22nd Parliament · 2nd Session
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMulIin) took the chair at 1 1 a.m., and read prayers.
page 1737
Assent to the following bills reported: -
Loan (War Service Land Settlement) Bill 1957. Pay-roll Tax Assessment Bill 1957.
page 1737
– I desire to ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade a question. Will the Minister tell the Senate what action, if any, the Government intends to take following the plea by Mr. R. W. C. Anderson, the federal director of the Associated Chambers of Manufactures, for an immediate ban on the importation of Japanese toys, pending the report of the Government’s adviser, Mr. McCarthy? Does the Minister know that of 25 Australian toy-makers questioned in the survey, eighteen reported that on 1st November they had between 14 per cent, and 62 per cent, fewer orders than normally? Does the Minister know that up to date £450,000 worth of Japanese toys have been imported this year, as against an average of £248,000 over the last three years?
– I thought that, sooner or later, I would be asked a question on this matter, so, in anticipation, I had some information prepared by the Department of Trade. My colleague, Mr. McEwen, says that the Associated Chambers of Manufactures have asked for emergency action to be taken against the importation of toys from Japan in accordance with the provision in the Japanese Trade Agreement. The chambers have asked that a ban be placed on the importation of toys during the remainder of 1957-58. The chambers have not asked for any restriction to be placed on the import of toys from any source other than Japan, but they have asked for a specific ban on the import of toys from Japan. To do that would, of course, be quite contrary to the Government’s usual policy of not using import licences for protective purposes. The Government has referred the request to Mr. McCarthy, its advisory officer, for an assessment of the situation.
I make the further point that, even at the expected rate of importation, as calculated by the Associated Chambers of Manufactures, imports of toys from all sources, if no action is taken, will be considerably less than in the years 1954-55 and 1955-56. The volume of toys imported will” be considerably smaller than the volume of toys imported in the two preceding years. That there is a good deal of exaggeration about the volume of Japanese toys being imported is evidenced by the fact that the total volume of toys imported this year will be smaller than in previous years.
– ls that the money value or the quantity?
– The monetary value.
– That is the trouble.
– It is of no use for honorable senators opposite to say, “That is the trouble “. When they are told the facts, they cannot take it. They cannot stand up to the facts. If honorable senators opposite will listen to me they may learn the truth, and it is necessary to understand the true position before we can arrive at a remedy. The pith of the problem is that the proportion of Japanese toys at the lower level of imports will increase from 12 per cent, to 20 per cent. The statement presented by the toy industries indicates that at 1st November some firms had more orders on hand than last year, and other firms had less. The problem, according to the Department of Trade, which has inquired into the matter, is one of the importation of toys as a whole, rather than from Japan only, as a result of the recent relaxation of import restrictions. Normal competition within the industry is resulting in the orders held by some companies being greater or less than they were last year. That is the Department of Trade’s appraisal of the situation.
page 1737
– Has the Leader of the Government seen a newspaper report of a speech given by Mr. Alan Manning, the president of the New South Wales branch of the Democratic Labour party, in which he accuses the Prime Minister, Mr. Menzies, of failing to carry out the banking reforms promised in his policy speech?
Will the honorable senator, in order to avoid an internecine struggle within the Democratic Labour party, inform the two honorable senators representing that party that they should no longer oppose the banking reforms of the Government?
– I have not seen the newspaper report referred to by Senator McCallum, but if I thought it would be of any avail I should be prepared to sacrifice any amount of time in pointing out to the two senators concerned the folly of their behaviour. I would point out to them once again that they are denying primary producers and small farmers the opportunity of obtaining finance on reasonable terms from the Commonwealth Development Bank, denying prospective house purchasers a similar opportunity through the Commonwealth Savings Bank, and so on, but I am afraid that they are democratic in name only.
page 1738
– Some weeks ago I asked the Minister for Customs and Excise a question concerning a newspaper claim that Japanese dolls being imported to this country were highly inflammable. A fortnight ago, I asked whether information concerning my question had yet come to hand, and in view of the importance of the matter I again ask the Minister whether the inquiry has been concluded.
– The inquiry into the inflammability of Japanese dolls has not yet concluded, but it has- been pointed out to me that a number of dolls from a number of other countries are also highly inflammable.
page 1738
– By way of preface to my question of the Minister for Civil Aviation, I would say that Launceston and the north-west coast of Tasmania are approximately the same distance by air from Melbourne as is the capital city of Canberra. Is the Minister aware that a surcharge af 2d. is imposed on mainland newspapers air freighted from Victoria to Tasmania, though a similar surcharge is not added to the price of Victorian newspapers air freighted to Canberra? Is this discrimination in charges caused by the newspaper companies bearing the cost of air freight to Canberra, or are either, or both, major airline operators granting a special favour to residents of the Australian Capital Territory that is not available to Tasmanians?
– The airline operators make no discrimination at all in the freight rates charged on newspapers delivered to Tasmania and to Canberra. .1 am advised that the price, or, more particularly, the surcharge which applies to newspapers sold in Tasmania is a matter that comes within the administration of the proprietors of the newspapers concerned; the price is fixed by them.
page 1738
– I address a question to the Leader of the Government in this place. Is it not a fact that the reason why the Australian Democratic Labour party was unable to move amendments to the banking legislation was the inhumanity that was shown by the Government in refusing relief to sick people, and its desire to keep them in a state of nervous tension, which was detrimental to their health? Would the Government resubmit the aforementioned legislation, after taking stock of the crude and unethical methods that it adopted in an endeavour to deprive the representatives of the people in this Senate of their right to record a vote in absentia because of their severe illness?
– I am surprised at the question asked by the honorable senator. He does not know why he did not give the Senate an opportunity to debate the second reading of certain bills, and I do not know, yet he asks me the reason why his party was unable to move amendments to them. I must say that as a matter of procedure it was really astounding that a representative of a democratic party, socalled, denied to this chamber an opportunity to debate measures of such tremendous importance. Now, Senator Cole asks me why he did not allow the opportunity. Well, I do not know.
page 1738
– I preface a question to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral by pointing out that Judge Stafford, during the hearing of an appeal in Melbourne yesterday, said that he was amazed to learn that people conducting illegal betting businesses could get so many telephones. It was elicited that the appellant had conducted a betting business from a back-yard bungalow in which four telephones were installed. Will the Minister direct the attention of the PostmasterGeneral to His Honour’s remarks, and explain to me what steps the Postal Department takes to investigate the legality or otherwise of the obvious use to be made of premises where telephone connexions are sought? Can he say what steps were taken in the instance concerning which His Honour was so outspoken?
– I cannot give the honorable senator an immediate answer to the last part of his question. However, from my experience of the Postmaster.General’s. Department, I know that a very close watch is kept by departmental officers on such premises, and if the law is infringed the telephones are disconnected. I shall ask my colleague, the Postmaster-General, to furnish the honorable senator with the details of the specific case to which he has referred.
page 1739
– I wish to ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport a question in relation to the price of petrol. ls he aware that the president of the Australian Automobile Association, Mr. Clements, has stated, after consideration of all factors, that in this country petrol sells at a price of at least Id. a gallon dearer than it should, as a result of combine efforts? Does the Minister recollect that when the Suez crisis broke, the petrol companies increased the price of petrol in Australia by id. a gallon, alleging that this increase was necessitated by high insurance, freights and shipping costs? Is it a fact that the crisis having subsided, those shipping freights and costs are back to normal, and in some cases are below normal, but no alteration has been made in the price of petrol? Is the Minister also aware that in this country transport costs are abnormally high and that it is alleged by the Australian Automobile Association, on information culled from its statistics, that, between the time of the initial manufacture of an article and when it reaches the public, 35 per cent, is added for transport? This compares very unfavorably with transport costs in Canada,’ which range from 10 per cent, to 7 per cent. Will the Minister take action to ensure that Australia will not be exploited by the oil companies; that oil transport costs, which are a very important factor in the national economy, will be kept to a minimum; and that the price of petrol in Australia will be brought back to a reasonable and equitable level, at least Id. a gallon below the current price?
– As the honorable senator has mentioned, there was an increase in the sea freight for petrol consequent upon the Suez crisis, and that increase was reflected in the retail price of petrol in Australia. This matter does not come within my administration, but I understand that in recent months there have been other variations - some of them possibly downwards - in petrol freight charges. I am not sure of that, and I repeat that the matter is not within my administration. However, factors other than cargo rates are involved in the price of petrol. I am not prepared to enter into a long discussion, off the .cuff, on whether or not the present price of petrol is too high. As opportunity offers during the recess, I shall be happy to have a look at the implications of freight charges. If I can let the honorable senator know by letter anything of interest, I shall certainly do so.
page 1739
– Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate noticed a report in to-day’s issue of the “ Sydney Morning Herald” of a statement by Mr. Harold Wincott, the editor of the “ Investors’ Journal “ of London, that, after a six weeks’ tour of Australia, he believes that Australia has a great long-term future and that over that long term it will be a good country to invest in? Does the Minister believe this statement to be correct? If so, will he ensure that the statement is given wide publicity overseas so that the investment of capital in Australia will be encouraged, to help this country’s future development?
– I have noi seen the report referred to by the honorable senator. I think it would be very good if Commonwealth publicity officers were to see that the widest publicity was given to a statement like that. I am sure that the opinion expressed by that distinguished gentleman is well founded and that the prosperity of this country is assured, so long as we have a government of the type that we have at present.
page 1740
– Will the Minister for National Development endeavour to clarify the claim of a manufacturers’ organization that imports of Japanese toys are jeopardizing the Australian toy industry? Will the Minister have compiled statistics showing the volume of Japanese toys arriving in this country, instead of regarding value as the measuring stick? The latter method is most deceptive, because, as ,the price of Japanese toys is considerably lower than the price of toys from other countries, the value of toys imported gives no indication of the quantity.
– I think my earlier reply indicated that the Government is clarifying the position, that under the Japanese Trade Agreement arrangements are made for a special adviser to the Government on matters such as this, and that the Government has already referred the problem to Mr. McCarthy for expert inquiry and expert advice. That is all we can do to make certain that we have the whole question in the correct perspective. What the honorable senator says is that we do not want these comparisons made in monetary terms. What does he want? Are we to count the number of dolls? Are we to count the number of dolls’ eyes? Are we to count the number of toys? There is no way of making a comparison other than in financial terms or in terms of weight. I have already stated the facts and given a clear explanation. What can be done will be done, and it will be done promptly. The first thing to be done is to make certain there is ample justification for taking action at all, and that point will be cleared as quickly as possible.
page 1740
– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that one of the relatively new hydrochlorides which is marketed in this country under the composite name of Mevasine is now being pre scribed very frequently by medical practitioners for the treatment of serious casesof hypertension and circulatory diseases, and is meeting with marked success? Is it a fact that this drug is very expensive, that it is not on the free list and that its use: in some cases involves financial hardship?’ Will the Government examine the uses of this drug with a view to adding it to the’ free list if such an addition is considered to be warranted?
– I regret I am not in a position to answer the honorable senator’s question immediately. I assure him that I shall bring it to the notice of my colleague, the Minister for Health, and will let the honorable senator have a reply, probably by letter.
page 1740
– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. In view of the buoyant state of postal revenue, due in large measure to increased postal charges, will he consider the establishment of adequate postal facilities in the area of William, Beaufort and James streets, Perth, where commercial development is extensive? Is the Minister aware of the lack of adequate postal facilities in many recently established but fast-developing areas in Western Australia? Is it a fact that in sub-offices in grocers’ shops and other business premises, there is a great lack of privacy for pensioners and for other persons transacting postal business, while frequently the supply of stamps, postal notes, and even money for pensions is insufficient to meet requirements in the Belmont area? If these facts are as stated, will the Minister consider the establishment of an official post office in the Epsomvale or East Belmont area in order to meet the urgent demands of the community?
– I shall bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of the Postmaster-General, and ask him to have the whole matter investigated. I shall report back to the honorable senator.
page 1740
– Is the Minister representing the Prime Minister aware of the continued dissatisfaction of the people of Tasmania at the decision of the Government not to include that State in the forthcoming visit of the Queen Mother to Australia, particularly as the Queen Mother will visit Canberra twice during the hottest month of the year? Will the Prime Minister give further consideration to Tasmania’s request that that State be included in the visit of the- Queen Mother?
– The disappointment of the honorable senator and the people generally of Tasmania in missing the privilege of a visit from the Queen Mother is understandable. The position has been given very full and careful consideration, and, in the light of the timetable, it would be quite impracticable for the Queen Mother to visit Tasmania. However, in case there is any possibility of a revision of the plans for the Queen Mother’s tour, I shall mention the matter again to the authorities.
page 1741
– Will the Minister for National Development urgently consider making funds available to exservicemen who wish to take over existing mortgages for the purchase of a home? Is the Minister aware that many ex-servicemen have been misled by the application form which makes provision for taking over existing mortgages if the house that the exserviceman purchases is already erected? What action does the Menzies Government contemplate to assist those ex-service men and women who, by their own thrift and initiative, have acquired a home for themselves and their families? Is the Minister aware that by depriving these men of any assistance, the Government is forcing the men to pay high rates of interest, instead of the rate of J>i per cent, that is provided under the War Service Homes Act?
– All honorable senators know that the demand for war service homes has been so great for some years past that it is necessary to have a waiting list for loans. In those circumstances, it has been Government policy to give to exservicemen who have not a home priority above those who have a home. For that reason, since 1951, an ex-serviceman who already has a home has not been eligible to obtain a loan from the War Service Homes Division to discharge a mortgage on his dwelling. If such persons were eligible for a loan, the effect would be that they would merely get finance under more favorable terms than those which they had accepted privately. While that might be a very desirable objective with which one could sympathize, surely there is a higher responsibility, at a time when national resources will not cover all contingencies, to make money available to those who have not a home of their own and desire to acquire one. That is Government policy, and I think it is very sensible in the circumstances. As to the portion of the honorable senator’s question referring to the application form, I am sorry that 1 cannot give an answer offhand.
page 1741
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -
Relative to the reply furnished to me, in answer to a question asked on 3rd October, that “ it is not anticipated that further moneys will become available or any additional payment made to the £86 already distributed to ex-prisoners of war of the Japanese “, will the Treasurer supply the following further information - (a) What were the total reparation payments to be made to Australia by Japan? (b) Were they fully paid? (c) What amount, if any, was written off? (d) Has the money received been fully distributed in the payments of £86 made to the ex-prisoners of war and to the dependants of those who died in prison camps? (e) If reparations have provided only such a small payment, does the Government contemplate making some further provision for these people who suffered in prisoner-of-war camps or for their dependants?
– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions: - (a), (b) and (c). The Japanese Peace Treaty which is printed as a schedule to the Treaty of Peace (Japan) Act 1952, provided for reparations in the form of the realization of Japanese property which was subject to Australian jurisdiction (Article 14). The Treaty also provided (Article 16) for the distribution, for the benefit of former prisoners of war of the Allied Powers and their families of Japanese assets held in countries which were neutral or at war with the Allied Powers. An amount of £969,000 was paid to the Commonwealth pursuant to Article 16 to which was added by the decision of the Government, the proceeds of the sale of the Burma-Siam Railway. The assets referred to in Article 14 of the Treaty are being progressively realized and the estimate of the proceeds is £810,000. This sum was also made available for distribution for the benefit of former prisoners of war and their families. If when aU these assets have been realized, the proceeds art less than the amount which has already been distributed, the shortage will be borne by Consolidated Revenue.
page 1742
asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -
In view of the unfortunate incident where an employee of an embassy suffered injury and was not covered by workers’ compensation, will the Minister lake steps to ensure that a system is evolved whereby ail embassies are kept advised of the easy methods of insuring workers in Australia, and if possible reach agreement on keeping all employees covered by workers’ compensation?
– I refer the honorable senator to the reply of the Prime Minister, as Acting Minister for External Affairs, to a similar question on 10th October last. The reply was as follows: -
The Australian Government has no power to interfere in the domestic arrangements of diplomatic missions, many of which employ their own nationals or nationals of countries other than Australia. However, missions which have approached the Department of External Affairs on the subject have been told of Australian award conditions and the department has brought to their notice the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Ordinance. It is my understanding that a number of diplomatic missions do, in fact, cover their employees under this ordinance.
The Department of External Affairs will continue to take such action as is open to it to bring the Workers’ Compensation Ordinance to the notice of diplomatic missions.
page 1742
asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice -
– I referred this matter to the Bureau of Mineral Resources, which has prepared the following reply for me: -
page 1742
– I present the following report of the Public Accounts Committee: -
Thirty-fifth Report - Northern Territory Administration - Interim Report.
This interim report, which is the fourth report of the committee I have presented since the present sittings of the Parliament commenced last August, will inform the Parliament of the progress that the committee has made in its investigation of the Northern Territory Administration. This inquiry, which was commenced last April, is one of the largest inquiries the committee has undertaken. We hoped to be able to present a final report before the present sittings ended, but, because of our preoccupation with the reports on the Trust Fund, the Canberra abattoir and the Advance to the Treasurer, that has not been possible. It is hoped to make the final report available to the Parliament early in 1958.
Ordered to be printed.
page 1743
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
It will be recalled that, following the decision of the High Court in the Boilermakers case, far-reaching amendments were made to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act last year to separate the arbitral from the judicial functions. There were some functions, in the twilight zone, if I may put it that way, about which there was necessarily some doubt whether they would be held to be judicial in the strict sense. Most of these were assigned to the new Commonwealth Industrial Court, rather than the new Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, as we wished to have the commission free to concentrate on the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes.
At the time the 1956 legislation was being drafted, litigation in connexion with the Boilermakers case was still proceeding before the Privy Council. Obviously we could not know what its outcome would be, nor whether the decisions pronounced upon particular provisions of the old act would necessarily hold in relation to those provisions as redistributed between the commission and the court under the 1956 act. The majority decision of the High Court in the Builders’ Labourers case, judgment in which was given on 23rd November, means that we must now re-examine some aspects of the 1956 legislation. In this case the court has supplied the answers to somequestions which before then were obscure. If there had been time to prepare it, a bill would have been brought before the Parliament to make some adjustments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which would take account of the High Court’s decision. As it is, the recess will provide the opportunity for closer study of what needs to be done. There is need, however, for more urgent action in relation to some aspects of the Stevedoring Industry Act.
One particular provision of the 1956 legislation, which gave jurisdiction to the Industrial Court, is section 37 of the Stevedoring Industry Act. This gave a waterside worker the right of appeal to the court against disciplinary action taken bythe Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority. Section 37 has been in existence in one form or another since 1942. The right of appeal has been availed of by the Waterside Workers Federation in many hundreds of cases since then. It has been used since the 1956 legislation and appeals have been taken to the Commonwealth Industrial Court.
Having regard to the majority view in the Builders’ Labourers case, there is now a distinct risk that it may be held by the High Court that jurisdiction to deal with these appeals cannot validly be given to a court of law. Now, the Government does not want to have a situation where, if the High Court should hold that section 37 is invalid as it now stands, there is no tribunal to which appeals against disciplinary action by the A.S.I.A. can be taken. We believe that there should be available to waterside workers, machinery for appealing against discipline imposed by the A.S.I.A., and we want to ensure that such machinery is available, whatever happens.
So provision is made in the bill for a substitute section 37 which will be brought into operation should the High Court pronounce against the present section 37. Under this substitute provision, instead of the appeal tribunal being the Commonwealth Industrial Court, it will be the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Under the provision, the appeal would in substance be the same as it has been for the past fifteen years. Appeals would be heard by presidential members. The new provision would apply to appeals against disciplinary action taken before or after the commencement of the section. At present, under section 37, the A.S.I.A. may postpone the operation of a suspension when notice of appeal is given. The bill now provides that the authority may postpone when it is satisfied that an appeal will be lodged. This is written into the act so as to apply to the present section 37 and the substitute section 37. What I have said about the risks associated with the present section 37 applies similarly to section 35 which deals with the de-registration of employers. So we have included in the bill a substitute section 35 which can be brought into operation should the need arise.
A great deal of play has been made in recent weeks about there being one disciplinary process for the employers and another for the waterside workers. This matter received attention in the debate in the 1956 Stevedoring Industry Bill. It has been alluded to in the report of the A.S.I.A., which is about to be tabled. It seems to have been overlooked that the committee of inquiry which looked into the stevedoring industry, was very much in favour of a system of fines. The committee also favoured cancellation and suspension of registration of employers and waterside workers. The committee said that the exercise of discipline through the courts was unsuitable: it involved proceedings which were too cumbersome.
When we came to draft the 1956 legislation, we found many difficulties in the way of introducing a system of fines for waterside workers. The federation was against it. So was the Australian Council of Trades Unions. To have introduced fines for waterside workers we would have had to create offences and to prosecute waterside workers in the courts. So, we abandoned the idea and retained the former system of cancellation and suspension of registrations. In the case of employers, these difficulties were not present. So, we provided for a series of offences for which employers could be prosecuted in the Industrial Court and fined - and fined very heavily. In addition, employers could also be de-registered. Since, as was pointed out at the time, where discipline of an employer took the form of de-registration it was not only the employer who could be affected, but his employees also, and their interests needed proper protection, we provided that de-registration should not take place without full judicial inquiry.
I have reminded the Senate of what we did in 1956, because the reasons seem in danger of being forgotten. The Government does not believe that any reasonable person could regard the 1956 legislation as being uneven or unfair in its approach to the discipline of both sides in the industry. Unfortunately, if the substitute section 35 for which the bill provides has to operate, the court and the commission will both be involved in the discipline of employers. This cannot be avoided because power to fine cannot be given to the commission.
The complaint in recent weeks has been that employers are not being disciplined though waterside workers are, and it is asserted that the present law has defects that render it doubtful whether disciplinary action against employers would be successful. Our legal advisers disagree with this, but in the one respect where there could be any doubt, this bill makes provision to remove it.
Section 33 of the Stevedoring Industry Act imposes certain obligations on employers. One is not to act in a manner whereby the expeditious, safe and efficient performance of stevedoring operations is prejudiced or interfered with. It has been asserted that an employer can be found guilty under this provision only if his action interferes with expedition and safety and efficiency, whereas, under another section, section 36, a waterside worker may be punished if he so acts as to interfere with any one of these aspects of stevedoring operations. As I have said, we have been advised that this is not the proper construction to place upon section 33. However, we are placing the matter beyond doubt by substituting the word “ or “ for “ and “ in paragraph (a) of section 33 (1.).
Another duty of an employer is to provide proper supervision. It has been suggested that this obligation is met if supervision is provided at the start of an operation. We believe that this strains the meaning of clear words. But we are putting the matter beyond doubt by making it even more evident that the obligation extends to all phases of stevedoring operations. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 1745
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Henty) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
The bill now before the Senate provides for the validation until 30th June, 1958, of the collection of customs duties under the following Customs Tariff Proposals: - Customs Tariff Proposals No. 7 of 4th December, 1 957; Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Proposals No. 3 of 4th December, 1957; and Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Proposals No. 1 of 4th December, 1957.
The somewhat limited time available will not permit at this stage the usual debate on, and the enactment of, the individual tariff variations set out in the tariff proposals to which this bill refers.
The bill, as honorable senators will be aware, is purely a machinery measure. Unless tariff alterations are enacted or validated within six months of their introduction into Parliament, or before the end of the parliamentary session, whichever happens first, such alterations are open to legal challenge. The bill merely safeguards that position until 30th June, 1958.
In commending the bill to honorable senators, I would like to take this opportunity to inform the Senate of a new arrangement which I have just approved in connexion with documents associated with the tabling of tariff proposals and the introduction of tariff bills. I might explain that some members of the Parliament have expressed a desire for a more concise statement outlining the changes involved in tariff bills - a view in which I concur.
I have therefore arranged for an additional document, which has been called a “ Short Summary “, to be furnished. Therein is shown in broad outline the goods concerned, the nature of the tariff change and the reason for the proposed alteration. This “ Short Summary “ has been introduced for the first time in connexion with the tariff proposals covered by this validation bill. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 1745
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Henry) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
The circumstances surrounding the introduction of this bill are the same as those associated with the Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1 957, on which I have just spoken.
The bill now before honorable senators provides for the validation, until 30th June, 1958, of collections of excise duties made in pursuance of Excise Tariff Proposals No. 2 of 4th December, 1957. As in the case of the Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1957, this bill is purely a machinery measure, and I commend it to honorable senators.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 1745
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Henty) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
In the United Kingdom-Australia Trade Agreement, which was signed in Canberra on 26th February of this year, the United Kingdom Government and the Australian Government recognized that industries in each country engaged in trade with the other could be materially injured by the competition of dumping or subsidized export from third countries. Both governments declared their intention to introduce legislation which would enable them, consistently with their international obligations, to impose anti-dumping or countervailing duties where such material injury was caused or threatened. The United Kingdom Parliament, earlier this year, passed the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act. The purpose of the present bill is to amend the Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act so as to enable the Australian Government to act accordingly.
Such an amendment is also complementary to the changes secured by this Government in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, during the review session, to ensure that permission would automatically be forthcoming for an importing country to levy countervailing duties to protect the interests of another supplying country against serious damage from subsidized goods from a competing supplier.
The effect of the bill is to give the Government legislative authority to impose a special duty on goods which are in any way dumped or subsidized, and which are being imported into Australia so as to cause or threaten material injury to imports from the United Kingdom or any other country.
The opportunity has also been taken in the bill to strengthen the Customs Tariff (Industries Preservation) Act in relation to the protection of Australian industries against competition from subsidized imports. In particular, the amending bill puts beyond doubt the Government’s power to impose countervailing duties on imported goods which carry a government subsidy of any kind where such subsidized imports cause or threaten damage to Australian industry. Australian exports have increas ingly encountered in our overseas markets subsidized competition from other supplying countries. This has been particularly relevant for Australia in the United Kingdom, where so much of our exports are marketed. The present bill will complete the reciprocal undertaking between the United Kingdom Government and the Australian Government. Additionally, it will provide a legislative backing in cases where the Government seeks to negotiate corresponding protection for Australian produce in other overseas markets which may be exposed to the depredations of subsidized competition.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 1746
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Henry) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
Honorable senators have dealt with the Customs Tariff Bill 1957 and the Excise Tariff Bill 1957 which imposed, among other things, duties of ls. a gallon on imported and local diesel fuel of the type used in diesel-engined road vehicles. At the time of introduction of the related proposals, it was explained that it was necessary to impose the duty on all automotivetype diesel fuel irrespective of the purpose for which it would be used, but that reimbursements to the extent of ls. a gallon would be made to those persons who used this type of fuel other than in propelling road vehicles on public roads.
Having regard to this intention, it has been necessary, of course, to make provision for exempting the non-road users. This is being done under the appropriate free items of the tariffs by means of departmental by-laws. These by-laws make provision for persons who satisfy the Minister that they require diesel fuel for purposes other than propelling road vehicles on public roads to make application for an exemption certificate. Briefly, it is proposed to issue certificates to persons who use this fuel for non-road purposes. On presentation of a certificate to the supplier, fuel may be purchased at a price excluding the ls. a gallon duty.
To date, prospective certificate holders have been obliged to purchase fuel at a price including this duty, and these conditions must apply until it is possible to issue the certificates. Once a certificate is issued, however, rebates of the ls. a gallon outlaid in respect of purchases up to that time will be made. In this respect, full information as to procedures will be made available through the diesel fuel suppliers as early as practicable, and the forms on which to make application can also be obtained from that source.
Briefly, the purpose of this bill is to make provision for the procedures I have outlined, to stipulate the rate of rebate, to make an appropriation out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund from which payments can be made, and to cover certain aspects relating to certificate holders. Part II. of the bill deals with the payment of rebates; part HI. contains provisions relating to certificate holders; and Part IV. makes some general overall provisions relating to the administration of both matters.
As to the rebates, it will be seen that the till defines the person to whom rebate is payable, and sets the rate at ls. a gallon, which is the equivalent of the duty factor. In addition, it is a requirement that claimants obtain and hold invoices or the like relating to purchases, while a penal clause relating to false claims or statements is provided.
In Part III., reference is made to two diesel fuel tax acts, which are complementary to this measure and are designed to impose a tax on fuel obtained by virtue of a certificate but sold to other than a certificate holder or used in a road vehicle. Bills for these purposes will be introduced. In the case of sale, the certificate holder must obtain the consent of the collector, and in the case of use in a road vehicle he must notify the collector. Provision is made also for the return of a certificate which may be revoked for any reason.
Part IV., in the main, covers administration. It deals with such matters as the recovery of amounts due to the Commonwealth, and the authority for officers to make inspections and require persons to attend and answer questions or produce documents. Overall, the provisions embodied in Part IV. follow the pattern of the customs and excise acts, which cannot apply in respect of this fuel, and also bounty acts. They are considered necessary in this case for the successful administration of the act and the proper protection of the revenue. I commend the bill to honorable senators for favorable consideration.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 1747
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Henty) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is one of those to which I previously referred to as being complementary to the Diesel Fuel Taxation (Administration) Bill. It embodies necessary definitions and provides for the imposition of a tax of ls. a gallon on diesel fuel purchased by the holder of a certificate at a price which is, in effect, free of the ls. a gallon customs or excise duty but is subsequently sold or otherwise disposed of to a person who does not hold a certificate.
Honorable senators will note that clause 5 (2) of the proposed bill exempts fuel from the tax when tax has already been imposed by reason of a previous sale or disposal of that fuel.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 1747
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Henty) read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
This bill is the second of the taxing bills to which I previously referred to as being complementary to the Diesel Fuel Taxation (Administration) Bill. It embodies necessary definitions and provides for the imposition of a tax of ls. a gallon on diesel fuel purchased by the holder of a certificate at a price which is, in effect, free of the ls. a gallon customs or excise duty but is subsequently used in propelling a road vehicle on a public road.
Honorable senators will note that clause 5 (2) of the proposed bill exempts fuel from the tax when tax has already been imposed by reason of a previous sale or disposal of that fuel.
Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.
page 1748
The following bills were returned from the House of Representatives without amendment: -
Air Force (Canteens) Bill 1957.
Petroleum Search Subsidy Bill 1957.
Native Members of the Forces Benefits Bill 1957.
page 1748
– I lay on the table the following paper: -
Statement of Heads of Expenditure and the Amounts charged thereto pursuant to section 36a of the Audit Act 1901-1957.
Honorable senators will be familiar with the thirty-first report of the Public Accounts Committee, in which the committee discussed at some length the practice hitherto observed in this Parliament of presenting, after the end of the financial year, the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for that year. The committee’s inquiry led it to the conclusion that the present form should be discontinued and replaced by an alternative consideration by the Parliament of the expenditure. This statement conforms with the committee’s recommenda tions for the future procedure. The statement will be considered by a committee of the whole, which will subsequently consider the adoption of a resolution approving this statement. The Government believes that the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee, although it represents a departure from the procedures of the past, is an improvement.
That the Statement be considered in Committee of the Whole.
page 1748
Debate resumed from 4th December (vide page 1693), on motion by Senator O’sullivan-
That the bill be now read a second time.
– The measure now before the Senate is of very great importance. It seeks to set up machinery to enable the Government to move into a position where it will be able to ratify the four conventions made at Geneva in 1949. The various conventions were not only exhibited to the second-reading speech of the AttorneyGeneral (Senator O’sullivan), but he described them quite adequately in broad terms. They are designed for the protection of the wounded, sick and distressed, under war conditions.
In approaching this question, I find myself very depressed at the thought that underlying this legislation and the need for it is the idea that war is inevitable. In these conventions we find the world looking over the past and looking to the future, recognizing the need for a code that will ensure that some humanity will be injected into the awful business of war. War, of course, is the most uncivilized proceeding of all, but it has afflicted mankind for at least as long as history has been recorded. I think I have mentioned in this chamber before that in 3,000 years there have been some 3,000 wars and nearly as many revolutions. The world is kept in a continuous state of turmoil, which seems to come to a climax every time the world is moving on to a new philosophic base and moving off an old one. We cannot help but approach this bill with mixed feelings - regret and distress at the need for it and pleasure at the thought that if war is to be numbered amongst the usual events of civilization, there is at least a basic code to which nations and people can be held.
– How many do hold to it? lt contains platitudes and means nothing.
– I agree with the honorable senator that there are indeed a lot of platitudes. I had in mind the making of that very comment. Once war has begun, passions are aroused, might is invoked, and nothing is allowed to stand in the way of victory. When nations resort to war, there is brutality, naked and unashamed. Men, women and children are trampled upon, and everything must stand aside in the interests of quick and certain victory. Regrets are expressed later on. I agree with the honorable senator’s view, but I still say that there is enormous moral suasion in having a code of law to which those who are repressed can at least appeal. 1 hope that the provisions of the conventions will be publicized as widely as possible and made universally known. If they are known, the reason for them will become more and more apparent, and the humanitarian purpose of the code may become a little nearer to accomplishment. In the 1939-45 war we had instances, on the part of nations that were highly intelligent and, reputedly, highly civilized, of barbarity of a kind that one could never have imagined before it happened. It is certain that although there was a code of this type - which has now merely been brought up to date - it was, as Senator Kendall implied, honored more in the breach than in the observance. That is to be deplored, but what else can one expect when there is a resort to force and an invocation of sheer might, power, brutality and instruments of destruction? Of course, even now the code that we have may well be outdated by modern scientific developments. There is, for the first time, a code for the protection of civilians. Even it is not based upon a complete appreciation of what might be involved if atomic warfare were to be encountered.
It is interesting to note that these various conventions were settled in 1949 under another government, but even now they are not being ratified by this bill. That is not the purpose of the bill at all. The bill does not ask that another place, and this chamber, join in ratifying any of the conventions. That is quite apparent, both from what the Minister said and from clause 5 (3.) of the bill, which reads: -
If the ratification on behalf of Australia of any of the Conventions is subject to a reservation or is accompanied by a declaration, that Convention shall, for the purposes of this Act, have effect and be construed subject to and in accordance with that reservation or declaration.
Nowhere in this bill is authority sought for the ratification of any of the four conventions that are attached as schedules. That is intended to be a matter for consideration and determination by the Executive after the machinery that is necessary for the implementation of the code is approved in this bill. The Australian law is being altered to give effect to the four conventions. As Senator O’sullivan has indicated, only so many matters as need legislative enactment are being included in this bill. There are many other administrative matters and procedures that will be dealt with other than by legislation. The Government is merely seeking to move into a position where, by ratification, it can say, “ Not only have we ratified it, but our law permits us to implement it “.
On looking through the bill, we find some interesting things. Clause 6 contains a provision that the act has extra-territorial operations according to its tenor. That is a rather remarkable development in law because, normally, we do not legislate beyond the territories over which Australia really has jurisdiction. Here, by a combination of the exercise of the external power through ratification and agreement with other nations, we at least claim the right to legislate with respect to matters that happen not in Australia but elsewhere. That appears particularly in clause 7, which appears under the heading, “ Punishment of Offenders Against the Conventions “. Clause 7 (1.) reads: -
A person who, in Australia or elsewhere, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by another person of, a grave breach of any of the Conventions is guilty of an indictable offence.
The next sub-clause contains a definition of what constitutes a grave breach, and subclause (3.) provides -
This section applies to persons regardless of their nationality or citizenship.
That is an exceedingly wide power, a much wider power than we usually seek to establish in legislation of this Parliament. Of course, what the codes propose to do is to outlaw people and set up what one might term something in the nature of an international crime on the part of any person, punishable by the courts of any of the contracting parties if they can get their hands upon him. They all combine to undertake to punish grave breaches. I have no doubt that other countries which have ratified the Geneva Conventions will be passing legislation of this type.
The bill contains very proper provisions in relation to legal proceedings against persons who are interned and persons who are prisoners of war. We of Australia, pursuant to this bill, undertake that a man will be given ample notification that proceedings are to be instituted against him, that he will be given particulars of the offence with which he is to be charged, that he shall be entitled to representation by counsel, and, finally, that he shall have the right of appeal. All those are provisions that we in Australia have worked to gradually in connexion with internees and prisoners of war. Such provisions have, in fact, actually been applied in this country and now complete statutory authority and form are being given to that type of process. That, together with all the other provisions of the bill, has the approval of the Opposition.
The fourth part of the bill provides for the prohibition of the improper use of the Red Cross and other emblems. The International Red Cross has been a marvellous influence in promoting the cause of humanity in war and outside war, and it is proper that the organization, in its various phases, should be protected against the abuse of its emblems and its name. They should unquestionably be sacrosanct.
While the Opposition gives this bill its complete support, it is concerned that there should have been so much delay in reaching the point of ratification. The Minister did not advert during his second-reading speech to the cause for that delay, and perhaps when he is replying he will indicate to the Senate just why the matter has been allowed to lie from 1949 till now. Each convention was signed at the time of its being set up, but the formal ratification and the establishment of the type of machinery required are not undertaken until eight years afterwards.
I merely wish to observe that I hope that in our time it will not be necessary to invoke the clauses of these conventions. It behoves us all in this chamber, irrespective’ of party, to use all our powers, collectively and individually, to outlaw war. lt is thegreatest horror of all. It is the greatest destroyer of mankind’s happiness. In thepast, wars have very often been fought for considerations of trade advantage, gain, conquest, exploitation and the rest. War is now of very much deeper and greater significance. As President Eisenhower said only last year in his report to Congress on the State of the Nation -
The real conflict in the world to-day is not so much for the material things as a conflict for the minds and souls of men.
That is the real conflict to-day. It is a much more significant one than the physical fight for material purposes. The great conflict that underlies all the physical trouble at the moment is, as President Eisenhower indicated, an ideological one, one that goesright to the roots of man’s being, one that reaches out and seeks to enslave man’s mind, to deny true freedom, which can exist in the mind only if the mind is free, and to deny the existence of Deity. That is the real conflict in the world to-day. It may be waged without weapons, but it is not being prosecuted without threat of weapons, without causing great disturbance in the world; and whilst we support this bill entirely, I indicate to the Government and its supporters, that we of the Opposition at all times will join with them to dc* everything possible to outlaw war that makes considerations of the type mentioned in this bill even necessary. It is horrifying to contemplate that there needs to be international law to prevent cruelty, barbarity, murder, rape, the desecration of women, and the rest. It should be inherent in man’s nature to outlaw these things himself.
– Is it not more horrifying that nations do not honour these conventions when they are agreed upon?
– 1 do not think, so. That only makes the nations concerned’ more culpable. The horrifying thing is thatthese barbarities can happen. I do not’ think that it detracts from the horror that nations with a knowledge of proper conductshould act otherwise, although I believe- that that adds to the culpability of the nation concerned. We trust that ultimately, if the penalties that are provided in the measure are to be enforced, they will but add to the severity of the general condemnation of those who deliberately breach these conventions. The Opposition has pleasure in supporting the measure.
– I wish to speak only briefly on this bill which proposes to ratify the four conventions drafted by an international conference in Geneva in 1949. It relates to an international code of rules governing conduct during a war. The bill merits far closer study than we shall be able to give it to-day. The document comprises 108 pages of closely printed matter, including four schedules. With great respect, I do not think that it will get to-day the attention it deserves. If I may say so, I believe that a most unfortunate time has been chosen to place this document before the Parliament.
The third convention deals with the treatment of prisoners of war. I was a prisoner of war for three and a half years - 1,277 days - in the Pacific theatre of war and, having spent some nine months on the Burma-Siam railway, I believe that I should say something about these conventions. Yesterday, we were all called upon to play our part in meeting a visiting high official from a former enemy country, and it is to the credit of honorable members and honorable senators of this Parliament that we all followed the lead that was given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) in forgiving past misdeeds and looking forward to Australia’s future. However, it was not an easy day for me. It was not a day when I was really at my best. In fact, if I may say so, it was a day when I needed a helping hand. To-day, I realize that this Senate looks, as indeed it should, to the future and not to the past. We can all forgive and we should forgive, but do not ask me to forget.
The Third Schedule to the bill, which deals with the treatment of prisoners of war, contains 143 articles. It is completely unreal. There is even provision in Article 53 that, after working for twelve months, a prisoner of war shall get eight days’ furlough on full pay. However generous that may be the provision will just not work that way. While it might be a good thing for 60 nations to draft a series of conventions with pious hopes, something further is needed. I agree with the view expressed by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). We have to set our sights very high and try to achieve whatever we can to outlaw war and to protect those who might be hurt by war. I believe that we have to do much more than draft and sign these conventions. The wording of the articles is couched in such legal phrases that a fighting man going to war would need the services of officers of the Legal Service Bureau to interpret them.
When 60 nations, or I hope every nation in the world, meet at Geneva to draft a series of conventions, I hope that they will arrive at a simplified code - one that is understandable to the man who goes out and fights as a private, a lance-corporal, a corporal or a junior officer. I hope that an understanding of the code will’ be part of the military curriculum, and that a man will be taught the meaning of the code just as he is taught the arts of war in the course of his training. Then, the fighting man will know that when he is in the field and has civilians and prisoners of war in his charge, be has a sacred duty to protect them and do things for them within the terms of the accepted code. We have to teach that knowledge as part of a man’s training.
While I do not challenge the good faith of those who drew up these conventions, 1 believe that we shall achieve much more when we can teach the humble man who goes to war that he must observe certain military procedures, and that he has to have regard for his responsibilities just as have other persons in other avenues of life. The tragedy of the last war was the man who was in isolation with small forces and who was massacred by enemies who had no understanding of, or training in, their responsibilities.
I support the bill. With everybody else in this House and members of all parties, I hope that the protection provided in these conventions will never have to be invoked. I plead for some document that is understandable by those who have to fight a war.
These conventions should be modified and reduced to a simple set of principles to which men can work. Then we could keep these documents for the lawyers and those who are highly placed in governments who can send directives to commanders of forces. However, if we inculcate in the minds of men and women in humble places the knowledge that they have responsibilities, many of the tragedies that have happened in the past will not occur again.
.- 1 was rather surprised to observe the attitude that Senator Anderson has taken to this measure. He said that this was an unfortunate time to introduce a bill for the ratification of these conventions. If we take that attitude, there will never be a correct time for discussion of international relations and of what we should do in the present or the future. Unlike Senator Anderson, 1 feel that, instead of striking a note of pessimism, we should regard this as an occasion for rejoicing, because we are ratifying conventions that were agreed to in 1949 and which constitute a great advance in the provision of rules for international behaviour. I think that honorable senators, the people of Australia generally, and people throughout the world should be very pleased that 60 nations subscribed to the conventions now under consideration and that just recently 84 nations subscribed to another convention on international conduct.
The conventions that this bill seems ro ratify have been outlined briefly, but the one with which I believe we should concern ourselves most is that which deals with the protection of civilian populations in time of war. A set of rules for limiting the dangers to which civilian populations may be exposed should receive the attention, not only of this Parliament, but also of people throughout the world. If those people who in the final analysis, when politics and laws have failed, are responsible for war were to understand fully the implications of war- fare against civilian populations, the pressures that could be brought against the commencement of war would be very much greater, and war could be prevented.
Senator Kendall, by way of interjection, expressed the attitude that we must not look for the ideal, that we must not be too sentimental about things. Unfortunately, the people who have spent their lives in making wars a business have their own approach to these questions. When all is said and done, the making of wars is the biggest business in the world. Tn countries like the United States of America and Russia, a tremendous proportion of industrial effort, scientific progress, brain-power, and man-power is diverted to the business of war. That is wasteful, because it has been proved that in modern warfare no country can win. If all nations were convinced that war should be banned and that there is no future in the use of modern warfare to settle disputes, conventions such as these would have served a very great purpose.
The protection of civilian populations has been discussed recently. I have before me two sets- of rules that were drawn up recently at a meeting of the International Red Cross at New Delhi. It is a great pity that, after the long delay that has occurred in bringing these four conventions of 1949 before the Parliament for ratification, the new rules covering the protection of civilian populations have not been incorporated in this measure. The rules to which I have just referred constitute a new approach to modern warfare, in which trie people who are most likely to survive are members of the armed forces. If there is any use for a navy in modern warfare, which I doubt, the members of that service would be protected, because they would be away from the centres of civilian population. If there were any need for an army, the members of that service, too, would be away from the centres of population. We must remember also that outside our immediate atmosphere now there is a daily and definite proof of the fact that science has reached the stage where mankind has within its power the ability to destroy any section of the earth’s surface at will with the use of guided missiles and the hydrogen bomb warhead.
To adopt a pessimistic attitude about conventions such as these now before us is simply to resign ourselves to the ultimate annihilation of our species. I believe that the 60 nations that were responsible for drafting the conventions that are covered by this measure and the 84 nations that were represented at the recent meeting of the International Red Cross at New Delhi are the hope of the world - not the pessimists who say that man will always fight. There are people who believe that, because they are trained from the time they reach fourteen years of age, when they enter military academies and are taught how to use a bayonet against a chaff-bag filled with straw, they are the hope of the world. Those people are given the opportunity to engage in mock warfare, and their . life revolves around the practice of war; to them, warfare becomes a highly specialized art. We find that such people, after their retirement from the various forces, are elected as delegates to these conventions and to positions in the diplomatic corps, and that they participate in the conduct of foreign affairs. 1 should say that, because of their background, they are the wrong people to be appointed to such positions. They do not realize that the world could be so much better off without their kind. Therefore, I feel that it ill-becomes people to try to damp down the great possibilities of international peace that is the objective of these conventions.
– Would you say that they constitute a deterrent to war?
– I believe that they are a deterrent to war. I believe, too, that a copy of these conventions should be given to school children and placed in the hands of civilians, and that any representative of theirs who advocated the use of force rather than of diplomacy would be removed from the Parliament at the next election. If I had my way, I would read these conventions in every school in Australia and throughout the rest of the world.
I propose to read an extract from the book “ Boldness Be My Friend “, which was written by Richard Pape. The incidents that he relates happened in the camp adjoining the camp in which I was a prisoner of war. What he writes might be a lesson to the Senate about what can happen when these conventions are completely disregarded. Let me say, first, that adjoining a camp in which there were British, Australian and dominion prisoners of war was a camp of Russian working parties. The author of the book I have just referred to has given quite a good description of the conditions in the latter camp. No Geneva convention governed conditions in that camp, whereas at least we were able to get a bath occasionally.
Sitting suspended frm 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.
– In his book, Richard Pape wrote -
Some few days later another compound flare-up occurred when Russian p.o.w.s were brought into a camp next to our own.
– The words “ our own “ referred to the British camp?
– Yes. The author continued -
Due to some misunderstanding, we were not given the Kommandant’s orders to remain indoors.
The kommandant, acting under the convention, could have ordered the prisoners to remain indoors.
The R.A.F. men flocked to the wire to see the Russians, and the Germans opened up from the boxes with a hail of machine-gun bullets. The Kommandant called us all out on parade as a result of crowding the wire and scaring his guards, not caring that his guards had scared the life out of us with their crazy fire. He informed us that punishment would take the form of no issues of Red Cross parcels, no inside camp entertainment, and no mail for a month.
That shows that the kommandant was observing the Geneva Convention. Those were legitimate punishments that could be imposed on prisoners for not observing the rules of the camp. The passage continues -
The Russians on their arrival, in spite of the unjust punishment meted out to us for watching them, indirectly aided the perfection of my plans.
The Russians literally teemed with body vermin and in an incredibly short span of time typhus raged throughout the Russian and British camps. Our Stalag was a magnificent playground for the black Russian lice. . . . The Russians, overcrowded in their barracks and sick with vermin, died like flies. British and Allied prisoners also died; and even the Germans were affected.
Further on we read -
The Russians presented a ghastly, inhuman spectacle - despair at its worst. They had no Red Cross aid, they received nothing but a mouthful of bread and a paltry portion of what the Germans had the nerve to call cabbage soup. We were luckier. We had special serums flown out from Switzerland and other valuable medical aids. And the Germans did al least attempt to save British life by treatment. Compared to our Russian allies, we were treated with kid gloves.
The Germans avoided entering the Russian compounds as much as possible. The soup was invariably pushed through the gate, and the Russian bread rations pitched over the wire into the snow. The Russian captives, when feeding time came round, fought like savage animals. I watched once, but never again, 300 wasted, feverish and dying Russians crawl, toner and fight towards a dustbin of cabbage soup. In the furious scramble the container was toppled into the slush and snow, and the prisoners flopped on their bellies, lapping up the liquid, screaming, clawing and biting.
I have read that to illustrate the difference between camps where the convention was implemented and camps where it was not. On one side of the barbed wire was a camp in which the prisoners were subjected to the special beastial treatment that the Germans knew how to mete out, but on the other side of the wire was a camp containing prisoners whose country was a signatory to the Geneva Convention. The point 1 make is that if the Germans had treated all of their prisoners in the same way and had not committed such dreadful atrocities on Russian prisoners, it is quite possible that the history of the post-war world would have been different. One can quite understand what the Russian people would think when the stories of atrocities were told by the survivors. They would feel just as many people here felt yesterday when they said, “ We cannot forget what the Japanese did”. The Russian people say, “ We cannot forget what the Germans did “.
In the post-war world, the Japanese and the Germans who committed these atrocities are our allies, whilst the people who were the subject of the atrocities are our enemies. How quickly the impact of war is forgotten! How quickly do our minds change! In the final analysis, how stupid is war in all its forms! I believe that the sections of these conventions which attempt to minimize the impact of war on those who have the misfortune to fall into the enemy’s hands have a high Christian purpose. I believe that this Parliament should not only subscribe to these conventions, but should see that their meaning is given effect in all our diplomacy. Our national policy should be the never-ending pursuit of peace on earth.
To-day, with hydrogen bombs and intercontinental missiles, war is no longer the game that it was in the past. The very existence of humanity will be threatened if another war occurs. This convention and its ratification should be a warning that the avoidance of war must be given first priority in all our political and diplomatic activities. The sufferings that have been experienced by people who have encountered the ravages of war should be a standing monument or memorial to remind us that we must conduct our human relations without resort to the barbarism and animal activities of war.
I appeal to the Parliament, not only to ratify these 1949 conventions, but also to give directions for an extension of the great principles contained in them. Some people are pessimistic about the future of mankind, but there are just as many people who are optimistic about the future. It is well to remind ourselves constantly that there is no hope if we adopt the negative view that war is inevitable. In the past, wars were profitable to the nations that embarked on them. They were the means of creating heroes. When the warriors came home with their breasts covered with medals they were admired and revered. The position has changed now. The greatest heroes of war are the non-combatants - the women and children who live in the cities. They suffer most from war.
I make a final appeal that in considering these conventions honorable senators will realize that, because of modern weapons, the attitude to war has changed. The principles involved in these conventions are basically those contained in the Declaration of Human Rights, to which we have subscribed. They are basically Christian principles. If mankind is unable to implement these great Christian principles, I say, along with the pessimists who do not believe in conventions such as these, that there is no hope for it. My thoughts runalong a different channel. I believe that there are sufficient men of goodwill to submerge those who always look downwards towards the mud. Man, in God’s likeness, is capable of looking towards the stars, and those who have framed this convention are striving to do that.
Therefore, I commend the measure and hope that it will be speedily passed. The Opposition subscribes to it and hopes that it will be continuously revised so that, some day, we shall be able to say that this Parliament has in no small measure helped mankind to get on with the job of using its great gifts as was intended, instead of continually destroying others and wasting its substance on such negative pursuits as. war, and the inhuman treatment of itsfellows.
.- The presentation of this bill to the Senateaffords us an historic and unprecedented; opportunity, in an Australian legislature,. to make an advance in the creation of legal rights in defence of justice. I rise in this debate, deeply impressed by the importance of the issues before us. The speeches of two ex-prisoners of war, Senator Anderson and Senator O’Byrne, have brought back vividly to our minds the experiences of friends in the first and second world wars. Such recollections cannot fail to make their impact upon any person.
I rise, too, with a sense of pride in the fact that this Senate represents the experience of men, whose service to this country goes back as far as the Boer War. I refer, of course, to Senator Cameron and Senator Ashley, who are, I believe, the only honorable senators who can claim that distinction. One cannot recall without a feeling of great esteem their contribution to this nation. Among those who served in the first world war one may mention the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), Senator Mattner and Senator Wordsworth. The many other honorable senators on both sides of the chamber who also served will forgive me for not mentioning them specifically. One cannot think of these gentlemen without a similar feeling of esteem.
Then, of course, we remember the honorable senators who have just addressed us, and those other honorable senators who served in the second world war and underwent privations as prisoners, in addition to meeting the dreadful challenges presented by active service. However, we must not embark upon the challenge which this bill presents to us as legislators with muffled drums because of any imagined incapacity on our part. This opportunity is given us as lawmakers to provide a greater measure of justice in any future war than we had the forethought or courage to provide for those who fought in past wars.
As I understand it, this measure makes ah unprecedented advance in the establishment of justiciable rights. Hitherto these international conventions have been agreements as between sovereign nations, of which the civil courts took no cognizance. It was only by recourse to the international courts that some incidents were capable of being redressed. No court process existed by which penalties could be imposed upon any individual responsible for an injustice. This legislation, which is put before the parliaments of the various nations which are parties to the conventions, makes justiciable in our own courts certain obligations which first were contractually established by the convention, and are now being imposed, not only on our Australian subjects, but also on all persons at home and abroad whom we can bring within theactual control of our civil courts. Those persons who are now subject to justice are to be made amenable to our courts, just as we are, for the observance of theordinary law of the land. That, as I conceive the position, applies the conceptions of law in defence of justice, not simply tothe confines of a particular nation but to the jurisdictions of all 60. Of course, the conventions must first be adopted by all of the nations concerned, and made enforceable within their countries, as we are doing, on behalf of Australia, to-day. The courts of all these countries will be given compulsory jurisdiction to punish any individual who has committed a breach of the obligations specified in the convention. That is one way in which the law can be proud of advancing.
If Senator Kendall were here I should address myself especially to him, though I can understand his somewhat pessimistic approach to the idea that this will increase a sense of justice in future wars, but those who think that we are being too optimistic could “well be reminded that it has only been by such conventions as these, and by the adoption of the legislature of outlawry and slavery that civil freedoms have been preserved. We are so forgetful of that - I say this in the most respectful way possible - that often we made inroads on those civil freedoms and undermine the supervision which independent courts of justice are erected to give them. Those freedoms are a guarantee of evenhanded justice to individual persons under the law.
The first of these conventions deals with the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick of the armed forces in the field, the second with wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of the armed forces at sea, the third with the treatment of prisoners of war, and the fourth with the protection of civilian persons in time of war. The extent to which those conventions are made amenable to the courts of justice is set out in specified articles enumerated in section 7 (2.) of the proposed act. Doubtless the patience of honorable senators will be tried if I refer to all four conventions, so I shall refer only to Article 50 of the first convention, which makes any one who commits a grave breach of the article amenable to the courts. It is confined at the present time to wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health and extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
Mr. President, just permit me an observation as to the generality of that language, the vagueness of which is one of its weaknesses, because if we legislators prescribe a vague and indefinite rule, correspondingly loose is the protection which the court of interpretation is able to give to the individual affected by that obligation - an observation which, I hope you will bear in mind when we are dealing with the Stevedoring Industry Bill at a later hour this day.
Even in the Second Convention, Article 52 refers to matters almost precisely in the same terms. Article 130 of the Third Convention adds to those terms - this being a convention for the protection of prisoners of war - these offences: Compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a prisoner of war of the right of a fair and regular trial prescribed by this convention. And then, dealing with civilians, the matters other than those that I read from the First Convention are: Compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power or wilfully depriving a protected person of the right of a fair and regular trial prescribed in the present convention; taking of hostages, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carred out unlawfully and wantonly. This is the first attempt to translate into civil law a convention between international powers on such matters. The matters are made punishable in our courts. The vagueness, to which 1 directed attention earlier, occurs again.
But, Mr. President, it is not a bad beginning because even that vague rule of law, once the matters are made punishable by the ordinary courts of the country, has a sanctity hitherto not given to it. The creation of international courts after the second world war to deal with war crimi- nals was a tremendous advance in international justice. Not every one agrees with the wisdom of that step. However, those who blame the Government for taking six, seven or eight years to ponder the actual translation of this convention into the civil law need to realize the greatness of the step that is being undertaken.
When we add to that the fact that this Australian legislature is assuming here jurisdiction not only to bring within its great purview Australian subjects, but anybody extra-territorially who commits a breach of this convention in relation to offences, I should think that we would have to give serious consideration to the question whether any constitutional limitations would mock that attempt to make the enforcement of the law so comprehensive. I just offer these observations to the general theme of the bill because I think it does give hope inasmuch as it represents the establishment, not of some law of imperfect operation and incapable of being effectuated by an actual court, but a law that is subject to enforcement by the courts as we know them.
Now, permit me just one word of reference: I said that this Fourth Convention deals with the protection of civilian persons in times of war. Many people with a sense of justice were very anxious with regard to some of the treatment that was meted out in Australia to internees during the last world war. Matters such as the treatment of members of the Australia First Movement were made, I think, the theme of injustice as well as propaganda. I just mention them because I should like the Attorney-General to tell me, if he would be good enough when replying to this debate, or at the committee stage, what effect this Fourth Convention will have upon the defence power to enforce the confinement of internees in time of war without due process.
I am conscious of the fact that these matters are technical but my great pride. Mr. President, is that the law is now a very refined science that involves some technicalities. It is only by being careful so to mould those technicalities as to express justice that we will achieve a satisfactory purpose in the high role, not of law interpretation, but of law making.
I add one further reference, and that in relation to clause 9 of the bill. I confess to some inability to understand it, but I am interested in the subject-matter. It reads -
A person subject to naval, military or air force law is not liable to trial in Australia by courtmartial in respect of an act or omission if he would not have been so liable if this Part and section one of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 of the United Kingdom had not been passed.
While the combination of those two “ ifs “ leaves me a little puzzled as to what is intended to be the meaning, I am provoked to remind the Senate of the very secure safeguards that our Constitution has provided for due process of enforcement of law according to judicial courts, a development which I am gladdened to say was advanced very greatly by the present High Court’s decision in the Boilermakers’ case, which was not overturned in the Privy Council. During the war the High Court did sanction the punishment of servicemen, even for the crime of murder, by means of court-martial The view was taken that courts-martial, even though consisting of military officers assembled as ad hoc tribunals for administering justice and not appointed with the independence of judges or with life tenure, had an historic role to play during war-time which our judicial proceedings did not subvert. I wonder whether clause 9 is intended to alter that position. I should be obliged if the Attorney-General at some stage, either in reply or in committee, would clarify the position for us.
.- With all due respect to Senator Wright, I have not the same confidence in man-made law as he appears to have. As he spoke, I was reminded of what the late George Reid said many years ago - “ I care not who makes the law, provided I have the administering of it “. He was a lawyer by profession. That seems to be the attitude now, particularly in dealing with internal or external war, or with both. We should try to form some idea of man as he has been right from the beginning. He began as an anti-social, fighting animal. He fought for all he was worth against wild beasts and hostile tribes. Man is still the fighting animal that he was in ancient days. It was Heraclitus who said, in effect, in 464 B.C., “ All life is strife, but where there is no strife there is no life “. So we have to make our choice between ideological strife and physical strife, and I prefer ideological strife to physical strife. We engage in the former on a much higher plane. It involves a great deal more training and study than does primitive, physical fighting. In my opinion, man rises to the greatest heights when he makes that approach to solving his problems.
My own opinion is that we are living in an age of what I would term mitigated savagery. There was never another age when man was so prepared to massacre his fellow men in such vast numbers. In the old days men used bows and arrows. They were mere amateurs, compared with the men of to-day.
We have the tragic paradox of men preaching peace and practising war. That is exactly what is taking place. I do not question for a moment the sincerity of the gentlemen of Geneva, but I do question their knowledge and approach to these matters. Right from Heraclitus’s time there has been physical war. There was the imperialism of Troy, accompanied by war; the imperialism of Rome, accompanied by war; the imperialism of Spain, accompanied by war; the imperialism of France and England; and now the imperialism of America. As an old imperialism became weak and corrupt, generating the elements of its own negation, a new imperialism came into being, to act precisely as did its predecessors, only much more scientifically and on a larger scale.
Senator McKenna refered to the humanizing of war. The first lady who attempted to humanize war was Florence Nightingale, as far back as 1854. Her work was the origin of the Red Cross, which deals with the effects of war. It does not attempt to deal with the cause of war. Peace is the ideal. War is the effect. What is the cause? No one one in this debate has attempted to deal with the cause, and T shall try to give some idea of it as I proceed. First, T should like to refer to my own experience. As Senator Wright was good enough to say, I had experience in the South African war. I was astounded’ by the brutality, which I had not expected, particularly where young children were concerned. They were dying every day as a result of poisoned food supplied to them in concentration camps. I can remember thousands of Boer men and women together singing all night long, “ Where is my wandering boy to-night? “ The impression, that was made on my mind then remains just as vivid to-day.
With that background of experience, during the 1914-1918 war 1, with others, took a leading part in opposing conscription for overseas service, which the late William Morris Hughes was seeking. At a conference of the Australian Labour party held in Adelaide in .1915 he had said, “In no circumstances shall I be a party to conscripting Australians for overseas service “. He emphasized that, but then he went to England and was dined, wined and feted by the warring people. He came back to Australia and made a complete volte face. He then demanded conscription for overseas service, at a time when more volunteers were offering than could be trained.
– That is not correct.
– lt is correct. In 1916, William Morris Hughes did his best to conscript Australian workmen for overseas service. In that year a referendum was taken and the proposal was rejected. A referendum was taken in 1917, and it was defeated again, but Hughes still went on. When speaking in Brisbane in 1936, after his return to Australia, he said this: -
The increasing intensity of competition for economic markets must lead to armed conflict unless an economic settlement is found. This, however, is hardly to be hoped for. To talk about peace in a world armed to the teeth is utterly futile.
He could say the same thing to-day, but with added emphasis, because of his experience, if he were here. He made that statement, as I have said, in 1936, after he had been educated somewhat by the happenings during the first world war.
Then, before the 1939-45 war, we had the statement by Dr. Paul Einzig, who had written 40-odd books, including “Appeasement Before and During the War “, which I quoted in the Senate on 4th March, 1952. He said: -
Preparations are a challenge to war. They mean war sooner or later; the only question at issue being when and where the war shall begin. Peace under such conditions is almost as bad as war itself.
I have gone a little further and stated that we are doing just that now. We are preaching peace but practising for an even worse war than we have had hitherto.
I have spoken of the causes of war. All wars have their origin in economic warfare for trade and territory; in other words, they have their origin in war for profit. Physical war is a most profitable investment for wartime speculators. During the 1939-45 war millions of pounds were added to the fixed and liquid capital of speculators who made profits from the war. They actually capitalized on the thousands of unfortunate men, women and children who were slaughtered during that war. War is still a most profitable investment. To support that comment I quote the following statement made on 17th March, 1949, by an American writer and professor of economics named Roger Babson -
Another world depression is inevitable, probably, in 1953 … It would be abnormally severe . . . The main thing upholding world markets to-day is our military programme and help to other nations . . . Australian primary producers would suffer . . . Wool, wheat and other Australian products would decline in the general world market.
– Who said that?
– Professor Roger Babson
– He was a bit before his time, was he not?
– He is a wellknown professor of economics in America. Then came the Korean war. This is what another American writer, Julius Abels, said about that in his book, “ The Welfare State “, published in New York in 1951 -
Under a farm price support programme, the Government pledges itself to maintain the support prices and buys up crops which the farmer cannot sell above those prices.
Result - during the post-war years the Government stored up mountains of farm products. Its efforts to dump or destroy this stockpile and avoid storage charges became a source of national merriment; it was in the position of having to pray for a drought or pestilence to cut down on crops. The farmer was being paid for non-production.
He goes on to say -
The war automatically brought blessings to the farmer and the worker. Full employment made every member of the family a bread-winner, provided an enormous choice of jobs with easy promotion. The farmer got a market for everything he could produce.
A later passage reads -
In order to maintain support prices the Government was saddled with millions of lbs. of butter, dried eggs, cheese, dried milk and other products. It was announced that from 25,000,000 to 40,000,000 bushels of potatoes, for which the Government had paid an average of 1.83 dollars per 100 lb. would be allowed to rot in the fields or sold back to thu growers for animal feed at one per cent, per 100 lb.
Korea, with its demands for greater amounts on grain, cotton, and other farm crops, raised the sights to all-out production.
He proceeded -
Certainly the great increase in the gross national product because of the mobilization stimulus after Korea resulted in a riptide of increased revenues to the Treasury. So much so that, mirabile dictu the Treasury started to operate at a surplus despite the huge increase in armament expenditures.
I am reminded, too, that I read in the “New York Times” in 1951 a statement that “ peace would be disastrous to business “. That statement was made in connexion with the war in Korea. It is no exaggeration to say that physical warfare is waged for trade and profit and has its origin in economic war. War represents a draining off of accumulated surplus capital, and gives it a value which it did not have in times of peace. Participation in war solves the problem for the time being. It should be borne in mind at all times that no matter what we may write into this bill, no matter what is written into any legislation, unless the economic cause of war is removed, war is inevitable. Strikes, too, are inevitable, irrespective of what we write into the Arbitration Act, unless we remove the economic causes of strikes. Unless the economic cause is dealt with, strikes are inevitable. After the 1914-18 war. in which Russia ultimately surrendered to the Germans, the Allies waged a war on Russia. As a result, the reaction against the British Government in 1920 by the working class of Great Britain was sufficient to prevent the war against Russia being carried on as originally intended.
What was the reaction last year in the Suez crisis? Crowds assembled in London and demanded law instead of war. The reaction was such that the British Prime Minister at that time, Sir Anthony Eden, was driven into the position that he occupies to-day. He and the President of the Republic of France agreed to involve the nations in war without consultation or agreement.
– Mr. Menzies helped them.
– That is true. Therefore, we have the power to declare war without consultation with or agreement by the people who actually fight the war or suffer as a result of it. That brings me to the point that, unless internal and international economies are reorganized so that war will cease to be a profitable proposition for any of the potential aggressors, wars will continue. Mr. John Foster Dulles, who is Secretary of State for the United States of America, would involve the American nation in war, if he could, without consulting anybody. I doubt whether he would even consult the United States Congress.
President Eisenhower talks peace, just as does his Secretary of State. My opinion is that peace, both internal and international, will never be made possible until the workers themselves take a stronger stand in controlling- the machinery of government. They are the men who are expected to do the fighting and work at home to maintain a fighting force. They are the men who should be consulted before another war is declared. However, the working men have been looked upon as so much cannon fodder - if I may use a phrase that has been used often before - to be thrown into war. In the same way many honorable senators on the Government side look upon the average man as so much industrial fodder to be used for the enrichment of the wealthy classes.
Senator Wright has referred to the stevedoring industry. If it were possible to do so, the waterside workers would be exploited and impoverished, but they will not tolerate it. They will be saved because they are organized and can refuse to submit to slavery. That is true of international warfare. Referring to the aftermath of the 1914-18 war, one writer had this to say -
In 1919, the Lloyd George Government was carrying out a policy of armed intervention against the new Soviet Republic without any format declaration of war. Churchill, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, was boasting of the amount of money that he was spending financing and equipping the armies of Tzarist generals in their counterrevolutionary war to overthrow the Republic. But the spirit of international working-class solidarity was strong in Britain, and the workers understood that the overthrow of the Soviet Government in Russia would also amount to a defeat of the Sociality and working class movement throughout the world.
That is true. Had the Russian revolution been suppressed, and the revolutionaries slaughtered, as was intended by Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Winston Churchill at the time, more drastic action would have been taken against the workers of England. A similar attempt is being made at the present time. The author of the article to which I have referred continued -
On July 21 the Prime Minister announced in the House of Commons that they were considering an open declaration of war against Russia. On August 3, the Foreign Minister sent a note to the Soviet Government which was tantamount to a declaration of war.
Thousands of protest resolutions poured into the Government, and on the following day, Sunday, August 8, mighty demonstrations under trades council auspices were held in every town. The next day a special joint meeting of the T.U.C. leadership and the Labour Parly E.C. was held and unanimously decided to inform the Government that “ the whole industrial power of the organized workers will be used to defeat the war”.
That was what prevented the war being carried on against Russia in 1919. History repeated itself, to some extent, in the attack on Egypt last year. I am reminded that after World War II., the United Nations Organization was set up to maintain peace just as the League of Nations was set up after the first world war. One of the first acts of the United Nations was to declare war. I now turn to another matter upon which I have a note.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Pearson). - I hope that the honorable senator is looking for some notes which will enable him to direct himself more specifically to the bill.
– Here we have a bill which provides for certain action that is supposed to prevent war. In my opinion, such action will be futile, because it does not in any way attempt to deal with the cause of war. The Korean war, for example, was declared by the United Nations organization, which was organized for peace, quite independently of those who participated in the war. We are told that the Geneva Conventions are intended to provide for peace, but in the background nations are preparing for war as they have never done before. In the light of experience, I am justified in assuming, as I have said before, that nations are merely preaching for peace in order to have sufficient time to prepare for war. Preparation for war is a challenge to engage in war. It is simply a question of when and where the war will begin. I cannot see how there will be any change for the better.
Professor Crocker of the Australian) National University has said, in effect, what I am saying. When delivering the Mylne oration in 1951 at the University of Melbourne, he said -
The United Nations charter was predominantlyAmerican in design. The United Nations secretariat is predominantly American in members, in> method, and iri control. The two most powerful! officials, after the Secretary-General, are American, and more than a quarter of the division and section chiefs are American. Most supply contractsgo to American firms.
This move against the North Koreans was madepossible by two accidents; First, Soviet Russia ai: the moment was boycotting United Nations meetings because China’s seat was occupied by Kuomintang representatives instead of by those of the new Communist government, with the result that the Security Council was able to rush through its decision without a Soviet veto. Second, the fact” that the United States had occupation troops closeat hand in Japan meant that the North Koreanscould be resisted in quick time with armed force. All that was required was to declare the United States troops and to send them United Nations, flags.
Mr. L. G. Churchward, M.A., who is lecturer in political science at the University of Melbourne, has pointed out how America is preparing for war. He has said, amongst? other things -
On the other hand the United States, by early 1949, had almost SOO military bases of one sort or another outside of United States territory. These bases stretch from the Western Atlanticand Canada through Iceland, Britain, France,. Spain, North Africa, Italy, Greece, Turkey,. Arabia, to Formosa, Japan and the Philippines. In fact United States war bases encircle theglobe and well nigh encircle the Soviet Union.
Professor Blackett, of whom I have spoken> previously, pointed out, when dealing withEastWest tension, that Russia had no alternative but to prepare for threatened aggression by America - a conflict in which we would be involved if we were prepared togo to war.
I am reminded of the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) in 1949 or 1950 that Australians would fight anywhere in the world. That is the state of mind with which organized Labour must deal. We must prevent these men from acting as. laws unto themselves and from deciding whether or not there will be war. We can have all our international courts and all our conventions, but unless we deal with the fundamental cause of war, wars will be fought.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order! I have allowed the honorable senator a great deal of latitude. For the last 35 minutes, he has been dealing with the causes of war, a subject that may have an indirect bearing on the matter that is now before the Chair. In spite of the fact that this is the last day of the session, I cannot continue to allow him such latitude. 1 have tried to be very lenient with him. 1 now ask him to return to the matter before the Chair, otherwise I might have to apply the Standing Orders.
– I feel so strongly about this matter, because the worst two evils in our so-called civilized society are preventable widespread poverty and preventable war.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order!
– This bill provides that certain action shall be taken to maintain peace. Even Senator Wright was very sceptical about the wording of some of those provisions.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order! Senator Wright dealt with the matter before the Chair and made passing reference to other things. Senator Cameron is making more than a passing reference to the matter that he is discussing. I ask him to deal with the bill specifically from now onwards, otherwise I shall have to apply the Standing Orders.
– I do not know whether I can deal more specifically with the question than to deal with the bill itself.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - Order! The honorable senator must deal with the matter before the Chair.
– I understand that the bill is before the Chair. Senator Wright directed attention to clause 9, which provides -
A person subject to naval, military or air force law is not liable to trial in Australia by courtmartial in respect of an act or omission if he would not have been so liable if this Part and section one of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 of the United Kingdom had not been passed.
I agree with Senator Wright.
– The only difference is that Senator Wright knows what it is about, but you do not.
– He thinks he does, and so do you. I do not think either of you know much about it, otherwise your approach would be different from what it is. You are not ex cathedra on all subjects. The fact that you interject as you* do indicates to me that you do not think at all. What you do is merely to repeat something that you have read. You are merely an animated phonographic record.
– You have been, doing a fair bit of quoting, too.
– The Opposition, is not opposing the measure, but I feel that. I am justified in pointing out that it might be one thing on paper but quite another thing in practice. That is what I suspect, more particularly when I note that these conventions are eulogized so enthusiastically by those who are responsible for having introduced this measure. Thismeasure is like any other iri that the really sincere person who wants to understand what it means cannot make very much sense of it. There is the objective approach,, the subjective approach and the interpretation of the legal mind. Words, in my opinion, have three meanings. They have a dictionary meaning, a meaning given tothem by legal minds and a real meaning: according to popular usage. The dictionary and the legal mind interpret words literally, but the mind that is indoctrinated by popular usage finds contradictions in the wording of a document such as this.
In this document, human life is at stake, not the reputations of lawyers or politicians. In these days of the hydrogen bomb, men,, women and children can be massacred inthousands, or in millions, as they were in> Japan. Japanese were murdered inhundreds of thousands at Hiroshima six. months after the Japanese had thrown out peace feelers. General MacArthur had thedocument in his pocket. He submitted it to President Truman, but President Truman, said, “ He is only a soldier, not a politician and ordered the dropping of the. bomb and the slaughter of these people.
There are uniformed neurotics in high places, glorified as great generals, just as there are neurotics anywhere else. In these days of high tension, when there is so much’ potential danger, we should be as critical! as we can in our approach to this problem? and we should keep in mind what has- happened in the past. Professor Laberoli of the University of Rome stated in 1896 that there are times when we have to wait until the hard school of disillusion instructs the human mind where reasoning has failed. We are becoming disillusioned now. We were disillusioned in Korea and Suez. Will we be disillusioned again if we pin our faith to the conventions now before us? I hope not. 1 am prepared to accept the measure in good faith, but I have no confidence in it.
.- I wish to support this bill but with a reservation. I direct the attention of the Senate to Article 118, which is to be found in the Third Schedule to the bill. It reads -
Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
The succeeding paragraph reads -
My mind goes back to two occasions when a strict carrying out of that provision would have brought about a great injustice and caused the death of numbers of people. One example will be sufficient. At the close of the Korean war, there were in the hands of the United Nations some 18,000 Chinese prisoners of war, 80 per cent, of whom expressed the greatest reluctance to go home, because they felt they would be killed if they did go home. They said that they felt that life was not worth living in the place from which they have come. Those thousands of prisoners of war did not at any time have pressure brought to bear on them to adopt that attitude. They were, as we know, placed under the administration of troops from India, a neutral country. They were offered every inducement to return to the land from which they had come.
– That was Communist China.
– They refused to go back to Communist China, into whose armies they had been impressed. They said they preferred death to return to China. The United Nations, in my opinion, acted with proper humanity and did not force the issue.
The same situation could arise again. I wish it to be clearly on record that in voting for this convention I have the strongest reservation on that point. I do not wish it to be thought that I am voting for a strict carrying out of the regulation that was in existence when Chinese prisoners of war felt that their lives would be endangered if they were forced to return to the country from which they came.
– Would the honorable senator interpret that provision as applying even contrary to the expressed will of the prisoner of war?
– It should, I believe, be construed in a common-sense way, and. regarded as not applying contrary to thewishes of the prisoners concerned, but I remember that at the time we have been discussing the Chinese did construe the provision, as did Communist supporters in thiscountry, as applying irrespective of thewishes of prisoners. So that there will be no misunderstanding in the future, I desireto make my position perfectly clear.
– I support the ratification of these conventions but express some surprise at the lengthof time it has taken the Government tobring them before Parliament for ratification. This Government has been in office for all the time since 1949, and it would: appear that the ratification of these conventions was regarded by the Government as having as little urgency as banking: reform. I believe that it is always desirable for conventions of this nature to be ratified! at the earliest possible moment, because in the world in which we live war could break, out at any moment, without a format declaration.
Most of us have heard that one of the justifications offered by the Nazis for their treatment of Russian prisoners during the war was that Russia had not ratified the Geneva Convention. Most of us have heard that Russian prisoners were treated far worse by the Nazi forces than were prisoners from countries which had ratified the convention. From the point of view of the protection of members of our armed forces who might become prisoners, the ratification of conventions such as this should be regarded as a matter of extreme urgency.
I am pleased to see that these conventions do make some attempt, at any rate, to preserve the rights of civilians. One of the worst features of the recent war was the manner in which civilian prisoners were treated and the Geneva decisions in that regard are most acceptable. I commend the bill to honorable senators.
– in reply - I appreciate very much indeed the manner in which this measure has been received by the Senate. The Leader of the Opposition began by placing the debate on a very high plane, and we have since had the advantage of hearing two former prisoners of war and other honorable senators who have also made a substantial contribution to the discussion. There is very little for me to answer, except on the question of delay. It is quite true that this matter has been held up for eight years. It has been considered very advisable, if not necessary, to aline ourselves with other members, particularly of the British Commonwealth. I refer, especially, to the United Kingdom, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand. Canada and some other countries have not yet ratified the conventions, and the United Kingdom ratified them only last September. As honorable senators will have observed, this is a very involved document and, in addition to the need to seek complete harmony with other members of the British Commonwealth, our own internal arrangements have involved the co-ordination of at least ten Commonwealth departments. All this has taken time. Whether the whole delay has been justified or not is a matter of opinion, but I would ask the Senate to consider the fact that it has not been easy to obtain complete co-ordination and harmony with other members of the British Commonwealth.
Senator Wright referred to clause 9, which is intended to prevent a courtmartial, convened in Australia, from trying a serviceman for a grave breach. It should be explained that members of the military forces are, while subject to military law, liable to trial by court-martial under Australian law in respect of an act which, if committed in England, would be an offence against English law, including the United Kingdom Geneva Convention Act. Offences by members of the Royal Australian Air Force and the Royal Australian Navy are justiciable before a court-martial if punishable by the law of Australia. The most serious civil offences, such as murder and rape, are excluded from the jurisdiction of courts-martial in Australia, but it is considered that clause 9 should be included in the bill in order to ensure that any trial in Australia in respect of a grave breach will be before the ordinary courts, and not courts-martial.
Senator Wright also referred to the possible effect of the adoption of these conventions on the rights reserved to the Commonwealth under the defence powers. The old rule still stands. The security of the State is the supreme law. Any of these provisions would be subject to the overriding security of the State. The rights of people affected by these conventions, and for whose benefit and protection they are being adopted, are not entirely abandoned. I refer especially to Article 42 of the fourth convention which provides -
The internment or placing in assigned residence of protected persons may be ordered only if the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary.
Article 43 provides -
Any protected person who has been interned or placed in assigned residence shall be entitled to have such action reconsidered as soon as. possible by an appropriate court or administrative bound designated by the Detaining Power for that purpose ‘. . .
Senator Gorton referred to the right of an affected person to declare himself outsidethe benefit of the conventions. Article 7 of the same convention expressly makes it obligatory upon such a person to accept the benefit of the conventions. It is not so much a right vested in the person as a human right, which the person cannot repudiate or abandon.
– He cannot contract himself out of it?
– No, because, so far as we can get it internationally, if is a declaration of a human right - an inalienable right of which a man cannot divest himself.
– But is it a human right if he is forced to accept repatriation when he does not desire it?
– That would be a matter between the detaining power and his own country. He would not have an absolute right to abandon this privilege.
I think that the detaining power would have & discretion in the matter. I have no doubt that if a man faced, upon repatriation, death, torture or deprivation of other rights, she detaining power would doubtless be able to exercise its discretion.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
The bill.
.- I rise with some diffidence because I missed much of the debate and the question which concerns me may have been dealt with by cither Senator McKenna or the Leader of the Government in his second-reading speech, which is not now before me. I am prompted to. speak, however, because of the reference of the Attorney-General to reservations which the Government may yet make. He said that they were very important in the consideration and final adoption of the agreement. As I understand the position, this act enables and authorizes the Executive Government of the Commonwealth to adopt the Geneva Convention, with such reservations as the Executive Government might care to make.
I think that, under the general terms of the law in Australia, whatever the practice might be, the approval of the Parliament is not necessary to conventions of this sort, and that the Executive Government may, of its own initiative, conclude them on behalf of the Commonwealth. If that is so, I assume that that would also be the practice, and I am wondering why -a statute is necessary specifically to endow ‘the ‘Executive ‘Government with such a power.
If the Government has in mind particular reservations- especially in view of the fact that Senator Gorton has propounded a. personal reservation which he would like to see made - and is quite clear about them, we should be told what they are, and how they affect particular clauses or sections. If that were done we should have before us not merely the terms of the conventions but the ultimate terms which will operate so far as Australia and other countries are concerned, and would be able to debate them. It is important that the Senate should know just what it is doing, where it is going, and what is to be the final effect of the conventions so far as Australia <s concerned. -Senator -WRIGHT (Tasmania) [3.45].- Relating what Senator -Byrne has said to what the Attorney-General (Senator O’sullivan) said a little while ago, I must confess I have an unclear conception of what was ‘intended by the remarks concerning Articles 41 and 42 of the “Fourth Convention. I understand that the purpose of this bill is entirely different from What Senator Byrne said it is. I understand that this measure specifically makes law in terms of certain provisions of the conventions that shall be justiciable by our own courts, lt is ,not an attempt to ratify the conventions as such.
– That is so.
– If it is the intention of this bill to create offences an ‘terms of some of the provisions of the conventions, I am a little unclear in my own mind as to how Articles ‘42 :and 43 can ‘make -any reservation, qualification, or proviso to the law that is expressed in the statute itself. For instance, clause 7 (2.) .provides -
For the purposes of ‘this section -
a grave breach of the First Convention is a breach of that. Convention involving an act referred to in -Article SO of that Convention committed against persons
Elsewhere in the measure it is provided that a person who, in Australia or elsewhere, commits a grave breach of any of these conventions shall be guilty of an indictable offence. How can a reservation by another term in a convention create an exemption from that offence under our statute law?
– It does not do so.
– I must say that my mind is not clear on the point, but I shall leave the matter there. I come now to clause 9, which provides -
A person subject to naval, military or air force law is not liable to trial in Australia by court-martial in respect of an act or omission if he would not have been so liable if this Parliament and section one of the Geneva Conventions Act, 1957 of the United Kingdom had not been passed.
I assume that if a murder were committed on the high seas, say in the Pacific, it would be possible for a sailor to be charged with murder by a naval court-martial. Would that be a circumstance to which clause 9 is directed? The provision that he would not be liable to trial by court-martial would seem to imply that he would be liable to trial by the civil courts. Of course, the responsibility is with the Crown Law authorities, from whom I will seek elucidation of the point by correspondence. I am totally unclear as to the real purpose of clause 9.
– I think that Senator Byrne was under a misapprehension in relation to the point that he raised.
– I was only seeking information.
Sentaor O’SULLIVAN.- What Senator Wright has said is quite correct. This measure does not ratify the conventions, but it makes provisions whereby our local law shall be in conformity with them. Al Senator Wright has submitted, while a serviceman or a seaman will not be, under clause 9, liable to trial in Australia by courtmartial on a charge of murder, he will be liable to be charged in the civil courts.
– I thank the Minister very much for enlightening the committee on that point. If the effect of this measure is to write the terms of the conventions into the local law - if I can express the position in that way - are we adopting all of the provisions of the conventions, or is it intended that the executive government shall reserve some sections not at the moment disclosed to us?
– As at this point of time - and not looking into the future - what we are trying to do in terms of the conventions is to make offences triable - justiciable - here; otherwise they would not be.
– But only in the specific terms of clause 7 (2.)?
– Yes. At present, the Government has only one reservation in mind. That is in relation to Article 68 of the Civilian Convention. That paragraph permits the imposition by an occupying power of the death penalty on a protected person only in certain cases provided that the offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory before the occupation began. The reservation will be to the effect that Australia will not be bound by this proviso. A similar reservation has been made by both the United States and the United Kingdom. From a service point of view, the reserva- tion is considered essential, lt is obvious that the authorities of territory might, in anticipation of occupation, alter the law to remove the offences concerned from the list of offences punishable by death and thus seriously weaken the position of the occupying power in relation to acts of sabotage and the like.
– Can the Minister indicate the clause that makes that reservation?
– It is not shown in the bill; it is an executive reservation.
– And there may be other executive reservations?
– As I have said, this bill does not ratify the conventions; it merely alters the local law to conform with their provisions. The ratification will be done by executive act, and the present, or future, reservations are or will be by executive act.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 1765
– I present the third report of the Printing Committee.
Report - by leave - adopted.
page 1765
Debate resumed from 4th December (vide page 1727), on motion by Senator Spooner -
That the bill be now read a second time.
Senator KENNELLY (Victoria) [3.56). - The bill has for its purpose the placing of Christmas Island, in the Indian Ocean, under the administration of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is at present under the jurisdiction of Singapore. Great emphasis has been placed on the fact that it is not the Christmas Island in the Pacific Ocean.
The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner), in his second-reading speech gave us some rather interesting history. In view of all the circumstances, we shall take that as read, understood and remembered, but I am particularly interested in two aspects. The Minister said that the population consisted of 2,000 Chinese, 500 Malays, and 150 Europeans. I take it that when the island comes under Australian jurisdiction, people who are born on the island will automatically become Australian citizens. I do not want to raise the currently vexed question of the White Australia policy, but that could very easily become involved.
The Minister said that the Government has agreed that British subjects normally resident on the island will have the option, at the time of transfer, of acquiring Australian citizenship. I take it that people who are born on the island after that time will be in the same position.
– Yes. If those people desired to come here, there would be a very interesting problem from the point of view of the Department of Immigration. I am delighted that this action has been taken after consultation with and obtaining the full consent of the New Zealand Government. I suppose that that was not the Government which was elected last Saturday, but let us hope that the incoming New Zealand Government would have acted in like manner.
Seemingly, there is a financial consideration in the transfer. The Minister intimated that Singapore was to receive 20,000,000 Singapore dollars, which is equivalent to £A2,925,000. I do not know whether Senator Hannaford, who is interjecting, would, with the keen economic mind that he displays here at odd times, regard that as a fair price for the phosphate that is there.
– I know the value of superphosphates to Australia.
– And I know it, too. There will be a levy upon the phosphate produced on the island. The Minister said -
I should stress that this will not result in any significant increase in the price of phosphates in Australia. . . . 1 should have been happier if the adjective had been omitted.
– The honorable senator has a very suspicious mind.
– No. It is just that I would like to know what the effect will be.
– If it is not significant, why worry?
– Senator Hannaford knows what these airy phrases mean. There is another aspect of this matter that is important to Australia. In the councils of the world, at times we have been adversely criticized - whether rightly or wrongly - for what we have done for the people in the external territories under our control, with particular reference to Papua and New Guinea. The whole economic life of Christmas Island centres on one industry. I have no idea of the conditions of employment of the Chinese, Malays and Europeans, but I hope that when our authorities take control of the island they will ensure that these people have a standard of living commensurate with the work that they are doing, as high as, or even higher than, that which they would enjoy in their own countries. If that is done, it will help Australian representatives when the United Nations debate the conditions of backward peoples - if I may use that term, for want of a better one, in this context. Our representatives will be able to say, “ We have done all that we should have done to improve the conditions of these people “. I do not know what conditions now apply, but entering upon this new phase and taking control of the island we should at least satisfy ourselves that the conditions are fair and in accordance with what we believe they should be. If we do that, we shall be able to answer queries in the United Nations which we have not been able in the past to answer to the satisfaction of everybody in this chamber.
I do not want to take up any more of the Senate’s time. I could have dealt with the question of the citizenship of the inhabitants of Christmas Island upon its transfer to Australia, but if the Minister’s statement in his second-reading speech is in line with practice, there cannot be any great objection After all, not very many of the inhabitants of Cocos Island or even Papua come here, and those who do have a permit. I am only hoping that we are not faced with an awkward situation in connexion with our White Australia policy, in which both parties believe.
I am delighted with this further step in the right direction. Great Britain has been very wise, over the years, in granting to people the right of self-government. Now the people of Christmas Island are to come tinder the jurisdiction of Australia. I believe that Australia will do all that she ought to do for them.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 1767
Debate resumed from 4th December (vide page 1731), on motion by Senator Cooper -
That the bill be now read a second time.
.- I merely want to round off what I was saying last night in support of this measure. I feel that the Government has every right to be pleased with the way in which its health scheme is working and the way in which the people are beginning to appreciate and accept all phases of it, despite the views expressed by members of the Labour party in opposition to it.
I pointed out last night that approximately 6,000,000 people are registered with various hospital and medical benefits schemes and enjoying benefits under our social services legislation. In addition, a great many people are receiving free hospital and medical treatment under our Repatriation Act. The position is that the great majority of the Australian people are now enjoying benefits under our national health scheme.
It is interesting to note also from the Minister’s second-reading speech that in the last five years £37,000,000 has been paid out by way of hospital benefits in Australia. I have much pleasure in supporting the motion for the second reading of the bill.
.- Like other honorable senators on this side, I am not at all satisfied with the present position in connexion with medical benefits.
Whilst we recognize that the measure before us does seek to effect some improvement in one direction, we also appreciate that in order to participate to the full in the benefits proposed by the measure, contributors, who are mainly workers, will need to pay a considerable sum by way of additional insurance contributions.
Senator Marriott referred to the statement of the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) in his second-reading speech that nearly 6,000,000 Australian citizens are contributing to this fund, compared with 1,900,000 in January, 1952, when the scheme was introduced. I cannot see that the Government has anything to be proud of in that fact. After all, it must bc admitted that the present exorbitant charges levied on the sick for hospitalization make it necessary for people to make some sacrifice in an effort to bridge the gap between the amount of social service benefits they receive and charges levied by hospitals. In those circumstances, this scheme becomes virtually a form of compulsory insurance. We often hear honorable senators on the Government side complain about compulsion, yet they support the embodiment of that principle in this legislation.
We have found that a considerable number of people whom we thought were entitled to benefits under the Commonwealth scheme are being denied that right, and amongst that number are many pensioners. It is regrettable but true that the Government, on its own admission, was under pressure from the British Medical Association when it decided to amend the eligibility provisions to exclude certain pensioners from obtaining medical benefits under the scheme. I say that because a little while ago a representative of the Australian Railways Union wrote to the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton) complaining that certain of the union’s members who contributed to a superannuation scheme which entitled them to certain benefits upon retirement now find that, because of the superannuation they receive, they are not entitled to participate in the pensioner medical benefit scheme. It may be thought that some of the employees in the Victorian railways service are well provided for, but when we examine the conditions under which most of them have become entitled to the superannuation, which debars them from participating in Commonwealth medical benefits, we appreciate that they have made an extreme sacrifice in contributing to the superannuation scheme.
When the superannuation scheme was introduced, many of the employees were well on in years. They were compelled until they were 40 years of age to take out the number of units relevant to the grade in which they worked. Some were not able to take out the maximum number of units and contented themselves with contributing for the minimum number they were obliged to take. This guaranteed them £1 a week at that time. That payment has since been increased as the result of an amendment to the legislation governing the superannuation scheme. When they reach the retiring age and are within the appropriate salary group under the act, they are entitled to take up additional units.
Believing that they would be protected by the provisional medical benefits under the Labour government’s scheme, those men made a great sacrifice by putting their savings into the superannuation fund so that they could contribute for sufficient units to guarantee them a reasonable pension. The maximum was £.15 a week. That is the margin that debars a person from obtaining an age or invalid pension. Now they have put all their assets into the superannuation fund to buy a pension, and the Commonwealth Government is not called upon to pay them a full pension. The amount of capital they had would not have relieved the Government of that payment, but when they contributed to the superannuation fund for additional units, believing that they would come under the medical benefits scheme of the Commonwealth, they were quite satisfied.
However, at the request of the British Medical Association the Government altered the act retrospectively. Now we find that there are two classes of officers who are participating in the scheme. Those who retired before 30th October, 1955, were able to consolidate their position before retirement and obtain the maximum permissible cover, plus medical and hospital benefits. Those who have retired since, although they have contributed to the fund, are not entitled to those benefits. That is an anomaly which possibly the Government did not see when the act was passed.
I agree with Senator Cooke that the time has arrived when the whole scheme should be re-examined. The Government should go into the matter thoroughly. It should not have pensioners divided into classes. AH should participate equally in the scheme.
Of course, if the Labour government’s scheme had been in operation there would have been none of these anomalies. A huge sum of money has been contributed by the people to hospital and medical benefits funds in addition to their contributions to Consolidated Revenue by way of tax. Formerly that money went into the National Welfare Fund. That fund is still in existence although it is hidden under another name. The Government has wiped out the welfare contribution but the money still goes intoConsolidated Revenue from income tax. I believe that a scheme could have been devised to operate without any additional expense to the Commonwealth.
Now we can see the power of the British Medical Association. When the Labour government endeavoured to implement its scheme, the B.M.A. objected, but thisGovernment has had to surrender to the B.M.A. by eliminating some of the pensioners from benefits. In fact, I believe that this scheme was allowed to work only after the Government had promised the B.M.A. that its point of view would be considered from time to time. I think that the Government should re-examine the ramificationsof the medical benefits scheme as it applies to all pensioners. I submit the matter to the Minister for Repatriation for consideration.
– in reply - The debate on the bill before the Senate has covered a very wide range of health and social service benefits when in fact the measure merely deals with the additional’ hospital benefit that is provided by the Commonwealth. However, I shall endeavour to answer some of the questions that have been asked by honorable senators. Senator Sheehan said that medical benefitswere not given to certain persons who have had an age or invalid pension since October, 1955. A permissible limit of income wasthen placed on a pension, plus other income. I point out that those pensioners arereceiving, or can receive, up to £6 7s. 6d. a week if they are unmarried or £12 15s. a week if they are married. That is a reasonable amount.
– But they dissipated their assets in order to obtain that benefit.
– Yes, but when they had the assets they were getting benefits, and now that they have dissipated their assets they are getting good interest on their money. There must be a limit somewhere. Honorable senators know that the maximum amount of income and pension allowed a married couple is now £15 15s. a week. They can receive up to that amount and still receive social service benefits. The amount that they would have to pay as members of a medical or hospital benefits fund is very small. Much has been said about the social services contribution and its amalgamation with taxation revenue. When this Government came into office it made that arrangement because it thought that was a better system than that under which the contribution was paid into the National Welfare Fund. The amount contributed has not been altered.
– But the taxpayer is still paying taxes as well as his contribuiton
– He is paying less tax than he was paying before this system was introduced. That applies particularly to persons on the lower incomes. Senator Ashley said that a single man on £13 10s. a week was taxed £52 a year and that he received no benefit as he had to contribute for hospital or medical benefits. Senator Ashley said that that man received nothing at all from what might be termed the National Welfare Fund. A single man who is paying £52 a year in income tax has to contribute only 9d. a week or £1 19s. a year to qualify for the special Commonwealth hospital benefit of 12s. a day. The contribution payable by a single person without dependants to qualify for the full Commonwealth medical benefit is ls. a week, or £2 12s. per annum, and the total contribution payable to qualify for hospital and medical benefits is ls. 9d. a week, or £4 lis. per annum. That is a very low figure. The tax payable by a married man is £34 per annum, compared with £52 payable by a single man, so I cannot see how a married man who is in receipt of £13 10s. a week will suffer any real hardship.
When Senator Anderson was speaking, Senator Ashley asked, by way of interjection, how many beds were available in public wards. Figures which I have had taken out for the quarter ended 30th September, 1957, show that in New South Wales the number of bed-days in public wards was 1,047,000, in non-public wards 244,000, in private hospitals 530,000, a total of 1,821,000. In other words, more than one-half of the people who were hospitalized in New South Wales were admitted to public wards. So it is wrong to say that people cannot get into public wards.
I refer finally to the National Welfare Fund. Senator Ashley and other honorable senators opposite have said that when Labour left office there was about £186,000,000 in the fund. I point out that the fund is reimbursed from revenue collections each financial year to the extent that it is estimated will be necessary. For the present financial year, 1957-58, a sum of £244,000,000 has been transferred from general revenue to the fund. That is much greater than the balance of £186,000,000 that was in the fund when this Government assumed office. As costs rise - and they will - the fund will be recouped to the extent that it becomes necessary.
I am very glad that the bill has been received so well. I think it will prove to be of great benefit to those persons who are insured and to the hospitals, because that is where the money is spent eventually; they receive the Government benefit and also the hospital fund benefits.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
The bill.
.- Clause 2 provides -
The several sections of this Act shall come into operation on such dates as are respectively fixed by Proclamation.
I ask the Minister for Repatriation whether the proclamation of the act will also involve the bringing up to date of the booklet that is issued by the department in relation to the various benefits that are obtainable. One of the complaints that is made by members of the railways organization is that the booklet contains no reference to the alteration in the benefits that are obtainable. Many of these people have been led astray by believing that they were still operating under the old conditions, which guaranteed them a full pension plus medical benefits. Consequently, at very heavy cost, they bought additional superannuation units. They now find that they cannot obtain the pension or the medical benefit.
Will the Minister ensure that the items of information that are made available by the Department of Repatriation, the Department of Health, and the Department of Social Services - they are all lumped together - are brought up to date? When a person desires any information, he goes to a responsible trade union official, who takes the booklet that is prepared by these departments as being the last word. That official passes on the information, only to discover subsequently that he has been led astray. Consequently, these people suffer considerable financial hardship.
– I understand that the booklet produced by the Department of Health is being printed and brought up to date. I think the booklet to which the honorable senator is referring is the social services booklet.
– Yes.
– I shall take up the matter with the Minister for Social Services. I should say that the booklet will have been brought up to date. The Department of Repatriation brings its information up to date as soon as possible after the Budget is presented.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 1770
Second ‘ Reading.
Debate resumed from 4th December (vide page 1728), on motion by Senator Spooner -
That the bill be now read a second time.
.- This bill has been introduced to amend the Superannuation Act 1922-1956, and for other purposes. It seeks, first, to increase the value of a unit of pension by £13 per annum for all those people who retired from the Public Service prior to 14th May, 1942. Since that date, there have been adjustments of salary accompanied by additional pension entitlements. The bill provides also for an increase of £9 2s. per annum to persons who retired after 5th April, 1947. It also provides that the pension for orphan children shall be increased from £39 to £78 and that for other children from £26 to £52 per annum. I notice that the increased payments are to be made retrospective to 31st October. I hope that when the Government is asked again to make pension increases retrospective it will not adopt the attitude that it adopted a month or so ago. The Opposition supports the measure.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 1770
Debate resumed from 4th December (vide page 1729), on motion by Senator Spooner -
That the bill be now read a second time.
– The purpose of the bill is, first, to increase the pensions payable to children of deceased contributors to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund from 10s. a week, or £26 a year, to £1 a week, or £52 a year. It further proposes an increase of the pensions payable to unfortunate orphans under the age of sixteen years from £39 a year to £78 a year.
I should like to know exactly the meaning of the phrase “ or children of a deceased father whose wife has been divorced from him “, used by the Minister in his secondreading speech.
– The father was divorced and died afterwards.
– I thought that was what was meant, but it is expressed in a very clumsy way. The bill also provides for the payment of gratuities to men in the services who serve for more than six years. At present, a man is entitled to a gratuity of £120 after six years’ service. After twelve years’ service he is entitled to a gratuity of £360, or one and a half times the amount of his contributions to the fund, whichever is the greater. lt seems that one of the objects of the bill is to persuade service personnel who have completed six years’ service, but do not feel inclined to continue for another six years, to re-enlist for another three years. Under this bill, such men will receive a gratuity of £120 for the first six years’ service and £30 for each further year that they serve. The Opposition raises no objection, and commends the bill.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
The bill.
.- There is a matter to which I desire to direct the attention of the Minister. In the first schedule there is a departure from titles used previously. This was pointed out by the Minister in his second-reading speech, when he said -
At the same lime the opportunity is being taken to make several other amendments, the principal ones being the payment of a new rate of gratuity consequent upon variations in conditions of service of members of the Permanent Defence Forces and changes in title or rank to accord with Service policy or regulations.
I should like the Minister to give the reason for the change of the titles used in the Australian Army Nursing Corps from matron-in-chief, principal matron, matron, senior sister and sister to colonel, lieutenantcolonel, major, captain and lieutenant respectively. The’ old designations are of long standing.
A specific case has been brought to my notice of a member of the Army Nursing Corps who was gazetted as a matroninchief, with the substantive rank of lieutenantcolonel. I contend that she is entitled to those additional units of superannuation in accordance with her salary, which is that of matron-in-chief or colonel. I should like the Minister to make quite clear the reasons for this change from the titles of matron-in-chief, principal matron, matron, senior sister and sister. If it is necessary to make this change in the Army, why is it not also necessary to make it in the Air Force and the Navy? It seems to be a big departure from practice, but not one reason was given for it by the Minister in his second-reading speech.
– A change of designation could not conceivably have anything to do with superannuation rights. Superannuation rights are based upon contributions, and contributions are related to salary or remuneration. Whether the person concerned has one title or another does not affect his or her superannuation entitlement. That is determined by the rate of pay. There is no connexion between the two things.
As to the change in the titles, my feeling may be similar to that of the honorable senator, but the bill merely gives effect to the wishes of the services themselves. The services want this change to be made. I think the honorable senator and I both have to agree that in the final analysis the senior officers controlling the services can gauge the feeling of the various ranks. They would not suggest something that was nol acceptable or, indeed, was not popular. From my reading of the schedule, in the Army a matron-in-chief will now be known as a colonel, whereas in the Air Force she will retain her title of group officer. Not much else than that could be done. We cannot call a matron-in-chief in the Air Force a colonel. We must use a rank that has a tradition behind it in the particular service. In other words, a matron-in-chief in an Army establishment would be described as a colonel. In the Air Force she would be a group officer and, although it is not specified here, I would think that in the Navy she would have a similarly appropriate classification.
.- I should like an assurance from the Minister that he will assist me to clear up this matter, because the change in title and designation has had an adverse effect upon the superannuation rights of an actual matroninchief. The lady in question was gazetted as a matron-in-chief but, for some reason, was unable to take out her full twenty units as a matron-in-chief. Now she has the rank of colonel, but has not been so gazetted and is therefore not entitled to take out the extra units, as she would wish. I should like the assurance of the Minister for National Development that he will assist in seeing that justice is done to this matroninchief and that the change in title will not take away any of her superannuation or other rights.
– I hesitate to give an assurance to the honorable senator because these matters are invariably technical in nature. I am advised that in the services pension rates are based upon the pay applicable to substantive rank, as distinct from temporary rank. The matron in question may not yet have been allotted a substantive rank - if she is so entitled. However, the pension is tied, not to the rank, but to the substantive rank, held. - Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 1772
Debate resumed (vide page 1747).
.- There are three bills dealing with diesel fuel tax and I ask that honorable senators be permitted in this debate to refer to all three.
– There being no objection, that course may be followed.
– The Budget contained an announcement that a tax of ls. a gallon would be imposed on diesel fuel, and the Government proceeded to set up the necessary machinery. It was not intended that the tax should apply to diesel fuel used in primary production. However, the farmer was to pay the tax and obtain a rebate every quarter. Pressure was then brought to bear on the Government by the farmers - and they can bring very real pressure to bear. Though I think they “ought to be looked after, the pressure that they exert in politics, especially in my own State, is far out of proportion to their numbers. However, we must face the fact that such pressure exists.
I could not see any hardship in the Government’s proposal, but we were told huge sums would be held by the Treasury for three months, and that much interest would be lost to the farmer. I have never had the opportunity to be a practical farmer in my own right, but, in common with many other people, as I travel round this country I see a great deal of what happens on the land. I have endeavoured to be practical and work out the amount of the rebate that the average farmer would receive each quarter. He would doubtless use diesel fuel in his tractors, in machinery, and perhaps also in connexion with shearing. I was amazed that the Government bowed to pressure as it did.
The way in which the tax is now to be imposed leaves opportunity for grave abuse. It is proposed that a road user - the ordinary transport driver - will pay his tax and see no more of the money. However, farmers and other persons who use diesel fuel other than on the road will receive a certificate of exemption. That is the alternative to the Government keeping for three months the enormous sums to which my Australian Country party friend from Victoria has referred. I should like him now to look at the abuses that could occur. Of course, I am not thinking of any one in particular. Many farmers own motor trucks, in addition to tractors and other farming equipment. They have seen the wisdom of getting their fa!t lambs to the markets as quickly as possible. I know from experience gained many years ago that the fat lamb raisers get the best prices for fat lambs in the bloom. Under the Government’s first proposal, only big users of diesel fuel in other than road vehicles were to be issued with fuel tax exemption certificates. Under the new scheme, all primary producers will be able to obtain certificates entitling them to buy their requirements of diesel fuel from suppliers free of tax; it will not be necessary for those who use less than 20,000 gallons of diesel fuel a year to pay tax and subsequently claim a rebate- We cannot ignore the possibility of some primary producers who escape payment of the tax using their tax-free diesel fuel in road vehicles. How does the Government intend to prevent this from happening?
– Very few farmers own diesel-driven transport trucks.
- Senator Wade knows as well as I do that to-day a large proportion of stock is moved by road vehicles.
– I should say that most of the live-stock is moved in that way.
– Senator Wade has confirmed my opinion. As he knows, large numbers of stock are delivered to Newmarket by truck. If I were a farmer and owned my own road transport vehicle, there would be a tremendous temptation for me to use my tax-free diesel fuel in it.
– More than likely you would not own a road transport.
– As I have said, many fat lamb raisers run their own dieseldriven transport trucks. Some truck operators also raise sheep. Therefore, it will be hard to avoid a suspicion that farmers who own road vehicles will use tax-free diesel fuel in them. In order to police the provisions of the bill, it will be necessary for a number of inspectors to be appointed. When this bill becomes law, steps must be taken to see that it is obeyed. The new scheme proposed by the Minister contains a number of loopholes.
I come now to another aspect of the matter. There are 26 municipalities in the Melbourne metropolitan area, many of which contain parklands and playing areas. Most up-to-date municipalities keep their parklands and playing areas in order by five-gang mowers drawn by tractors. Under the bill, tax will be payable in respect of diesel fuel used in road vehicles. Is it intended that diesel fuel used in tractors operated by municipalities for the purpose I have mentioned shall be subject to tax because the tractors have to travel over the public roads in getting from the depots to the respective parklands and recreation areas?
– Tractors are not classed as road vehicles.
– I am glad to have the Minister’s assurance on that point. However, I have another thought in my mind on this subject.
– Is the honorable senator thinking of the possibility of a ready market in Melbourne for diesel fuel that has been bought free of tax?
– Yes, the thought did occur to me. I think that the Australian Country party has acted unfairly in this matter by insisting on the new procedure, which will cause the Minister a lot of worry.
Sitting suspended from 5 to 8 p.m.
– Prior to the suspension I said that I regretted the alteration of the originally proposed method for the collection of this tax. I believe that administrative difficulties will be caused, and that it will be made easier for a wrongdoer to use diesel fuel without paying tax on it. Earlier, I mentioned the position of municipalities. I understand that appropriate tariff by-laws will be framed, which, no doubt, will overcome the difficulty. I believe that this alteration has been made because pressure was applied to the Government, not only by members of the Australian Country party, but by others.
– I do not know about pressure. There is a difference between pressure and advocacy in this chamber
– I assure the honorable senator that when I used the word “ pressure “ I was not suggesting there was an ulterior motive. I regret that the Government agreed to make this change. The average farmer would not become liable to pay £100 or £125 a year in diesel fuel tax. I think the Senate will remember Senator Wade referring to primary producers’ money being held without interest for three months.
– It is not so much a matter of interest. Fishermen, for instance, cannot afford to have £60 or £70 swinging.
– But they would not. The honorable senator may have a good argument in relation to big trawlers, but I am informed that the average producer would be out of pocket by only about £25 or £30 a quarter. Anyhow, I think that the proposed arrangement will leave the road open to abuse. I hope that I am wrong. If the procedure had been left as it was at first, there would be no need for by-laws to protect municipalities or other bodies, but seemingly the Government is willing to make this alteration. I rose only to express our view, because I think it is the correct view. I do not think that the originally proposed method of collection would have imposed any hardship.
– Before the bill passes through the Senate, I desire to extend my thanks to the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty) and his officers, for the trouble that they went to in order to overcome the difficulties that the primaryproducing section considered were inherent in the bill as originally drafted.
Senator Kennelly said that the farmer might not have a great amount of money outstanding. One of the principal objections to the original procedure was that it would involve the filling in of forms. The farmer is already pestered with forms of one kind or another, and under the original procedure another form would have been added. It would be quite easy, when buying diesel oil, to omit making a record of the purchase, and if a false return were submitted the farmer would be liable to a penalty. In Western Australia - I do not presume to speak for any other State - very few farmers have diesel trucks. They are very expensive vehicles, costing well over £2,000, and there would not be enough work for a diesel truck on a normal property. Most diesel trucks are owned by general carriers doing contract work. They use diesel fuel and will have to pay the duty of ls. a gallon.
Other means of overcoming the difficulty were suggested to the Minister. One suggestion that appealed to us most was that diesel fuel should be coloured - that there should be one colour for road users and another colour for persons who used diesel fuel only on a property for machinery, tractors and so forth. It appeared to us that such a system would ‘be very easy to operate, because if a man were caught on the road using oil of the wrong colour in his machine, he would be for it. The Minister said that he would find out whether that system could be used, but later he assured us that it was not practicable, and we readily accepted that assurance.
I assure Senator Kennelly that I received from Western Australia quite a number of letters of protest against the original proposal, including one forwarding a very strong resolution from the Farmers Union. Senator Kennelly fears that a few farmers with diesel trucks would use untaxed diesel fuel. I do not think that the possibility of that is as great as he thinks. I know farmers. If one farmer had on the road a diesel truck in which he was using tax-free diesel oil, and his fellow farmers saw him doing so, it would not be very long before the matter became known to the authorities. Speaking for Western Australia, I do not think that the fears expressed by Senator Kennelly will prove to be well founded. Farmers do not buy diesel oil at garage bowsers. They buy it in quantities of 30 or 40 drums at a time. It is brought out to the farms and used there in the farm machinery.
Generally speaking, a farmer has a petroldriven truck and car. He does not want a diesel truck to take fat lambs to the market. Lambs transported by road in trucks are subject to much more bruising than those which are sent by rail. Road transport of lambs is used only by those farmers who are very close to saleyards, perhaps within 20 or 30 miles. Farmers at a distance from the saleyards use the railway. A farmer would not keep a diesel truck just to get a few lambs to market. It would be more useful for the transport of wheat, superphosphate or other heavy commodities.
On behalf of the primary producers, I thank the Minister again for the very great trouble to which he went in devising means of overcoming their difficulties. I assure the Minister that the primary producers of Western Australia will do their very best to ensure that the provision will not be abused.
– I thank the Senate for its reception of the bill. I do not minimize the difficulties to which Senator Kennelly has referred. The policing of these schemes is not easy. The method of collecting the tax which was originally proposed had great advantages from an administrative point of view, but my department accepted the challenge and . devised another system which we believe we shall be able to police effectively. The department will have investigating officers who will check on the owners of certificates and the number of vehicles they have. Each week, the department will receive from the various oil depots throughout Australia particulars of the amount of each sale together with the certificate number. Those particulars will be collated and put over the department’s machines. In that way it will be possible to keep a close check on what dieselene goes out from customs and what is sold in the various depots throughout Australia. We believe that the system will prove satisfactory. In my opinion, these things are proved best during usage and when this scheme is in operation, we shall see whether we are right or whether wc have erred a little on the generous side.
We have investigated the question of colouring. It was put to us that the adoption of colouring would involve oil companies in heavy expenditure on equipment. They would need to have special storages in the depots throughout Australia and in the tremendous number of agent depots. One matter that has surprised me is the number of agent depots there are throughout Australia. I had no idea there were so many. But we did examine the question of colouring, and I believe that the position is in hand now. I am sure the Treasury will be keeping a very close watch on it because, after all, this tax is to be used to help provide the finance to be made available under the federal aids roads legislation which we have just passed.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
The bill.
.- There are one or two matters to which I wish to direct attention. It will be noted that clause 7 provides that where a collector, for special reasons otherwise directs - that gives power to the collector - a rebate is not payable unless application for the rebate is made within the prescribed period and otherwise in accordance with the regulations. 1 should like the Minister to inform me whether there is anything envisaged as to the ambit of those regulations, noncompliance with which precludes the payment of a rebate.
Some difficulty arises in considering a bill in committee when it is taken as a whole, but, if T am not confusing the issue, the next provision to which I should like to refer is clause 12 (3.), which provides -
A person who uses diesel fuel to which this section applies in propelling a road vehicle on a public road shall, within 21 days after that use, notify a Collector, in writing, that he has so used the diesel fuel.
If I understand aright the system adumbrated by that sub-clause the person who wishes to obtain diesel fuel must first get a certificate. He presents the certificate when buying the dieselene. Then, as I understand the provision, he is obliged to notify the collector within 21 days after he has used the fuel. After he has used what quantity? If a man buys two 44-gallon drums, when does the obligation under this provision attach? It is obviously not an obligation to notify within 21 days after having made specific use of a tractor.
Then I notice clause 15, which is quite interesting in relation to the argument put up by the Government the other night in support of the Air Force canteens regulations. It will be noted that where the court has power to fine a person under clause 9 (4.), it also has power to order the payment of any amount of rebate that has been wrongfully evaded. To implement that, clause 15 enables an order of a court of summary jurisdiction to be filed in a court of civil jurisdiction and thereupon process is issued. I just mention that in passing.
I should like the Minister to justify clause 12 (4.), which involves our old friend - the “ satisfaction of the collector “. The subclause reads: -
A person who is or has been the owner of diesel fuel to which this section applies, shall, when so requested by a Collector, account to the satisfaction of that Collector for that diesel fuel. lt leaves to the collector the entire decision as to what is a satisfactory account. We debated this point when dealing with a customs bill, and I might say that I think subsequent experience will confound the Government’s contention with regard to it, but that may be too optimistic an expression of confidence. I know the customs department places great faith in the unchallengeability of the opinions of its officers. It is the same with everybody who gets a little power. He likes to be considered in law as infallible. When we give a power to punish by fine a person who is the owner of diesel fuel or to require a person, “ when so requested by a Collector, to account to the satisfaction of the Collector for that diesel fuel “ it may first of all raise the question as to whether that person has used the diesel fuel otherwise than in a road vehicle on a road. That is an obvious case of an unsatisfactory account, but it leaves to the collector the entire decision of the question. It may also involve such things as fire and theft against the owner’s will. With great respect to them, individual collectors and inspectors have all sorts of opinions as to what constitutes a satisfactory account in regard to these matters.
I wish now to refer to clause 17 of the bill. It will be noted that sub-clause (1.) provides -
For the purposes of this Act, an authorized officer may, at all reasonable times -
enter any place in which diesel fuel is used or stored and inspect and take stock.
He also has power to enter any place where accounts are kept and he has power to examine vehicles and engines. Some people say an inspector must have power to scrutinize an act. That may be so, but in modern times, of course, we have relaxed the safeguards that lie at the base of a proper balance between authority and freedom. No crime detector has a right to enter my house to investigate a crime without a warrant issued by a Justice of the Peace, and I want to say for the consideration of the Minister and his colleagues that a power to enter a place and search for income tax purposes is being used in Tasmania to a degree which has become as arbitrary as the methods of the tax collectors of Rome or of the Stuart period. As an example of that, I mention that the other day I received a call on the telephone and was told by two income tax officers, “ We want your client to be present at his home on such-and-such a date. We want to inspect the furniture and belongings.” That is all right if one has no sensibilities at all. Then, I had a report the other day on the case of a farmer into whose house officers entered in the evening and insisted upon an inspection of the matrimonial bedroom as to contents and furniture.
– The valuators are doing that now.
– Valuators who go on property for the purposes of valuation cause less offence to the sensibilities of men and their inherent rights of privacy and the sanctity of their homes than do tax gatherers. So, too, when a person is acquiring private property, surveyors are given the right to go on it.
I am not raising the question of valuators and surveyors now, but I am criticizing the unqualified right of tax collectors to go on any one’s property and search without a warrant. The ordinary rule - there are some exceptions - is that no criminal’s home is liable to be searched for evidence of a crime unless a warrant is issued by a Justice of the Peace authorizing the search. An exception is a case where a police officer has witnessed the commission of a crime or it has occurred in his presence. I do not expect the committee to determine this matter now, but I wish to show that the general position is receiving my consideration, and I hope to bring before the committee proposals to review this situation and restore a proper balance between arbitrary authority and the rule of law. That has been done in every democratic country quite recently, and I hope Australia will not leave itself open to discredit in this respect. 1 remind the committee that clause 18 of the bill does not go unnoticed. It continues the things we fume and fret about - the compulsory powers that were given in war-time under which black marketeers were subjected to compulsory inquisition. Clause 18, sub-section (3.) states that a person is not excused from answering the inquisition on the ground that any question asked and the answer might tend to incriminate him- It is an offence for him to fail to attend before an authorized officer or to answer a question. Again, a person’s reaction to that depends upon his sensibility. For my part, the unqualified right of an official to have a question session such as that is wrong- I do not know how many honorable senators have attended an income tax investigator’s questioning of an ordinary farmer or trader or a citizen when all sorts of misinterpretations arise.- I believe that we should reconsider the provision that a man should be compelled to answer incriminating questions. If a person is to be subjected to compulsory questioning, the questions should be submitted in writing or the questions and answers should be taken down then and there and recorded in a transcript, and a reliable record of the unaltered answer should be made at the time. These are vital safeguards of freedom.
We can claim that in this country the last wrappings of freedom still exist. I say that with great respect to the authoritarian system of government that has been growing apace in England during the past ten years. If we are to maintain the elements of democracy, it is important that we should have regard to these matters. I should be pleased if the Minister would give me a clear explanation of the provisions of clause 21 and what to me is an inexplicable omission. The clause states: -
A person shall not present to un officer doing duty in relation to this act or the regulations an account, book or document, or make to such an officer a statement, which is false or misleading in a particular.
Usually, the offence is to make a statement or offer a document which is false in a material particular. Under this clause a person could be prosecuted, and fined the severe penalty of £500, if he produced an invoice which was dated 21st August and it was in fact an invoice for 21st July. Wc have all seen incorrect clerical entries on a document of that kind. I do not suggest that there would be a prosecution in that case, but we who practise in the law courts know that this is an expression of those functions upon which a magistrate is bound to convict.
– Order! The honorable senator’s time has expired.
– As no other honorable senator has risen, I shall take my second period now. Magistrates have spoken to me in recent months about the unreasonableness of some prosecutions in cases where they have felt embarrassed by having to convict upon evidence which showed a legal offence but where the merits were quite absent from the case presented by the prosecution. I direct the attention of the committee to the construction of this clause.
A similar principle was under consideration in the case of the King versus Lord Kylsant. I mention that case because those who are familiar with it know that Lord Kylsant was convicted under a similar section for producing accounts and a balance-sheet of the White Star Line in which not one figure or word was false but in which the profit and loss account showed that the company had paid a dividend, but did not disclose that the dividend was payable not out of current profits but out of reserves. The court looks at the substance of the matter after considering the falsity of it. That was a case where a document was false in a material particular, but in this instance, for some reason, the orthodox formula of requirement of a material particular has been dropped, and the offence has been made the presentation of a document which is false in a particular.
In conclusion, I wish to ask how the fines of £500 under clauses 9 and 21 compare with the fines for like offences in other taxation measures. To my mind, they are very severe indeed. I have some acquaintance with the way in which such laws are administered. I have seen farmers brought before the court on matters like these. I am not here to advocate that in such cases persons should be relieved of proper punishment, but if the maximum fine is overstated, it is a false indication to the magistrate of the gravity with which the legislature regards such offences.
– I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of Senator Wright. This is not new ground that we have covered, because most of these provisions appear in all the customs acts that the Parliament has passed within the last few years. These provisions are included for the protection of the revenues of the Commonwealth. The Department of Customs and Excise has a duty to protect the revenues, whether they are being raised under the customs acts or in the form of the tax for which provision is made in this measure. As Senator Kennelly has well said, approximately 100,000 certificates will have been issued. So it is fair and equitable to suggest that the department should, in this particular instance, have powers similar to those that have been in the customs legislation ever since the customs department was established, and which have always been administered most reasonably. I think that is the crux of the matter. It is easy to build up a case on extreme examples, but, by and large, I think we must look back over the years and ascertain how similar provisions have been administered. That is the test. I think they have been administered equitably and justly in every case.
I have had the pleasure of being associated with the Department of Customs and Excise for about twelve months, and I say without fear in this chamber that whenever a doubt arises about a particular case the departmental officers say, “There is some doubt about this case. The benefit of that doubt should be given to the customer.” I visited the office of the department in Melbourne a little while ago and, for my own satisfaction, got a handful of files dealing with various cases and examined them. I was very impressed by the number of occasions when officers down the line said there was a doubt about the matter and that the customer should get the benefit of that doubt. The fact that similar provisions have been in the customs legislation for so many years is the real test that should be applied when considering the measure now before us.
I know that Senator Wright has in mind certain matters which he has put before honorable senators on a great number of occasions. I understand that the term “ to the satisfaction of the Collector “ has been in the customs legislation since about 1901. It is necessary to include those words because of the peculiar circumstances that arise in the administration of the department. It is well known that over the years people have regarded it as a great game to defeat the department in both small and large degrees. One might almost say that it has been a national sport.
– A sacred duty!
– Yes, it has been regarded as being almost a sacred duty. In many cases, these matters can be brought to the notice of a collector and settled on a basis which very often is equitable to the person concerned. Under Part XV. of the Customs Act, a collector may hear a case if the person concerned is willing to state in writing that he will abide by the collector’s decision. Very often first offenders elect to have their cases heard in that way and are justly treated, the only prominence given to the offence being that it is published in the “ Commonwealth Gazette “. I am perfectly satisfied with the present arrangement. I do not accept these things any more lightly than Senator Wright is prepared to accept them, but I think that the way in which the legislation has been administered over the last 50 years is what counts. I think that the proposed provision can well stand.
.-I should like the Minister to tell me whether it is a fact that, under the income tax legislation, which gives to the Commissioner of Taxation the power to form an opinion with finality, that opinion is reviewable, at the instance of any taxpayer, by an independent board of review. Will he tell the committee whether there is any parallel procedure under the customs legislation which gives that right of review?
Another matter I should like to impress upon the Minister as a matter for serious concern here now is the need for an explanation of the absence of the word “material” in clause 21. It seems to me to be quite wrong for us to legislate that it is an offence punishable by a maximum fine of £500 to present an invoice that is false in a particular, however immaterial it is.
– I am sorry thatI cannot answer Senator Wright’s question regarding the provision in the income tax legislation. I shall give very close attention to the other matter he has raised. I think there is a great deal of substance in what the honorable senator has said. I think it will be well worth while to look at it, and I give an undertaking to do so.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill read a third time.
page 1778
Debate resumed (vide page 1747).
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 1778
Debate resumed (vide page 1748).
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 1779
Debate resumed (vide page 1745).
– With the concurrence of honorable senators, I shall address my remarks both to this bill and to the Excise Tariff Validation Bill 1957. The Customs Tariff Validation Bill, now before the Senate, provides for the validation, until 30th June, 1958, of the collection of customs duties under certain tariff proposals. The Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty) said in his second-reading speech that the time available will not permit of the usual debate on the individual tariff variations set out in the tariff proposals to which the measure refers. The bill is purely a machinery measure and the Opposition offers no objection to it. The Excise Tariff Validation Bill is a bill to validate the collection of excise duties until 30th June, 1958. It also is a machinery measure and no objection is offered to it.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 1779
Debate resumed (vide page 1745).
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 1779
Debate resumed (vide page 1746).
– This bill is the outcome of an agreement between the United Kingdom Government and the Australian Government on the dumping of goods in either country. The governments declared their intention to in troduce legislation that would enable both governments to stop a practice which, if allowed to continue, would hinder the industries of either country. The United Kingdom Parliament, earlier in the year, passed what is known as the Dumping ap: Subsidies Act.
The purpose of the bill, in the main, is to amend the Customs Tariff Act to enable this Government to carry out the agreement entered into between Australia and the United Kingdom. The bill will give the Australian Government legislative authority to impose a special duty on goods that it considers are being dumped in this country by other nations. That is essential to the protection of Australian industries and those employed in them. The Opposition offers no objection to the measure.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 1779
Debate resumed (vide page 1745).
– We are becoming accustomed to the Government bringing down, in the last stages of a dying session, contentious legislation such as this. Apparently this time it has happened because the Government wants to dodge litigation flowing from its 1956 legislation, which inspired great controversy. My colleagues and I were repeatedly told that the Government was going on with the job, notwithstanding any warnings that it received from us. We have before us to-night the result of the Government’s dictatorial attitude at that time. The Government is now in the position of having to admit that it was wrong.
It would be very easy to discuss all the pros and cons of the stevedoring industry. I have no doubt that certain honorable senators would be glad to tell us what the waterside workers have done or have not done, but the fact remains that in 1956, when the 1949 legislation was amended, we did warn the Government of the consequences of its actions. Penalties had formerly been provided for employers - as well as employees - who failed to carry out the instructions of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Board, but the 1956 legislation removed them. To-day the AttorneyGeneral comes here virtually apologizing for that error and proposes that employers should be disciplined. The Government suggests that the transference of the appeal from the Commonwealth Industrial Court to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission will mean that it will be possible to take employers to court, and have a right of appeal to the commission.
Years ago we told the Government that the trouble on the waterfront was invariably caused by the adoption of a dictatorial attitude on the part of the employers, and that there was little attempt to negotiate and overcome difficulties. The Minister now apologizes for the Government’s past actions and says that the Government now recognizes the need to discipline the employer. Under the 1956 legislation the employer had to be taken to the Commonwealth Industrial Court, lt was a very costly procedure and employers traded on that fact. The Government said at the time that the deregistration of an employer would result in his employees suffering, and made it mandatory that only a judicial court should say whether deregistration should take place. That provision is now being removed. It has taken all this time for the Government to find out that the employer should be exposed to the same discipline as is applied to the employee.
We know very well that the appeal has been moved from the court to the commission because of a recent High Court judgment. The Government is trying to avoid the result of its own actions so that, presently when a case goes to the court, it will not be told that the court has no jurisdiction.
We are told that this is a temporary amendment so that the Government can look into the whole matter once again. I appeal to the Government to heed the counsel of Opposition members during the proposed investigations. In the past the Government has refused to listen, and this bill is the result. In 1956 I told the Government that what it was putting in the act would surely be challenged by some union. The High Court has held - in one case anyway - that the court has no jurisdiction, and now the Government is placing the jurisdiction elsewhere - in the hands of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.
Government supporters have told us in the past, and doubtless will tell us in the future, that waterside workers do not use the machinery available to them for appeals but, instead, attempt to settle industrial disputes by stopping work. I invite honorable senators to look at the report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority. They will find there a list of appeals made to the authority at different times. Some have been withdrawn because it has seemed useless to proceed, but of those that have remained only two have been upheld. The others have either been dismissed or resulted in a slight curtailment of the deregistration period. The waterside worker, like many another worker, has reached the conclusion that it is useless to appeal; that he can win only on some trivial, minor matter of no importance. The worker believes that redress and conciliation can be obtained only by stopping work. The Government has forced him into that position because of its attitude in days gone by, when it would not accept the suggestions of Opposition members both here and in another place. When the Government brought down the 1956 legislation it failed to provide for the suspension of the operation of a verdict against a waterside worker until his appeal had been heard. When a waterside worker was deregistered there was no provision for the mandatory postponement of the deregistration pending the hearing of his appeal. But the Government has learnt its lesson. On this occasion, it is altering the act in order to provide that deregistration may be postponed if it is known that an appeal will be lodged.
– That is surely to the advantage and benefit of the unionist.
– I admit that it is a great advantage. What I am pointing out is that it has taken the Government from 1956 until now to adopt the advice that was given to it by the Opposition when this provision was removed from the 1949 act.
– I will answer the honorable senator’s contention later.
– I am pleased that the Government has finally seen the light, but I point out that even now it will not be mandatory for the deregistration to he postponed pending an appeal - it may be postponed. I think that when an appeal is lodged with, say, the industrial commission, by a waterside worker who has been punished by the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, it should be mandatory to waive his deregistration until the appeal is heard. The Government should go a little bit further in this bill than merely provide that the deregistration may be postponed. But putting to one side the question of appeal, the big question, as has been mentioned in the report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, is whether power is given under the 1956 act to postpone the infliction of a penalty.
– No.
– Under this measure, the Government is providing for an appeal to the court. The authority is being given certain power; it may postpone the deregistration. I believe that the Government now realizes that it made a mistake by not listening to the advice of the Opposition in 1956. It should listen to our advice now and make it mandatory that a sentence by the Stevedoring Industry Authority - whether it involves deregistration or standing down - shall be suspended as soon as an appeal is lodged or it is indicated that an appeal will be lodged. If this mandatory provision were inserted in the measure, a waterside worker, instead of being stood down pending the hearing of his appeal, could go back to work in the interim. By this means, he would not lose any pay and his indignation would not be aroused by a government authority standing over him.
I have made these suggestions in good faith. I understand that the Government intends to investigate the position on the waterfront during the forthcoming recess. I hope that before any further amending legislation is drafted the Government will consult some members of the Opposition in order to arrive at the best method of bringing about peace on the waterfront, and that such legislation will not be brought in at the end of a session, but introduced in time to permit of a full consideration of the measure. It should be possible to achieve harmony on the waterfront without continually penalizing the waterside workers. Up till now, there has been no provision for a penalty to be inflicted on the employers. The insertion in the act of such a provision is a step in the right direction. If the Government adopts my suggestion, I think that a tremendous amount of trouble on the waterfront will be obviated. We are not opposing the measure, because we believe that it is a distinct improvement on the 1956 legislation.
– It is a great misfortune, I think, that the Opposition spokesman has expressed a case so full of prejudice and hostility. Senator O’Flaherty expressed the view that it is completely futile for watersiders to appeal to constituted tribunals because they have no hope of winning. That is a submission which I do not think represents the outlook of the Opposition. It is an outlook that is completely discreditable to any responsible member of the chamber, much less a group or party in the chamber. If there is one thing that we can have confidence in, it is the impartiality and independence of the constituted tribunals.
– Did you say impartial?
– My statement i« received with a guffaw. This experience should illustrate the difficulty with which we, on this side of the chamber, are confronted in establishing understanding in the minds of Opposition senators, even those minds that rise to parliamentary levels. The establishment of understanding in the minds of some of the watersiders is correspondingly difficult. The problem is very vexed, and I regret to say that in one important respect at least, this bill makes no contribution to its solution.
I had hoped that I would be spared the responsibility of making any reference to the waterfront until at least two years after the 1956 legislation, but there are a few things in the annual report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority for the year ended 30th June, 1957, that are introductory to the present bill and so provocative that I deem it necessary to make a passing reference to them. On page 18, it is claimed that one of the most important developments during the year was the general improvement in handling rates achieved in many ports. The report states -
The improvement would have been significant in any event, but it is all the more significant because in many cases it was achieved after gang sizes had been reduced.
The reductions in gang sizes took place pursuant to Mr. Justice Ashburner’s award, after he had carefully considered what was the proper principle. The largeness of gang sizes has been an obvious scandal on the waterfront for years. The claim for the improved turn-round forgets to relate to that particular reference the reduction of time lost due to rain. I suppose there is one thing for which any constituted government authority would blush to claim the credit, and that is a drought or flood season; and just because the waterfront was spared the rain does not seem to me to be an occasion for grown men to clap hands.
If we continue to read the report, we see the extent to which the employers have introduced bulk loading and mechanical improvements. It is no surprise that the rate of loading and discharge has improved somewhat. Add to that the other favorable factor - the law of diminishing returns by reason of the restricted trade over the waterfront, first, because of the economical competition of air and road transport, and, secondly, the reduced through-put of port trade, because of import restrictions - and the improvement is, I submit, of less significance than is claimed by the report. But it is a matter for satisfaction that it has been achieved by a combination of all those factors.
In specific relation to this bill, there is in this report something which leads me to ask whether or not the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority is the government of this country or whether there is another government in the country. I refer to what the authority has to say on pages 34 and 35 of the report. After setting out provisions which this Parliament incorporated in the legislation in 1956, the report includes this rather arresting comment at the foot of page 35 -
The failure of the Authority to discipline employers has been the subject of repeated criticism by the Waterside Workers’ Federation. However, when it is remembered that employers were subject to direct discipline by the Australian Steve doring Industry Board in the seven years preceding the 1956 Act, the criticism by the Waterside Workers’ Federation is understandable.
That is the authority’s comment upon the legislation that the Federal Parliament, at the instance of the Federal Government, passed in 1956. I searched in vain through the Minister’s second-reading speech for any comment upon that particular paragraph in the authority’s report. Is the authority in a position to say in its annual report that the failure of the authority to discipline employers has been the subject of repeated criticism by the federation, but when it is remembered that we, the authority, had the direct right of disciplining employers before Parliament made such a mistake in 1956 as to change the method of discipline, the federation’s criticism is understandable? I like the comity which exists between this authority and the Government.
– It is no comedy; it is a tragedy.
– I did not say “ comedy “; I said “ comity “ - “ amicitia “, as Cicero would have expressed it.
Now we approach the provisions of the bill, and what are the circumstances? The High Court, on 22nd November, by a majority decision of four to two, delivered a judgment wherein it referred to provisions in the industrial arbitration legislation, and said that the revision of the rules of industrial organizations resulting in the deletion of any particular rule from the register or set of rules by reason of the rule being arbitrary, tyrannical, or unreasonable, was not a judicial function, and that it was therefore, inappropriate to entrust it to the Industrial Court. The High Court said that it was an administrative function appropriate to the registrar of the commission, and that the revision of any rule that was improperly included was a matter to be dealt with administratively by the commission.
Well, both Mr. Healy, and others at his instance, conceive the parallelism between that problem and the right to registration of a waterside worker, an individual member of the community who derives his entitlement to work in this industry from the fact of registration. This legislation is conditionally to go into operation, because the Government has reserved the right to proclaim it if the challenge to these provisions is successful, and not to proclaim it if the challenge is unsuccessful. The conditional operation of this measure that is sought from Parliament is based upon the viewpoint that a watersider’s right to work, conditioned upon his registration as a waterside worker, is not . a right which, when cancelled, is properly presented to a court of justice as a matter of justiciable issue. I merely state the problem, and I state that the viewpoint has been adopted as a legitimate possibility on which to base conditional legislation.
For myself, I have difficulty in seeing the parallelism, but I have no objection to that conditional legislation because I, for one, join with the Government and - despite the abuse - with Senator O’Flaherty, in maintaining that when we introduce arbitrary legislation that makes the engagement in an industry of either an employee or an employer dependent upon a government board’s registration of that individual employee or employer, either of those persons whose registration is cancelled should immediately have access to the best court in the land to get justice according to law for the protection of his indivdual rights.
– What do you mean by justice?
– Nothing that the honorable senator would understand to-night.
– I would understand it if you could explain it.
– Do not encourage him.
– Now now! He needs no encouragement, but he will be provoked by the lack of it. The next point about this bill is one that I find quite interesting. Somebody has started wheeling the barrow which contains the loaded argument that there is insufficient provision in this legislation to discipline employers. So in section 33 we are to have a provision, expressed in alternatives, relating to offences committed by an employer. Paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.) now provides that a registered employer - shall not act in a manner whereby the expeditious, safe and efficient performance of stevedoring operations is prejudiced or interfered with.
I do not offer any apologies for reminding the Senate that when this legislation was before the Senate in June, 1956, I said that the vagueness and generality of that language was no credit to the legislature. I likened it to the dragnet provision in military law, whereby an offence is constituted if a soldier does an act to the prejudice of good order and military discipline, when everybody knows that that includes anything a soldier may do from blinking his eye to going to sleep on guard. Here an offence is created by the breach of the provision that a registered employer - shall not act in a manner whereby the expeditious, safe and efficient performance of stevedoring operations is prejudiced or interfered with.
Due to some complaints, the view has been taken that an employer should be liable to a penalty if he acts in a manner whereby either the expeditious or the safe or the efficient performance of stevedoring operations is prejudiced or interfered with. I say that the whole thing is a disgrace to the legislature. It does not with sufficient particularity create an offence in such a way as to give any protection to an individual person. Under that provision, a court has such a wide ambit of discretion as really to leave the offence indefinitely and too vaguely defined. The next amendment which is obtruded on Parliament is in paragraph (b). The original provision was that an employer shall provide proper supervision of the performance of stevedoring operations by waterside workers engaged by him. The viewpoint has been put that if he provides proper supervision at the commencement of the job he is in some way exempt from the obligation of providing it during the operation. The attempt made to heal it is to add the words that he shall “ at all times “ provide proper supervision of the performance of stevedoring operations by waterside workers engaged by him. I should think that what should be said, if the doubt was that his initial obligation might not continue for the duration of the job, is that he shall provide “ and maintain “ proper supervision of the performance of stevedoring operations. But no, the appropriate phrase which is sponsored by the bill is that he shall “ at all times “ provide proper supervision!
Then it is said that the employer is not subject to the same rule of discipline as the employee. The stevedoring industry authority, as I have said, comments upon the fact that the employer is taken out of the direct discipline of the authority. I have had this bill before me for only a limited time and, with other duties, I cannot pretend to be familiar with it, but I rely upon the Minister to correct me if I say anything that is wrong. [Quorum formed.] I am most obliged for the interruption. It enabled me to get the thread of the provision that I wished to approach. Of course, a man who calls a quorum on the last evening before a Christmas recess is a peculiar individual in this place.
What I was about to say was that I believe that there is a provision in the act that makes an employer subject again to the same direct jurisdiction from the stevedoring industry authority. I submit that under the provisions of section 33 of the act the employer is subject to very wide and indefinite obligations, and the administration of those obligations should not be entrusted to any tribunal other than a court of law. When the Attorney-General reminds himself of the language in which the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority expressed itself in the Melbourne Steamship Company’s case, in which the High Court had to intervene, and the resentful terms in which it expressed itself at having its jurisdiction interfered with by the courts of law, he may agree that an authority is not the proper body to administer jurisdiction over deregistration of an employer. I find it quite unencouraging, therefore, to have amendments to this effect in this bill.
The last word that I wish to say relates to Senator O’Flaherty’s observations as to the proposed new section 37 (a). He completely misunderstands it. The act at present provides that when a suspension is ordered the authority may immediately postpone the operation of the suspension if a notice of appeal is given by the person affected. But we must go out of our way to pander to potential appellants and, if it is inconvenient for the appellant to lodge his notice of appeal for a day, the attention of Parliament must be engaged with this provision to enable the authority to postpone the suspension while he makes up his mind as to whether he will appeal!
Under the present legislation, as soon as the notice of appeal is given, the authority has ample and explicit power to postpone the suspension. Section 37 (3.) provides that the authority may postpone the operation of the suspension pending determination of the appeal. Now it is proposed to provide that the authority may, if it is satisfied that the waterside worker whose registration has been suspended intends to appeal, postpone the operation of the suspension.
– I would make it mandatory.
– Of course, rigid intellects like Senator 0’Flaherty would just direct courts or authorities as to what they should do. It is much better to leave them with an element of discretion because, by and large, these people do act justly. I am merely pointing out that all this provision is addressed to is the position where power of postponement of the operation of suspension arises only when notice of appeal is given or where the authority is satisfied that a person suspended from registration intends to appeal. That may be conducive to good discipline but I should think it is a rather lax position that enables the authority to postpone the operation of the suspension. Even though the suspension in itself is for only 24 or 48 hours, it is designed for discipline, and it is that effect which is intended to be achieved. To make it indefinite, to provide that the suspension itself may be postponed while the appellant makes up his mind whether he is going to appeal is merely to introduce a vacillating process that is conducive to undiscipline.
– in reply - I think Senator 0’Flaherty is under a misapprehension. This amending bill is brought down because of decisions made by the High Court from time to time, and I remind the honorable senator that it is based on legislation passed in 1942. If the honorable senator’s memory is as good as mine, he will remember that the Labour party was in power until 1949. Therefore, it had ample opportunity to amend the provisions. I believe that honorable senators on both sides of the chamber want peace and harmony in industry, particularly on the waterfront. It is of vital importance to us all.
– On whose terms?
– I spoke of peace and harmony, and there cannot be peace and harmony in Australia unless all sections work together to that end. Happiness and peace and harmony cannot be achieved if particular terms are inflicted on somebody else under duress. I know that the Senate will be glad to hear that the dispute on the waterfront has been settled to-day.
The reason for the amendment in the legislation before the Senate is quite simple. When the 1956 legislation was passed, the Boilermakers’ case had been decided by the High Court of Australia, but not by the Privy Council. The act was a hasty piece of legislation and the Government had no reason to anticipate which way the decision of the Privy Council would go. As the decision of the Privy Council was to the effect that the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, as it then was, had no right to exercise judicial function, the legislation then went through. A good deal of the cause and some of the consequences of friction were carried forward from as far back as 1928.
The whole purpose of the amending legislation is to ensure that if the present pending case comes to a question of showing that there is no appeal to the Industrial Court and no statutory provision is made for an appeal to the Industrial Commission, a suspended person, whose livelihood might be at stake, would have no right to appeal anywhere. We do not want to see that state of affairs. This is more or less a suspensory bill. When it is passed the act will not come into force unless it is proclaimed. Whether or not it is pro.claimed will depend on judicial decision. We believe it is most important that a man who is suspended from earning his livelihood in the avocation which he has normally followed should not be placed in the position where he cannot appeal. That is the prime purpose of the measure. It will provide that there will be some effective tribunal to which a suspended person can appeal to have his means of livelihood restored to him. That is the main purpose of the bill.
Senator Wright spoke about section 33 of the principal act to which reference was made towards the close of the second.reading speech of the Minister for
National Development (Senator Spooner). lt has been thought that before an employer is properly amenable to the court with any likelihood of a conviction, a succession of offences must be proved against him. We propose to amend section 33 of the principal act so that instead of proving an aggregation of offences, it will be necessary only to prove that a person has been, guilty of this, or that, or some other offence prejudicing or interfering with stevedoring operations. Surely that is to the advantage of the employee.
– Of course it is!
– The amendment will make an employer more readily amenable to the discipline of the authority. I cannot understand why the Opposition should object to a measure such as this which, one might say, goes out of its way to ensure that any waterside worker-
– The AttorneyGeneral is implying that the Opposition objects to the amending bill. Actually the Government is now seeking to give effect to a suggestion that was made by the Opposition in 1956.
– That is so, but the Opposition took from 1942 to 1956 to think the matter over. One characteristic of this Government is that it is prepared to learn. We are always prepared to listen. We do not close either our minds, our ears or our hearts to anybody who can submit a worthwhile proposition. On this occasion, we are amending the principal act to ensure that no waterside worker who is suspended shall be without the right of recourse to an appeal before a validly constituted authority. He must have some authority to whom he can appeal, and we are ensuring that one is available to him. On the other hand, we are also ensuring that a bad employer, who violates the principles of fair employment that are laid down in the principal act, cannot escape the consequences on a technicality. We propose to make the employer more amenable also to the courts of justice.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 1786
Senator O’SULLIVAN (Queensland -
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Attorney-General). - I lay on the table the following paper: -
International Affairs - Statement by the Minister for External Affairs in the House of Representatives, 5th December, 1957.
Copies of the paper will be circulated to honorable senators.
page 1786
Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) - by leave - agreed to -
That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.
page 1786
Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) agreed to-
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till a day and hour to be fixed by the President, which time of meeting shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.
page 1786
Debate resumed (vide page 1748).
In committee:
– I move -
That the Senate approves the Statement of Heads of Expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to section 36a of the Audit Act.
The statement provides details of expenditure totalling £3,707,089 from an appropriation of £16,000,000 made available to the Treasurer to meet expenditure which could not be foreseen when the Estimates were prepared. Full details of the expenditure for 1956-57, which includes these items, are set out in the Treasurer’s financial statement, which has already been tabled for the information of honorable senators. Various items of the expenditure are also included in the 33rd report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts.
– The Opposition has had an opportunity to study the details in the very lengthy statement that has been submitted by the Treasurer. As the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) has indicated, this is the new procedure in operation. The Treasurer’s Advance of £16,000,000 having in law already been appropriated, the practice of submitting supplementary estimates to this chamber has been discontinued. The opportunity is now presented to honorable senators, pursuant to this motion, to consider expenditure from the Treasurer’s Advance without any further form of appropriation.
The sum relating to the ordinary annual services of the Commonwealth runs to £3,300,000, and the sum relating to capital works and services is some £344,000. Having regard to the fact that the total expenditure last year was in the neighbourhood of £1,200,000,000, the variation is not great. Having regard also to the fact that the total expenditure on capital works and services was well over £100,000,000, the variation of £344,000 is not substantial. An examination of the items relating to each department indicates no change of outstanding substance. There is ample detail as to how the changes are constituted.
The Opposition supports the motion.
.- I rise merely to record the fact that the new procedure, as it has been described by Senator McKenna, is the direct outcome of the deliberations of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and is pursuant to the committee’s recommendation which directed attention to the fact that this money, having been appropriated, did not need to be reappropriated. That prompts me to observe just how valuable the work of this committee continues to be and how valuable the work of committees of the Parliament or of this chamber could be if more use were made of them.
The procedure that is now being disturbed has been followed for very many years, and it was only when the Public Accounts Committee directed its mind to the matter that a procedure that was more logical in law and in practice emerged. That fact, and the fact that such considerable detail is now before the committee reflects very great credit on the members of the Public Accounts Committee, who continue to give their expert scrutiny to matters of this kind. The fact that this statement is presented so late to some degree, in the absence of a supplementry appropriation, deprives honorable senators of an opportunity of debating relevant, and possibly irrelevant matters. I regret that the statement has been submitted so extremely late in the session, but, as Senator McKenna said, the detail is so great and the statement is so clear and explicit that possibly not much debate would have been required in any case. I do place on record that acknowledgment of the valuable work that the Public Accounts Committee is still continuing to perform.
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported; report adopted.
page 1787
– I move -
That the Senate do now adjourn.
I suppose it is because the shadows are lengthening that the years seem to be passing so much more quickly. It does not seem anything like twelve months since I stood here and wished you, Mr. President, and others the compliments of the season. Christmas is almost upon us again.
Since the last occasion on which I spoke in these terms, we have had the misfortune to lose some of our colleagues whose memory will linger with us for a long time. After the hurly-burly is passed, we still have quite a human feeling and a deep affection for those with whom we work, fight, and live.
I am quite sure that, although I cannot always speak on behalf of the Senate as a whole, on this occasion I am speaking for all honorable senators when I thank you for your kindness, consideration, hospitality, courtesy, and fairness in the discharge of your very onerous and responsible duties as President of the Senate. We are very proud of you. Sir. 1 know I shall be supported later; so I am quite sure that I again speak on behalf of all honorable senators when I wish you the compliments of the season. We hope that you will have a pleasant respite and will return to your onerous duties full of vigour.
I should like to thank my enemy, the Leader of the Opposition, for his courtesy to me, sometimes in very difficult situations. Unfortunately, he never does what I ask him to do, but I do appreciate the courtesy that he has extended to me and my colleagues during the year. When all is said and done, I hope we are sensible and responsible people. We are sent here to perform a certain task. We have to do the best we can, sometimes in most difficult circumstances. I think we endeavour to behave as adults and do the best we can, according to our lights, for the cause in which we believe and for the country in which we all believe and to which we are all deeply devoted.
I thank the Clerk and his staff for their efficient, tireless, and selfless devotion, not to the Government or to the Opposition, but to the service of the Senate as an institution. The Senate has every reason to be proud of them and I should like you, Mr. Clerk, to thank your staff for the extremely efficient service they have rendered to the Senate during the last twelve months.
Then there are those about whom it can be said, “ They also serve who only stand and wait “. They do not always stand and they do not always wait. In fact, they seem always to be on the move. I refer to the attendants of the Senate. They deserve our thanks for the very efficient, cheerful, helpful and friendly assistance they have given. It would be impossible for you, Mr. President, to run around handing out papers or to do the other things which the attendants do. It would be impossible for you, Mr. Clerk, to do lots of other things which our attendants do for us so cheerfully and in such a friendly way.
It is invidious to make comparisons, but I think we are all indebted to “ Hansard “. If our speeches were to be taken down literally, how could any of us face our admirers and say, “ This is what I said “? The speeches would look ghastly. We are indebted to the kindly touch of “ Hansard “. Sometimes I have been almost proud of a speech that “ Hansard “ has reported me as having given utterance to. I have regarded it as a magnificent piece of original construction. “ Hansard “ destroys the old house and puts up a modern bungalow in place of the old dump. I do not know how they do it, but they always seem to do it in a way that to me, anyhow, is very pleasing.
Then, of course, we have the press. Or have we? There are still some survivors. Some of my colleagues - both those opposite and behind me - may remember one night this week when we saw the press gallery more crowded than it had been since the Queen was here. However, we did not get a very good report of our proceedings. I wish the press would sometimes say more about the Senate. 1 wish it would sometimes report a debate that has taken place in the Senate. That would be so novel that I am sure the circulation of the newspapers would rise. I commend the thought to the pressmen that, as a novelty, they sometimes report the proceedings of the Senate.
To my colleagues - I include not only my ministerial colleagues, but also those who sit behind me and those at whom I look - I extend, through you, Mr. President, the compliments of the season. I hope that when we come back we will still be able to play a hard, difficult game, each” according to his own lights and according to his own opinions, but I hope also that we will still be friends and colleagues, no matter how our opinions may differ.
In conclusion, let me say, Mr. President, that all would be of no avail unless we had that very important person, the Government Printer. Nobody would know what anybody else had said - that might be a blessing sometimes - unless we had a Government Printer. On behalf of all of us, I congratulate the Government Printer and thank him and his staff for the magnificent work they have done for the Parliament during the last twelve months.
– On behalf of the Opposition, I extend to you, Mr. President, seasonal greetings and good wishes. I support the remarks of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator. O’sullivan). I cannot recall an incident during the past year which even tended to mar the good relationship between you, Mr. President, and the members of the Opposition. To the Leader of the Government, his ministerial colleagues and those who support him, I extend the same good wishes. We of the Opposition have much to express appreciation for in our treatment at the hands of the Government. Things went swimmingly throughout the past year until diplomatic relations were severed recently. I think it is to the joy of everybody that those relations have been restored after the passing, of one bright star in the firmament.
As the Leader of the Government said,, there must be some measure of understanding and co-operation; otherwise the processes of this Senate simply will not run. It may have been an object lesson for honorable senators on both sides of the chamber,, particularly for us, to realize that we were without knowledge of when things might happen. The Leader of the Government’sremarks about the press reminded me that the press has its uses. On Tuesday last, when I found the press gallery filled, that told me just what I wanted to know. I realized that the people up there were harbingers of good or bad tidings. It was better than a Whip to me to see them there. It indicated that I should keep all the members of the Opposition in their seats, and I am pleased to say that they were able to resist the desire for a smoke or even? a cup of tea.
I extend to the members of the Democratic Labour party and the Queensland Labour party the cordial good wishes of the Opposition. Perhaps the Senate will forgive me if I extend to my own colleagues my very sincere thanks for their loyal and steadfast co-operation during the past year. In particular, I pay tribute to the four who, at real risk to their health, came to the Senate to uphold their party’s view in matters that were important to the party. That was very greatly appreciated. I wishthem a speedy and safe journey home, a complete recovery and a speedy return to our midst.
I think, in fairness, I should also express, the Opposition’s admiration of the sense of parliamentary duty displayed by Senator McManus in coming to the Parliament at a time when he had just suffered a grievous bereavement. I know the Senate will be relieved to know that, accompanied by his wife, Senator Arnold left Canberra very early this morning. The plane landed’ safety at Newcastle and Senator Arnold was taken straight to hospital, where he is reported to be very comfortable. The Senate will be pleased to know that he wasable to walk up the steps of the plane. He has asked me to convey to everybody who inquired about him his personal thanks and regards. I undertook to take this opportunity to do that.
I did not realize until quite recently how important a qualification for a senator, particularly an Opposition senator, is some degree of efficiency in pedestrianism. The thought occurred to me to-day that our Whip ought to be put in charge of the training of all the mile runners in Australia, because he can get honorable senators of varying degrees of speed to cover in under two minutes the furlong or two furlongs they have to cover to take their part in divisions in this chamber. I suggest that if he were put in charge of the mile runners of Australia, we would have a group of men who could beat the four-minute mile.
I join with the Leader of the Government in extending to the Clerk and his officers our cordial thanks and appreciation of their assiduous, efficient and helpful service to the Opposition at all times. I express our thanks to the staff of attendants who are invariably at our disposal. I think the Senate is most fortunate in having officers of such calibre from whom it receives such help and co-operation.
I join with the Leader of the Government in expressing our thanks to “ Hansard “. 1 have a confidence in “ Hansard “ that is quite supreme, because I never look at the reports of my speeches.
– We do.
– I have no doubt that I shall hear about it from time to time. I merely indicate my complete confidence that “ Hansard “ will do me justice. I may say that they have warned me that I should read the typescripts; that one of these days I will fall in. I am prepared to take the risk as a compliment to the staff of “ Hansard “, and in appreciation of their courtesy and help.
The Government Printer and his staff do the actual work of making the daily “ Hansard “ possible, and we should extend to them also a cordial thought at this time. We must also remember the staff of the parliamentary refreshment rooms and bars, and the many services which keep this Parliament functioning so efficiently and pleasantly.
To every one in the Senate I say, “ Thank you “, for the good relations that have existed this year. I wish them all a happy Christmas, and good health and prosperity in the new year.
– I should like to give my support to the remarks of the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition. I should also like to thank you, Mr. President, for your great courtesy and fair-mindedness to me and to my colleague. The officers of the Senate have been of immense help to me on various occasions. We have established certain precedents in the Senate this year, and 1 am very thankful for the help that the officers have given me. My appreciation also goes out to the “ Hansard “ reporters. We all know what they have to put up with, and when we read our speeches we feel that we owe them our thanks.
I believe that the press - especially the gentlemen in the gallery - are doing a good job. The press has been criticized because the Senate is not adequately reported in the newspapers. I am sure that that is not the fault of the gentlemen in our gallery, and that it is really a matter of persuading their bosses to recognize the fact that the debates in the Senate are on a much higher plane than those in another place. We are in the unfortunate position of having to admit that when legislation reaches this place most of the sting has gone out of it so far as the newspapers are concerned. The attendants, as always, have been very, very helpful and kindly in performing various services for honorable senators. I should like to thank Senator McKenna for his remarks concerning my party, and wish Senator O’sullivan and all honorable senators present a very happy Christmas. Doubtless, when we come back in the new year, the fight will be on again, and I will be happy to adjudicate in the middle.
– I should like, on behalf of the members of the Australian Country party, to join in the expressions of goodwill that have come from the Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Australian
Democratic Labour party. To you, Mr. President, the staff of the House, and all those who help to run the Senate smoothly, we wish a very happy Christmas and all the best in the coming year, 1958.
.- I feel that, in view of the particular reference that has been made to the Queensland Labour party, of which, because of a certain set of circumstances during the year, I have become the representative in the Senate, I should add my personal felicitations on this occasion, and express my thanks to the Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labour party for their Christmas greetings. In the new political and personal situation in which I found myself during this year many problems arose, and I wish to express my thanks to you, Mr. President, to the officers at the table, and to the staff of the Senate, for the way in which they contributed to the easier and more facile solution of those problems. I deeply appreciate that help. It made things easier - when they could have been very difficult. I do want to place on record the fact that my observations since I have been in the Senate have led me- to the conclusion that this year has presented to those who are experts on the Standing Orders more intricate problems of interpretation than occurred in the preceding five or six years. New situations, requiring a close scrutiny of the Standing Orders, arose. They were keenly debated and, with honorable senators from all parties, I am deeply indebted to the officers at the table for the expert advice and guidance that they have given to us as these situations have developed.
I wish to convey to all members of all parties my personal thanks for their assistance during the year. I reciprocate the felicitations of Senator O’sullivan, Senator McKenna and Senator Cole.
So far as the press is concerned, I merely say that they could be more generous in their reporting of the Senate. If they were, it would at least remove the ignorance of one young fellow in western Queensland who was asked by a school inspector what a senator was. The class did not respond very quickly, but finally one lad had an idea and put up his hand. He confused the term “ senator “ with that mythical beast, the centaur, and said, “ Please, sir, a senator is a strange sort of marsupial seldom seen in these parts “. With a little more co-operation from the press misunderstanding about senators could be relieved, and the public might be made aware of the real merit of the contribution that the Senate is making to national life.
To you, personally, Mr. President, I offer my very best wishes for Christmas and the New Year.
.- I should like to endorse the remarks of my leader and to associate myself with the Christmas and New Year greetings that are being extended to you, Mr. President, to the Government, to the staff, to “ Hansard “ and to the press. Perhaps I may be excused for rising on this occasion because Senator O’sullivan and I are commencing our second decade of Christmas greetings in the Senate. We are beginning to gain some experience of the working of the Parliament!
Senator O’sullivan referred to the lengthening shadows. When I first came to the Senate I was its youngest senator. I have a great ambition to be its oldest senator. I hope that the good fellowship which is always found here at Christmas time will gradually encroach upon the weeks and months of each new year, and eventually become a permanent feature of this place. At Christmas time there is always a great spirit of goodwill, and I believe that until we can make a more intimate approach to our task of legislating for this great country - which temporarily we have the responsibility of governing - we shall have failed our generation.
We are about to end another year’s work. We have come here as the representatives of the people and have completed a strenuous year, a year of crises, a year of great sacrifice, a year which has presented us with a political situation not previously known in this Parliament - one in which men have been prepared to ignore their sufferings and discharge their responsibilities and have given this in order to uphold a principle. I feel that if this spirit can be sustained and maintained, this Parliament will improve in stature.
Mr. President, I should like to thank you personally for the impartiality that you have displayed in the administration of your “high office, and I take this opportunity to wish you the very best for Christmas and the New Year.
I wish to thank all of the officers of the Senate who have carried out their duties so conscientiously this year. In humorous vein, I extend my thanks to members of the “ Hansard “ staff who have done such a magnificent job in interpreting my speeches.
I hope we all face the New Year imbued with the spirit of making Australia an even greater country than it is to-day, as I am sure we shall. I extend to all honorable senators my best wishes for the festive season, and I hope that they will enjoy good health and strength in the coming year. I look forward to exchanging these little niceties at the end of the 1958 sittings.
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMuliin). - I should like to thank the leaders of the parties in this chamber, and Senator O’Byrne, for their good wishes, which I most cordially reciprocate. We have had a very pleasant year; in many ways, it has been a most interesting one.
During these sittings, I have been offered a lot of advice concerning our Standing Orders. During the recess, I shall confer with the Clerk and the ClerkAssistant to see whether the Standing Orders can be improved in the coming year. 1 shall also confer with the Librarian to see whether improved facilities can be provided for research and a wider range of information supplied to honorable senators. I hope that some improvements will be effected in this direction next year. 1 should like to say quite frankly that I think that during the last twelve months the standard of debate in this Senate has greatly improved. My opinion, I think, is shared by the listening public, the watching public and the reading public. The speeches that honorable senators have made in this chamber have been thoughtful and worth-while. In the main, they have not been characterized by many of the political aspects of another place, where at times advantage has been taken of the broadcasting system to address the electors. It has been very pleasing to me to note the interest that is displayed by honorable senators in the welfare of the States that they represent. 1 am glad to say that cordial relations have been maintained with the press throughout the year; we have got on very well together. Although at times the press has advocated the abolition of this chamber, and has done its part to help bury it, I am sure the Senate will continue to be an integral part of this Parliament for very many years to come. The Senate may be reformed, the Senate may be improved, but I believe that there will always be the Senate.
I endorse the good wishes that have been extended to the Clerk, who has given valuable assistance to me, and to the staff as a whole. But for their valuable services, our tasks would be harder and we would not enjoy so high a degree of comfort in this place. In addition to the members of the staff that we frequently see when moving around in this building, there are others whom we do not often see but whose jobs, nevertheless, are as important as those performed by the officers with whom we regularly come in contact. We appreciate the work they are doing and the degree of cooperation they extend in the running of the affairs of Parliament House. As I have said, if it were not for their activities, our task would be harder. To the members of the staff that we see frequently, as well as to those whom we do not see so often, I extend my best wishes for Christmas and the New Year. I include, in these compliments members of the Library staff, who have been most helpful.
All in all, the staff of Parliament House is a very good team, composed of men and women who are interested in Parliament as an institution. They are constantly at pains to make our stay here as pleasant as possible. I thank them all very much for their ready and willing co-operation.
– I, also, desire to make a very powerful speech on this occasion. I extend to all honorable senators and parliamentary officers my best wishes for a very happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 10.16 p.m. till a day and hour to be fixed by the President.
page 1792
The following answers to questions were circulated: -
Atomic Warfare.
Communism.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice -
– The Minister for Trade has furnished the following answers: -
asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -
– My colleague has supplied the following answers: -
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice -
– The Minister for Social Services has furnished the following reply: -
asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice -
– I now inform the honorable senator in the following terms: -
November and close on 17th December. Its objective is to supplement information obtained by the bureau’s geological and geophysical surveys. This drilling should not be confused with the deep stratigraphic drilling which the Government will subsidize in accordance with the provisions of Bill No. 90.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, upon notice -
– My colleague has furnished the following reply: -
The question apparently relates to the measures which have had to be adopted to impose a reasonable limit on the migration of people from southern European and other Mediterranean countries. These measures have been in force since May, 1956. So far as nationals of other European countries are concerned, the numbers wishing to come here as relatives of residents of Australia have not justified any special limiting measures.
The measures adopted in May, 1956, in regard to people in southern Europe, followed a period during which applications for the admission of such persons had been received at a very high rate - so high that it had become clear that if all the nominees were granted visas the annual overall migration intake approved by the Government would be greatly exceeded. It was decided that for the time being visas should be granted only to those nominees who were the dependent relatives, or fiancees, of residents of Australia or were unmarried women between 18 and 35 years of age. Since then, therefore, new applications for other persons have not been accepted, and those already received for non-dependent male relatives have been held in abeyance until such time as visas can be granted without exceeding the approved annual intake.
Applications for the admission of dependent relatives and single women have continued at so high a level that so far it has not been possible to deal with the deferred applications for nondependants or, still less, to accept new applications for such persons. It is anticipated that the rate of nomination of dependants will decrease during the coming year and that it will then be possible to resume dealing with the deferred applications in question. The desire of many new settlers to bring their relatives here is fully appreciated. However, the Government deems it essential that some reasonable limit must be observed in the total annual intake of migrants, and if applications were accepted for all relatives in southern Europe this limit would be exceeded substantially. It has to be emphasized that at no time has the policy been such as to prevent the reunion of family units, in the ordinary sense of man, wife, dependent children, and aged dependent relatives.
asked the Minister representing the Minister acting for the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice -
– My colleague has supplied the following answer: -
The wheat stabilization plan provides for proper allowances for the quality of wheat sold in Australia. Should sales of Western Australian wheat be made on the basis of hard and soft wheals being separated, the Australian Wheat Board would therefore need to arrange for appropriate price differentials to be charged.
asked the Minister representing the Minister acting for the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice -
– My colleague has furnished the following information supplied by the Australian Wheat Board: -
asked the Minister representing the Minister acting for the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice -
– My colleague has replied as follows: - 1 and 2. Yes.
asked the Minister representing the Minister acting for the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice -
– My colleague has furnished the following reply: - 1, 2 and 3. The Government is aware of the position, and has considered it in relation to requests received.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 5 December 1957, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1957/19571205_senate_22_s11/>.