to the honourable member. So from early 1971 until November 1972 negotiations were continuing to try to get a site, so the present Government cannot be blamed for that situation. But the vendor got a better offer after 24th November, and the records show that on 4th December - in view of this fact I think the honourable member might even exempt this Government from any blame - the vendor said he had sold to somebody else. I would have thought that the honourable member could have found that out from the Director in Queensland. The accusation last night was that nothing was being done. I am pleased to tell the honourable member that the Director has worked very hard and has other sites in mind. There is not much point in my discussing them here because it might well be that other vendors will change their minds. But I will give the honourable member this assurance: The Director in Queensland is a first class public servant, interested in the welfare of Nambour and other places. It is unfair to suggest that this Government is to blame. If any criticism can be made it is of the fact that the negotiations by the previous Government took 18 months. I do not blame the previous Government if it had a difficult vendor who eventually reneged after agreeing to sell. So the blame is there, nowhere else. The other matter raised was in relation to Maroochydore and what was happening about water coming through a concrete floor. This matter has nothing to do with the Post Office in the sense that the contract is a Department of Works contract. The Department of Works has done everything possible to rectify this seepage, which is a basic building defect, and on that basis I would have to say that further inquiries will be made and I am happy to make them. We can get the information from the representative of the Department of Works, not from the Post Office, which is not associated with the matter. One other unhappy accusation was that perhaps the representations made by the honourable member were not being given proper attention. My office records show that he has made 6 representations in relation to business and commercial premises, all of which have been attended to. He has made 2 other representations, one being of a domestic nature. That was the case I indicated last night of an elderly person who is very sick. A medical certificate has been furnished, but it requires $7,000 to put the telephone on at that gentleman's establishment because of the length of line. That would be the reason for the delay. The other representation was on behalf of a progress association. I know that the honourable member has made a number of representations to the Director in Queensland, but I assume that he is not making any accusation that they are not being expeditiously dealt with. It is on that basis that I indicate to the House that there are no politics in this matter. The fact is that whatever is necessary for Queensland has always been done by the Director in Queensland. He has his budget which he inherited from the previous Government. I would be happy to add to it if I could, but because of circumstances which have been indicated here clearly over a number of debates on the adjournment, the Post Office has financial difficulties and we are not here to say that we can just get more money when we need it. We do need it, and there are a great many priorities. I leave this information to show there is no discrimination: The number of deferred applications in the honourable member's electorate is 137. He might think that that is too many but my colleague, the Minister for Social Security **(Mr Hayden),** has 556 deferred applications in his electorate. That is another basic problem, because those figures clearly show that there are many problems in Queensland closely associated with rapidly growing areas. There has been no plan, no money allocated and no capital equipment provided. The people in those areas, as the honourable member knows and as I have said before, will have to wait some 2 years because of the failure to plan. This is a problem we cannot solve. It is of no use fooling the people and saying that something will be done. If the honourable member realises that my ministerial colleague has 556 deferred applications and he has 137 - most of them will be cleaned up rather rapidly - he can see that no discriminatory action has been taken against him. {: #subdebate-35-0-s5 .speaker-ID4} ##### Mr ADERMANN:
Fisher **- Mr Speaker,** I wish to make a personal explanation. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? {: .speaker-ID4} ##### Mr ADERMANN: -- I say, in a kindly way that I have been misrepresented on 2 counts. I do not think it has been done deliberately. The implication was made that I was blaming the Director of Posts and Telegraphs in Queensland. This is not so. I hasten to assure everybody that I regard him very highly as a very competent man. Any accusations I made were in relation to matters of policy and the things I said were directed at the PostmasterGeneral **(Mr Lionel Bowen)** because I felt that the matters I raised were his responsibility. I thank him for his answers. I was misrepresented also in that the Minister said he did not know that I would be raising the matters. This is implying that I did not seek to tell him. I sent a message through the Leader of the House **(Mr Daly)** at dinner last evening. I noted that the Postmaster-General was not here. I said that I did not want to speak in his absence but that the matter was important, and the Leader of the House assured me that he would get a message to the Postmaster-General that I was to speak and telling him the matter on which I was to speak. I want to make it clear that it may not have been deliberate but I was misrepresented in relation to those 2 factors. {: #subdebate-35-0-s6 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY:
Minister for Services and Property · Grayndler · ALP -- **Mr Speaker,** I wish to make a personal explanation. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY: -- Yes. I do not doubt the statements made by the honourable member for Fisher **(Mr Adermann)** but I received no message last night in respect of the matter that he mentioned. It could have been given to the Whips or somebody else, but it never reached me. What the honourable member said just now is complete news to me. **Mr ADERMANN** (Fisher)- **Mr Speaker,** I wish to make another personal explanation. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? {: .speaker-ID4} ##### Mr ADERMANN: -- Yes. What the Minister for Services and Property **(Mr Daly)** has said is not so. I shall cite the misrepresentation. I spoke to the Minister when he was having dinner with a **Mr Jones.** The honourable member for Darling Downs **(Mr McVeigh)** was sitting at a table nearby. I was with my wife. The Minister said to me, and I took it as a jocular and a friendly remark: You are wasting your time' or something like that. I ask him to recall those circumstances. It was at dinner last evening that I mentioned it, and that is what he said. **Mr DALY** (Grayndler - Minister for Services and Property) - **Mr Speaker,** I wish to make another personal explanation. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY: -- Yes. Frankly, I have no recollection of what the honourable member for Fisher **(Mr Adermann)** has said. I did not convey any message to the PostmasterGeneral **(Mr Lionel Bowen).** I never had any indication that the honourable member was to raise the matters. Possibly I was distracted if such an incident did occur, but in all fairness to the honourable member I have no recollection of it and I certainly did not convey a message to the Postmaster-General. So we might write it off as a complete misunderstanding and accept each other's explanation. **Mr LIONEL** BOWEN (KingsfordSmithPostmasterGeneral) - **Mr Speaker,** I wish to make a personal explanation. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? {: .speaker-ZE4} ##### Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Yes. The honourable member for Fisher **(Mr Adermann)** seemed to indicate that I had put the case unfairly in the sense that there had been no suggestion that the Director, Posts and Telegraphs, in Queensland had any criticism made of him. I refer the House to the fact that the honourable gentleman is quoted in Hansard as saying, in dealing with the failure to acquire the premises: . . frustrated by procrastinations by the PostmasterGeneral's Department and by the fact that the Department just would not indicate when it would proceed. It would not resolve the question of price. There was the great saga of indifference, indecision and dilly-dallying by the Department. {: #subdebate-35-0-s7 .speaker-JUS} ##### Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs **- Mr Speaker** I wish to make a personal explanation. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? {: .speaker-JUS} ##### Mr McVEIGH: -- No. I just wish to further the point. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- No, I cannot accept that. {: .speaker-KJO} ##### Mr James: -- You should have said yes. {: .speaker-JUS} ##### Mr McVeigh: -- Yes, **Mr Speaker,** I have been misrepresented. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Misrepresented by whom? {: .speaker-JUS} ##### Mr McVeigh: -- By the Minister for Services and Property. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- When was this? Just now? {: .speaker-JUS} ##### Mr McVeigh: -- He stated that my colleague, the honourable member for Fisher, had not contacted him last night. I would like to inform the House that I heard the honourable member for Fisher speak to the Minister and I want to clear his name. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! I do not think that the Minister mentioned the honourable member for Darling Downs so it is not necessary for him to make a personal explanation. {: .speaker-JUS} ##### Mr McVeigh: -- With respect, the honourable member for Fisher- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- He mentioned it but the Minister did not. {: #subdebate-35-0-s8 .speaker-KB8} ##### Mr GILES:
Angas -- **Mr Speaker,** I am glad that I received the call. You will appreciate that I would not dream of getting up before I received it. Tonight I want to speak about a matter that impinges on civil aviation, the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** and foreign affairs. I have not informed the relevant Ministers about it but I do not think that necessarily prohibits me from saying what I think. Honourable members opposite will understand my problem in trying to let half the Government know before I speak on an adjournment debate. As you will appreciate, **Mr Speaker,** I might not have received the call at all. I wish to refer tonight to the rather quaint position in which the Government appears to have got itself. The Minister for Civil Aviation **(Mr Charles Jones)** has painted himself into a corner. It may or may not be the complete truth that agreements were reached some little time ago with the Chief Minister of Papua New Guinea in relation to that country's internal airline. What is patently true now is that the rapidly emerging country of Papua New Guinea wants its own internal airline with the shares in the rough proportion of 52 per cent to be held by the Papua New Guinea Government, 24 per cent by Ansett Transport Industries Ltd and 12 per cent each by Qantas Airways Limited and Trans-Australia Airlines. I wish to make the point very forcibly that for a long time Australia has been known favourably as a nation that has taken a proper, responsible attitude to an emerging country. We have encouraged Papua New Guinea to propound its own ideas and to think for itself. We have helped to train its public servants and its infrastructure. At present one might say there is a bit of hiatus. The Chief Minister, **Mr Somare,** is saying to us how he wishes the capital structure of his own internal airways to be balanced. The Minister for Civil Aviation, who is a funny little man, pokes his nose rather irreverently into the situation and implies that unless Papua New Guinea gives up its ideas about the capital structure of its own internal airline, he will move to prohibit certain grants in aid to that rapidly emerging country. For as long as I have travelled around South East Asia and as long as I have had help from this Parliament to visit places both near and far, the name of Australia has stood high in the matter of foreign aid because we have never put conditions on aid - this was not the case in the story "The Ugly American' - to these sorts of developing countries. We have not done so to countries with which we have a very tenuous connection. Yet the Minister appears at this point of time- {: .speaker-KJO} ##### Mr James: -- We have to protect our own government airline. {: .speaker-KB8} ##### Mr GILES: -- You have to protect your own Government; that is more to the point. {: .speaker-KJO} ##### Mr James: -- The people's airline. {: .speaker-KB8} ##### Mr GILES: -- The people's airline has been very negligent indeed in opening up Papua New Guinea, and that is obviously one of the reasons why the Chief Minister of that country wants the expertise and the knowledge of private enterprise to help to continue this motivation of his country's internal airline. With respect to the honourable member for Hunter **(Mr James),** I do not think it matters very much whether we should look after the Government's airline in Australia. {: .speaker-KJO} ##### Mr James: -- The people's airline. {: .speaker-KB8} ##### Mr GILES: -- The Government's airline In Australia. Last year the people travelled on the other airline a little more than they did on the Government's airline, so let us not be deceived about what is the people's airline. The point I am trying to make, in spite of the interjections from the honourable member for Hunter, is quite clearly that no matter whether we should protect our own airline or not, we do not have the moral right to dictate how Papua New Guinea should set up its own airline. Over the years I sat almost exactly where the honourable member for Hunter is sitting now - he overlaps a bit. I think of the procrastination, the pompous attitudes and the self righteousness of Government members when they were in Opposition, attacking the previous Government's role in granting aid to developing countries over the years. They attacked right, left and centre. And all the time Australia was known throughout the world as the one nation that gave gifts of foreign aid and never loans. Take the United Kingdom, West Germany and many other European countries. Their foreign aid is no different from an international bank loan. In fact, if anything, it is worse, because they do not give a 3 year holiday before repayments start. All these years the attitude of the previous Government was held by those who thought about these things to be about the best form of foreign aid known in the world. No other country equated with it. We bent our own tariff laws - I made my maiden speech on this topic - to enable the simple manufactured goods of developing countries to come to this country, to give them some chance of building up foreign exchange. We enabled them to buy our surplus wool, our surplus Holdens or whatever we had to assist them as they struggled to develop their own economies. This is a very important matter and a very difficult one for the Government. The Minister has put the Government in a position in which for the first time ever Australia has not been on a pedestal in regard to foreign aid and in which Australia has interfered, not with just any old country around South East Asia, but with a country inextricably involved in its future relations with this nation. I maintain that that is an inexcusable attitude for the Minister for-Civil Aviation to take. We have read in the Press that the Prime Minister has now had to come to the rescue and try to patch up the *situation.* That much we have read in the Press. We have not read anything more. I have not read that anything can be negotiated between our Prime Minister and the Chief Minister of Papua New Guinea. The situation is serious. The Prime Minister has had to come to the rescue of Ministers with foot in mouth disease. The Minister for Civil Aviation is one more added to the list. We have heard about infamous senators from another place on more than one occasion. We cannot have too many more Ministers who are accident prone and who will destroy the good name built up year by year, slowly and steadily, by responsible governments of the past. I can only hope that the Prime Minister is able to negotiate properly and find a half way position. If there is not a half way position I for one will stand in this House and say that the Government of Papua New Guinea must now be given encouragement to work out its own salvation, and woe betide anyone who sets himself up as a pseudo imperialist on the one hand while denying the right of capital inflows from other nations on the other hand. Quite frankly, this is one of the most stupid situations in which this country could ever find itself. I hope that some of the things I have said tonight are wrong, because I am not partisan enough to think that we should be trying to take advantage of the situation. But it is the responsibility of an Opposition in this country to draw this matter to the notice of the Parliament. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! It being 11 o'clock, in accordance with the order of the House, the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 10th May 1973. House adjourned at 11 p.m. {: .page-start } page 1936 {:#debate-36} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated: {:#subdebate-36-0} #### Migrant Selection Procedures (Question No. 78) {: #subdebate-36-0-s0 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch: asked the Minister for Immigra tion, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. When did he authorise instruction to his overseas officers to introduce new migrant selection procedures. 1. What are the new procedures. 2. To what extent do these procedures differ from those in operation as at 1st December 1972. 3. For the purpose of migrant selection, how is a migrant assessed for (a) economic viability, (b) satisfactory character record, (c) sincere intention of making a permanent home in Australia and (d) the personal qualities to cope with the traumas of resettlement in a foreign country. {: #subdebate-36-0-s1 .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. I authorised the new procedures for migrant selection in the last week of January and, on 31st January, I announced this in a statement. On1st February, the instruction was conveyed to all overseas posts to ensure that staff were adequately trained to implement the new procedures as soon as this became administratively practicable. 1. Each prospective migrant is required under the new procedures to meet 5 basic requirements: he must be economically viable in Australia; he must have the personal qualities necessary to adjust readily to his new country and to cope with the problems of resettlement; He must sincerely intend to settle permanently in Australia and become a citizen; he must be medically fit: and he must have a satisfactory character record. The new procedures are concerned particularly with the first 3 of these requirements (separate procedures are used for assessing the other 2) and are designed to secure a comprehensive and penetrating assessment of each applicant to ensure that he meets these requirements. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The new procedures differ from those formerly in use in that each applicant will be specifically assessed (and the assessment recorded) on each of the economic, personal and social factors listed below in (4). In addition, using these assessments, a more penetrating, consistent, objective and comprehensive judgment can be made of the extent to which an applicant meets the first 3 requirements referred to in (2) above. 1. In making assessments of applicants, account will be taken in all cases of the size of the family and the age of children, the presence of relatives in Australia and the assistance expected from relatives and friendsin this country. Within the framework of these considerations, each application is assessed in the following way on the 4 aspects specified in the question: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. The determination of economic viability is based on the assessment of the following factors: Age Educational Qualifications Employment - Occupational skills (recognised in Australia). Physical, age or other factors affecting employment. Availability of employment. Employment experience. Employment record. Knowledge of English Financial aspects; {: type="a" start="b"} 0. The judgment on whether applicants have the nesessary personal qualities to cope with the problems of resettlement will be based largely on the assessment of the following factors: Attitude to migration Expectations Responsiveness Initiative, self-reliance and independence Presentation Appearance Personal hygiene Speech Behaviour Family unity; {: type="a" start="c"} 0. In the course of each interview, applicants will be questioned in depth to ascertain whether they have given careful consideration to the implications of migration and have come to a sincere decision to settle permanently in Australia; 1. No change is proposed to existing procedures for ascertaining medical fitness or confirming that applicants' character records are satisfactory but renewed emphasis has been placed on their importance; While the economic and personal assessments are essentially distinct aspects of an application, each is considered to have a bearing on the other. Moreover, in exceptional cases where other relevant considerations emerge, these too will be taken into consideration. {:#subdebate-36-1} #### Housing: Building Costs (Question No. 252) {: #subdebate-36-1-s0 .speaker-QH4} ##### Mr Kerin:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What proportion of the rises In the costs of home building was attributed to on site labour costs during the last (a) 6 and (b) 12 months. 1. Is it a fact that the price of roof tiles recently rose by 12 per cent and that this increase followed a 19 per cent increase some 12 months ago. 2. By what percentage have the costs of the following building supplies risen in the last 12 months: (a) plumbing and electrical hardware, (b) timber, (c) bricks, (d) aluminium sashes, and (e) roofing (iron and aluminium). {: #subdebate-36-1-s1 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Precise information is not available, but an estimate by my Department suggests that the proportion of the rise in the cost of home building between October 1971 and October 1972 attributable to on ite labour was of the order of 30 per cent. 1. and (3) The Wholesale Price Index of Materials Used in Housebuilding for the 6 State capital cities shows the following increases in selected commodity groups during the 12 months ended 31st December 1972: Inquiries indicate that the wholesale price of concrete roofing tiles in Sydney increased by approximately 9 per cent within recent months and that there had been an increase of approximately 12 per cent towards the end of 1971. Terra cotta tiles increased in price by 4 per cent in November/December 1972. {:#subdebate-36-2} #### Telephones: Installation Policy (Question No. 308) {: #subdebate-36-2-s0 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will he undertake to maintain the previous Government's policy in the provision of telephones and modern communications generally for rural communities. 1. Is there an obligation upon the Government to provide services for all Australians. 2. Will he continue the policy of Departmental takeover of private lines which was initiated by the previous Government. 3. Will he also continue the policy of establishing Increasing numbers of automatic exchanges in rural areas and of bringing the advantage of subscriber trunk dialling to these areas. 4. Will any reversal of the previous Government's policies in these areas lead only to greater concentration of population in large cities. {: #subdebate-36-2-s1 .speaker-ZE4} ##### Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. to (S) The Government recognises the importance of telephone services to people living in rural areas. Bearing in mind the great distances involved and the sparsity of settlement in some areas, Australia is reasonably covered by the Department's telephone system and the outpost radio services operated by the Royal Flying Doctor service. The extent to which provision of subscribers' telephone services can be undertaken depends primarily on the level of national resources which can be utilised for this purpose. It then becomes a question of how best to allocate the resources available so as to meet the needs of all sectors of the community. This requires a balanced program of works with pri- ority being given to projects which provide relief where it is most needed. The situation at present is that large numbers of people are waiting for telephone services in more closely settled and developing centres, lt would be unreasonable, I feel, to ignore the needs of these people by devoting substantial resources to cater for a lesser number of high cost and generally low revenue services in rural areas. {:#subdebate-36-3} #### Telephones: Rural Areas (Question No. 323) {: #subdebate-36-3-s0 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes: asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Do his recent answers to questions mean that the Government has abandoned the policy of the previous Government that the Commonwealth has a special responsibility to provide telephones for those who live in isolation in rural areas. 1. If so, has the Government replaced this policy with one based on the greatest good for the greatest number and/or one based strictly on the economics of providing the service. 2. Is it the attitude of the Government that people living cheek by jowl in metropolitan cities have the same requirement for telephones as, and should receive preference over, people living in the country for whom the existence of a telephone can often be a matter of life and death. {: #subdebate-36-3-s1 .speaker-ZE4} ##### Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. to (3) The Government recognises the importance of telephone services to people living in rural areas. Bearing in mind the great distances involved and the sparsity of settlements in some areas, Australia is reasonably covered by the Department's telephone system and the outpost radio service operated by the Royal Flying Doctor service. The extent to which provision of subscribers' telephone services can be undertaken depends primarily on the level of national resources which can be utilised For this purpose. It then becomes a question of how best to allocate the resources available so as to meet the needs of all sectors of the community. This requires a balanced program of works with priority being given to projects which provide relief where it is most needed. The situation at present is that large numbers of people are waiting for telephone services in more closely settled and developing centres. It would be unreasonable. I feel, to ignore the needs of these people by devoting substantial resources to cater for a lesser number of high cost and generally low revenue services in rural areas. {:#subdebate-36-4} #### Defence Service Homes Loan (Question No. 325) {: #subdebate-36-4-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many people residing or wishing to reside on farms have applied for a Defence Service Homes loan during the last 3 years. 1. How many of these applications have been successful. 2. What are the major reasons for rejecting the unsuccessful applications. {: #subdebate-36-4-s1 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >No statistical details have been maintained to enable this information to be furnished. Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications (Question No. 329) {: #subdebate-36-4-s2 .speaker-KOE} ##### Mr Mathews:
CASEY, VICTORIA asked the Minister for Immi gration, upon notice: >Will he bring up to date his predecessor's answer on the meetings and publications of the Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications (Hansard, 21st April 1971, page 1852; 8th September 1971, page 981 and 26th April 1972, page 2059). {: #subdebate-36-4-s3 .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Since 9th March 1972 the Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications has met formally as a full Committee on: 27th April 1972 24th May 1972 29th June 1972 19th July 1972 24th August 1972 12th September 1972 20th October 1972 23rd November 1972 19th December 1972 15th February 1973 22nd March 1973 > >Apart from its December 1972 meeting which was held in Melbourne, the Committee has met on all other dates in Canberra. > >There have been 34 expert panel metings during this period: Since 9th March 1972 the Committee has published booklets on the following professions: Nursing Dietetics Medicine Occupational Therapy Architecture Speech Therapy Manuscripts of booklets on teaching, pharmacy, physics and agricultural science are with the printers. Manuscripts on the professions of dentistry, veterinary science, chemistry and optometry are in course of preparation. Means Test (Question No. 367) {: #subdebate-36-4-s4 .speaker-KSB} ##### Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice: >Does the application of the Government's policy to abolish the Means Test provide for its continuing liberalisation before final abolition can be achieved. {: #subdebate-36-4-s5 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >This is a matter of Government policy and any announcement deemed necessary will be made at the appropriate time. {:#subdebate-36-5} #### Pensioner Medical Service: Breaches (Question No. 368) {: #subdebate-36-5-s0 .speaker-QH4} ##### Mr Kerin: asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What are the details of (a) the names and number of doctors who have been referred to the Medical Services Committee of Inquiry through misuses of the Pensioner Medical Service and (b) those doctors who have been investigated through breaches in other areas of his responsibility during each of the last 5 years. 1. What was (a) the specific breach, (b) the amount of money involved and (c) the action taken by the Department to discipline the doctor and/or recover the money involved in each case. The policy adopted by previous Ministers in regard to misuses of the Pensioner Medical Service has been not to publicise action taken unless specifiically recommended by the Medical Services Committees of Inquiry. It is intended to adhere to this policy and, accordingly, the detailed information provided refers only to those cases where the action taken has been published in the Commonwealth Gazette following recommendations to this effect by these Committees. However, the following summary sets out the statistics relating to cases referred to Medical Service Committees of Inquiry over the past five years and tha action taken in these cases. The cases listed are those which have been finalised and action taken against the doctors concerned. In addition there are sixteen cases still under consideration or where advice had been given by the Deputy Crown Solicitor that there was insufficient evidence to support prosecution action. {:#subdebate-36-6} #### Victorian Hospital Fund Reserves (Question No. 402) {: #subdebate-36-6-s0 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes: asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice: {: type="a" start="t"} 0. Did he, in a reply to **Mr V.** F. Arnold, the Victorian Government Statist and Actuary, on 20th March 1973, say that Victorian hospital fund reserves stand at more than $25m and should be used to pay nursing home benefits without increasing contributions. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Did he criticise the previous Government, in his statement of 5th March 1973, for similarly using the reserves of the medical funds to benefit contributors faced with increased medical costs; if so why. {: #subdebate-36-6-s1 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. I did state that Victorian hospital fund reserves stand at more than S25m or the equivalent of 5.7 months contribution. I also said that my Department, has estimated that Victorian funds only have to pay about S2.5m per year for nursing home benefits and that, as far as I know, **Mr Arnold** has not contradicted these figures. The decision to pay nursing home benefits out of hospital benefit funds without increasing contributions was made by the previous Government. In this regard, I would refer to a report of a sub-committee of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Council which considers the procedures for the new nursing home arrangements. Specifically the sub-committee recommended that the cost of the benefit should be covered by an increase in contributions to hospital funds but that there would be no necessity to immediately increase contributions and that a component to finance nursing home insurance should be included in a general increase in contributions to hospital benefits tables, before or not later than the time of an increase in hospital charges. **Mr L.** H. Lambert, who is Director of the Hospital Benefits Association of Victoria was a member of the sub-committee. The report of the sub-committee, dated- 1st August 1972, was tabled in the House on 11th April 1973 for the information of honourable members. 1. In my statement of 5th March 1973 I criticised the previous Government for concealing excessive costs of the present unsatisfactory system of health insurance by the discreditable tactic of making funds absorb the increases into reserves to a point where the reserves were practicaly depleted and the funds were placed in such a critical financial position as to endanger their continued operation for the benefit of the public. My statement was directed to the situation of medical funds in Victoria and as such was validly based on the facts. Although medical funds in Victoria were run down to where their reserve levels were critical, by contrast hospital funds in Victoria in the aggregate hold excessive reserves and a similar situation exists in other States. I have consistently maintained that funds should not be allowed to accumulate excessive reserves and that where such reserves occur they should be used for the benefit of contributors. I regard the payment of nursing home benefits without any immediate increase in contributions to hospital benefit funds as consistent with my attitude of running down the excessive reserves in these funds. {:#subdebate-36-7} #### Superannuation Fund (Question No. 416) {: #subdebate-36-7-s0 .speaker-KB8} ##### Mr Giles: asked the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did the Superannuation Board advise the former Treasurer, in its report of 17th February 1972 on the Ninth Quinquennial Investigation as at 30th June 1967 of the Superannuation Fund, thai the Actuary had calculated that a gross surplus of assets over liabilities of $14,779,000 existed as at 30th June 1967. 1. Did the Board advise in paragraph 15 of the report that the Actuary had recommended thai the surplus be retained to facilitate the transfer of exist- ing pensioners and contributors to a new scheme he had recommended and to assist in meeting the costs of the new benefits. 2. Did the Board indicate in paragraph 26 of the report that there were wide-spread criticisms of a number of features of the existing scheme and did they list these features. {: #subdebate-36-7-s1 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr Crean:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable members question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Yes. 2. Yes. {:#subdebate-36-8} #### Hospitals: Honorary Medical Staffs (Question No. 429) {: #subdebate-36-8-s0 .speaker-KVM} ##### Mr Street: asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice: >Can he say whether public hospital administrators are informing honorary medical staff that they will not receive any more hospital beds for their private patients, unless they comply with instructions to complete NHS forms, so that public hospitals can dispose of some patients and send them to nursing homes. {: #subdebate-36-8-s1 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I have no knowledge of the situation referred to. Public Hospitals: NHS Forms (Question No. 430) {: #subdebate-36-8-s2 .speaker-KVM} ##### Mr Street: asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice: >Can he say whether public hospital administrators have directed medical officers to complete the NHS forms when private doctors refuse to do so. {: #subdebate-36-8-s3 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >There is no evidence available to my Department which would indicate that public hospital administrators have directed medical officers to complete the nursing home admission form NH5 when private doctors refuse to do so. However, they are no doubt arranging for the forms NH5 to be completed to enable the transfer of patients from hospitals to nursing homes where the patients' condition indicates that treatment in a nursing home would be more appropriate. {:#subdebate-36-9} #### Influenza Vaccine (Question No. 463) {: #subdebate-36-9-s0 .speaker-KVM} ##### Mr Street: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Are there currently serious delays in the distribution of influenza vaccine. 1. Are supplies of the vaccine available to the public; if not, why not. 2. Does the Government propose to import vaccine from the United Kingdom to overcome any shortage. 3. If the position is as stated, does he consider that further Government involvement in the phar maceutical drug field will be any more successful; if so, why. {: #subdebate-36-9-s1 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. There are delays of 4 to 5 weeks in filling current orders. 1. Supplies are available to the public on doctors prescription although there may be some delay in obtaining the vaccine. 2. No. As far as is known there are no vaccines in the United Kingdom identical with that produced by CSL. 3. Requirements for 1972 were 600,000 doses, this year to date CSL has issued 1.3 million doses and total production will be about 2.4 million doses - four times the requirement for 1972. This is a very successful effort where demand for the vaccine has far exceeded expectations. I do not consider that this issue has any relevance to the Government's involvement in the pharmaceutical industry. {:#subdebate-36-10} #### National Service Vocational Training Scheme (Question No. 17) {: #subdebate-36-10-s0 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many applications were received for training under the National Service Vocational Training Scheme in 1972. 1. How many of these applications were (a) accepted, (b) rejected, (c) withdrawn and (d) under consideration as at 31 December 1972. 2. What were the reasons for rejection of applications. {: #subdebate-36-10-s1 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard:
Minister for Defence · BASS, TASMANIA · ALP -- The Minister for Repatriation has supplied the following answers to the honourable member's questions: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 3,308. 1. (a) 2,288; (b) 130; (c) 196; (d) 694. 2. Applications were refused on the following grounds: {:#subdebate-36-11} #### Knitwear and Woven Shirts (Question No. 159) {: #subdebate-36-11-s0 .speaker-K9L} ##### Mr Garland: asked the Minister for Secondary Industry, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Have the quantitative restrictions on the import of knitted shirts and outergarments and woven shirts, etc., been cancelled and the duties recommended by the Tariff Board brought into operation. 1. Does the Minister see the effect on the industry of the Tariff Board's recommendations, if and when implemented. 2. Has he examined or does he intend to examine the need for a further extension of quantitative restrictions. {: #subdebate-36-11-s1 .speaker-1V4} ##### Dr J F Cairns:
Minister for Overseas Trade · LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. On 1st September 1972. 1. At the present time tariff quotas, introduced by the previous government, apply to the importation of these goods and these will continue until 30th June 1974. The tariff quotas were intended to give the industry time to adjust to the reduced rates of duty recommended by the Tariff Board and to ensure that the more efficient sectors of the Australian knitwear and woven shirt industries would continue to operate on a viable basis. 2. The Textile and Apparel Industry Advisory Panel was recently established to advise the Government on means of ensuring a strong, viable and profitable industry, and on matters affecting the development of the industry. Members of the Panel comprise representatives from industry, trade unions, consumers and the Department of Secondary Industry bringing together the collective experience, knowledge and ideas of a wide cross section of the community. One of the matters the Panel will be looking at is the need for quantitative restrictions or other forms of assistance to the industry. Repatriation: British Ex-servicemen (Question No. 362) {: #subdebate-36-11-s2 .speaker-JRD} ##### Mr Bourchier:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Can the Minister say whether an article published in the RSL magazine 'Mufti' prior to the general elections, indicated an undertaking by the Australian Labor Party that, when elected, it would recognise British ex-servicemen under the Repatriation Act. 1. If so, does the Government propose to grant British ex-servicemen, now resident in Australia, the benefits of the Repatriation service in regard to (a) housing loans, (b) sickness benefits, and (c) pensions. {: #subdebate-36-11-s3 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard:
ALP -- The Minister for Repatriation has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. However, the article in question quite correctly indicated that the Australian Labor Party has given an undertaking to amend the Repatriation Act so that British ex-servicemen now living in Australia would be eligible to receive a service pension. This undertaking does not extend to other war pensions, allowances and benefits available under the Repatriation Act. 1. The question of granting eligibility for service pensions to British ex-servicemen resident in Australia is under consideration. Eligibility for Repatriation medical and hospital treatment, and other fr inge benefits that are available to Australian ex-servicemen receiving service pension is also included inthe issues under consideration. Repatriation legislation does not provide for housing loans forex-servicemen. This is a matter for my colleague the Minister for Housing. {:#subdebate-36-12} #### Broadcasting: Complaints Commission (Question No. 392) {: #subdebate-36-12-s0 .speaker-QH4} ##### Mr Kerin: asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Media, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the ABC studied the form and structure of the BBC Complaints Commission? 1. If so, does the ABC consider that a similar commission would serve a valuable public service in respect of its own programs, especially those relating to current affairs? 2. If so, what were the conclusions? 3. If not, will the Minister give consideration to the establishment of a body comparable to the BBC Complaints Commission to operate in respect of complaints concerning programs broadcast by the ABC. {: #subdebate-36-12-s1 .speaker-009DB} ##### Mr Morrison:
ALP -- The Minister for the Media has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. , (3) and (4) The Commission is at present considering whether the establishment of a Complaints Commission comparable to the BBC's Complaints Commission is desirable. {:#subdebate-36-13} #### Broadcasting: Guidelines for Current Affairs (Question No. 393) {: #subdebate-36-13-s0 .speaker-QH4} ##### Mr Kerin: asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Media, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Does the ABC's 'Guidelines for Current Affairs' stipulate that a person interviewed has the right in extreme circumstances subsequently to withdraw his permission for the interview tobe broadcast? 1. Ifso, on what occasions between 2nd May 1972and 2nd December 1972 waspermission to broadcast an interview withdrawn? 2. Who were the individuals involved? 3. On which occasions was the request (a) granted and (b) refused? 4. Who was responsible for making each decision? {: #subdebate-36-13-s1 .speaker-009DB} ##### Mr Morrison:
ALP -- The Minister for the Media has supplied the following answers to the honourable member's questions: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. , (3), (4) and (5) The ABC informs me that it has no record of any person interviewed during the period mentioned, withdrawing permission for the interview to be broadcast. {:#subdebate-36-14} #### Health Insurance: Contributions (Question No. 451) {: #subdebate-36-14-s0 .speaker-KVM} ##### Mr Street: asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice: >What would be the maximum weekly contribution to the Government's health insurance scheme (a) by an individual and (b) by a family where both husband and wife are working, based on current average weekly earnings and calculated in accordance with his answer of 14th March 1973 (Hansard, page 541). {: #subdebate-36-14-s1 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. The Health Insurance Planning Committee has recommended that the maximum annual contribution under the proposed universal health insurance scheme be fixed at the rate of levy (expressed as a percentage) times the average weekly earnings for employed male unit. At average earnings of $104 per week in the December quarter 1972, this would amount to 1.35 times $104 or $140 per annum for each taxpayer. In weekly terms, this maximum contribution would equal $2.70 per week for taxpayers with a taxable income of at least $10,400 per year. Cb) Contributions under the proposed scheme would be based on individual incomes, wilh exemption for low-income earners. If a married woman earned less than $1040 per annum she would pay no contributions, and would pay at a reduced rate up to $1148 per annum. Above this level, she would be liable for contributions at 1.35 per cent of her individual taxable income up to $10,400 per year, so that the maximum possible contribution for a couple would be $280 per annum or $5.40 per week, where both husband and wife enjoyed taxable incomes of $10,400 per year or more. lt should be noted that the final decision on how the new health insurance scheme is to be introduced will be made by the Government. Such matters as the maximum levels of health insurance levy will be decided at that time. {:#subdebate-36-15} #### Influenza Vaccine (Question No. 463) {: #subdebate-36-15-s0 .speaker-KVM} ##### Mr Street: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Are there currently serious delays in the distribution of influenza vaccine. 1. Are supplies of the vaccine available to tha public; if not, why not. 2. Does the Government propose to import vaccine from the United Kingdom to overcome any shortage. 3. If the position is as stated, does he consider that further Government involvement in the pharmaceutical drug held will be any more successful; if so, why. {: #subdebate-36-15-s1 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows {: type="1" start="1"} 0. There are delays of 4 to 5 weeks in filling current orders. 1. Supplies are available to the public on doctors prescription although there may be some delay in obtaining the vaccine. 2. No. As far as is known there are no vaccines in the U.K. identical with that produced by C.S.L. 3. Requirements for 1972 were 600,000 doses, this year to date C.S.L. has issued 1.3 million doses and total production will be about 2.4 million doses - 4 times the requirement for 1972. This is a very successful effort where demand for the vaccine has far exceeded expectations. I do not consider that this issue has any relevance to the Government's involvement in the pharmaceutical industry. Repatriation Pensioners in Robertson Electoral Division (Question No. 470) {: #subdebate-36-15-s2 .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr Cohen:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many people were in receipt of a Repatriation pension in the Electoral Division of Robertson, or in that area which as near as possible approximates Robertson, as at I April, 1973. 1. What were the different categories of pension, and how many pensioners were there in each category. {: #subdebate-36-15-s3 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard:
ALP -- The Minister for Repatriation has supplied the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 8,700 (estimated). 1. Repatriation Pensioners Living in Electoral Division of Robertson (estimated) Pensioners in Robertson Electoral Division (Question No. 471) {: #subdebate-36-15-s4 .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr Cohen: asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many people were in receipt of a pension in the Electoral Division of Robertson, or in that area which as near as possible approximates Robertson, as at 1st April 1973. 1. What were the different categories of pension, and how many pensioners were there in each category. {: #subdebate-36-15-s5 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden:
ALP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Statistics of pensioners by Electoral Divisions are not maintained by my Department. A survey of pensioners by post code districts that was carried out in December 1972 showed that there were 20,118 pensioners in post code districts 2250, 2251, 2254 to 2263 and 2281. These districts roughly approximate the area of the Robertson Electoral Division. 1. The distribution of the 20,1 18 pensioners by type of pension was as follows: {:#subdebate-36-16} #### Premiers Conference (Question No. 494) {: #subdebate-36-16-s0 .speaker-K9L} ##### Mr Garland: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did he receive in January or February 1973 a request by the Victorian Premier, **Mr Hamer,** for himto call a Premiers Conference in February 1973. 1. If so, what were (a) the terms of the request and (b) the terms of his reply. 2. Did he receive a similar request from the Premier of South Australia, **Mr Dunstan.** 3. Did he receive a request from the West Australian Premier, **Mr Tonkin;** if not, did he receive any communication from **Mr Tonkin** indicating that he would not press for a February Premiers Conference. 4. Will the Premiers Conference to be held in May have on the agenda an item permitting the Slates to explain their budgetary position, with a view to receiving increased Commonwealth assistance; if not, why not. {: #subdebate-36-16-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam:
ALP -- The answers to the honourable member's question are as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. (a) The Premier of Victoria requested that a Premiers Conference be held early in 1973 to review the financial position of the States and in particular their budgets for 1972-73 in the light of changes in circumstances, since the June 1972 Premiers Conference. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. In deciding against a Premiers Conference early in 1973, the Government had in mind that the hearing of the National Wage Case had been postponed until March 1973, and with the outcome of wage claims in that case and others not known, a meeting would have been premature. There were also practical constraints arising from other commitments including the commencement of this Parliament on 27th February. The Government's views on the matter were conveyed to the States together with its view that it would be more appropriate to look at any genera] financial problems of the States at the usual Premiers Conference later in the financial year. 2. Yes. 3. I did not receive any communication from the Premier of Western Australia regarding an early Premiers Conference but I did discuss the matter generally with him on the telephone. 4. The Premiers have been invited to a special purpose meeting on 10th May to discuss prices and incomes matters and all other aspects of inflation. This meeting is not intended to take the place of the normal mid-year Premiers Conference, to be held next June, when the budgetary position of the States will be discussed.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 9 May 1973, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1973/19730509_reps_28_hor83/>.