Senate
30 April 1958

22nd Parliament · 3rd Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMuilin) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 661

QUESTION

COLOMBO PLAN

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs whether it is a fact that a Mr. R. E. G. Cunningham has stated that whilst the Colombo plan is a necessity, Australia has wasted millions of pounds on impractical aid to Pakistan, ls it also a fact that the Minister for External Affairs has denied the charge? Further, is it a fact that Mr. Cunningham has renewed his charge, and stated in the “ Sun-Herald “ of Sunday last that 215 tractors, worth about £3,000 each, and huge ploughs and combines sent from Australia would never be used on Pakistan farms; that each farm consists of a few acres divided into small plots surrounded by low earth banks, and that mechanical equipment is useless on these small plots of land? Is it a fact also that the Australian High Commissioner in Pakistan has reported on these matters to the Minister? If so, will the Minister make the report available to honorable senators?

Senator ASHLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– On the same subject, I ask the Leader of the Government whether his attention has been drawn to the serious adverse publicity directed to the contribution of the Menzies Government to the Colombo plan. Is it a fact that farm equipment is rusting on dumps, and that in some cases natives have dismantled harvesters and reapers to make knives and other implements from the steel? What experience qualified the diplomatic staff to supply such equipment as tractors and diesel-electric machinery which is being stripped while lying in the open? Will the Government consider the appointment of an all-party committee of Parliament, to include farmers and other practical men, to visit South-East Asia so that the needs of each country in that area may be examined with a view to avoiding the present wastage of farm and other equipment that could be used to advantage in Australia, and providing food so badly needed in portions of South-East Asia?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Attorney-General · QUEENSLAND · LP

– I have read what purports to be the criticism of Mr. Cunningham of Australia’s contribution to the Colombo plan, and I have also read the reply of my colleague, the Minister for External Affairs, who, I think, adequately and completely disposed of the allegations made by Mr. Cunningham and proved them to be without foundation. I am not aware of any other criticism that has been levelled at the administration by Australia of contributions to the Colombo plan. I am aware, however, that the best available brains - commercial, industrial, grazing and farming - were consulted, both here and abroad, as to the form assistance by Australia under the Colombo plan should take. 1 can quite appreciate that it must be very hurtful to honorable senators opposite to learn how well we are doing in our contribution.

page 661

QUESTION

BANK FOR BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I preface a question directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer by stating that a discussion has recently taken place in the House of Commons relating to the establishment of a bank for the British Commonwealth of Nations. It was stated that the Commonwealth , would wane unless its economic strength continued to increase. The “ Daily Express “ declared that a bank for the British Empire should cease to be a mere idea and should now become a definite plan. Can the Minister inform me whether any discussions have taken place between the nations of the British Commonwealth on this matter? If they have, does this proposal meet with the approval of the Australian Government?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– My understanding of the position is that something in the nature of an informal debate has taken place in the House of Commons, but there has been no government decision upon the matter in the United Kingdom- That being so, there would not have been any representations made by the United Kingdom Government to the Australian Government, and it would be premature to express any views until we see exactly what the proposal, if any, is.

page 662

QUESTION

TARIFF BOARD REPORT ON TEXTILES

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– By way of preface to a question addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, I should like to point out that a large woollen mill in Launceston, Tasmania - that of Patons and Baldwins Limited - has found it necessary to reduce its working week to four days because of the very intense competition it has to meet as the result of the importation of Japanese textiles. In the southern part of Tasmania, the textile printing industry is in dire straits because of the inadequacy of orders from its normal customers. This reduction in orders is due to uncertainty as to what quotas will be allowed into Australia from Japan. Is the Minister aware that the delay in presenting to Parliament the Tariff Board’s report on the textile and textile printing industry in Australia is causing gave concern to the manufacturers and loss of employment to workers engaged in the textile industry? Is it a fact that the report was completed some time ago and is now in the hands of the Minister awaiting consideration by the Government? As this delay is costing both workers and employers many thousands of pounds, will the Minister indicate when the report will be presented to Parliament and when the recommendations contained in it will be implemented?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I have to admit that I do not know the circumstances regarding this report. I do not even know whether it has been completed by the Tariff Board and presented to the Minister. However, I assume from the honorable senator’s question that he has knowledge that it has been completed, and I accept his assurance on that point. But I ask him not to urge over-speedy or incomplete consideration of a report such as this because I know the difficulties and the problems that have to be considered in connexion with reports of this kind. I also know how carefully my colleague, Mr. McEwen, considers the views of the Tariff Board before putting proposals before the Government. I suggest to the honorable senator that the best thing to do in the circumstances is to assure those who are concerned that, in their own interests, the matter will be, indeed I have no doubt it is, receiving mature consideration from the Minister.

page 662

QUESTION

NICKEL

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– I direct a question to the Minister for National Development. What quantity of nickel is imported by Australia annually? What areas in Australia have known nickel ore deposits? Has a patent been granted for the treatment of nickel ore deposits in the Beaconsfield area of northern Tasmania? Has the Bureau of Mineral Resources investigated the Beaconsfield deposits? If it has not, will the bureau undertake an investigation?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I am afraid that I can answer the honorable senator only in general terms. We are very short indeed of nickel ore and the discovery of deposits in Australia, Papua or New Guinea would be of national significance. When I was in Port Moresby recently, specific arrangements were being made to investigate reported nickel ore deposits in that area. I am afraid that I have no information concerning the reported deposits at Beaconsfield. As the honorable senator is aware, mining and related matters are primarily the responsibility of the State Government. The Bureau of Mineral Resources is meticulous in not encroaching upon the activities of State departments of mines. I am sure that the bureau would not investigate the position at Beaconsfield without first receiving a specific request from the Tasmanian Department of Mines. I do not know whether that has happened, and 1 have no knowledge of the Beaconsfield area. I shall obtain what information I can and pa.°s it to the honorable member.

page 662

QUESTION

PENSIONS

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. In view of the fact that the ever-increasing cost of basic commodities and services reacts unfavorably against pensioners and persons on fixed incomes, will the Government give early consideration to liberalizing the income test, and thus allow pensioners to supplement their pensions to a greater degree than is now permissible?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– Amelioration of the means test is in line with the policy of the Liberal party, the Australian Country party and the Government, and almost every budget provides evidence of that fact.

The matter may well be taken into consideration at budget time, but it is not usual to make forecasts as to what the Budget will contain.

page 663

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN REPRESENTATION IN FORMOSA

Senator PEARSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Trade say whether an agreement has been negotiated between the United States of America and Formosa for the sale of a substantial parcel of wheat to that country by the United States? If the sale has been finalized, does the Minister agree that Australia and the Australian wheat industry might well benefit from such trade? Does the Minister agree that this deal may well have been lost to Australia, and that similar deals in the future might also be lost because we have no representation of any kind on Formosa? Does he further agree that our present practice of relying on our representative in the Philippines to cover our trade interests in Formosa has been shown, by this example, to be quite inadequate? If the Minister cannot give me a detailed reply now, 1 ask him whether he would be good enough to bring my questions to the attention of his colleague, the Minister for Trade.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The questions which the honorable senator asks are somewhat penetrating and I would not attempt to deal with them offhand. I ask him to put them on notice and I shall undertake to have the Minister for Trade supply an answer direct.

page 663

QUESTION

BUTTER

Senator RYAN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, or the appropriate Minister, whether Australian butter is now being sold on the British market at an uneconomic price, namely, ls. 9d. per lb. sterling. Is it a fact that, under the Colombo plan, Australia is giving aid to our Asian friends? If so, could not butter consignments be included in our contribution to that aid? Does not charity begin at home, and should not some of our export butter quota be made available at the English price to age pensioners who, according to recent articles in the Melbourne press, are suffering grave malnutrition as a result of lack of butter fat?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I think the question really concerns three departments - the Departments of Primary Industry, External Affairs and Social Services. I will, therefore, ask that the question be put on notice, so that a suitable answer can be obtained. In relation to the honorable senator’s inquiry as to the fate of pensioners and the way the Government is treating them, I can only repeat what my colleague, Senator Spooner, said a rittle time ago. Year by year this Government has taken care of the pensioners and has seen that adequate increases have been made of pension rates.

page 663

QUESTION

ANTARCTICA

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs. What are the geographical limits of Australia’s claim to territory in Antarctica and the adjoining ocean? What are the circumstances upon which Australia’s claim to such territory is based? Is it a fact that at present the Soviet Union has an extensive scientific base located in Antarctic territory over which Australia claims sovereignty? If so, was the base established with the consent of the Australian Government? Has the Australian Government any information on the numbers of personnel at the Soviet base? Finally, has the Government any evidence to suggest that the base is being used for other than scientific purposes - possibly in conjunction with the deployment of Soviet submarines?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The questions raised by the honorable senator are of considerable importance. From time to time my colleague, Mr. Casey, has made statements on most of the points raised by the honorable senator, but so that there will be no mistake as to what the Minister has said, I ask the honorable senator to place his questions on notice so that I can obtain detailed replies for him.

page 663

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister for Shipping and Transport inform me how many ships are being constructed in Australia for the Government at the present time, and the total tonnage involved? Can the Minister indicate whether there will be an improvement in the shipbuilding industry in Queensland within the next twelve months?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I shall have to ask the honorable senator to give me time to obtain the figures relating to the number of vessels under construction and the tonnage involved. As to the possibility of an improvement in the shipbuilding industry in Queensland, I can only point again to the various methods of encouragement of the shipbuilding industry which this Government has extended. We hope that they will do a great deal to help the shipbuilding industry in Australia.

page 664

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator CRITCHLEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to direct a question to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. With your permission, Sir. and with the concurrence of the Senate, I shall make a brief statement in order that the purport of my question will be understood. For some years in South Australia there have been long delays in the installation of telephones in residences and business houses after applications have been lodged with the Postmaster-General’s Department in Adelaide. Let me say that I honestly believe that the South Australian branch, at any rate, of the Postmaster-General’s Department, is doing all it can to overcome the difficulty, As far back as last October the general manager of a plywood mill in a thickly populated part of one of the suburbs of Adelaide told me he had lodged an application with the department six months previously for a telephone to be installed at his place of residence. To date, a telephone has not been installed. I am sure the Senate will appreciate the danger of fire and other risks that are associated with a timber mill. Therefore, I ask the Minister, first, whether he is aware that in South Australia many applications for telephone installations have been lodged for six or even twelve months but that telephones have not yet been installed. Secondly, will he say whether the technical and material shortages which have been given as the reason for such delay have been overtaken? Thirdly, are large quantities of materials and equipment necessary for telephone installations being imported? Fourthly, if such materials are being imported, why?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– The Government is aware that there is some delay in the installation of telephones. However, the delay at the present time is far less than it was one, two, or even three years ago;, it has been greatly reduced. In the past, some delay was caused by the lack of materials, but 1 understand that problem has been overcome. The honorable senator has related the experience of a certain’ person. I suggest that the honorable senator get in touch with the Director of Postsand Telegraphs in South Australia-

Senator Critchley:

– That has been done many times.

Senator COOPER:

– If the honorable senator places the remainder of his question on the notice-paper, I shall ask for a report from the Postmaster-General.

Senator Critchley:

– What about the materials situation?

Senator COOPER:

– That is the part I mean.

page 664

QUESTION

TOBACCO

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Earlier this year, tobacco-growers in north-eastern Victoria suffered serious losses just before picking because of disastrous hailstorms. It is estimated that the losses in the Myrtleford and Ovens Vale areas near Wangaratta amounted to about £60,000. As the tobacco-growing industry is a big revenue producer for the Commonwealth Government, will the Minister give some financial assistance to those growers whose financial return for this year’s harvest has been seriously affected and thus assist them to plant next year’s crop, from which no doubt the Government will derive considerable revenue in due course?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– All I can do is to direct the honorable senator’s question to my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry.

page 664

QUESTION

BENEFITS FOR WAR WIDOWS

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I preface my question, which is addressed to the Minister for Repatriation, by pointing out that under the war widows’ medical benefits scheme dependent children are eligible for medical benefits up to the age of sixteen years. As other legislation provides that children of war widows who continue as students after the age of sixteen years shall be treated as dependants of those widows, will the

Minister earnestly consider allowing dependent student children over sixteen years of age to continue to receive medical benefits until they have completed their studies and have become independent of their widowed mothers?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– lt is true that, when the child of a war widow reaches the age of sixteen years, certain benefits are lost; but, on the other hand, if the child is proceeding to higher education, the child’s allowance is very materially increased. Up to two years ago, when a child reached the age of sixteen years the widow’s pension reverted to the ordinary rate; she did not get the domestic allowance. But this Government saw the need to give widows something extra to help them along, and the act was amended to provide that, when a child proceeded to higher education, an education allowance would be paid to the widow until the child was earning. That meant that, in the case of a child going on to a university, the domestic allowance would be paid for six or seven years after the child had reached the age of sixteen years. I know that representations have been made in regard to dental treatment. The matter is under consideration, and if we can help war widows in this direction I am certain that we shall do so-

page 665

QUESTION

COLOMBO PLAN

Senator BROWN:

– Previously, when I asked a number of questions of the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, the honorable senator, I think through inadvertence, failed to answer one of the questions. It was relative to the report of the Australian High Commissioner in Pakistan on this matter of alleged terrific waste in connexion with the administration of the Colombo plan. I asked the Minister whether he would see the Minister for External Affairs and request him to cause to be laid on the table of the Senate the report of the Australian High Commissioner in Pakistan on this matter.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I did not mean deliberately to refuse to answer the honorable senator’s question. My failure to do so was purely an oversight- I am quite sure that it would be most unusual and out of line with current practice for the reports of our High Commissioners to be tabled in the Parliament. However, I shall mention the matter to my colleague, but I should be most surprised if such reports were made public.

page 665

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator HANNAFORD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry seen an article published in a pamphlet, issued at Canberra by the Associated Chambers of Commerce of Australia, criticizing the change-over, in respect of the fixation of the f.a.q. standard for wheat, from the corn trade section of the chambers in each city to the Australian Wheat Board? Was this action taken because the service performed by the various chambers of commerce was unsatisfactory, or is it a prelude to a new system which will lead to a better classification of Australian wheat?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– Yes, I have seen the article to which the honorable senator refers. I did not gain the impression that the change-over was made because of any degree of dissatisfaction with the service performed in the past by the chambers of commerce. I am not, however, familiar with all the details of the reasons for the change-over, and, that being so, I shall refer this question to the Minister for Primary Industry and let the honorable senator have a reply as soon as possible.

page 665

QUESTION

DEPARTMENTAL PUBLICATIONS

Senator ASHLEY:

– I address a question to the Minister responsible for departmental and ministerial publications. By way of preface, I produce a publication on the front page of which are photographs of the Minister for Trade and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Trade. Invariably, with these publications, the early pages are adorned by photographs of the Minister and departmental heads- In fact, such photographs are now nearly as common as is the parrot on the “ Rosella “ jam label. I now ask the appropriate Minister: What Commonwealth departments and ministerial and other such bodies issue publications? What is the number issued weekly or monthly? What is the cost, including the cost of materials and publication outlay? How many journalists are engaged in the preparation and publication of these journals, and what is the yearly cost involved in this respect? How many persons other than journalists are engaged, and what is the annual cost?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The honorable senator, from his past ministerial experience, might well know that most careful procedures are laid down to ensure that none of these publications is lightly authorized. Neither a Minister nor a department may issue a publication unless full details of it have first been submitted to a committee representing the major departments, including the Treasury and the Prime Minister’s Department. I assure the honorable senator that the fact that that committee has given its approval to the publication of a journal is an indication that the journal is well worth while. As to whether any one could answer all the questions the honorable senator has asked, I do not know. I shall make some inquiries to see whether it is possible to answer them, but I shall certainly not allow a situation to be reached in which a flock of clerks would be needed to supply information of no interest to anybody other than Senator Ashley.

page 666

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On 27th February and 13th March, respectively, Senator Brown asked the following questions: -

  1. Is it not a fact that a strong censorship is exercised over broadcasts dealing with health matters? Is it not a fact that a script for broadcasting was submitted recently by Mr. F. L. Thomson, a dietician, of Brisbane? Was this script completely censored by the Department of Health? If so, why is this Kremlin-like conduct followed by the Department?
  2. Will the Minister obtain the fullest information concerning medical broadcasts generally? Will he ascertain their number during the five years ended 31st December, 1957, and intimate the number that have been completely suppressed and the number that have suffered deletions?

The Minister for Health has now furnished the following answers: -

  1. By the Broadcasting and Television Act, passed by the Curtin Government in 1942, Parliament has placed on the Director-General of Health the duty of ensuring that all material intended for broadcasting in the field of medicines and medical treatment shall be, in fact, acceptable for that purpose. Material containing claims which are considered to be false, exaggerated or inaccurate is not acceptable.
  2. During the five-year period ended 31st December, 1957, 7,600 scripts of medical broadcasts were submitted for censorship. Of this number, 6,707 (or 88.2 per cent.) were approved without amendment; 704 (or 9.3 per cent.) were approved with amendments; and 189 (or 2.5 per cent.) were not approved. The following table shows the number in each category for each of the five years: -

page 666

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice -

What system prevails for the determination of physical fitness of an applicant for unemployment benefit - (a) Initially; (b) periodically during the period of payment of benefits?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has supplied the following answer: -

  1. Section 107 of Division 2 of Part VII. of the Social Services Act provides that to qualify for unemployment benefit persons must be capable of undertaking work of a type that is considered to be suitable for them. When claiming benefit they are required to make a declaration that they are capable of undertaking and willing to undertake work. Persons who cannot make this declaration do not qualify for unemployment benefit but may produce the necessary certification of temporary incapacity from a legally qualified medical practitioner and apply for sickness benefit, (b) At all times when dealing with persons claiming or in receipt of unemployment benefit, officers of the Commonwealth Employment Service are careful to take into account any disabilities these persons may have that could affect their ability to work. Persons who have such disabilities are afforded the special facilities which the Commonwealth Employment Service provides to assist the physically handicapped to obtain suitable positions. By arrangement with the Department of Social Services, persons who, because of their disabilities, are likely to continue without work, are referred to that department which considers whether rehabilitation treatment or training should be given, whether they should receive an invalid pension or whether some other suitable action should be taken.

page 666

STEAM POWER STATION AT DARWIN

Report of Public Works Committee

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I present the report of the Public Works Committee on the following subject: -

Erection of a steam power station at Darwin, Northern Territory.

Comprehensive inquiries were made into the proposal to erect the new power station, and the evidence showed that Darwin will tend to grow increasingly as a commercial centre. A vigorous building programme of both government and private premises is proceding, new banks are being erected, and confidence is felt that the rice project and metalliferous ore production in the hinterland will be very important features of the commercial life of Darwin in the future, these being superimposed on the basic primary industries of the Territory.

The field of inquiry covered the various types of electricity generation, and opinions were given to the committee on the efficacy of diesel engines, gas turbines, free power gasifiers, hydro-electric power and nuclear power. It was of great interest to the com mittee to learn that, for the first time, a genuine case can be put forward for the future introduction into Australia of nuclear power. Alhough larger areas could be economically served by nuclear power stations, generators of the size required in Darwin, to the extent of upwards of 15,000 kilowatts, are not a commercial or economic proposition at the present time.

After wide investigation the committee decided that an oil-fired steam plant is most suitable for the generation of electricity to meet the immediate and future requirements of Darwin until about 1970.

Senator Wright:

– Will there be any need to read the report after this speech?

Senator O’BYRNE:

Senator Wright is so obviously unaware of the activities of the committee that a gentle reminder of this sort might inform him of something to his benefit, and thus prevent his mind being circumscribed by events in Hobart only. A report of this nature creates a good deal of interest in the question as to whether the Commonwealth Government should investigate the field of generation by nuclear power, or whether the orthodox methods should be continued for a period. However, the committee recommended in the report that an oil-fired steam plant is the most suitable to meet the requirements of Darwin at the present time.

Considerable discussion took place on the site for the erection of the power station, and the committee at this time found it necessary to take confidential evidence from an officer of the Department of Defence. A very satisfactory conclusion was reached and the committee is quite satisfied that the site recommended in the report is the most suitable site on which to erect the power station.

In presenting this report the committee feels that it brings before honorable senators and the people of Australia an awareness of the growing importance and expansion of Darwin, and the justification for the provision of electricity up to 15,000 kilowatts to meet requirements for the next ten or twelve years.

I move -

That the report be adopted.

Debate (on motion by Senator Kendall) adjourned.

page 667

QUESTION

INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION

Senator WORDSWORTH:
TASMANIA

– by leave- I lay on the table the following paper: -

Inter-Parliamentary Union - Report of the Australian Delegation to the 46th Conference held at London, September, 1957 - and move -

That the paper be printed.

I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 667

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) - by leave - agreed to -

That leave of absence for one month be granted to Senator Seward on the ground of ill health.

page 667

ADMINISTRATIVE AND MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Attorney General · Queensland · LP

– by leave - The following statement was made in another place by the Prime Minister to-day: -

The House will recall that, when I made my statement on Defence organization recently, I said that arrangements were in progress to amalgamate the Departments of Supply and Defence Production into a single Department of Supply.

By Executive Council action taken last week, that amalgamation is now complete. Henceforth, the Department of Supply will, in addition to its own existing functions, carry out the functions of what was formerly the Department of Defence Production, that department having been abolished.

My colleague, Mr. Townley, will continue to be Minister for Supply. There will be no major change in his administrative responsibilities, although he will relinquish responsibility for the Aluminium Production Commission to the Minister for National Development. Mr. Townley will continue his present ministerial duties under the single title of Minister for Supply instead of under his former dual titles of Supply and Detence Production.

For the present, as 1 have announced, the Minister for Air will continue to act as Minister for Supply until Mr. Townley’s return from abroad.

The amalgamation of the two departments has resulted in a reduction of 64 positions, which means savings of £80,000 per annum. These are chiefly administrative.

The special Commonwealth Gazette recording the abolition of the department lists the abolished positions. These savings are real and indeed the reduction has already occurred, because in anticipation of the amalgamation, the departments and the Public Service Board over the last few months have co-operated to avoidfilling jobs as they fell vacant.

The savings to be gained in the administrative field from amalgamation are not extensive immediately, because a substantial degree of common service has always operated between the two departments. However, in other fields there will be other and larger savings. For instance, savings of the order of £100,000 per annum should eventuate from the operation of combining the stores function, which is already under way.

Also, as I said in my earlier statement in this House, Cabinet has decided that the work of the Aircraft Maintenance Branch, formerly in the Department of Defence Production, should be limited to the allocation and planning of essential production and resources, leaving the Royal Australian Air Force to order directly from suppliers of services and spare parts. By this and other means, and by reducing the substantial store holdings, a saving of the order of £250,000 per annum is expected.

Other economies can be expected to arise from unified control, as the new organization shakes down and duplicated services are eliminated. We shall pursue these possibilities energetically.

These arrangements have coincided with the conclusion of a thorough-going re-examination of the functions of departments as expressed in the Administrative Arrangements Order. The Administrative Arrangements Order is a formal document of State. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts, which has devoted some useful attention to the order, understood this and expressed the view that the primary legal purpose of the order is to identify the Minister in whom a power is vested, and that the secondary legal purpose is to provide evidence, where necessary, in legal proceedings that the power has been exercised by the appropriate Minister.

The order has a history running back to the early days of federation. It was first issued in 1906, and the last general revision was made in 1951. The Constitution provides that the Governor-General may appoint Ministers to administer such departments of the Commonwealth as he may establish.

The statements which now appear in the second column of the order are simple in form, and are intended to indicate the general functions of each department, without being so specific as to appear to give authority to departments to carry out any functions without reference to higher authority.

Authorizations to carry out any part of these functions must be found elsewhere, as in specific legislation of this Parliament, or in government decisions supported by Appropriation Acts, or by the approval of funds by the Treasurer. This also the Public Accounts Committee recognizes in its Report of 1953.

The third column of the order sets out, by departments, the administrative responsibility for acts of Parliament. It will be kept up to date by regular amendments to indicate the administrative responsibility for new acts. Honorable members will note that in its new form the order adheres more closely to constitutional terms.

Furthermore, with a form of words so general it will be necessary from time to time to make interpretations or to establish demarcation lines between the functions of departments. This is a function of the Prime Minister, and I shall carry it out by letter to Ministers as necessary.

His Excellency the Governor-General has approved the new Administrative Arrangements Order, which includes the enlargement of the functions of the Department of Supply. Copies are available for honorable members.

page 668

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator Byrne) agreed to -

That notice of motion standing in the name of Senator Byrne be postponed until Thursday, 8th May, 1958.

page 668

NAVIGATION BILL 1958

In committee: Consideration resumed from 29th April (vide page 659).

Clause 7 -

Section six of the Principal Act is repealed and the following sections are inserted in its stead: - “6e. - (1.)For the purposes of this Act, but subject to the next succeeding sub-section - “ (2.) Where-

a master, seaman or apprentice is at a port other than the port which is his proper return port under the last preceding sub-section;

he is entitled under a provision of this

Act to conveyance to that proper return port by or at the cost of the owner of the ship; and

a proper authority at the first-mentioned port certifies, by instrument in writing, that he is of the opinion that it is desirable that the master, seaman or apprentice should be conveyed to a port (being a port other than that proper return port) specified in the instrument, the port so specified shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be the proper return port of the master, seaman or apprentice. “ (3.) A proper authority shall before issuing a certificate for the purposes of the last preceding sub-section, inquire into all the circumstances of the case, including the convenience of the master, seaman or apprentice and the expense of his conveyance.

Upon which Senator McKenna had moved by way of amendment -

Leave out sub-sections (2.) and (3.) of proposed section 6e.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I understand that the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge) desires to move an amendment to an earlier provision in clause 7. As honorable senators will have noticed, this clause is a very extensive one, running over many pages of the bill, and it includes the definition provisions. If I were to proceed immediately with the amendment I now have before the committee, the Minister would be debarred from proposing an amendment to an earlier provision in the clause until the clause was recommitted for further reconsideration. I ask for leave to withdraw my amendment temporarily, with the right to re-submit it if seen fit, so that the Minister may propose an amendment to an earlier provision in the clause.

Proposed amendment - by leave - withdrawn.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– When the committee adjourned last night we were discussing sub-sections (2.) and (3.) of proposed section 6e. Senator McKenna moved an amendment designed to delete sub-sections (2.) and (3.). A long debate ensued, and Senator Wright expressed great apprehension as to the extent of the discretion which was to be given to the port superintendent in determining disputes as to the proper return port. Overnight and this morning I have had a chance to re-consider the whole matter, and am now prepared to accept the amendment foreshadowed by Senator McKenna. In doing so, I point out that the Government still has in mind the possibility of a dispute over the determination of the proper return port as between the port from which a seaman ships and the port which is, in effect, his home port. In order to cover that situation I propose to move that sub-sections (2.) and (3.) be omitted and that the following sub-sections be inserted in their stead: - (2.) A master, seaman or apprentice, and the owner of a ship, may agree to refer a question which has arisen between them as to the proper return port of the master, seaman or apprentice to a proper authority for his decision. (3.) Section 81 of this act applies to, and in relation to, such an agreement as if it were an agreement to which that section applies, and the reference in that section to a superintendent were a reference to a proper authority.

It will be seen that proposed sub-section (2.) restricts the authority of the superintendent to the determination of a matter of fact - as to what is the proper return port. That provision, and proposed sub-section (3.), where it refers to section 81 which, in turn, relates to the reference of differences to the superintendent, will, I think, cover the situation. These provisions will meet the strong objection made by Senator Wright and should give fairly general satisfaction.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– On behalf of the Opposition I should like to express my appreciation of the Minister’s objective approach to the very strong arguments addressed to him yesterday. It is very gratifying to find him open to argument in that way. The obnoxious clauses will be deleted. That is the first, and most important, thing. The Minister is surely now qualified for membership of the Diplomatic Corps because he has met the objections of Senator Wright, has accepted the excellent suggestion - put in a sentence - by Senator McCallum and has met the wishes of the Opposition. The objection from the union was of a major kind. It was one of the major matters which disturbed its members - that a man could be returned otherwise than to his proper return port.

The whole of the machinery considered objectionable has gone. I should like to put my understanding of the matter to the Minister for confirmation. The proper return port - under the proposed law - will be either the port of engagement or the port agreed upon between the master and the seaman as the home port. The Minister envisages a possible argument over this matter when a ship is abroad. It is not likely to arise where the port of engagement is deemed to be the proper return port. Where there is an agreement to the contrary, there could be a difference of opinion as to what has been agreed upon. I take it that that is what the Minister envisages, and that he now proposes that if the seaman and the master are in dispute they may agree to refer the matter to a proper authority for final determination. Section 81, to which the Minister has referred, and which clause 54 of the bill amends, provides for a reference to a superintendent and also that, by agreement, his decision shall be final. The Minister proposes, in sub-section (2.), to incorporate those provisions in the bill - substituting the term “ proper authority “ for the term “ superintendent “. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting the views put to him on this particular matter and see no objection at all to the new subclauses proposed.

Motion (by Senator Paltridge) agreed to -

Leave out sub-sections (2.) and (3.) of proposed section 6e; insert the following sub-sections: - “ ‘ (2. ) A master, seaman or apprentice and the owner of a ship may agree to refer a question which has arisen between them as to the proper return port of the master, seaman or apprentice to a proper authority for his decision. (3.) Section 81 of this act applies to and in relation to such an agreement as if it were an agreement to which that section applies and the reference in that section to a superintendent were a reference to a proper authority.’.”.

Senator McKenna:

– The Opposition has no further amendments to propose in relation to clause 7.

Motion (by Senator Paltridge) agreed to -

That further consideration of clause 7 be postponed.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Following a discussion with the Minister I propose to move now an amendment which I foreshadowed at the second-reading stage. I understand that there is some general concurrence that the committee should address its mind to amendments, proposed by senators, or to cases in which a senator indicates that he wishes to oppose, by vote, a particular clause. That would enable the remaining matters to be disposed of far more satisfactorily in the limited time available. Accordingly, I move: -

That all further clauses be postponed until after consideration of any clause which a senator wishes to oppose or to which he wishes to move any amendment.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator McKenna) agreed to -

That, for the purpose of discussing amendment No. 9 circulated on behalf of the Opposition, consideration of clause 12 be postponed until clause 29 is before the committee and that for the same purpose the said clauses be debated together and after such debate be disposed of separately.

Clause 15 -

Section nineteen of the Principal Act is repealed and the following sections are inserted in its stead: - 18a (1.) …. “ (4.) Where …. a person would be eligible the Minister may grant to that person a permit

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move -

In proposed section 18a, after sub-section (4.) insert the following new sub-section (4.) (a): - “ (4.) (a) The Minister shall not issue a permit under this section to a person who has not, for a period of at least one year prior to the issue of the permit been continuously resident in the Commonwealth.”

The first sub-section of proposed section 18a states -

A certificate as extra master, master of a foreign-going ship, first mate of a foreign-going ship, extra first class engineer or first class engineer shall not be delivered to a person who is not a British subject.

There is in that proposed sub-section a complete prohibition against a non-British subject being accredited by certificate. Then there are three qualifications in subsections (2.), (3.) and (4.). It is provided that where the fact that a man is not a British subject is the only bar to his obtaining a certificate, sub-sections (2.), (3.) and (4.) will apply to enable the Minister, in the case of an extra master or a master of a foreign-going ship, to give the person concerned a permit to serve, instead of a certificate. The permit will have the same effect as a certificate and will enable the person who is given the permit to take a ship to sea. That provision applies to the master or .the .first mate of a foreign-going ship only, not a ship engaged in the coastal trade.

When we come to sub-section ,(4 ), we find that in the case of a first-class engineer or an extra first-class engineer a permit may be granted to serve in either of those capacities on a Ship registered in Australia. That, of .course, would have application, not only to a foreign-going ship, but also to one engaged in the coastal trade. I point out to the Committee that obviously there are two qualifications that a person on a ship in the coasting trade ought to have. He ought to be able, in any of these positions, to speak the English language. I am not worried about that, because the matter is taken care of in clause 19, which proposes the insertion of section 26. That proposed section reads -

A person shall not engage or go to sea as an officer in a ship registered in Australia or engaged in the coasting trade unless he speaks and writes the English language intelligibly.

In regard to that requirement, I feel the position is covered. Now -I come to the question of residence. That is the one point with which my amendment is concerned.

Senator Wright:

– Proposed section 18a deals with .foreign-going ships.

Senator McKENNA:

– No, it deals with both. If the honorable senator will look at sub-section (2.), dealing with permits, he will see that it refers to foreign-going ships only .when it refers to a master. Subsection (4.) deals with both coastal and foreign-going ships but has application only to certain classes of engineers. It does not touch -the question of a master or a first mate. The question of granting permits to a master or a -mate does not arise in relation to the coastal trade.

Clause 13 seeks the repeal of section 17 of the act and the insertion of another section. That proposed section provides, for the first time, -that a person shall not be admitted to examination for a certificate if-

  1. he is a British subject or, for a period of at least one ;year .immediately before -the date of .the examination, .he has .been continuously resident in -the Commonwealth.

There is the principle, stated in this legislation for the first time, that a man cannot offer himself for examination as to his competency for a certificate unless he has been resident in .Australia for a year. I raise with the Minister the propriety of a person without .any kind or residence in Australia, although he may be qualified technically, being granted a certificate immediately upon his arrival, in the case of a master or a first mate ‘to take a foreign-going ship out, and in the case of an engineer to go directly into the coastal trade.

Senator Kendall:

– Where does the bill provide for either of those two things?

Senator McKENNA:

– Sub-section (2.) of proposed section 18a provides that a permit .to serve may be given by the Minister. That would be in effect a certificate and would enable the person to proceed .to :sea immediately.

Senator Kendall:

– Not immediately on arrival in Australia?

Senator McKENNA:

– That is the very point at issue. Assume that a foreign seaman, highly qualified according to the law of,his own country, comes to Australia and it is proposed that he taken a foreign-going ship out immediately - a ship on the Australian register.

Senator Kendall:

– Where is provision! for that?

Senator Wright:

– By virtue of a permit issued by the Minister under sub-section (2.) of proposed section 18a.

Senator McKENNA:

– That is so. If a permit were granted by the Minister under sub-section (2.), the seaman could immediately act as a master.

Senator Kendall:

– You are losing sight of the word “ eligible “.

Senator McKENNA:

– No, I am not. If the honorable senator will look at the first part of sub-section (2.), he will see that it provides -that if the only thing that prevents a .man from getting a certificate is ‘the fact that he is not a British subject, the Minister may -.discard that requirement and issue .him with a .permit.

Let us assume ‘that a -man who is qualified as ;a master, -not according to Austraiian law but according to (foreign law, .comes to Australia, that it -is -proposed .that he shall act as master of ;a ship on pur register when it goes to foreign parts, and that the Minister grants him a permit. Of course, the Minister would be satisfied that he could speak and write English and act intelligibly in that language. I ask this question before I proceed: Are there any reciprocal arrangements as to the recognition by Australia of certificates of competency granted in foreign countries, or is the only way to qualification through examination? If a highly qualified person coming from abroad seeks to take a ship out of Australia and can be deemed to be qualified, I think we have gone a bit too far in making this provision available for the benefit of new Australians. The purpose of the Opposition’s amendment is to ensure that anyone who takes such a responsible post as that of senior officer of a ship at least should have some base in Australia.

Senator Kendall:

– He cannot take the ship out without a permit, and he cannot get a permit unless he is qualified.

Senator McKENNA:

– Is there any method by which he can be deemed to be qualified other than by examination?

Senator Paltridge:

– No.

Senator McKENNA:

– Are reciprocal benefits extended between Australia and other countries?

Senator Kendall:

– No. A person may sit in any part of the British Commonwealth for some certificates.

Senator McKENNA:

– If he is a Britisher.

Senator Kendall:

– Yes, but the person concerned in the example you have quoted would have to do at least three or four years’ service before he could sit for a master’s certificate.

Senator McKENNA:

– That is the first question I am posing: Is there any access to qualification otherwise than by examination?

Senator Kendall:

– No.

Senator McKENNA:

– If there is not, he must be resident here before he can get a master’s certificate.

Senator Kendall:

– Not only must he be resident here, but he must first pass the examination for second mate. At the end of a further eighteen months he must pass the examination for first mate, and then wait for twenty-seven months before he can proceed for a master’s certificate.

Senator McKENNA:

– My whole amendment is dependent upon the information I get on that first point. Can a foreigner who is highly qualified according to the law of his own country come here and get reciprocal entitlement?

Senator Kendall:

– No.

Senator McKENNA:

– Is he barred entirely?

Senator Kendall:

– He is barred entirely.

Senator McKENNA:

– The only situation then with which we are dealing is the case of a person who has been resident in Australia, who has passed an examination here and who is able to speak English intelligibly but is not naturalized?

Senator Paltridge:

– And who has lived here for a year.

Senator McKENNA:

– Well, the explanation that has been furnished gives me the answer I want. I wanted to be assured that we were protected in the situation in which a qualified foreign master or mate might come to Australia and immediately take charge of a ship without ever having shown his form in this country. Did I understand Senator Kendall to say that a person may offer for examination in a Commonwealth country without being resident in Australia? I understood the honorable senator to say that, but I may have misheard him.

Senator Kendall:

– What I meant was that one could get a Board of Trade certificate or its equivalent in any Commonwealth country.

Senator McKENNA:

– But if a person can qualify in another country, he can bypass the requirements of a year’s residence prior to entry to the examination.

Senator Kendall:

– He still has to be a British subject.

Senator McKENNA:

– That is quite right. If I get an assurance from the Minister that there are no reciprocal rights as between Australia and foreign countries and that the only way in is by being a British subject, or, if one is not a British subject, by having had a year’s residence here before entering for the examination, there is no purpose in my amendment.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– The position is as was stated by the Leader of the Opposition in asking his questions. The issue of a permit depends upon the passing of an examination, and the examination cannot be taken other than as provided in proposed section 17.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I rise only because my understanding of the situation is quite different. I should like to be corrected if I am wrong. Proposed section 17 provides that a person shall not be admitted to examination for a certificate unless he is a British subject or has been continuously resident in Australia for twelve months, and complies with certain other Conditions. Section 18 of the act provides for the issue of a certificate, proposed section 19 is a formal section, and proposed section 18a is to be sandwiched between them. 1 should have thought that the purpose of proposed section 18a (1.) was to make it quite clear that a certificate as extra master, master of a foreign-going ship, first mate of a foreign-going ship, extra firstclass engineer or first-class engineer shall not be delivered to a person who is not a British subject.

I should have thought, too, that the purpose of proposed section 18a (2.) was to qualify sub-section (l.) and to enable the Minister to give a permit to a person otherwise unqualified by reason of residence or British nationality and that, for the purpose of the act, the holder of such a permit was to be deemed to be the holder of a certificate. I would have read these provisions as authorizing, by permit, an unqualified person to assume all the rights of a certificated master although he was not yet qualified to sit for the examination or had not passed it. That is my understanding of proposed section 18a. If I am wrong, I should like to be corrected.

Senator KENDALL:
Queensland

– Perhaps I should state what happens in practice.

Senator Hendrickson:

– But what happens in practice is not according to the letter of the act. That is what Senator Wright meant.

Senator KENDALL:

– Perhaps what I am about to say will help honorable senators to see whether anything is wrong with the proposed legislation. Let us take the case of a foreigner who holds a foreign master’s certificate and who comes to Australia. As he is not a British subject, under proposed section 17 (a) he must wait for a year in this country before he can take any further steps. If, after having lived in Australia for twelve months, he can prove that he has had five and a half years’ service at sea in any capacity at all, he is entitled, under the rules of examination, which are set down by the Board of Trade and are copied in Australia, to sit for the examination for second mate. Having passed that examination, he is entitled to apply for a position on the coast. He would probably be accepted as third mate or fourth mate, but certainly not as second mate. He would then have to serve a further eighteen months in a foreign-going or interstate vessel, or 27 months in local coast trade, before he could sit for the examination for first mate.

Having sat for the examination for his first mate’s certificate, he then applies for a job. If he stays with the same company he may perhaps be promoted to second mate, and having served for yet another eighteen months, he could sit for his master’s certificate. Having passed the master’s examination, he would then be eligible to accept a position as master, but it is most unlikely that he would get one at that stage. Probably, he would be promoted to first mate of a ship, and over the years, by the effluxion of time, he would be promoted to master. But the shortest time in which anybody coming to this country could possibly reach the position where he was likely to sail as a master would be one year, plus eighteen months, plus another eighteen months, plus the wasted time when he was studying for examinations. Thus, it would >be very close to the end of the five-year period before he became eligible for naturalization that he would be in a position to ask the Minister for a permit.

Senator Wright:

– Could the honorable senator relate his remarks to sub-section (3) of proposed section 18a, which refers, not to a certificate as master, but to a certificate as first mate?

Senator KENDALL:

– I suggest that that only takes it a step further and means that, until such time as he is naturalized, he can hold a permit to sail as first mate. That provision does not alter the position that I have already described. I suggest that such a man would be very fortunate to obtaina position: as first. mate -Iam speaking: of actual practice, not of. the legal position- in less than three or four years.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I should like to address myself for a. moment to the difficulty that was. raised by Senator Wright and to indicate the way in which I read the clause and understand the position. Sub-section. (1.) of proposed section 18a imposes a complete prohibition on the issuing of a certificate to anybody but a British subject. Sub-section (2.), which relates to the issuing of a permit to serve as the master of a foreign-going ship, opens with the following words: -

Where, but for the last preceding sub-section, a person would be eligible for a certificate as extra master or master of a foreign-going ship, the Minister may grant to that person a permit to serve . . .

I interpret those words to mean that if he is qualified so far as his examinations are concerned, if he is able to speak English intelligibly and to write it intelligibly, if he has all the other qualifications, and that the only qualification that is lacking is that he is not British, then, and then only, may the Minister issue a permit.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– How does he become eligible for a certificate until he presents himself for examination?

Senator McKENNA:

– He cannot become eligible.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– He cannot do that unless he is a British subject?

Senator McKENNA:

– If the honorable senator will look at clause 13, which seeks to insert proposed section 17, he will see the following words-: -

A person shall not be admitted to examination for a certificate unless -

he is a British subject or, for a period of at least one year immediately before the date of the examination, he has been continuously resident in the Commonwealth;

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– I was looking at the old section 17.

Senator McKENNA:

– This is an entirely new position, which enables a new Australian to sit for the examination after residence’. He would be qualified for acertificate only after he went through the whole series of examinations, as Senator Kendall has- indicated.

I think it is quite clear that, before the Minister can issue a certificate, a. person who is not British must have resided here for a year before embarking upon examination and he must have qualified by examination. If the one disability that he has is that he is neither British nor naturalized, the Minister is free to issue a permit. The Minister might indicate whether or not he agrees with that interpretation.

Senator Paltridge:

– That is the correct interpretation.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 21 -

Division 4 of Part II. of the Principal Act is repealed and the following Division inserted in its stead: - “Division 4. - Supplying seamen. “ 29. - (1.) A person shall not supply a seaman to be entered on board a ship at a port in Australia unless that person is -

the superintendent or seamen’s inspector for that port;

the owner, agent or charterer, or an officer, of the ship; or

an officer of an organization of. employees of which seamen of the description of that seaman are members. “30. - (1.) The Minister may appoint a seamen’s inspector for a port.. “ (2.) The seamen’s inspector for a port shall -

keep a register of persons desiring to be entered as seamen on board ships at the port; and

supply seamen to be entered on board ships at’ the port.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– In respect of proposed section 29 (1.)I have two amendments; which are related. I propose to move them separately because I think that the Minister has some thoughts on the matter. The first amendment, whichI have foreshadowed, proposes to omit the words “ or seamen’s inspector “ from paragraph (a). On the information that has been supplied” to me; I understand that the office of seamen’s inspector is really a dead letter. I am given to understand that there is only one of the kind leftin captivity in Australia: He is somewhere in Melbourne. I believe that no really useful function is performed By the seamen’s inspector.

If honorable senators will turn to proposed section 30, they will see that it states - (1.) The Minister may, appoint a seamen’s inspectorfor a port. (2.) The seamen’s inspector for a port shall - (a) keep a register of persons desiring to beentered as seamen on board ships at the port; and

Senator Paltridge:

– I might point out to the honorable senator that I propose to move an amendment in this respect wh’ich has not yet been circulated.

Senator McKENNA:

– I had a feeling that that might be so. I. shall leave it to the Minister to put the position. I do not want to anticipate him. I understand that he- has an’ amendment similar to the first one that I foreshadowed, but dissimilar to the second, although the Minister’s amendment goes part of the way with my second one. I do not think I need say more than that the. unions do not like this office. It is a dead letter and is not used.

Senator Kendall:

– I have never heard of it.

Senator McKENNA:

– No. I understand that what the unions do not. like is the power in that type of person to have the right to supply seamen. In fact, not only is it a power that is not exercised, but it is also one that is rather contrary to the award in favour of the seamen. I know that theMinister has a contribution to make in relation to this matter that is not hostile to the viewpoint of the Opposition, and without formally moving the amendments that I foreshadowed, I shall leave the field to him.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transportand Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I concur in the amendment foreshadowed by the. Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKeana) and formally move -

That, in paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.) of proposed section 29, the words “ or seamen’s inspector be left out.

As Senator McKenna has accurately stated, there is only one seamen’s inspector in Australia: It is not proposed that additional seamen’s inspectors shall beappointed. I point out that there will.be. a consequential amendment ofproposed section 30, which I shall deal with when we come to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I have foreshadowed a second amendment, which I do not propose to move, I shall leave the field to the Minister. I had proposed to omit proposed section 30 completely, but he proposes to amend it. I should prefer that he proceeded with his amendment. I think I shall have no difficulty in accepting it. After I have heard his explanation, perhaps I will prefer his amendment to the one that I have foreshadowed.

Senator PALTRIDGE (Western Australia - Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation [4.34]. - I move -

That proposed section 30 be left out and that the following proposed section be inserted: - “ 30. The superintendent for a. port shall-

keep a register of persons desiring: to be entered as seamen on board ships at the port; and

supply seamen to be entered on board ships at the port.”

Senator McKENNA:

– The Opposition is quite happy about that.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27 (Medical examination of young persons employed at sea).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

Mr. Chairman as we are all faced with certain difficulties, having so many papers and acts andamendments before us, I indicate to honorable senators for. their guidance that clause 27 occupies the sixth line of page 20 of the bill. Section 40b of the principal act” provides - (1.) A person shall not engage or re-engage any person underthe age of eighteen years for service at sea. in any capacity unless the person under the age of eighteen years produces to the superintendent a certificate signed by a medical inspector of. seamen, or, at a port at which there is no medical inspectorof seamen, by a duly qualified medical practitioner; that he is. physically fit. for: service at sea in that capacity:

Provided that this sub-section shall not apply to service in ships where only members of the same family are employed.

Sub-section (2.) gets over the. difficulty, but it might be very burdensome if a man had. to get. a certificate for every engagement. The sub-section provides that a certificate shall hold goodfor twelve month’s, and that is a very common-sense provision. However, the sub-section is to be repealed. It was not readily apparent what was happening, and the Opposition was concerned lest young people should not be medically examined. I need not pursue that topic now for the reason that, at the secondreading stage, the Minister indicated that proposed sections 123 and 124 were satisfactory. If honorable senators will turn to the bill, they will see that sub-sections (1.) and (2.) of proposed section 124 provide - (1.) The regulations may make provision for or in relation to the medical examination of, and the issue of certificates of fitness to, masters, seamen and apprentices and persons proposing to engage in employment as masters or seamen or to become apprentices. (2.) The regulations made by virtue of the last preceding sub-section may include provisions prohibiting the engagement of a person as a master or seaman, or the taking of an apprentice to sea, unless he is the holder of a certificate issued under those regulations.

We go from a position where regular medical examinations of seafarers up to the age of eighteen years were mandatory to a stage where power is taken to make regulations requiring everybody who goes to sea, whether under eighteen years or over, to be medically examined periodically. The provision really covers everybody; this is a power to legislate for everybody. That, of course, takes the matter out of the category of a statutory requirement and makes it a matter of executive discretion. That is the first point.

The second point is that there should not be discrimination either between classes of seamen or between seamen according to ages. I understand from the Minister that the intention is to provide, pursuant to the Safety at Sea Convention of 1946, for the examination of everybody who goes to sea. That is a wise precaution. If I get the Minister’s assurance that that is what is in the Government’s mind - that although the question of medical examination now becomes a matter for the Executive Council, not a matter of statutory obligation, nevertheless the Government has in mind the making of regulations that will apply without discrimination to everybody who goes to sea - I shall feel no difficulty about the repeal of section 40b of the principal act. That would be wider than the present provision, but not as strong as a statutory power, I point out to Senator Kendall.

At the moment, the obligation arises under the act in relation only to apprentices and those under eighteen years of age. Now there is to be power to make regulations in respect of everybody. Is the Minister able to assure the committee that this regulation will be promulgated and that it will be made applicable to everybody, whether under eighteen years or over, and without discrimination between officers and men and between the various categories of officers?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I can give the Leader of the Opposition the assurance that he seeks.

Senator McKenna:

– Thank you very much.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– The regulations will be applied without discrimination, and with equality.

Senator McKenna:

– To everybody?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– Yes. The existing section does not, in fact, go far enough to meet the requirements of the convention, and for that reason we are making provision in this way. A wealth of detail will be incorporated in the regulations.

Senator McKenna:

– That will be done promptly by regulation?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– Yes, but I cannot say precisely when it will be done.

Senator McKenna:

– But it will not be delayed?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– It is not intended that it will be delayed.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– What is the idea of the convention requiring a medical examination?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– It is a convention of the International Labour Office.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– For safety at sea or the protection of men? What was behind it?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I think it would be as much as anything for the well-being of the men themselves; it is an International Labour Office convention.

Senator McKenna:

– And the protection of the passengers?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– Yes, all those who go to sea in ships.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 29-

Sections forty-three and forty-four of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections inserted in their stead: -

43(1.)…..

” (7.) Subject to the next succeeding subsection, if -

  1. a ship is at a port and the number of seamen of a particular description required to be carried on the ship by virtue of sub-section (1.) of this section has not been obtained; and
  2. a Deputy Director, or a proper autho rity at the port, is satisfied that the owner or master of the ship has made all reasonable efforts to obtain that number of seamen of that description, including, if the port is in Australia, the seeking of the assistance of the organization of employees of which seamen of that description are members, the Deputy Director or the proper authority, as the case may be, may, by writing under his hand, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, consent to the master taking the ship to sea from the port without the seaman or seamen of that description not obtained. “ (8.) A Deputy Director or proper authority shall not give his consent under the last preceding sub-section to the master of a ship taking the ship to sea if the effect of so doing would be to authorize the master to take the ship to sea with less than four-fifths of the engine-room staff, or less than four-fifths of the deck complement, of the ship. “ (9.) If a Deputy Director or a proper authority at a port gives his consent under sub-section (7.) of this section to the master of a ship taking the ship to sea from a port without a seaman or seamen of a particular description not obtained and the master complies with the conditions, if any, subject to which the consent is given -
  3. the owner of the ship may suffer the ship to go to sea from that port; and
  4. the master may take the ship to sea, and may lawfully command the officers and crew of the ship to take the ship to sea, from that port, notwithstanding that the ship does not carry that seaman or those seamen of that description. “(11.) For the purposes of sub-section (8.) of this section and of paragraph (a) of the last preceding sub-section, a boy or apprentice with less than six months’ service at sea who is carried on a ship shall not be counted as a member of the crew of the ship. “ (12.) In this section - deck complement ‘, in relation to a ship, means the number of persons which, by virtue of sub-section (1.) of this section, the ship is required to carry as able seamen, ordinary seamen, boys and apprentices;
Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move -

Leave out sub-sections (7.), (8.) and (9.) of proposed section 43.

This clause opens up a new matter, and I must plead guilty to the difficulty that one finds in translating one’s mind from one matter to another completely unrelated matter, at short notice. First, one has to locate the new matter, and then the matters associated with it. I am immediately concerned with proposed section 43. The proposed section is as follows: -

  1. – (1.) Subject to sub-section (9.) of this section, the owner of a ship registered in Australia or engaged in the coasting trade shall not suffer the ship to go to sea, and the master of the ship shall not take the ship to sea, unless the ship carries the prescribed crew for that ship.

The crew of a ship is prescribed in the categories of officers, engine-room staff and deck complement. It is essential that some person in authority should address his mind to the question of what is a proper staff and crew with which a ship should go to sea. I have no complaint with regard to the portion of proposed section 43 which I have just read. However, I am concerned at the proposal to include sub-sections (7.), (8.) and (9.) which purport to authorize the taking of a ship to sea with less than the prescribed complement. My concern also arises in regard to proposed section 44 in another context, and I shall advert to that later. My amendment is that subsections (7.), (8.) and (9.) be omitted. Those sub-sections read - (7.) Subject to the next succeeding sub-section, if-

  1. a ship is at a port and the number of seamen of a particular description required to be carried on the ship by virtue of sub-section (1.) of this section has not been obtained; and
  2. a Deputy Director or a proper authority at the port, is satisfied that the owner or master of the ship has made all reasonable efforts to obtain that number of seamen of that description, including, if the port is in Australia, the seeking of the assistance of the organization of employees of which seamen of that description are members, the Deputy Director or the proper authority, as the case may be, may, by writing under his hand. either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, consent to the master taking the ship to sea from the port without the seaman or seamen of that description not obtained. (8.) A Deputy Director or proper authority shall not give his consent under the last preceding subsection to the master of a ship taking the ship to sea if the effect of so doing would be to authorize the master to take the ship to sea with less than four-fifths of the engine-room staff, or less than the four-fifths of the deck complement of the ship. (9.) If a Deputy Director or a proper authority at a port gives his consent under sub-section (7.) of this section to the master of a ship taking the ship to sea from a port without a seaman or seamen of a particular description not obtained and the master complies with the conditions, if any, subject to which the consent is given -
  3. the owner of the ship may suffer the ship to go to sea from that port; and
  4. the master may take the ship to sea and may lawfully command the officers and crew of the ship to take the ship to sea, from that port, notwithstanding that the ship does not carry that seaman or those seamen of that description.

The broad approach of the Opposition is that ifa complement is determined for a ship, that complement should be the minimum with which a ship should go to sea. The complement would be fixed not lightly but with due regard, not only to safety but also to economy in running. One must assume that very careful thought was given to the fixing of the complement. It seems extraordinary that some official, in this case a proper authority, is in a position to discard the complement that has been fixed and allow a ship to go to sea with four-fifths of the engine-room staff and four-fifths of the deck complement. If such a margin exists by which the complement of a ship may be reduced, the margin is far too wide.

If my omission is not accepted, I shall put to the committee other matters as foreshadowed on page1 of the amendments I have circulated, and the committee will then have the opportunity of following the trend of my thoughts.

Senator KENDALL:
Queensland

. -I am unable to follow the legal argument put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.

Senator McKenna:

– I have not put forward any legal argument.

Senator KENDALL:

– Very well, then the argument propounded by thehonorable senator. The proposed amendment ‘in the bill is in almost exactly the -sameterms as the principal act under which we : have been working ever sinceI havebeen on the Australian coast.

Senator McKenna:

– That is not an argument in favour of the amendment in the bill.

Senator KENDALL:

– I am aware of that. I am merely informing the honorable senator of the practical side of the matter. Perhaps the Minister found it necessary to re-write the provision in order to make it plainer. When I was working on the Australian coast, we always operated on the four-fifths basis and no alteration is proposed in the proposed amendment. The number of people of different classes required to be carried on board ship is normally about one-fifth greater than is necessary to man the ship with safety. However, I realize that is not an argument in favour of theproposed amendment in the bill. I merely make the statement.

Senator McKenna:

– Why should not the complement be fixed at a fair and reasonable figure? Why should it be in excess of what is required?

Senator KENDALL:

– Over the years, we have always worked on the four-fifths basis, and I think the principal point contained inthe argument of the Opposition is that only fourth-fifths of the necessary crew would be on board ship. The proposed amendment contains a slightly different form of authority expressed in different words. Frankly, I have not compared the proposed amendment in the bill with the original section sufficiently well to say exactly where the difference lies, but obviously a difference in wording exists. I make the point that we have always worked on the four-fifths basis.

Senator McKenna:

– I realize that, but antiquity carries no weight with me in a matter such as this.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

Senator Kendall stated that in his experience ships plying on the Australian coast have always worked on the four-fifths basis. For how long has that basis been in operation?

Senator Paltridge:

– The principle has been in existence since 1912.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– The consideration that appears to have determined the inclusion of the section originally, or its re-writing in substantially the same terms in the proposed amendment, goes almost to a question of the convenience of those associated with the industry. For example, if the Deputy- Director of Navigation is satisfied that the owner of a ship has made reasonable attempts to obtain the complement of the ship, that should not be the final determining factor. The paramount consideration, which seems to have been omitted from the original act and from the proposed amendment, is the safe minimum complement with which the ship may go to sea. Perhaps a convention of the sea, as Senator Kendall states, is that a ship’s nominal safe complement is, say, 100, but in fact the practical safe complement is 85. If, in a crisis, such a ship is allowed to go to sea with a complement of 85, the ship is in fact being allowed to go to sea with a practical safe complement which is below the legal safe complement.

If the original section is to be re-written with variations, the significance of which elude me, we should at least take the opportunity of including in the amendment some provision to the effect that a deputy director shall have paramount consideration for the safety of the ship before he issues a permit for the ship to go to sea, and that such minor considerations, to my mind, as being satisfied that the owner has made reasonable attempts to obtain the required complement, should not be one of the factors specified in the act when so many more important considerations are not even mentioned.

I should be reluctant to support the. proposed amendment in the bill unless in some way it brought to the forefront the considerations of safety and other factors- to be taken into account, which apparently have been omitted since 1912. Those matters come to mind after a very quick glance at the proposed section now under discussion.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- Senator McKenna’s amendment does not focus attention on this proposed section until sub-sections (7.), (8.) and (9.) are reached. He leaves the preceding six subsections out of the. scope of his attention. Therefore, I just wish to direct some argument to sub-sections (7.), (8.) and (9.). After certain matters are satisfied, authority i& given, for a deputy director, or proper authority, to give a consent to a master’s taking a ship to sea without the prescribed complement, but with not less than fourfifths of the- engine-room staff and fourfifths of the deck complement. When Senator McKenna had concluded, I thought he had based his whole argument upon the proposition that an innovation was being introduced.

Senator McKenna:

– No. I did not say that.

Senator WRIGHT:

– The honorable senator did not state that expressly, but nobody listening carefully, as I was, to his guarded language could avoid the understanding that the basis of his objection was that this proposed section for the first time introduces the authority to reduce the complement to four-fifths.

That is completely answered by Senator Kendall’s contribution which, from the practical point of view, invokes- legal reference to section 43 (8.) of the act itself. That sub-section specifically authorizes the taking of a ship to sea with not less than four-fifths of the engine-room staff and four-fifths of the. deck complement. Therefore, the basis upon which the amendment has been submitted to us is completely answered.

Now I come to Senator Byrne. Anybody experienced in engineering processes knows that the designed strength of a project is at least, double the safe strength. I should think that anybody with the slightest acquaintance, with the prescribed manning of commercial- shipping- would, know that it does not err on the side of a skeleton crew-. I should think- also that it is a very safe inference that when the minimum of four-fifths was prescribed as the minimum permissible proportion of the crew to take a ship to sea, that was regarded as the safe margin of reduction. After certain proportions had been satisfied, and after reasonable steps had been taken to get the full complement required by law in most favorable circumstances; the law permitted the minimum safe complement. Therefore, if I may say so, I think one would be tendentious if one were to suppose that the four-fifths contained any element of unsafety

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– Should safety be allowed to be calculated purely by a mathematical ratio?

Senator Vincent:

– Actually, it is not. It is not mandatory on the deputy director to consent if four-fifths are available.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I do not find any attraction in the question, and 1 do not want to repeat the suggestion that comes to my mind that the argument almost borders on the tendentious.

Having answered those two objections to proposed sub-sections (7.), (8.) and (9.), let me see what solid foundation of law they do qualify. For that, I turn to the preceding sub-sections of proposed section 43. There one sees a provision that a ship shall not be taken to sea unless it carries the prescribed complement; that is, the complement that is fixed by regulation. Sub-section (2.) says that until the energy is developed to promote the regulation, the old schedule II. of the act will suffice and the legal complement shal be as provided in that schedule. When we get round to fabricating the regulation, the regulation will prevail.

Then I come to sub-section (3.). 1 have referred before to the process contemplated therein. Easy is the descent to hell! I find here that the Minister may, by order - he is going to condescend to publish it in the “ Gazette “ - direct that, from and including a date specified in the order, the prescribed crew may be varied in the manner specified, or shall be the crew specified in the order. Proposed sub-section (4.) says that the Minister shall not make an order under sub-section (3.) unless the application has been referred for advice to a committee of advice appointed under section 424, and the committee has furnished advice to the Minister with respect to the application. The happy situation regarding sub-section (4.) is that the Minister is required to refer the question to the committee of advice, and he is bound not to act until the committee has furnished the advice; but, as for accepting the menu prepared by the committee of advice, the Minister is free to reject it or digest it as he pleases. So he can give the complete go-by under proposed sub-section (4.) to the committee of advice.

For greater freedom, proposed subsection (5.) says that the order which the Minister makes substituting the new complement displacing the complement that has been fixed by the regulations shall not be within the category of those executive instruments that may be disallowed by either

House of Parliament. It will be remembered that we had a similar provision in the Commonwealth Police Bill, and that I then took the occasion to bring to the attention of the Minister in charge of that bill a submission that such orders should not escape the scrutiny of either House of Parliament that is disposed to review it, and perhaps disallow it.

The fixation of the complement of a seagoing ship is determined, first, in accordance with the old schedule. By regulation, that may be completely altered. By ministerial order, that again may be completely changed. So we have not a very concrete foundation for the basis on which th? deputy director, or the proper authority, may give consent to the reduction of this complement to four-fifths because the possibility is not beyond one’s imagination thai even in this Parliament in our lifetime, we will get Ministers who will double the complement now prescribed, and the four-fifths, in relation to that doubled complement, will be not ample but superfluous by the standards that we propose to permit.

Having answered, on the basis of their submissions, the argument of Senator McKenna and the argument of Senator Byrne, I want to make another point. When we look at the more fundamental basis of these provisions whereby the prescribed complement may be varied ad lib. by regulation, and by ministerial order that may not be revoked by either House of Parliament, and when we realize that it is possible that a Minister may double the complement to-morrow, or next year, it does not matter whether a complement is reduced to four-fifths. I should have been much more interested in an attempt to lay the foundations of something like a stable rule of law.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– I am greatly moved by the very logical argument of Senator Wright and merely add the suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition, and also Senator Byrne, are not reading sub-section (8.) correctly. The argument of the Opposition so far has been based upon the hypothesis that a deputy director would be bound to authorize the taking of a ship to sea if four-fifths of the complement were available. The subsection does not say that. Four-fifths is the minimum proportion of the complement required of the master before a deputy director can give a favorable ruling. Nothing in the bill places an obligation on a deputy director to give consent if even 99 per cent. of the complement has been found. He may withhold it if only one man is missing. Therefore, the circumstances of each case would have to be considered in isolation and where, four-fifths of the crew being available, it was considered palpably safe for the ship to go to sea, permission would be granted. If it were palpably unsafe, the deputy director would be perfectly entitled to withhold permission, and I trust that he would do so. Therefore, the argument of the learned Leader of the Opposition is not on all fours with the meaning of the sub-section. The consent of the deputy director would surely be governed by circumstances. I think that my interpretation of the sub-section would be accepted by any lawyer.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

.- The clauses seem to differ little from the provisions in the principal act. Since 1912 a deputy director has been entitled, by writing under his hand, to authorize a master to take a ship to sea with such crew as is specified in the authority, being a crew of not less than four-fifths of the engine room staff, and four-fifths of the deck complement. If proposed sub-section (8.) is such a serious blow at industrial conditions’ I marvel that we have heard nothing of it before; that disasters have not resulted from the existence of the provision in earlier years. Of course, ships will not be taken away with only four-fifths of their complement unless there is a serious reason for so doing. I think that in most cases only one or two men would be absent. I am influenced by my knowledge of the industry at present when I say that I cannot imagine anything more gratifying to Mr. Elliott, and the people who control the seamen’s union, than to be able to hold up a ship whenever they like merely by persuading one man to vanish. To any one who says that that would not be done, I say. “ Go and see what is happening on the waterfront to-day. Find out what has happened with these people already.”

I would support the elimination of these proposals if it could be shown that safety was affected, but we have often had Labour governments since 1912, and they have apparently not seen fit to adopt that course. That being so, the provision cannot be as bad as all that. The removal of the proposed sub-section would allow certain people to sabotage this industry with the minimum of inconvenience to themselves.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I point out to Senator McManus that the deletion of proposed sub-sections (7.), (8.) and (9.) would leave proposed sub-section (10.) untouched. That sub-section states -

It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence against sub-section (1.) . . .

Sub-section (I.) forbids the master taking a ship to sea unless it carries the prescribed crew -

  1. . of this section if the defendant satisfies the court -

    1. That the ship went to sea with not less than four-fifths of the engine room staff, and with not less than four-fifths of the deck complement, of the ship;
    2. that the failure to obtain the prescribed crew for the ship was not due to any default or neglect on his part; and-

I direct particular attention to the next paragraph -

  1. that an officer or other member of the crew of the ship did not lodge with the master of the ship an objection in writing to the ship being taken to sea.
Senator Wright:

– Was it the presence of paragraph (c) which led your Communist advisers not to object to sub-section (10.)?

Senator McKENNA:

– I thought that we were considering this bill objectively. I do not want to embark upon side issues. I hopethat the Opposition will continue to present its case objectively. I do not want to follow Senator Wright into a field of disputation concerning a particular incident or ship. That would not be appropriate to this debate. Under proposed sub-section (10.) the provision requiring four-fifths of the complement will remain, but the skipper will have to take the risk. If he is prosecuted he must be able to show that he has four-fifths of the ship’s complement, and that objection was not raised by a single member of the crew. I understand that that was provided in the old legislation also. I suggest to Senator McManus that the repeal of sub-sections (7.), (8.) and (9.) does no more than say that if there is a prescribed complement it shall be filled, and places on masters the onus of satisfying the court that the required safety margin existed.

Senator McManus:

– Do you not think that there -should be an .authority over and above the master?

Senator McKENNA:

– If consent is not , giv.en .and the master decides to .go he is provided with these defences under subsection (10.). He does not need consent.

Senator McManus:

-surely it is better that he should go -to an authority of some kind, and not simply rely upon his own judgment?

Senator McKENNA:

– I suggest to .the honorable senator that it is better that .a minimum be prescribed by ‘law arid that a master depart from it only at his peril. That is -what ‘I am contending for in -moving the deletion of these provisions. When .a complement .is ..fixed, it should .be ‘departed from only at , the ;peril of : the ..person who authorizes the departure.

Senator Vincent:

– ‘Why cast the onus on the master?

Senator McKENNA:

– He is the -man who gives the order to go to sea and who takes complete responsibility. .It ‘does not impress me a bit to ‘tell -me that provisions of this type have been in the act since 1912. When I interjected in relation to antiquity, I -knew very well that the provisions -had been in the act for a long time and I did not seek to convey the contrary impression. Moreover, I discussed the .question of antiquity with Senator .Kendall before Senator Wright interposed his comments.

If there is a fixed .complement - one must expect it to be fixed -with due regard to economy .and -safety - it ought to be tha minimum. Anybody who took the, risk of running without that .complement ‘should satisfy certain conditions, such as those set out in sub-section (10.) of proposed -section 43. But suppose the risk is taken. If a -ship does not:carry its full complement, one must assume that those who take -the ship to sea will have to do more -work, by reason of the absence of some of the seamen. Where is there provision for ensuring, in order to discourage the practice of going to sea .without a full complement, that those who do go to -sea in ..those circumstances shall share the pay of the absent members of the crew?

Senator Wright:

– Has that question ever been the subject of consideration by the industrial ‘tribunal that fixes seamen’s wages?

Senator McKENNA:

– I cannot ‘answer that question. I am suggesting that fi’ ‘have put forward <a fair : proposition.

Senator Wright:

– Is not that the appropriate tribunal to deal with the adjustment of wages?

Senator McKENNA:

– I understood that the procedure ‘1 have mentioned does, in fact, .operate in the case of officers, not as a matter of law, but a matter, of practice. If a ship is short of officers,. -the other. ‘officers, by reason of the extra work that they do, share the money that -would have ‘been paid to the men who :are not there. I am affirming it as a ‘general proposition that that should be done ‘in -relation to seamen generally. Where a complement is fixed and a ship goes to sea without a full complement, additional work has to be done’:by those who man the ship.

Senator Henty:

– Would not they get payment for that extra work in overtime?

Senator McKENNA:

– They might or they might not.

Senator Henty:

– They would have to work extra .hours. -Senator McKENNA. - There is the alternative that they would have to work harder during” their ordinary -hours.

Senator Wright:

– Will the Leader of the Opposition concede that it would not be an intelligent thing ‘for us to make an adjustment of this sort unless we knew the present terms of the award?

Senator McKENNA:

-. - The award is available, but 1 confess ti am not able -to help the committee on that. count. I-.submit that this -is a ‘ consideration which we might well .bear in mind.

The Opposition recognizes that occasionally a seaman will not turn up and that the owners of the :ship will suffer a grave loss if it does not get away. ‘That is the reason why we are not objecting to subsection (10.). We realize that a master might feel obliged to take his ship to sea without a full complement. Sub-section (10.) provides that he shall not do so unless, first, the ship carries not less than four-fifths of the complement; secondly, he has done his very -best to ;get a :£ ull crew; and thirdly, - this is vastly important - no member of the :crew vetoed ‘the sailing. -Any member of the .crew -could stop : him. from sailing.

That is a proper position. -It is a position that I want to see safeguarded in another part of the bill by a provision which will make sure that the crew and officers are given ample notice that the complement has not been reached before the ship does go to sea.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– :Is sub-section (10.) (c) a new provision? You suggest it is in the existing law, but I have not been able to find it.

Senator McKENNA:

– I am not in a position to reply to the -honorable senator at the moment. One look’s at so many of these provisions, both new and old, that it is difficult to say offhand whether any one is a new provision. 1 will examine the position and indicate to the ‘honorable senator presently, if the debate continues, whether the paragraph to which he refers is new or not. It may be that proposed sub-section (10.) (c) is new, but I think it is very proper to provide that a ship shall not be taken to sea with less than its proper complement when one -man makes a formal objection in writing. I propose to move an amendment, when we are dealing with another clause, to ensure that everybody on a ship will know well ‘beforehand whether the ship is going to sea without its full complement, so that they will be in a position to lodge such an objection. We are hot throwing overboard, in our proposal to delete sub-sections (7.), (8.) and (9.), the possibility of a ship going to sea with as little as four-fifths of its complement. We have left sub-section (10.) alone. A ship may go to sea without its full complement but, under that provision, the master takes a risk.

The position is also safeguarded by the provision “tha’t any person on the ship, whether an officer or ordinary member of the crew, can veto the sailing. The Opposition is content to rest upon that. We say that ‘there Should be ho question of consent by the officers. The prescribed complement should be adhered to, but if a master takes his ship ‘to sea without a full complement, he will have to stand up to the provisions of sub-section (10.), which we do not intend to oppose.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– To my mind Senator McManus has produced a very ‘powerful argument against the acceptance Of the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator

McKenna). To that argument the Leader of the Opposition ‘has replied, “Well, ‘there may be something in that objection, but we have retained sub-section (10:), so as to provide for that position “. I do not know whether Senator McKenna is arguing for or against his amendment. He may be arguing that his amendment is bad and that he is keeping sub-section (10.) in to make his amendment .good. ‘I do not know whether that is the purport of his argument or not.

Assuming that it is not, let us pursue Senator McKenna’s argument a stage further. He says that even if -his amendment is bad, he has retained ‘the virtue of the proposals in sub-section (10.). I -say, with great respect, that he -has not done so, because the_*provisions of sub-section .(-10.) are very different from the overall provisions of sub-sections (7.), (8.) and (9.). Sub-section (10.) merely gives a master a defence “to a .prosecution. That is much different ‘from the provision of sub-sections (7.), (80 and (9.).

Sub-section (-10.) provides three conditions precedent to a defence. They are all complementary; that is to say, they must all be in existence ‘before a defence is available to a master. They are not alternatives. I suggest that tha’t reduces the argument of Senator McKenna to an absurdity. All that would need to happen would be for one member of the crew to absent himself.

Senator -Byrne.: - Only one?

Senator VINCENT:

– I am referring to sub-section (10.) (c). One member of the crew might be absent. A Communist.inspired member of the crew would only need to lodge a written objection with the master, and bang goes the master’s defence. I hope Senator McKenna is not so naive as to suggest that the Communist-inspired element in the -crew would omit to lodge a written protest in pursuance of sub-section (10.) (c), or to suggest the waiving of any possibility of a defence that the master might have in taking his ship to sea. Senator McKenna’s argument is without much substance; it would not have the effect that he claims.

The defence that is available to the master is ‘not ah alternative ‘to the effective provisions of sub-sections (7.), (8.) and (9.). If it is proper arid safe Tor a ship >to be taken to sea with a lesser complement, why should the master be forced to go into a court and be placed in the onerous situation of having to prove a defence? What is wrong with having in the act a provision that is complementary to sub-section (10.) to enable a master to go to sea with a lesser complement if it is safe to do so and if some outside authority with knowledge and experience is prepared so to certify? That is a fairly reasonable proposal.

The fact that Senator McKenna does not want sub-section (10.) to be omitted indicates, to my mind, that he thinks it is reasonable. If the provisions that he seeks to have deleted were deleted, the only provision behind which a master would be able to shelter would be sub-section (10.). But, as I have said, a schoolboy could get around that provision by lodging a protest in writing.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I rise merely to say that I am sure it will cause the Leader of the Opposition no surprise to learn that the proposed amendment will not be accepted by the Government. I thank my colleagues on this side of the chamber for having rebutted very effectively the arguments that have been advanced by the Opposition.

Senator Hannaford:

– Particularly Senator Vincent.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– Yes, particularly Senator Vincent. I wish to refer now only to the question of safety, because doubt on that matter has been expressed. I point out that the record referred to by Senator McManus is the best evidence of what has happened in the past under the very provision that is now objected to by the Opposition. As to the future, surely sections 207 and 208 of the act contain sufficient guarantees and satisfy the most searching mind. Section 207 provides, in part -

A ship shall not be deemed seaworthy under this Act unless -

she is in a fit state as to condition of hull and equipment, boilers and machinery, stowage of ballast or cargo, number and qualifications of crew including officers, and in every other respect, to encounter the ordinary perils of the voyage then entered upon; and

she is not overloaded.

Section 208 (1.) reads -

Every person-

Including a Deputy Director of Navigation - who sends any ship to sea in an unseaworthy state, so that the life of any person is likely to be thereby endangered, shall, unless he proves that he used all reasonable means to insure the seaworthiness of the ship, be guilty of an indictable offence.

I suggest that the question of safety is not involved. The amendment is rejected.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I rise to rebut the Minister’s suggestion that my arguments have been rebutted by supporters of the Government. I wish to indicate very briefly how very much stronger the position would be from the viewpoint of control if there was a sensible, rigid complement that had to be adhered to. Let us so provide in proposed section 43 (1 . ), and let us not break it down by allowing somebody to consent to weaken it. That is the Opposition’s viewpoint. If, then, anybody took the risk and weakened the provision - I agree that an escape clause must be left - he would do so at his own peril.

The Opposition is contending for a stronger position in regard to safety than is permitted under the proposed provisions. I put that in answer to Senator Vincent in particular, because he sought to elaborate the argument that there was nothing logical about the Opposition’s approach. I say there could be no stronger position from the viewpoint of safety than the one taken by the Opposition - that is, a complete prohibition against going to sea without a complement.

What is the use of fixing a complement with a margin which is not the real complement, and which is not a bare minimum? Surely the approach of the legislature ought to be to say that no ship shall go to sea without a specified minimum. Why does the Government wish to set the complement so high that four-fifths will still be safe?

Senator McCallum:

– One-fifth might be lost on the voyage.

Senator McKENNA:

– The argument advanced in favour of the Government’s proposal is that it has always been done. One hears it argued in relation to the sea that something has happened for years and therefore is enshrined in tradition. One of the hardest things to do is to break into these fields. The Opposition is trying to get away from the old tradition. Why the dickens should we be concerned with what has been done for decades when we have an opportunity to build anew?

Senator Vincent:

– Is there anything wrong with the existing four-fifths rule? Has the honorable senator any evidence to show that it is unsafe?

Senator McKENNA:

– I repeat that it is completely silly to set up what purports to be a minimum safe complement for a ship and then immediately to allow somebody to consent to its reduction to four-fifths.

Senator Vincent:

– It is not a minimum safe complement.

Senator McKENNA:

– Then it ought to be.

Senator Vincent:

– It is the maximum.

Senator McKENNA:

– That is the position I take in approaching this question. Let us have a complement that is a complement, not a variable one which is subject to the consent of some individual. Then, if an emergency arises, let the master who takes the ship to sea in such circumstances take the risk. That situation is covered by proposed section 43 (10.), which we are not attempting to alter.

Senator Paltridge:

– May I put it to the honorable senator, by way of interjection, that what he refers to as a minimum safe complement is not in fact a minimum safe complement. It is a complement that is adjudged to be best able to work the ship. It has nothing to do with safety.

Senator McKENNA:

– Numbers must have some relation to the safety of a ship.

Senator Kendall:

– There is a lot of work such as the handling of hatches, beams and gear.

Senator McKENNA:

– I appreciate that there is a lot of work on ships.

Senator Kendall:

– I am talking about ships at sea.

Senator McKENNA:

– I, too, am talking about ships at sea. The Opposition will press the amendment on the basis of the argument I have submitted. We want to ensure the strongest possible position. We want a defined complement. We accept the position, that, if an emergency arises and a skipper takes a ship to sea, he must be able to prove the things that are set out in subsection (10.) - that he did not have less than four-fifths of the complement, that failure to get the crew was not due to any default or neglect on his part, and that no member of the crew objected. I think that is a proper precaution. This is one matter that the Opposition will press to a division.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

.- I could understand the attitude of the official Opposition if it proposed to vote against not only sub-sections (7.), (8.) and (9.) but also sub-section (10.). I cannot understand how it can take a stand on the question of safety, say that it seeks the deletion of sub-sections (7.), (8.) and (9.) because they would permit a ship to be taken out under unsafe conditions, and then say that it is in agreement with the retention of sub-section (10.), which would allow a ship to be taken out under almost identical conditions. I emphasize, therefore, that, so far as subsections (7.), (8.) and (9.) of proposed section 43 are concerned, they appear to me to envisage the same state of affairs as that covered by sub-section (10.). If the Opposition is agreeable to sub-section (10.), I cannot understand its objection to the other sub-sections that I have mentioned.

I am particularly amazed to learn that the Opposition will take its stand on the responsibility of the master to determine to take the ship out. I think that that is obviously wrong. Let us suppose that there is a dispute on a ship which results in a certain part of the crew not being available. I suggest that, frequently, the master is involved in such disputes. There can be arguments, hot words and all kinds of happenings, and his judgment, because of the circumstances in which he is involved, may not be the best judgment at the moment. Rather than cast responsibility on the master, who is concerned in the matter, would it not be better to say, “ Since this is a question of safety, we shall not leave it in the hands of a person who is concerned. We shall place it in the hands of a responsible outside authority “? If that were done, instead of only one person making a decision which affected safety, there would be two persons making the decision. Instead of having a person concerned in the dispute making the decision, it would be made by a person in authority who was entirely dissociated from the circumstances. 1 was under the impression that, originally, the Opposition opposed any suggestion that a ship should be taken to sea without its full complement, but we now have been told that the Opposition agrees to sub-section (10.), which provides that, in certain circumstances, a ship may go to sea with only four-fifths of the complement. I must confess that .1 am unable to agree with the rest of the argument of the Opposition. It seems to me that once the validity of subsection (10.) is conceded, the Opposition concedes its whole argument in this respect:

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I’ express appreciation of the point made by Senator McManus and illustrated by Senator Vincent. To prevent a boycott because of the absence of crew, provision is made for a master, with the approval of the proper authority, to take a vessel to sea with only four-fifths of its complement. Senator McKenna objects to that reduction, although the absence of one man could cause a boycott of a ship. In answer to that argument, the validity of which seemed to impress the honorable senator, he put forward an argument which seemed to amuse him. I say that because he appeared to be tickled by the conclusion to which he had driven himself. Let us suppose that one man was absent, so that there was not the prescribed crew. Then, by virtue of sub-section (10.), in which the honorable senator found great merit, any member of the crew then on board, and drawing wages while the ship was idle, could lodge an objection in writing and continue the boycott. There is something new that I want to add to this debate. I rise, despite the fact that by doing so we may not be able to have a division before the suspension of the sitting for dinner. However, I feel that it is of great importance that we should understand this matter. An argument has been submitted by the Opposition, carefully planned and circulated, for the elimination of sub-sections (7.), (8.) and (9.) of proposed section 43. But not one single reference has been made to section 44 of the act. As 1 pointed out in my previous speech, no reference has been made by the Opposition to sub-sections (1.) to (6.) of proposed section 43. I- want to point to the subsequent context; contained in proposed section 44. I may be wrong, but my intuition tells me- that the original section 44 was incorporated in the act in 1952, following negotiations by the Minister for Labour and National Service of the day, and after the. measure had passed through this chamber under the guidance of the. late, revered Senator George. McLeay.

Proposed section 44 adds something to the prescribed complement requirements, because it provides that if the number of seamen of a particular description ordinarily carried on a ship in the coasting trade is greater than the number of seamen required by virtue of sub-section (1.) of proposed section 43; if the number of seamen of that description ordinarily carried have not been obtained; and if an officer or other member of the crew has lodged with the master an objection in writing to the ship being taken to sea from a port specified in the objection with less than the number of seamen of that description ordinarily carried on the ship; then notwithstanding that the prescribed crew for the ship is carried, the master shall not take the ship from the port unless a deputy director gives consent and the consent is posted up.

Sub-section (2.) of proposed section 44 provides that a deputy director is not to give his consent unless he is satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made to obtain the number of seamen of the particular description ordinarily carried on a ship. So, there is no recognition by the Opposition of the fact that, in 1952, we inserted these provisions to prohibit the exit to sea of a ship unless the ordinary complement was carried, even though that complement exceeded the legally prescribed complement. Now, despite the fact that proposed section 44 contemplates retention of the requirements relating to ships carrying their ordinary complement, we have submitted to us the argument that, to permit the legally prescribed complement to be reduced to four-fifths, with the consent of a deputy director, would be a shattering blow to navigational safety on the coast of Australia.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

.- When this matter was in its earlier stages of discussion I raised the question of safety, because I felt that some provision should’ be inserted with a view to raising the matter to the point- of vital consideration that it should receive, in’ preference to other factors. I thank, the Minister for directing’ attention to subsequent sections of the principal act, in which the matter of seaworthiness of ships is referred to. It seems that a deputy director must take those provisions into consideration or suffer the pains and penalties of disregarding them by granting a permit for a ship to move to sea with less than its ordinary complement. 1 should be pleased if the Minister would advert to the reason for proposing to write in to the legislation sub-section (10.) (c). This appears to me to be an important matter. Senator Wright has cast some light on it by his latest contribution to the discussion. He pointed out that a ship that ordinarily carried a certain complement could not move out to sea with less than that complement if any seaman objected in writing to that being done. 1 do not know whether or not that is a new provision. I take it that sub-section (10.) (c) is in the nature of a complementary provision to that already in existence, but it appears to me to embody an extraordinarily important principle. It was discussed by Senator McManus, and adverted to by Senator Vincent, in relation to circumstances in which there could be a sinister attempt to hold up a ship.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

Mr. Chairman, I roseprior to the suspension- of the sitting for dinner to deal with the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition- designed to omit sub-sections (7.), (8.), and (9.) of proposed section 43, and to thank the Minister for his explanation on the question of whether or not adequate provision was madefor the decision of a Deputy Director to allow a ship to proceed to sea with fourfifths of its complement. The- Minister kindly explained the significance of the provision to ensure safety. I also asked the Minister to explain the reason for writing in, apparently for the first time, the provision contained in sub-section (10.) (c), which provides that if an officer or- other member of the crew of the ship did not lodge with the master of the ship an objection in writing to the ship being, taken to sea, this would constitute a ground of: defence for a defendant charged, with taking the ship to seawith less than four-fifths of its complement.

In proposed section 44, a similar provision is provided in relation to a ship going to sea with less than the number of seamen ordinarily carried. The extraordinary part about this provision is that it does not appear to be written in as a matter of substantive law. It appears from my reading of the principal act and the amendment that no express provision is made for a master or a seaman to register such a protest; it is taken for granted that such a protest can be registered and that, having been registered, it will be deemed to be an adequate ground for a prosecution to be launched against a master. 1 have risen particularly to ask the Minister to explain to the committee the reason that actuated the Government in writing :.n sub-section (10.) (c) allowing a member of the crew to take such action which would constitute a ground for a master to be prosecuted for taking a ship to sea in those circumstances.

Senator McManus contemplated a state of affairs in which such action could be taken for a sinister purpose, and Senator Vincent also mentioned that aspect of the matter. I think it is germane to the whole determination in relation to the amendment, and I would be pleased if the Minister would inform the committee, before the amendment is put to the vote, of the reason that actuated the Government in writing in that provision.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I am sure that I cannot describe the reason for this provision any better than, nor indeed as well as my colleague, Senator Vincent has done, but the insertion of the defence shown in sub-section (10.) (c) is designed to facilitate a sailing where there is a minor shortage of crew and everyone on board is prepared to sail. Such a circumstance does occur when a ship suddenly loses a member at night. One instance of when it occurs that I can think of is at Christmas time. Everyone is anxious to get home then. This provides, in a sense, a defence for a master who has so sailed without a certificate.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– Why is this not put in as available to a member of the crew instead of merely being provided here in this’ form as a defence available to the master? It is important. It is a wonder that it was not. written in specifically that a member of the crew may object:

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– This provision gives a defence to the master.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

.- 1 listened very attentively this afternoon to a most learned debate on the clause before the committee, and 1 was rather intrigued by the attitude of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition indicated by his statements that honorable senators on the other side recognized the right of a master to take his ship to sea with a certain percentage of the crew, as provided in proposed section 43, but they are opposed to the retention of the relevant sub-sections to give the master or the owner of a ship that authority. I feel that where a master or a shipping company has made every effort to get a full crew, there should be some way by which they can obtain authority for the ship to put to sea with a lesser number of crew.

On the one hand, the sub-sections to which the Opposition objects give authority for that purpose. The Opposition is relying on sub-section (10.) and the defence aspect. In one instance a master can leave by authority with less crew, and in the other he takes a risk by going with a lesser number of crew. In these circumstances, he may be brought before a court to state his case and to prove that it was right for him to take the ship to sea. This is how the matter appears to me as a layman.

I feel that it is not right that the legislation should not provide for some authority. We know that industrial courts can enforce certain things where authority exists, but under sub-section (10.) there is no authority. I doubt whether any industrial court would back up an order saying that a ship should have gone to sea with a lesser number of crew when it actually went to sea at the direction of the captain who considered that it was right for him to go. Sub-section (10.) (c) indicates very clearly that we have in mind the things that do happen in regard to ships. It opens up a very easy prospect for a member of the crew, for some reason or other that is of no great consequence, to thwart the desire of the master to take the ship to sea and carry on the trade that has been arranged. We know that these things do happen. Instances have occurred on the Australian coast which clearly show that, if the sub-sections to which the Opposition objects were omitted, sub-section (10.) (c) could be very troublesome.

The Government should make this legislation as effective as possible for the proper, economical conduct of our seaborne trade. Anything which hinders the attainment of that, objective will detrimentally affect the conditions of everybody in this country. These matters may be far removed from many people who do not live on the seaboard to whom shipping has not the same application as to those closer to it. But the cost of transportation affects everybody in this country, and I believe that the purpose of the legislation should be to ensure that our maritime service has every power under the legislation to keep the ships moving continuously for the benefit of the trade and economic progress of Australia.

I, therefore, support the retention in the bill of the provisions to which the Opposition objects because, to my mind, they constitute the only way in which a shipowner or master may obtain the authority he requires in such an instance.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I was under the impression we had debated this matter adequately before the suspension for dinner. The amendment before the committee is to omit sub-sections (7.), (8.) and (9.). The debate necessarily has ranged outside the scope of those particular subsections, but I shall occupy a moment in restating the views of the Opposition. There is, and should be, a prohibition that a ship shall not put to sea unless it carries the full complement of crew prescribed by law. We heartily approve that prohibition, and do not want to see it cut down, in the terms of sub-sections (7.), (8.) and (9.), by enabling an officer, a proper authority, who might eventually be some obscure Commonwealth official in some remote port-

Senator Paltridge:

– Oh!

Senator McKENNA:

– Honorable senators opposite cannot deny that that situation could arise, may be in an extreme case, but it is possible. We object to any official, whether within or without Australia, being able to break down the complement set by law. If the complement is too high, let us cut it down to the minimum requirement for safety and comfort, but do not let us have a false complement and this system of consent which is a completely wrong system.

I agree with Senator Wood that we want to keep the ships moving without hindrance, but this whole principle is based in antiquity upon a practice that has grown up in the mercantile marine of providing a margin of one-fifth of the crew.

The whole situation would be much more definite if we set a clean complement from which no departure may be made. Should the master of a ship, in what he regards to be an emergency, be compelled to put to sea, he must be prepared to affirm that he did not have less than four-fifths of the crew and that no officer or member of the crew objected to the action he took. That is a completely clean, fair, safe and logical proposition.

If honorable senators refer to sub-section (8.), which the Opposition seeks to omit, they will see the different treatment accorded to officers from that accorded to members of the crew. If a ship carries a number of officers below the complement, the authority, who may consent to the ship putting to sea in those circumstances, must be satisfied that the officers who will be carried on the ship are able to perform all the duties of the duly certificated officers who, but for the consent of the authority, would be required to man the ship. In short, where the full complement of officers is not carried, the proper authority may not give consent to the ship putting to sea unless he is satisfied that those on board can carry out the work of the absent officers. However, in the case of a deficiency in the complement of the crew, no such obligation rests upon the proper authority.

That is the first very grave defect in the section. The second grave defect arises out of the point referred to by Senator Byrne. It is extraordinary that in subsection (10.) (c) the right of veto is given to any member of the crew but is denied in the case of a consent that may be granted by an officer. That is completely illogical and it appears to me that the Government is blowing hot and cold in the matter.

Senator Wright:

– In what section does the Government deny that right in the case of a consent of an officer?

Senator McKENNA:

– I did not say in the case of a consent of an officer. I am referring to the crew and dealing with the provisions of sub-section (8.) which the Opposition is seeking to omit. The consent of an officer is referred to in section 14a. (c) in another context where a complement higher than that prescribed is ordinarily carried. In that case consent is required. I shall advert to that later for another purpose. At the moment I am stating the defects inherent in sub-section (8.) which the Opposition seeks to omit.

I am pointing to two extraordinary matters. If the complement of officers is below that prescribed, the consenting authority has to be satisfied that those who man the ship are able to perform the work of the total complement, but no such requirement exists in the case of the crew. That is a plain defect. I repeat that the Minister affirms the principle that the ship shall not put to sea with less than the prescribed complement without the consent of every member of the crew. I mention those two matters as additional reasons why the Opposition is opposing the section, and I feel I have again made our position clear.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

.- I join issue with the Leader of the Opposition when he states that some obscure official in some remote port may be the proper authority. I can understand people thinking that that position could arise, but we are a responsible Government and no doubt responsible officers are stationed at the various ports. As an illustration, I refer to the Queensland Harbourmaster Service which performs a number of duties including the oversight of the safety of ships leaving port, small passenger craft and so on. I know from experience that the service does such a good job that one very rarely hears of an accident occurring in its line of operations.

If members of that service, because they are responsible men chosen for the job, can do the work of overseeing the safety of people travelling in passenger craft, surely this Government will ensure that responsible persons will be chosen to implement this act. No officer would be so irresponsible as to allow a ship to put to sea without a necessary complement aboard; in fact the decision of such an officer would, no doubt, be on the cautious side.

The same principle applies in civil aviation where certain safety restrictions are imposed and policed by the Civil Aviation

Department. In that case also we must rely on the human element and the respon sibility of human beings in their respective jobs.

Senator McKenna, in his fear, is overestimating the dangers. I have more faith in the service and the officers chosen to carry out that particular duty, and I cannot imagine a deputy director or a proper authority who would make a decision that would involve a risk. I have sufficient faith in thetraining of those officers to say that we have nothing to worry about.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I regret that I must rise again to speak on this particular section, but, in my view, Senator Wood is labouring under a “misapprehension as to What constitutes a proper authority. The powerof consent that wearenow considering is vested in a deputy director or a proper authority. A deputy director would be an official in Australia, and I share the honorable senator’s confidence in officials in thedepartment, but I invite him to referto the definition of “ proper authority “ as contained in the bill. It certainly covers the officials in whom he and I have confidence, but outside Australia, at a port in a Commonwealth country, it means a person who, under the law of that country, has duties similar to those of our own officers. Again, I might have considerable confidence in officers of other Commonwealth countries.

We come to sub-section (10.) (c) where, in relation to a port in a country other than a Commonwealth country - that is one outside the British Commonwealth countries - the officer who willmake the determination whether a ship can goto sea without its complement will be a diplomatic or consular representative of Australia, or a consul of any otherCommonwealth country.It could be the consul of any country at all. If the honorable senator knows anything of consuls he will know that there are consuls and consuls. It could come about that a very minor, inexperienced man with no knowledge of the sea or the maritime service in a port outside Empire countries, will determine whether a ship goes to sea without its proper complement. He is not tied up with the condition imposed in relation toofficers, that he hasto be satisfied that thosewho are left will be able to work the ship adequately. He doesnothave to be satisfiedofthat.So,IputtoSenatorWood theargumentthatheisrelyinguponavery slenderreed,andIthinkhehasamiscon- ceptionaboutthedefinitionof”proper authority “.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator McKenna’s amendrnent)be left out.

The committee divided. (TheChairman-SenatortheHon. A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 23

NOES: 32

Majority . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator McKENNA (Tasmania - Leader of theOpposition[8.28].-I move-

Inproposedsection43,subsection(8.),after theword”sea”,firstoccuring,insert”if anofficerorothermemberofthecrewofthe ship objects in writing to the ship being taken to sea or “.

In short, the effect of that proposal isthat a deputydirector or proper authority isnot to give consent in either of two events. The first is the one that I now propose, namely, ifan officer or other member of the crew of the ship objects to its going to sea. The other is the one recorded in the provision,thatis,iftheeffectofsodoing would be to reduce the staff to lower than four-fifthsofthecomplement.

A moment ago, in another context, I directed an argument to this point by comparison between sub-section (10.) and subsection (8.). I addressed an argument to the committee in relation to the difference that applied to the power of a member of the crew to voice an objection when consent is given by a proper authority or a deputy director and the position that exists when a master elects to go.

I think I can sum it up for the committee by saying that if the master takes the ship to sea without the full complement, and without the official consent of the proper authority, or. a deputy director, he commits an offence punishable, on conviction, if, amongst other things, even one officer or one member of the crew has objected to the ship .sailing. In other words, sub-section (10.) provides an absolute right of veto to any one officer, or member of the crew. Now let us look at that in relation to the consent that may be given to a master pursuant to sub-section (8.), the sub-section that I hope will be amended. In that case, if the proper authority consents, the master may ‘take the ship to sea with less than the prescribed complement, even if the whole crew objects. It seems extraordinary that the Minister should concede the principle of veto in one case and not in the other. There may, of course, be very sound reasons for conceding it where safety is concerned, for there, surely, the rights of individuals must be considered. If the complement fixed by law is not adhered to those who must take the consequent risk should have some say in the matter. That is the principle underlying the provision of a veto in subsection (10.). I merely want that principle applied to sub-section (8.) also. I do not wish to labour the argument further, because I have had an earlier opportunity of addressing myself to this matter.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– The first alternative amendment put by the Opposition had, I would suggest, a little merit. It proposed amongst other things, the deletion of the whole of subsection (8.). That would have given the master of a ship the right to take his ship to sea without a full complement, in certain circumstances. The master had the benefit of a saving provision - sub-section (10.). However slight, it gave him at least a semblance of a defence.

Senator Paltridge:

– Provided he satisfied the three conditions, taken together.

Senator VINCENT:

– That is so. However, the Opposition now wishes to retain sub-section (8.) and add what I think-

Senator McKenna:

– The honorable senator should not say that the Opposition wants to retain it. He will recall that we voted against its inclusion.

Senator VINCENT:

– But your present amendment seeks ‘the retention of subsection (8.) and adds a certain condition. 1 do not think any one will dispute that. The rider which the Opposition seeks to add is that one member of a ship’s complement shall have the .power to hold up a ship indefinitely.

Senator McKenna:

– If the ship has not the full ^complement.

Senator VINCENT:

– What is the good of having a deputy director skilled in making the decisions; what is the good of having a master skilled in taking ships to sea, if we are going to delegate to individual members of the crew the right to decide whether or not a ship will go to sea? That is the fundamental argument which the Opposition must face. Honorable senators opposite are asking the Senate to give crew members the right to act capriciously in these matters, while not providing a right of appeal against such an action. Only the very extreme members of the seamen’s union who wish, for their own reasons, to control the industry, and the members of the Opposition, seek this provision. I do not think any other responsible person in Australia would regard it as reasonable.

Senator Laught:

– It is not provided in any other industry.

Senator VINCENT:

– That is so. No such right is given to members of industries that are, perhaps, more dangerous than seafaring. Such a proposition would not even be thought of, yet the Opposition asks that we give it to .the Communist-ridden seamen’s union. If that happened it would be possible for these people to hold up ships indefinitely. If the Opposition is serious that is the sum-total of its aims and objectives in this matter. I do not, for a moment, believe that all members of the Opposition are really serious in putting forward this proposition, rather that the seamen’s union has insisted on the amendment and that the Leader of the Opposition has moved it with very great reluctance. There is no merit - if one wants to argue merits - in the proposal. Sub-section (10.) is not objected to. It would give the master of a vessel a defenceif he were charged with improperly taking a ship to sea. Therefore, there is a strong inference that the Opposition agrees that a complement of four-fifths is safe in certain circumstances. Regretfully, I must conclude that this amendment is put for political reasons only, and I oppose it strongly.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I remind Senator Vincent that I adverted to subsection (10.) (c) - the paragraph which gives to any officer or member of a crew a complete right of veto - a right to prevent a master, lacking a full complement, from going to sea without consent. In other words, I drew attention to a veto, not sought by the Opposition, but conferred by the Government. I am not contending for a new principle and noted with interest the care with which Senator Vincent avoided referring to that particular paragraph. In view of what I have pointed out, the smear that he bestowed indirectly upon the Opposition for venturing to suggest this amendment might, if it were justified, be directed also at the Government, which has accorded a complete right of veto two sub-sections further on in the bill.

Senator Vincent:

– The honorable senator must surely take the whole section together.

Senator Wood:

– Sub-section (10.) (c) applies only where no authority has been sought.

Senator McKENNA:

– As I have said, it applies only when the master goes to sea without consent, and without full complement. Sub-section (10.) states -

It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence against sub-section (1.)-

Sub-section (1.) prohibits a master from going to sea without a full complement - if the defendant satisfies the Court -

  1. that the ship went to sea with not less than four-fifths of the engine room staff, and with not less than four-fifths of the deck complement, of the ship;
  2. that the failure to obtain the prescribed crew for the ship was not due to any default or neglect on his part; and
  3. that an officer or other member of thecrew of the ship did not lodge with the master of the ship an objection in writing to the ship being taken to sea.

That undoubtedly gives to an individual member of the crew, or officer, a right to veto against the master taking the ship tosea without the proper complement, and without consent. As honorable senators will see, that principle is affirmed by the Government. Therefore, there is nothing new in the Opposition suggesting that it be applied elsewhere. Our proposal certainly did not merit the remarks that Senator Vincent directed to it. I remind him also that there are six maritime unions - not one - and that all six have asked for this provision. I affirm the proposition that we are not putting up a new principle to the Government. We are putting up an old principle, in a different context, I concede.

Senator Vincent:

– The context makes all the difference.

Senator McKENNA:

– It makes some difference, but the difference is not such as to justify the comments that Senator Vincent has made.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- The only charitable view that one can take of the argument of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) is that he smoothly makes it out of naivete, but prompted by the knavery of those whose interests he represents here to-night. To put his argument in perspective, we should recall that, in the first place, we prescribe the proper complement of a ship going to sea and then, in provision that the committee has already affirmed, we say that that complement may be reduced, but not to less than four-fifths, if the Deputy Director of Navigation or the proper authority consents. That proper authority is required to ensure, before giving his consent, that certain efforts have been made to procure a full complement.

Having been defeated on that basis, Senator McKenna now says, “ The Government has retained the sensible provisions contained in proposed sub-sections (7.), (8.) and (9.) “. Realizing that we are dealing with a sinkable commodity - shipping - he is endeavouring a punch a hole below the waterline. He suggests that even the most disaffected seaman on board a ship shall be able, by his objection, to prevent the ship going to sea, despite the fact that the Deputy Director of Navigation has said that he consents to it going. Senator McKenna, supported by the whole of the Opposition, intends to vote for the right of, perhaps, a Communist seaman to, as it were, punch a hole in, and sink, the provisions that the committee has just affirmed.

An interesting argument is forthcoming, based on the plank which he rescues from his shipwreck. He bases his argument on proposed sub-section (10.). He says that the Government itself has given an officer or a member of a ship’s crew the right to lodge an objection in writing. That is so, but the provision will not prohibit a master from taking his ship to sea with four-fifths of its complement, if the Deputy Director of Navigation has consented. It gives an individual the right to object in a case where the master has taken his ship to sea with four-fifths of its complement, but without the consent of the Deputy Director of Navigation. That is a distinction which, despite the legal acumen of Senator McKenna, he has, in his arguments to this chamber, hitherto succeeded in obscuring.

Senator McKenna:

– I made that point completely clear in the proposition I put forward.

Senator WRIGHT:

– It may have been my failure to understand. I will not attribute it to the advocacy of Senator McKenna.

We have the situation that we say that, with the consent of the Deputy Director of Navigation, a master may take a ship to sea with four-fifths of its complement. The deputy director, before he gives his consent, must ensure that the master has made every effort to obtain a full complement. We then go on to say that if there are circumstances in which a master takes his ship to sea with four-fifths of its complement, without the consent of the deputy director, he shall not be liable to prosecution unless a member of the crew has objected to his action in writing. In a case where a crew has not the protection of the deputy director, surely Senator McKenna will concede the justice of allowing one member to put in an effective objection. But the position now is that he wishes to elevate the right of that member - perhaps a disaffected Communist - to object, and to give him a right to override and, in effect, destroy the consent of the deputy director. I never thought that we would hear such rubbish in this chamber.

Question put -

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

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator the Hon. A. Reid.)

AYES: 21

NOES: 31

AYES

NOES

page 693

D

Majority

10

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I now refer to proposed section 43 (12.) which reads, in part -

In this section - “ deck complement “, in relation to a ship, means the number of persons which, by virtue of sub-section (1.) of this section, the ship is required to carry as able seamen, ordinary seamen, boys and apprentices; and move -

After “ seamen “, first occurring, insert “ and “.

I also foreshadow the following further amendment: -

Leave out “ boys and apprentices “.

These amendments bring me to a further consideration of proposed section 43 (8.), which has already been before the committee on two occasions. In other words, the context is that the Deputy Director of Navigation is. not to give his consent for a ship to sail unless the engine-room staff is four-fifths strong and the staff that remains consists of not less than four-fifths of the deck complement of the ship.

In sub-section (12.) the term “ deck complement “ is defined. I can submit only one amendment at a time, but the whole purpose of the two amendments, which are bracketed in intent and purpose, is to ensure that if the deck complement of a crew is short, in the calculation of the four-fifths boys and apprentices shall be disregarded.

Senator Kendall:

– The honorable senator includes ordinary seamen?

Senator McKENNA:

– I include able seamen and ordinary seamen.

Senator Kendall:

– Why include ordinary seamen if you exclude apprentices?

Senator McKENNA:

– I take it that at least they are mature and have ability.

Senator Kendall:

– An ordinary seaman may have had only one year at sea, but an apprentice may have been at sea for two or three years.

Senator McKENNA:

– It could be expected that apprentices would be youthful. In the context of the bill, they would certainly be boys under the age of eighteen years. I should say that, for the most part, apprentices would be under that age.

Senator Kendall:

– They would be between seventeen and 22 years of age.

Senator McKENNA:

– I assume they are taken on at fifteen years of age or thereabouts.

Senator Kendall:

– Generally speaking, they are of the same age as ordinary seamen.

Senator McKENNA:

– That may well be.

Senator Kendall:

– How could an ordinary seaman be of more value than an apprentice?

Senator McKENNA:

– I take it that an able seaman is a person of certain skill and experience and that an ordinary seaman is a person who is engaged in the actual work of operating the vessel. I’ should imagine that boys would be concerned with the minor aspects, not with the navigation or the. heavy work of a ship. I. assume they are in the category of pupils and are not operatives.

The whole purpose of the amendments is to ensure that, if the proper complement is to be reduced, those who are left shall be skilled men - working men or operatives, not juniors or pupils. If Senator Kendall can indicate that that would not be an improvement, I should be interested to hear him say why.

Senator KENDALL (Queensland [8.55]. - Apprentices, particularly on the Australian coast, do exactly the same work at the beginning as does a deck boy. In addition, an apprentice is trained by one of the ship’s officers in some of the rudimentary work of navigation, the handling of cargo, and that sort of thing. A boy can become an ordinary seaman after a year at sea, so if a boy went to sea as a deck boy at the age of sixteen or seventeen years, he would be promoted to the status of ordinary seaman at seventeen or eighteen years of age. The Opposition might find that, by making this amendment, we. would include an ordinary seaman with perhaps a month or two months’ service in that capacity and exclude an apprentice who might have served three or four years doing exactly the same work. On the Australian coast, an apprentice works with the crew; he manhandles ropes, scrubs the decks, and does exactly the same as does the ordinary seaman. During the time I spent on sailing ships, I saw ships with 24 apprentices and four able seamen. But, of course, those days have gone. I suggest to Senator McKenna that by pressing these amendments he could defeat his purpose.

Senator Willesee:

– Could a lad be apprenticed to a trade such as carpentry or electrical work?

Senator KENDALL:

– No.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment (by Senator McKenna) negatived -

Leave out “ boys and apprentices “.

Proposed new section 44a.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move -

After proposed section 44, add the following proposed section: - “44a. (1.) The Master of a ship shall post up and keep continuously so posted in a prominent place on the ship, being a place to which all officers -.and other -members of the crew have access, a manning table in .prescribed form showing in relation to the ship:-

  1. the prescribed complement of officers;
  2. -the prescribed complement of crew;
  3. particulars of officers .and crew ordinarily carried in excess of the prescribed complements. (2.) So soon as it appears to the Master that he -may ‘be obliged to go to sea without the presented complement of officers .or. crew or without the numbers of officers or crew ordinarily carried in excess of the prescribed complement, he shall record the deficiency .in each case .on the manning table posted as aforesaid and shall from time to time ‘-record changes -in the deficiency as they occur.’.”.
Senator Vincent:

– ‘What -is the prescribed ‘complement?

Senator -McKENNA*- nit is the complement referred to in -proposed section 43 (1.). It is the complement that is fixed for each ship, il suggest to the .committee .that the amendment makes perfectly clear what is intended. It remains for me . to give the reasons that have actuated the Opposition in moving it. The committee decided previously that this clause should be discussed in conjunction with clause .12. The reason for -bracketing the two clauses is that clause 12 deals .with the position of officers and ^.clause 29 deals with the position of crew. A similar consideration obtains in respect of both categories.

The complement of officers is dealt with in two categories. With -regard to the prescribed complement, a proper authority may, as we have heard, consent to the ship leaving port without a full complement of officers, if certain conditions are fulfilled. -Those conditions are set out in sub-section (7:) of proposed section 14. Sub-section (8.) prohibits a proper authority from giving his consent unless he is satisfied that the officers shipped will -be able to carry out the duties of the complement officers who are not shipped. I concede that that appears to afford something like adequate protection. An appropriate authority has to he ‘assured, .before he gives his consent, that those who go with the ship will be able to do the work of the full complement of officers.

But now we come to the proposed section ‘14a. We are still dealing with officers, but we are concerned with a deficiency only when the extraordinary position arises that “the number ordinarily carried on ‘the ship is greater than the prescribed complement - when the ship is proposing to go to sea, it may be with the prescribed complement, but -with less than the number ordinarily carried. In that situation, the ship can go to sea without the -number of officers ordinarily carried if, after objection raised in writing by an officer, an appropriate authority consents in writing. It simply amazes me to think that a ship can be taken -to sea with less than its prescribed complement, without consultation with the officers concerned.

Senator Vincent:

– But that is subject to the provisions of sub-sections (8.) and (9.).

Senator McKENNA:

– Subject to the consent of a proper authority, but where the number ordinarily carried is higher than the complement, an objection has to be lodged before consent is necessary. That strikes me as extraordinary, but that is exactly what- -the ‘bill provides in paragraph (c) ‘of sub-section (1.) of proposed section 14a.

I comment, in passing, that that is an extraordinary distinction to make between the case where more than the proper crew is carried and that where less than the proper crew is carried.

Senator Wright:

– It is exactly parallel to the provision contained in subjection (1.) of proposed section -44.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, in relation to crew, but I am leading to the point about objections that .can be lodged. That is the purpose of my amendment. I am still dealing with officers. I point out that, in such circumstances, the master is required to post up the consent on the ship once he has obtained it from the proper authority, and to keep it posted until the ship goes to sea. That is provided in sub-section d-)(e).

I suggest that a very serious defect in all these provisions is that there is no machinery to enable the officers to know, in sufficient time before sailing, that the numbers ordinarily carried are in fact not to be carried. There is a complete gap. I pose this question to the ^Minister: How does an officer become aware-that the ship is going to sea1 without the ;M1 complement df -officers -.ordinarily carried, -even though that complement is above the prescribed one? An exactly similar position arises, as Senator Wright has pointed out, in connexion with proposed sections 43 and 44. Those sections deal with crew, as distinct from officers. Again, there is an opportunity to object, reference to which is made in one of the clauses we have already discussed. I again ask: How will a member of the crew know that the ship is about to put to sea without the full complement, unless there is some machinery to enable him to be informed and to put him in a position to lodge an objection?

In other words, my proposition is simply this: What is the use of conceding a right to object if you do not give an opportunity for those concerned to find out the facts upon which to base the objection? That is the whole point involved in this matter. It seems to me that the only way in which the difficulty can be resolved is to put up, in a place where the crew can see it, the particulars of the complement that the ship should carry and, in appropriate circumstances, particulars of the higher numbers carried ordinarily, and then to record any deficiency. As the deficiency varies, the change can be recorded also.

Senator Vincent:

– Surely, paragraph (e) overcomes the honorable senator’s objection. That paragraph provides that it is the responsibility of the master to do all these things, and having done them, to put up a copy of the consent in the proper place. Surely, that should tell every member of the crew the complete story.

Senator McKENNA:

– But the job has been done by then. The die has been cast and the consent obtained. I am asking the Minister to indicate where, in the bill or in the act, there is machinery to enable an officer or a member of the crew to be informed, in sufficient time, that the complement is down, lt is not enough for the officers and crew merely to see the consent posted, because by the time they see it, it is too late.

Senator Vincent:

– The master has until the ship sails to get his complement and/or the consent.

Senator McKENNA:

– But he may not find out until the ship is under way that there is a deficiency. Surely there can be no valid objection to recording, somewhere in the ship, what its proper complement is, as prescribed or as it is ordinarily operated. Why should it not be recorded? Who objects to that being done?

Senator Kendall:

– It is provided for in the schedule to the act.

Senator McKENNA:

– There is a schedule to the act, but the honorable senator does not expect all the members of a ship’s crew to carry copies of the act about with them, does he?

Senator Kendall:

– But they know.

Senator McKENNA:

– If they know the contents of this act, they are far more knowledgeable than are most honorable senators. I think it is true to say that the crews change from ship to ship. They may need to make an inquiry from time to time to ascertain the complement. Such information should be readily available. I suggest that little effort would be needed to make it available. To do so would impose no hardship on the shipowner or the master. Would it constitute any hardship to a master to record, for everybody to see, what the deficiency was at a given time? Senator Kendall may say that a copy of the agreement is posted. I know that that is so, but it is a pro forma agreement which does not contain the story about the ship’s complement of officers and crew. I think that there is a reference to the number of ordinary and able-bodied seamen who are carried, in one of the opening clauses of a very complicated agreement. All that the Opposition is asking is that there be recorded, in a place readily accessible, first, information as to the complement of the ship in respect of officers and crew, and secondly, particulars of any deficiency that may occur from time to time. That will put the crew and the officers in a position to lodge the objections that they have the right to lodge under the act. In the absence of such things, the facts upon which they are entitled to object may never come to their notice.

If honorable senators will refer to the terms of the amendment I have moved, they will see that it simply provides that the master shall keep posted up from time to time particulars of the prescribed complement of officers and crew and of the crew ordinarily carried in excess of that complement, and if there is any deficiency to have that fact recorded and to keep the information up to date. That is no major burden upon anybody. I am informed that it would be a great convenience to those who were concerned about the complements with which ships go to sea.

Senator KENDALL:
Queensland

Mr. Chairman, I do not know that I see anything particularly good in this amendment, although I do not think it would do any harm. In answer to something that the Leader of the Opposition said, I point out that a ship would never leave the port of engagement without a full crew. I assure the honorable senator that the various shipping unions - the seafaring unions - would make quite sure when the crew was being engaged that the full complement was engaged. That need not apply to the officers of the ship because in many cases owners have found it more economical to carry one, two, or sometimes three more officers than is necessary under the manning scale in the schedule.

For example, ships of from 150 to 1,000 tons need carry only a first and a second mate, but invariably they carry three mates, chiefly because it is more economical to do so. If they carried only two mates, it would mean that each of them would be getting four hours overtime a day for double watches, and also it would affect the amount of payment in respect of their home port days for which they would have to be paid, because if there were only two officers they would have to be on duty night and night about or both would be on duty while working cargo in port. I can assure the committee that if one officer happened to be missing, the other officers of the ship would be in a position to know that he was missing long before the captain had to put up a notice that he was missing and that he was going to sail without that person.

Senator McKENNA:

– The honorable senator is referring to small ships. What about larger ships carrying a heavy complement of officers?

Senator KENDALL:

– I do not think that any ship on the Australian coast carries more than five deck officers and possibly ten engineers.

Senator McKenna:

– This provision is not confined to the coastal trade; it covers also foreign-going ships.

Senator KENDALL:

– It says Australian trade and ships registered in Australia, but by implication it includes foreign-going ships.

Senator McKenna:

– All British ships and all foreign ships while in our waters.

Senator KENDALL:

– I do not think so.

Senator McKenna:

– It applies in this context to all ships on the Australian register, including foreign-going ships.

Senator KENDALL:

– Foreign-going, not foreign ships. This does not apply to foreign ships. We have nothing to do with foreign ships in our manning scales. As to a member of the crew being missing and the rest of the crew not having an opportunity of knowing he was missing unless the fact was posted up and cited by the captain, I can assure Senator McKenna that, on the Australian coast, if a man is missing the rest of the crew will not sail until they find out where he is or why he has gone ashore. They do not have to wait for the captain to put something up in writing to the effect that he has gone off, in order to know about his absence. I can quote an example of that - a frivolous example. Many of these things are frivolous. One of the reasons why the Minister is bringing down these regulations is to try to stop the frivolity that is occasioned by bad leadership of the union. I shall mention a certain case that occurred last year when I went away for seven weeks on a Patrick ship just to see what went on.

Five minutes before sailing time in Melbourne, an A.B. came along and said to the chief officer, “ I am going ashore to ring up “. The chief officer said, “ You cannot do that. We are about to take down the gangway and leave.” Nevertheless, the seaman went ashore and along to the telephone. It was an hour and threequarters before he came back. We expected him back every minute and the captain did not leave the ship, take a taxi and go up town to the shipping office to try to get authority to sail without him. For the whole of that period the port of Melbourne was held up, as any one who knows Melbourne can understand. There were two tugs standing by in the narrow stretch of water down from Victoria dock; no other ship could come up the river during that time, simply because a seaman had gone ashore with a frivolous excuse. If the master of a < ship could get authority quickly to sail one short of the complement, I think- it would, be a bit of a lesson to those who engage in this sort of frivolity.

Members, of the Opposition have been talking- about: the. great Australian merchant service, and they ask the Minister at question time how many ships are being built in Australia, and so on. Before the war, the Australian coastal trade was recognized as the greatest coastal trade in the world. If we are going to accede to all the demands that the. seamen’s union is insisting! on to-day; that trade will disappear: Already, half a dozen big passenger ships have disappeared from the coast and they will not- be replaced; the shipping’ companies just cannot afford to replace1 them. As honorable senators know, I am no barracker for’ the shipping companies, but I know that they cannot- afford to go on when alf these troubles occur between the seamen and the waterside workers - troubles which are going to ruin the whole of the coastal shipping trade. The two points that I rose specifically to make were that the crew would be well aware if one of their number was missing and, secondly, it would be quite obvious if a ship’s officer was missing.

Senator VINCENT:
Western: Australia

Senator Kendall has: given some: very good and” practical reasons why theamendment should not be accepted. Although I am not a master mariner oran able: seaman, I- appreciate the real difficulties that he suggests-. One does not need to- be- an experienced seaman to realize- how hopeless the– task would be if this amendment were- accepted. I can imagine- the dilemma1 of a master of a ship if, a quarter1 of an’ hour before- sailing: time-, he foundthat he was short of one man who. had gone ashore to ring up and had. not returned. He would be faced with this question: Does the man’s- name go on the board, or should h& be given another hour’s grace before his name was’ put on the board, in terms of the Opposition’s amendment?

I feel that there are some practical difficulties” in the matter, but there are far more important reasons why this amendment should not be accepted. The more’ important is- the matter of legal responsibility. I think the weakness in Senator M’cKenna’s’ amendment is that the master of - a’ ship, is? not: responsible to the. crew forthe carrying: out of the provisions of - this:, act; he is-, responsible, indirectly, to’ the’Minister; audi certainly to. the. department; They are the ones who are: entitled to see. the prescribed complements, and all details in relation thereto, because it is. they who have to give consent, the crew or the officers do not give the consent. I do not. see that one ought to impose an additional burden upon the master of a vessel to be responsible . in some respects to his crew for carrying out a statutory obligation when, in fact, there is no legal ‘ responsibility attaching to the master to be responsible to the crew in any respect at alf.’ That responsibility is to the department. Sub-section (8.) makes it clear that the- Deputy Director has that statutory obligation through the master-to ensure that the ship.’cannot go to sea. without’ the prescribed complement or, if1 the prescribed’ complement is- not present,- then with a sufficient number of officers so as- to ensurethat all duties shall1 be adequately carried out. Sub-section (8.) makes that abundantly clear. Why, then, should the- master be saddled, with the; additional burden of being answerable to the crew? If there, were somer legal obligation to. the crew, I. would saythat responsibility rested on the- master toshow his list to the crew, but no such legal, obligation rests on the master. Senator McKenna-‘s request is outside the reason, able degree of responsibility that should ber accepted, by this legislation.

The proposed section is more- than fair to. the crew because it imposes upon- the master’ the. obligation of placing on the notice* board a- consent as soon- as it has1 been obtained,, and-‘ even sub-normal members of the crew would then be informed, first, that a deficiency’ existed in the- prescribed, complement, secondly, that an application for a permit had been made, and thirdly, that consent had been given by the proper authority. What more could any member of the crew reasonably expect, in view- of the. fact that the master has: no actual responsibility to the crew to account for such details?

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of. the Opposition · Tasmania

– I am disappointed that the Minister has not- indicated a view in the matter. Although I was interested in the remarks of his colleagues, I should like to know whether the Minister accepts or rejects the proposal. We learned from Senator Kendall, who. has had. practical experience in this sphere, that no grave harm will be done by, although he does not see very much merit ja, the amendment. In those circumstances, if the Minister shares that view he might well’ accept the proposal of the Opposition, unless he has. some other reason to advance.

Senator Vincent in his recent contribution to the debate claimed that the master has no responsibility to the crew, but he overlooked the fact that the master is prohibited from taking a ship to sea unless it carries a full complement. A legal obligation is upon the master, not only at large but also* in its particular application to the members of the crew, to ensure that they are buttressed by adequate numbers, in taking a ship to sea. In those circumstances, what can be the objection to the slight amount of effort that the amendment proposes to impose upon the master? In any case, the additional work of posting in a prominent position the ship’s complement would, no doubt, be done by one of the officers of the ship. Those occasions, on which a deficiency in the complement existed would, no doubt,, be reasonably rare. I do not seen any burden imposed on the master, but I can envisage some good from the proposal.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and. Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– Th& Government does not find the amendment acceptable, and I am persuaded to that conclusion by the practicalities of the situation. Senator Kendall has made the position clear. The number of officers required to be carried is. well known on any ship, and it is quite fantastic for any honest attempt to be made to create the impression that the officers and-crew of a ship on the Australian coast1 are not fully aware of the number of officers to be carried, on any vessel. The. crew of the ship is also well known; indeed, as Senator McKenna has acknowledged, the articles of the ship containing the complement of th*e vessel are exhibited in. a prominent place, usually, I understand, in the recreation room of the vessel. Anything, further required of the master would be. merely an unnecessary aggravation.

Senator Vincent has said that theauthority to sail must be displayed. Some concern has been expressed that crew members may not’ have the opportunity- to’ protest but what is- the -sequence of events of a.j master- coming into - possession of an authority? First, he must obtain the certificate, from the proper authority, who does nod issue, the permit until he has satisfied himself that the master-has made all reasonable attempts to fill- the complement of thecrew and has, in fact, approached the unionto. that end. All those things combined eliminate, the necessity for this amendment which’, in practical terms, is an unnecessary aggravation and another job imposed on a master already hindered by over-much paper work.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause. 12 agreed to.

Clause 30. -

Section 45 ot the Principal Act is amended by inserting in sub-section’ (l,)s after the word. “ employed “, the- words “ at a port in Australia “.

Section proposed to be amended - 45. (1.) Except as prescribed, a member of the crew of a foreign-going ship (whether British or foreign) shall not. be employed in handling cargo or ballast in connexion with the loading or unloading a ship:

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move -

After the word “ Australia “, insert “ and in the case of a foreign-going- ship registered in Australia shall not be employed at a port outside Australia.”’

Honorable senators will find that clause 30 of ‘the bill amends section 45 of the principal act by the insertion of certain words. Section 45 falls into two parts. The first portion, particularly” sub-section (1.), deals with foreign-going ships. Sub-section (2.) relates to the activities of members of Australian-trade ships. The section is directed to’ the loading and. unloading of cargoes or ballast by crews as opposed to waterside workers. I> shall read section 45 (1.) as it- stands, and then indicate the alteration proposed by the Government, to which” we do not object so long as our amendment is accepted. The sub-section is in these terms -

Except as prescribed, a member of the crew of a foreign-going ship (whether British or foreign) shall not be employed:-

At this point the Government proposes to insert the words “ at a port in Australia “, and the sub-section* will then continue te read. - in handling cargo or ballast in connexion with the loading or unloading of a ship:

As the section stood, Australia could in fact exercise jurisdiction over foreign-going ships whether British or foreign, but a provision exists limiting the action that can be taken. There is no absolute prohibition upon the loading or unloading work being done by a crew because a proviso to the sub-section reads -

Provided that the regulations shall not allow the employment of the crew of such ship in handling cargo or ballast where a sufficiency of shore labour is available.

That is a wise proviso, and there can be no objection to its application in relation to ships other than Australian ships. I am concerned now with what happens on a ship registered in Australia, the crew of which may, at a port abroad, be called upon to load or unload. I suggest to the Minister that we have the power constitutionally, and should exercise it legislatively, to provide that the crews of ships which are registered in Australia shall not be employed loading or unloading cargoes in those circumstances, not only at a port in Australia, but at any port abroad.

Senator Vincent:

– Suppose there are no other personnel available?

Senator McKENNA:

– The regulations cover the matter. It is provided that the regulations shall not allow the employment of a crew in handling cargo or ballast where a sufficiency of shore labour is available. That means that when the ship goes where there is not a sufficiency of shore labour the crew may be required to help in loading or unloading.

I repeat that section 45 (1.) applies to all ships at all places. Now the Minister proposes to subject foreign-going ships to a prohibition against using their crews to load or unload only in Australia. I want it extended so that the prohibition, subject to regulation, subject to the proviso that is recorded in the act, is extended not only to ports in Australia but to ports abroad.

Senator Vincent:

– Would you accept some other country’s legislation in this country? Is there to be reciprocity?

Senator McKENNA:

– It becomes a question of fact. We would legislate that the crews of ships registered in Australia are not to load or unload cargo at a foreign port except where there is not a sufficiency of shore labour.

Senator Kendall:

– That is a different matter.

Senator McKENNA:

– I am not disturbing that. If the honorable senator will look at my amendment, he will find that I am accepting the words that the Minister includes, and I am seeking to add the words - and, in the case of a foreign ship, registered in Australia-

It must be registered in Australia - shall not be employed at a port outside Australia in handling cargo or ballast in connexion with the loading or unloading of a ship.

That seems to me to be unexceptionable.

Senator Wright:

– Which of your amendments are you putting forward - No. 10 or No. 11?

Senator McKENNA:

– I am putting forward No. 1.0 at the moment.

Senator Wright:

– There is no word “ballast” in No. 10 of the amendments circulated to me.

Senator McKENNA:

– No, but I have been reading it in its context. Does the honorable senator see the point?

Senator Wright:

– No.

Senator McKENNA:

– Then the honorable senator had better look.

Senator Wright:

– He is trying to understand and he is listening hard.

Senator McKENNA:

– Let me try again to explain to the honorable senator what is proposed, because I should like him to understand what I propose. If he will look at section 45 of the act, he will notice that the Government proposes to insert, after the word “ employed “, the four words “ at a port in Australia “. I propose that at that point, after the word “ Australia “ the words contained in my amendment be inserted. Then, if the honorable senator had heard me, he would have understood that I was pointing out that the act, as amended by the Government’s amendment and my addition, would then read in this way -

Except as prescribed, a member of the crew of a foreign-going ship (whether British or foreign) shall not be employed at a port in Australia and, in the case of a foreign-going ship registered in Australia, shall not be employed at a port outside Australia in handling cargo or ballast in connection with the loading or unloading of a ship.

I do not disturb the proviso that follows.

Senator Wright:

– Despite the grammatical atrocity involved, I understand.

Senator McKENNA:

– Miracles can happen! The honorable senator understands!

I refer now, without formally moving it, to amendment No. 11, if I may. It is bracketed with the amendment before the Chair and I think that if I refer to it now we may save time later. It will be noticed that in dealing with foreign-going ships, whether British or Australian, the proviso says that the regulations shall not allow the employment on such ships of the crew in handling cargo or ballast where a sufficiency of shore labour is available. I think that the same proviso should be attached to subsection (2.) of the act which related to Australian coastal ships. Sub-section (2.) says -

The regulations may forbid the employment, except as prescribed, of members of the crews of Australian-trade ships in handling cargo or ballast in connection with the loading or unloading of ships.

I think it is probably merely through oversight that this proviso attached to subsection ( 1 .) dealing with foreign-going ships is not similarly attached to sub-section (2.) which deals with ships engaged in the coastal trade. In my view, the same proviso should apply to both. At the moment, I am not moving the amendment relating to sub-section (2.); I merely indicate it. It may not be necessary for me to move it, or to argue it further in view of what I have said.

At the moment, I am accepting the Minister’s amendment confining the activities of foreign ships in relation to cargoes and ballast at a port in Australia, and then I seek to extend it not to all foreign-going ships, but only to ships on the Australian register and over which we have jurisdiction, prohibiting crews from loading or unloading abroad.

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

– I think that the amendment proposed by the Government is good and that the amendment suggested by Senator McKenna, on behalf of the Opposition, should be rejected. I have listened all day to honorable senators opposite, Senator McKenna, of course, being prominent amongst them, probably briefed, as they are entitled to be, by the seamen’s union on these matters. 1 feel that the practical eflect of most of the amendments suggested by the Opposition would be to grind to a halt the Australian shipping service. The amendment proposed by Senator McKenna could go even further. I suggest that it could fold up a good deal of our own internal trade and assist to fold up a good deal of the foreign export trade which, we hope, will be carried by foreign-going ships registered in Australia to those countries near to us.

If this amendment is carried, I doubt whether there will be many shipowners who will want to register their ships in Australian ports; if they can register them in other ports, they will do so because of the effect the amendment would have if it were carried. We hope that there will be an increased movement of shipping between Australia and the vast territory of Antarctica, and I suggest that there will be a dispute over the question whether there is sufficient labour down there to unload a ship. Consider the effect of the amendment, which seeks to add the words “ and in the case of a foreign-going ship registered in Australia shall not be employed at a port outside Australia.” I ask honorable senator’s to consider what might happen in Australian Territories such as Nauru, Norfolk Island and Cocos Island - all of strategic importance. There might be a prescribed let-out, but its application would involve work by more and more civil servants. As the law stands, a crew can be called upon to undertake necessary work of that kind. The proposal of the Opposition would, if accepted, assist our merchant service to grind to a halt and hamper development in Australian territories. Consequently, I cannot support the amendment. The proposal by the Government that this principle should operate in Australia only is, I think, very sound.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I should like to reply briefly to Senator Laught’s comment on the amendment. He is apparently afraid that our shipping services would grind to a halt, but his alarm is quite unfounded because section 45 (1.), which has been in existence since 1921 at least, places a complete prohibition upon British and foreign ships using their crews to load or unload cargo and ballast anywhere in the world.

Senator Wright:

– It had no extraterritorial operation before 1942.

Senator McKENNA:

– It has stood, in the widest possible terms, since 1921. It was, I concede, beyond power. That kind of thing has been, to a limited extent, within power in relation to British ships since 1942, when the Statute of Westminster began to operate. For sixteen years, according to Senator Laught, the shipping service of Australia should have been grinding to a halt because of a prohibition such as the Opposition now suggests.

Senator Kendall:

– What would you do about ships not registered in Australia but having Australian crews? There are a lot of them - the ships of the Burns Philp company, for instance.

Senator McKENNA:

– One would have to consider the facts in each case. It may be completely beyond our jurisdiction, but that would depend on whether the vessel was owned by a British national or a foreign national, and so on. I cannot answer the honorable senator’s question without knowing facts of that kind. What is wrong with saying that the crews of ships under Australian control shall not load or unload cargo, but may be required by regulation to do so where there is an insufficiency of shore labour? I am not recommending the alteration of the wide power already existing in the act.

So far as the Antarctic, Cocos Island and Other remote parts of the world are concerned, it is perfectly clear that the regulations would not merely permit, but would authorize .and require, crews to load and unload where there was an obvious insufficiency of shore labour. I cannot understand why every Government supporter looks for something sinister in almost every amendment put forward by the Opposition. We merely ask that Australian crews should sail ships and not engage in stevedoring operations. The Government has laid that down already so far as Australia is concerned. We merely ask that it should go a little further and prohibit such operations outside of Australia if sufficient shore labour is available. Let us suppose that an Australian ship with an Australian crew went to a foreign port and, despite adequate shore labour, proceeded to load and unload cargo and ballast. Would that help our relations with the country concerned?

Senator Paltridge:

– Would it not .depend largely upon the :local law?

Senator McKENNA:

– It might well be covered by local law, but would it not be better to have a general prohibition which, under the regulations, could be lifted when insufficient shore labour was available?

Senator Vincent:

– Who is to decide whether there is adequate shore labour?

Senator McKENNA:

– -That is always a question of fact - something that I cannot deal with in a general way. The regulation prescribes the facts, and very often the facts determine the situation.

Senator Vincent:

– I understand very well that it is a question of fact, but someone must decide whether a certain thing is a fact.

Senator McKENNA:

– The Government, in promulgating its regulations, pays attention to details like that. The regulations would specify the circumstances in which the crew could be used. Surely the issue is very simple. The Government says, “ The existing provision is far too wide - it purports to govern all the ships, even. those outside Australia. Let us bring it back into line and confine its operation to Australian ports.” We say, “Take the matter a step further and apply it to Australian crews of ships registered in Australia, when they are .abroad. Prohibit their use as stevedores when adequate shore labour is available.”

Senator Vincent:

– Would you go so far as to say that our law should override the local law of, say, Marseilles - which would permit either the crew or the local stevedoring company to look after the matter of unloading?

Senator McKENNA:

– A foreign law might permit the crew to act or, on the other hand, require it so to do. The honorable senator must note the difference there. We do not attempt to legislate for or against such a position, but -merely ask that Australian crews not engage in stevedoring operations where sufficient shore labour is available. We cannot prevent any local law from overriding our law. A foreign country would have the bodies and could legislate in furtherance of ‘its own powers. There is nothing exceptionable in “the amendment and the committee should support it.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

.- I propose to be brief. I. must, on the principle enunciatedby Senator McKenna, support the amendment that he puts forward.

I see nothing wrong with a requirement that, provided sufficientshore labour is available for wharf or stevedoring purposes, the crew shall not be used for such purposes. I think that that is an elementary industrial principle. It has been suggested that there may be legal complications because of local laws, but I think that they can be. dealt with as: they arise. I would not. support any suggestion that the crew of a- ship should be used to load or. unload while sufficient shore labour for. that purpose was available. I think that shore labour should.be given the opportunity to do. work such as that. In the circumstances,

I support the amendment.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

.- I propose to support the amendment: By section 45 of the act, the Parliament wrote into the law for application to Australia, and purported to write into the law for extra-territorial application, the principle that crew labour should not be used if an adequacy of other labour was available. Perhaps that law did not have an extraterritorial operation, but-

Senator Vincent:

– I do not think that it ever purported to do that.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– I do not care what it purported to do. It possibly did not have an extra-territorial application, but in the eyes of the world we were laying down for application in other countries a principle which , we were applying in our own country. I do not think it is a good thing to apply in this country a principle of industrial justice as between men who work on the. shore and men who work on the ships and then, by express provision, deny it to other countries to which Australian ships may go. I think that the principle involved is a good principle. If we are going to apply it, it should be applied not only to our own ships here, but also, as far as possible, to our own ships trading in other ports. For those reasons I will support the amendment. I think it is fair and just.

On the question of the effect of compulsive or permissive law in other countries, 1 think it is quite possible that in many cases no local law will be applied. It may be. a matter of industrial relations. The master, ofan Australian ship, not being prohibitedunder the terms of our statute from employing members of the crew in theloading, or unloading oftheship at an overseasport, might findhimselfin conflictwith the industrial system of a country in which he : used members of. the. crew for that work.. A breach, notofacivil law, but of the industrial customsofanother country couldbring., our ships . and. our country into great disrepute. The actionof this Parliament could be. pointed to, . and. it could. be. said thatwe had excluded the possibility of such a conflictin our own ports, hut had opened the. door to it in the ports of other countries at which Australian ships call. I support the amendment. .

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– The Opposition’s amendment ignores the operation of any foreign law thatwould becontrary to it. Ifa French law obligeda ship’s crew to be usedfor the purpose of unloading the ship, the Australian law - as I think even SenatorMcKenna will agree- would be overridden by the French law. Therefore, we arediscussing a proposal subject in all respects to the provisions of the local laws that apply from time to time and from place to place. I think one must accept that proposition- as a prerequisite to a discussion, of this proposed amendment. Therefore, theproposed amendment would apply only in; cases– where a local law permitted a ship’s crew to be so used.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– Or where there was none.

Senator VINCENT:

– Or where there was no local law. If we accept the amendment, we shall say that Australian seamen: should be deprived of the right to do extra work and earn more money, even if the. laws of a foreign port permitted them to do so, andthat the. benefit of the payment made fox the work should go to the servants of the stevedoring authority in that foreign port. In other words, theOpposition : to-night is attempting to deny to. our seamen the right to earn an honest penny inforeign portswhereit is lawful for them to do so.

It is a very good principle that one man should have only one job, but I do not think that that principle, should apply to Australian seamen in foreign ports. I am surprised at anybody in the Senate advocating that the gentlemen in the bum boats of Port Said should have the exclusive right to earn an honest penny by unloading ships in Port Said and denying to our own seamen the right to earn a few bob in that way. That is what our friends of the Opposition are suggesting. Do they really think that that is social justice for our seamen? Are our seamen in agreement with them? I am surprised that people who purport to represent trade unions and who say that they have the interests of the workers at heart are now, in effect, denying to our seamen the right to earn something extra.

Senator McManus:

– They would not want to earn this extra money if skilled labour were available.

Senator VINCENT:

– Let us give them the right to do it. If they did not want to do it, I should not quarrel with them. But, for the love of goodness, let us give them the right to earn the extra money, instead of saying that they must sit down and watch foreign stevedoring employees doing the job. I cannot understand the Opposition’s attitude. I do not think that the majority of the members of the seamen’s union would support that attitude, although, some of them would do so - those who do not have the interest of their fellow workers at heart.

Senator McManus:

– They would be paid as seamen and would get other payments as well.

Senator VINCENT:

– They would get something for unloading the ship.

Senator McManus:

– I do not think that that is in accordance with sound union principles.

Senator VINCENT:

– It might not be a sound union principle, according to Senator McManus, but I think it is a very good economic principle. The members of the seamen’s union should be pleased that I am advocating that they should be entitled to earn a little more. All that they could do at Port Said would be to sit down and fish - and there are not many fish in the harbour there. They should be given the right to earn an honest extra penny, if they desire to do so.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

Senator Vincent has just made an extraordinary contribution to the debate. I am sure that it is not the desire of Australian seamen, working under the seamen’s, award and enjoying the full protection of that award, to be used to load or unload ships in foreign ports. If stevedoring labour is available in foreign ports, it should be utilized, for the sake of promoting harmony in the ports to which we send our ships. For that reason I believe that this amendment is sound and solid. It is laughable from our point of view to say that it is a good principle that men should be able to earn a few extra shillings in this way in a foreign port. If we agreed to that, we would also, to be logical, have to agree that the crews of foreign ships which come tothis country should be allowed to load or unload their ships here. The master of a Chinese ship calling here might say, “ We do not want your wharf lumpers. We shall do the work ourselves “. Would honorable senators opposite argue that our men should stand down, but that that would not matter because they were being paid for waiting, time? Would they say, “ Let these other people earn an honest penny “?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport, and Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

That further consideration of the proposed amendment be postponed.

I want to have a look at further implications of the amendment, and also at the form of the amendment.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I should like the Minister to consider some aspects of sub-sections (1a.) and (1b.) of section 45. I ask him to consider whether it is intended by sub-section (1a.) - a pro- vision in an act which can only have effect, in relation to interstate shipping - to apply to an intra-state vessel rates of wages which a Commonwealth award has made applicable to interstate vessels. If that is not the purpose, I do not know why the section’ does not leave to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act the provision., that is there made.

I pass on to section 45 (1b.) of the act. If we are to extend the operation of thiskind of restrictive Australian law to foreign ports, I ask the Minister to note that section 45 (1a.) is limited to any port in Australia and that sub-section (1b.) although T think intended to be so restricted, is not’ restricted. If the expositions that have induced the Minister to agree to a postponement of this amendment are to be relied on, section 45 (1b.) would have world-wide operation, lt would mean that in ports outside Australia we would be saying that shore labour was not available unless it was available at rates prescribed by Australian industrial awards. The whole thing is a theoretical fiasco being discussed in the vacuum of this chamber against a background of what is happening on the Mel- bourne waterfront. I suggest that we should get a little more reality into our consideration of the whole problem.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I was glad to hear the Minister move that further consideration of the amendment be postponed. I support the motion. Does the motion cover amendment No. 11 on the list I have circulated, which is the next amendment that I propose to move?

Senator Paltridge:

– No.

Senator McKENNA:

– The Minister would like me to proceed with the next amendment?

Senator Paltridge:

– Yes.

Senator McKENNA:

– I support the motion for another reason. It enables me to give Senator Vincent notice that, when we resume consideration of the amendment, I shall ask him to name one foreign country which requires - not permits - crews to load and unload their own cargo where there is a sufficiency of shore labour.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move -

At end of clause add the following paragraph: - “ and (b) by adding at the end of sub-section (2.) the words: - ‘provided that the Regulations shall not allow the employment of the crew of such ship in loading cargo or ballast where a sufficiency of shore labour is available

Section 45 (2.) of the act provides -

The regulations may forbid the employment, except as prescribed, of members of the crews of Australian-trade ships in handling cargo or ballast in connexion with the loading or unloading of ships.

That has clear application only to trade on the coast of Australia. The regulations are authorized to forbid the employment of… members of the crews in question except as £ prescribed. The regulations are given wide scope, and I suggest that they should be conditioned and confined in relation to the coastal trade in the same way as they are in section 45 (1.), which has application to foreign-trade ships whether Australian registered or not. There, the regulations are not to allow the employment of the crew of such ship in handling cargo or ballast where a sufficiency of shore labour is available. I think it is appropriate that, above all else, the regulations should not be able to authorize a crew to load or unload when there is a sufficiency of labour on the Australian waterfront. I do not think it is necessary to say anything further. I commend the amendment to the committee.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– The purpose of section 45 (2.) of the act is to authorize the making of regulations to apply to this matter. This seems to me to be one case in which a regulation, when tabled, could be more appropriately discussed than could a provision written into the major legislation. For that reason, I repeat that I do not feel disposed to accept the amendment.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to agree to the postponement of further consideration of this amendment so that amendments relating to clause 30 and the viewpoints expressed by Senator Wright may be considered together. It seems that the whole clause needs revision. If any provision in this bill seeks to authorize or opens the door to the employment of crews on the Australian waterfront when there is a sufficiency of shore labour, it is not necessary for me to tell the Minister what kind of industrial upheaval could be caused. Having regard to the implications, I ask the Minister to postpone further consideration of this amendment, too.

Senator KENDALL:
Queensland

– I support the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition. I think that both amendments should be looked at in conjunction with the act to see whether we can produce something better than is contained in the legislation as it stands or as amended in accordance with the proposals of the Opposition.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I agree to the postponement of further consideration of this amendment to enable it and the previous amendment to be considered together. Accordingly, I move -

That further consideration of the clause be postponed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 31 -

Section forty-five a of the Principal Act is amended - (a)

by omitting sub-section (4.) and inserting in its stead the following sub-section: - “(4.) If a seaman deserts a ship to which this section applies, or, while he is bound by an agreement to serve in a ship to which this section applies, refuses or fails, without reasonable cause, to join that ship, the master shall report the fact to a superintendent.”;

by omittingsub-section (10.) and inserting in its stead the following subsections: - “ (9a.) A superintendent may refuse to approve the engagement of a person who, in the opinion of the superintendent, does not possess a knowledge of the English language sufficient to enable him to understand fully orders that may be given to him in the performance of his duties.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

.-Clause 31 of the bill does not purport to rewrite section 45a of the act but seeks to make a number of amendments to the various sub-sections. Section 45a deals with the engagement of seamen and, in particular, with the character of seamen and their disentitlement to be engaged after a series of bad discharges. The viewpoint advanced by the Opposition is that these provisions are completely outmoded and are unfairin certain grave particulars.

The effect of the three amendments that I propose tomove is toleave out the sections that disentitle a man : to engagement after a number of bad discharges. For every Offence that he can commit there is prescribed a heavy penalty. Some of the penalties involve imprisonment. All of them involve fines. Surely, in respect of Offence after offence, it issufficient for a man to be gaoled or fined, without addi tion to his punishment, after three bad discharges, of the penalty of disentitlement to engagement! I think that that is unnecessarily vicious, particularly when one remembers that a master has the right to say, in any event, when a man is offered to him, “ I do not want that man; I want another “. Is that not so?

Senator Kendall:

– No. It is so in theory; but then, only a certain number of men turn up.

Senator McKENNA:

– I am happy to hear the honorable senator concede that there is a choice and that it is not necessary for the authority concerned to take each man who offers. He can exercise a discretion, having regard to the history and the character of the individuals concerned. If that is the case, why should we, in addition to providing for fines and gaol sentences for various offences, also provide for disentitlement to employment? I should like to hear Senator Kendall on the proposition that has been submitted to me, that a man may accumulate three bad discharges, and that within a period of five years, as the act requires, he may become liable to be rejected by a superintendent for employment on the seafront. But if he is accepted, as many such seamen are, he may acquire a very good discharge. He may reform. Despite that fact, he still is liable to be rejected and disqualified from engaging in employment on the seafront.

If there were a provision that, after three bad discharges, a man got a good discharge, thereby cancelling one of the bad discharges, surely that would be reasonable. But, as it is, even after three bad discharges and one good one he is still not entitled to be employed. I propose to move three separate amendments to effectuate the removal ‘from the statute-book of the section which deals withthis matter. The first amendment is as follows-: -

After ‘paragraph (a) insert the following paragraph: - “(aa) by omitting sub-sections (2.) and (3.).”.

Sub-section (2.) provides -

Where the approval of a superintendent of the engagement of a seaman is sought and -

the conduct or character of that seaman has, in three or more reports furnished under section sixty-seven of this Act, within theperiod offive years immediately preceding the date on which the approval is sought, been shown as “ bad “; and

the approval is sought within six months after the date of the delivery of the most recent of those reports, the superintendent may refuse to approve the engagement of that seaman.

Sub-section (3.), which the Opposition wants omitted, provides -

Where the period between the dates of delivery of the last two of the reports referred to in the last preceding sub-section exceeds two years and the seaman in respect of whom those reports were delivered served regularly as a seaman during that period of two years, a superintendent may approve the engagement of that seaman.

If I succeed with regard to sub-section (2.), the omission of sub-section (3.) will become consequential.

The two other amendments that I have foreshadowed are as follows: -

In clause 31, leave out all words in paragraph (b) after the words “ by omitting sub-section (4.).”

In clause 31, after paragraph (b) insert the following new paragraph: - “ (bb) by omitting subsections (5.) and (6.).”

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I indicate quite briefly that the amendments proposed by the Leader of the Opposition are not acceptable to the Government. That will come as no surprise to any one in this chamber who remembers the background of their introduction, and who recalls the debate that took place at the time they were introduced. But in signifying that the Government does not propose to accept the amendments, I point out to Senator McKenna, and to the Senate generally, that in reaching that conclusion the Government has not shrunk from having a look at section 45A and from introducing such amendments as it has considered desirable. Indeed, if one looks at sub-section (4.), it is obvious that a big alteration has been made which could operate in favour of a seaman who, in some circumstances, may have been harshly treated.

Sub-section (4.) requires the master of a ship to report to a superintendent a seaman who deserts a ship or who, without reasonable cause, leaves or fails to join a ship, to go to sea in a ship or totake a ship to sea. The following sub-section provides that such a report from a master shall be deemed to be a bad report equal in effect to a report made at the time of a seaman’s discharge. In the new provision, no change is proposed in regard to men who desert or fail to join. Those offences will continue to count as part of the three bad reports needed to exclude a man from the industry. However, a man who, after refusing to sail, remains on board his ship, is in a different category. Being still a member of the crew, he is subject to discipline and can be dealt with in several different ways, including dismissal without a bad report. It is felt to be anomalous that this man could be in the position of having two bad reports recorded against him for the same offence, the first for his refusal to sail, and the second that which he may receive under section 67 at the end of his service.

Cases have also occurred of men being reported for having refused to sail. The dispute has been settled and the men have ended their service with very good discharges. Nevertheless, although subsequent good service has cancelled out their action during the dispute, the original bad report remains. It is proposed to rectify these anomalies by omitting from subsection (4.) the words “ to go to sea in that ship or to take that ship to sea,” thus leaving the seaman who refuses to sail liable only to disciplinary action, in the same manner as any other seaman who commits a breach of discipline.

I am sure that the Opposition will appreciate that that is a considerable concession and indicates quite clearly that the Government has given consideration to this clause. In stating that we regard it as essential as a disciplinary measure to retain it, I point out to the Opposition that we have not done so without giving full consideration to the whole matter.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Would the Minister be disposed to consider the suggestion that I made, that three bad discharges followed by a good one, in specified circumstances, should result in the good discharge cancelling out one of the bad ones?Would not that be an improvement and afford encouragement and incentive to a man to give better service? I think that the Minister could well address his mind to that suggestion. I ask him whether any consideration has been given to it and, if not, whether the Government would be prepared to entertain some such ameliorating provisions. The Minister has been good enough to indicate his attitude, that he is not open to persuasion on the general repeal of these three sub-sections. To save time, I suggest that my three amendments be considered together. We could then vote on them and dispose of the three of them together. If there is any technical difficulty about that being done, we shall have to take them one by one; but since the committee is prepared to accede to my request, they will be taken together.

I ask the Minister to indicate whether he will consider the submissions I have made at the beginning of this speech. I concede that there has been an improvement in respect of sub-setion (4.), but that does not go to the root of the objection that the Opposition has to the whole system of discharges. I move -

After paragraph (a) insert the following new paragraph: - “ (aa) by omitting sub-sections (2.) and (3.).”.

Leave out all words in paragraph (b) after “ by omitting sub-section (4.).”

After paragraph (b) insert the following new paragraph: - “ (ba) by omitting sub-sections (5.) and (6.).”.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– The Government would not consider meeting the request of the Leader of the Opposition in relation to one good discharge cancelling out a bad discharge. I point out to him that the committee of advice which sits and which advises the Minister frequently does indicate that certain action should be taken - that men should be taken back into the industry on a one-chance basis - in certain instances. That committee of advice consists, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, of members of both sides of the industry - employers and employees. That, I believe, is ample to meet the particular position that Senator McKenna has put to me.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I should like to state my understanding of the Opposition’s proposal. If I understand it aright, I want to express the opinion that it is an enormous bid to establish complete lawlessness with regard to the engagement of labour. The two sub-sections which the Leader of the Opposition is interested in removing merely say that the engagement of a seaman is subject to the approval of a superintendent, but the superintendent is required not to refuse approval except in accordance with the act. The two sub-sections that the Leader of the Opposition objects to follow. They simply say that the superintendent may, in certain circumstances, refuse to approve the engagement of the seaman. They do not require the superintendent to refuse; they do not make it obligatory for him to do so. But these provisions are sufficient to excite the interest of Senator McKenna to see that the superintendent has not a remnant of authority to refuse approval for the re-engagement of a seaman whose conduct and character have in three or more reports within a period of five years immediately preceding the date upon which he applies for engagement been shown as bad. It is only in the case where approval is sought for the engagement within six months after the third of those bad discharges that sub-section (2.) tamely and meekly authorizes the superintendent to refuse approval.

Well, Mr. Chairman, having listened to that objection, 1 just wonder to what limits the impudence of the seamen’s union will next time extend!

Another provision that Senator McKenna seeks to exorcize is sub-section (3.), which simply says that where the period between the dates of the delivery of the last two reports - the last two bad discharges - exceeds two years and the seaman affected in the reports has served regularly during that period, the superintendent may approve the engagement. Every phrase in the subsection is facultative. Every phrase gives the superintendent authority enabling the seaman to get engagement. Yet that is one of the sub-sections that the Opposition seeks to remove from the measure! I am just amazed. I think the true intendment has not been understood by the Opposition, and that it has been instructed to do this by the seamen’s union, under the influence of some mistake.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

Senator Wright, as is usual when he is opposing something, has been over-extravagant in his language. I am referring to his comment that the Opposition is seeking to uphold complete lawlessness on the seafront. I reject that assertion entirely. It is obvious from the arguments I have already addressed to the committee that that was not contemplated. One of the arguments that I have advanced was that before a man acquires a bad discharge he has been guilty of offences. The offences that are set out in this act are many, in relation to both foreign seamen and our own seamen. The penalties imposed are exceedingly rigorous.

Senator Kendall:

– The maximum penalty is ?1.

Senator McKENNA:

– The penalties are rigorous and they are being greatly increased.

Senator Kendall:

– The most that the captain of a ship can fine a man is ?1.

Senator McKENNA:

– I am not talking of that alone. Assaults, mutiny, disobedience and a hundred and one things listed in this act are open to severe penalties, which the bill now proposes to increase.

Senator Wright:

– Does not the honorable senator agree that the penalty for mutiny should be increased?

Senator McKENNA:

– I do agree, and T am not suggesting that it should not be increased. That, too, is a perversion of my argument. I am certainly upholding the right of law. I am pointing out that there are many sanctions and the Opposition is completely conscious of their recurrence when it seeks the removal of these particular sub-sections.

Senator Wright claims that subsection (3.) is wholly beneficial. If he had been fair in presenting that argument and if his memory had been good, he would have remembered that I said that the repeal of sub-section (3.) was consequential upon the repeal of sub-section (2.) The latter is the provision that imposes the prohibition or the difficulty about the re-engagement of the men. If that were repealed, sub-section (3.) would be meaningless. Sub-section (3.) is beneficial only if sub-section (2.) remains in statu quo. My proposal was to get rid of sub-section (2.), and then sub-section (3.) would serve no purpose. The comment that emanated from Senator Wright on that matter was not fair. He concentrated on sub-section (3.) and disregarded the fact that it was purely subsequential upon subsection (2.), the penalty sub-section.

On behalf of the Opposition, I make no apology for advancing a proposal for the removal of a relic of the sea. This system of bad discharges could well be overhauled and put on an entirely different and better basis. I remind Senator Wright that I said earlier that it was not obligatory on a master to engage any individual who offers; he may decline one man and pick the next.

Senator Kendall:

– No.

Senator McKENNA:

– If it were otherwise, there might be some virtue in throwing opprobrium on the removal of the subsections as the Opposition proposes. I think that it was Senator Kendall, who interjected “ No “, from whom I got the information a little while ago.

Senator Kendall:

– If the union sends the exact number of men required to make up the crew, what is to be done? Hold up the sailing of the ship?

Senator McKENNA:

– That would be the case if the union was the only body qualified to supply crew.

Senator Kendall:

– It is.

Senator McKENNA:

– The right to supply crew is pursuant to an amendment that was submitted by the Minister to-day.

Senator Kendall:

– That is in law. What about practice?

Senator McKENNA:

– We are talking about law. How can this Parliament perform the factual act of picking up bodies and handing them to ships’ masters? We cannot do it, but we can authorize people to do it. The seamen’s union has no monopoly of the supply of labour to ships. This law allows the superintendent to attend to that matter. Of course no person can be forced to offer for engagement. All one can do is confer rights upon people to exercise certain power.

Question put -

That the amendments (Senator McKenna’s) bo agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 23

NOES: 27

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I refer to clause 31 and move -

In proposed sub-section (9a) of section 45a, leave out “ may”, first occurring, insert “ shall “. The context in which the amendment is moved is as set out in proposed new subsection (9a.), which reads -

A superintendent may refuse to approve the engagement of a person who, in the opinion of the superintendent,, does not possess a knowledge of the English language sufficient to enable him to understand’ fully orders that may he given to him in the performance of his duties. 1 direct the attention of the committee to section 47 (l.) of the act which states -

No seaman shall be permitted to sign any agreement who in the opinion of the superintendent does not possess a knowledge of the English language sufficient to enable him to fully understand the necessary orders that may be given to him in the performance of his duties.

The terms of that provision impose a complete prohibition upon the employment of a person who is not able to understand the English language sufficiently to enable him to carry out the necessary orders that may be given. That complete prohibition appears to have been broken down by the use of the word “ may “ in the proposed new subsection (9a) of section 45a.

Earlier in the debate I drew attention to the prohibition upon the engagement of a person who is not able to speak or understand the English language correctly. Surely the prohibition is designed to ensure that orders given to persons engaged on ships are not misunderstood. 1 can appreciate the results if a seaman were told to light a fire in the master’s cabin and set the ship on fire because he did not understand that he should have pulled a switch., Orders given on board ship in case of. emergency must be obeyed and carried out immediately.

  1. should like the Minister to explain why the mandatory provisions in the. existing act have been watered down to become permissive only.
Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I am prepared to accept the amendment proposed by Senator McKenna.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 33 -

Sections forty-six, forty-six a, forty-seven, fortyseven a, forty-eight and forty-nine of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections inserted in their stead:-

“46(1.)

(2.) An agreement under this section between the master of a: ship and a seaman-

shall be prepared, in duplicate, by or under the supervision of a superintendent; “ (3.) A superintendent may refuse to attest an agreement under this section between a seaman and the master of a ship which is not exempt from Division 5 of Part IV. unless- “ (5.) A superintendent who attests an agreement entered into under this section shall retain one part of the agreement and deliver the other part to the master of the ship. “ 48. Where, after the commencement of this section, a seaman is engaged at a port outside Australia to serve on a ship registered in Australia, the master of the ship shall not take the ship to sea with that seaman as a member of the crew of the ship unless-

except in a case where it is not practicable so to do, the agreement is signed by or onbehalf of the master and by the seamen in the presence of a proper authority at the port and attested by the proper authority.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I now put to the Minister for his consideration the amendments Nos. 14 and 1.6. that I have circulated. Proposed section 46 (2.) (b) provides that an agreement of employment between the seamen and the master shall be prepared in duplicate by, or under the supervision of, a superintendent. Amendment No. 14 proposes that the agreement shall be prepared in triplicate.

Proposed section 46 (5.) provides -

A superintendent who attests an agreement entered into under this section shall retain one part of the agreement and deliver the other part to the master of the ship.

The amendment proposes that a copy of the agreement shall be given to the seaman. I do not intend to press those amendments at the moment. I shall not formally move them, but I should like to outline to the Minister the thoughts of the Opposition about these matters. As 1 have said, the proposal is that an agreement of employment will be prepared in duplicate, the superintendent retaining one copy and the master of the ship holding the other. A copy is not to be provided for the employee. 1 realize that on very large ships the requirements 1 have in mind would involve the preparation of a great number of agreements, but, even if a large number is involved, 1 do not see why the dignity of the individual should not be recorded properly in these transactions. What happens at the moment is that one great form, filled with a mass of detail, is signed by all members of the crew. Their pay is recorded in it. It is competent for one person to see what the other is getting. It seems to me to be a relic of other days when crews were press-ganged and when they were dealt with, not as a collection of individuals, but just as a body of men. I am proposing to the Minister that it would be a better approach to this industry if individual agreements were prepared in triplicate and a copy were made available to the seaman.

I have looked at the agreement. I know that it serves two purposes, one of which extends to the ship’s complement and the other to ;the engagement of the particular individual. I think there is something wrong about herding all prospective employees together on the one document, as it were, and I do think that much of the matter printed in the agreement form that 1 see in the Minister’s hand now, and which is of terrifying proportions, could be eliminated with advantage.

I should like to hear what is the objection to having a small agreement for each individual, prepared in triplicate. It would involve a few more signatures by the master, but what would be the objection to forgetting all about the whole scope of the provisions and devising a simple contract of employment, letting each individual have a copy for his own benefit?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– The form which the agreement referred to by the Leader of the Opposition takes is that of the document I now have in my hand. It is a big document. It is not an agreement as between the master and his seamen; it is an agreement signed by the master and it covers the whole of his complement. It is issued in duplicate. The superintendent holds one copy, and the master holds the other. The superintendent’s copy is readily available to any seaman who wants to peruse it.

Senator McKenna:

– Is that right conferred by the act anywhere?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I am advised that it is not conferred by the act.

Senator McKenna:

– It is purely a matter of grace if a man who wants to look at his contract of employment is shown it?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I think it is rather more than that. After all, the superintendent is a man who is dealing with seamen day by day. That is his business. A seaman’s business brings him into contact with the superintendent, and I think the sort of relationship that does exist makes it more than a mere matter of grace that the superintendent should make available to a crew member a copy of the agreement for his perusal.

I am advised by my officers that this request by the Opposition comes out of the blue. It is something of a surprise to us. One of my officers who has years of experience of service of this nature tells me that he cannot recall a single request by a seaman for a copy of the agreement. I suggest that a copy is available to a seaman if he wants to see it. As no such request has been made, as the preparation of individual agreements would entail a tremendous amount of work, and especially as it seems that most seamen would not want an agreement anyway, I believe that on practical grounds the amendment should be rejected.

Senator McKenna:

– Is the copy in the possession of the master available to the crew as a matter of law, or is that a matter of arrangement, too?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– By agreement, the master’s copy is exhibited on the ship. I have just been handed a note which indicates that the practice of using this type of agreement is general throughout the British Commonwealth.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– I should like advice from the Minister as to whether it is a fact that the practice of sea-faring unions is to appoint a representative on board large ships where any great number of their members are employed, and whether this representative is usually selected by the union because of his knowledge of the agreement and is, therefore, always in a position to advise members of the union on matters in connexion with the agreement. I have always understood that a union appointed a representative who had knowledge of these matters and could advise the crew on them.

Senator Paltridge:

– I am advised that is the general practice on board ship.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I do not propose to move those two amendments. I come now to amendment No. 15 on the list circulated by me. It seeks to amend proposed section 46 (3.) by omitting the word “ may “ and inserting the word “shall”. That sub-section now reads -

A superintendent may refuse to attest an agreement under this section-

The agreement being one between master and seaman - which is not exempt unless -

  1. a certificate relating to the ship and having effect as a Load Line Convention certificate or an Australian load line certificate … is produced to the superintendent; and
  2. particulars as to the position of the deck line and load lines specified in the certificate have been inserted in the agreement.

If the Minister will refer to the relevant section of the act he will see that it has been mandatory on the superintendent to refuse to attest an agreement of employment between a seaman and a master unless that agreement set out the position of the deck and load lines and the load-line certificate had been produced. The Minister will agree that they are matters which go directly to the question of the safety of a ship and that, for that reason, they should be written into the contract of employment. In order to preserve the mandatory position - that it should not be made optional - I move -

In proposed section 46 (3.) leave out “ may “, insert “ shall “.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I cannot accept the amendment, because it is hardly a practicable proposition. I am advised that the superintendent, in opening an original agreement, inspects the load-line certificate and assures himself that it is in order, but that when later agreements are signed the original inspection is deemed to have been sufficient. I understand that the certificate is kept on the ship and that if it were necessary to produce it at the opening of every agreement it would have to be taken out of its frame, transported to the office of the superintendent, offered for display, and then returned to its frame on the ship. For instance, it would be quite ridiculous to demand the load-line certificate of such a well known vessel as the “ Orsova “ every time a superintendent attested an agreement.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– How has section 46a been operating hitherto?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– When a new agreement is opened the certificate is invariably sighted. In the case of renewals it is not.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– In effect, the section has been completely avoided.I point out that under sub-section (3.) of proposed section 46 a superintendent may refuse to attest an agreement unless the load line convention certificate is produced. I wonder, if the certificate is too big to produce readily, why something easier could not be devised. Could not a copy be left permanently with the superintendent? Is there any real need to record its production on the agreement?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I am informed that the position of the deck and load lines is featured in the agreement itself. I should think that the sub-section referred to would have special application to the original agreement. The superintendent could refuse attestation unless certain conditions were complied with and exercise a discretion in relation to any further agreement concerning the same vessel.

Senator McKenna:

– If it means that once he has inspected such a certificate he would not want to inspect it again, I could understand it.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– Once it has been inspected by a superintendent, and recorded on the agreement, another superintendent would not want to see it.

Progress reported.

page 713

ADJOURNMENT

Hobart Waterfront

Motion (by Senator Paltridge) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator HANNAN:
Victoria

.- I rise to direct attention to the tactics adopted by the members of certain industrial organizations when any one has the temerity to regard them as other than sacrosanct. Yesterday, in discussing a measure before the Senate, I had occasion to refer to recent events on the Hobart waterfront. I referred to intimidatory tactics by the Hobart branch of the Waterside Workers Federation against a fellow unionist by the name of Colrain, who had refused to bend the knee to the Communist bosses of his union. I also referred to a letter which I had previously received from certain seamen’s union delegates on “ Tarwinna “, threatening a national strike unless the Government withdrew the Australian National Line from pending industrial legislation. In keeping with this policy of intimidation, which seems so blatant in maritime matters, this afternoon I received a telegram from the Hobart branch of the Waterside Workers Federation. The telegram was addressed to me at Parliament House, Canberra, and it reads as follows:-

This job meeting of waterside workers and seamen working SS Warringa, Hobart, condemns your statement as published. Such utterances can only be made by people who are ignorant of facts or made by one who believes in and could be a member of the thuggery class. Your statement is abuse of parliamentary privileges. In the interests of this country and the trade union movement no alteration to navigation act. Hands off the maritime unions. Public meeting held Queen’s Domain,

Hobart, pledged support to branch re Hursey case. We issue this challenge to you for a public debate at Hobart on the merits and demerits of the Hursey case. Waiting your reply. V. Williams, job delegate, care WWF Branch, Hobart.

I believe it is proper that people with a direct interest in legislation should have the right to place their views before their parliamentary representatives in reasoned terms. However, I think that that telegram comes close to a breach of parliamentary privilege. I take umbrage at being told by the strong-arm men, of all people, that I believe in and could be a member of the thuggery class. The other references in the telegram are, of course, parrot cries. The challenge to debate is sheer bravado, since writs have been issued in the Hursey case. It would be contempt of court to discuss the matter publicly. I studiously avoid discussing the Hurseys and confine my remarks to a man called Colrain - a financial member of the Waterside Workers Federation, who has not issued a writ. We are therefore free to discuss his matter fully.

Yesterday’s press carried a report of a Waterside Workers Federation member, one Shackleton, who was sentenced to a month’s imprisonment for attempting to run down with a motor vehicle Colrain and his child. That adds point to my reference to gangster methods on the Hobart waterfront. Colrain is being persecuted in a way that one would not believe possible on this side of the iron curtain. This stout-hearted unionist, of Scottish extraction, is being hounded personally, and also through his family and his womenfolk. As I said before, the film critics of this country said it was “ strong meat “ when Hollywood showed us Marlon Brando, in the film “ On the Waterfront “, fighting against gangster control of a stevedoring union. Except for the difference in time, you would think that the Hollywood script writer was getting his facts from Hobart.

In the film we saw the horrible death of one of the unionists who had decided to expose the racket. He was crushed by a deliberate fall of whisky cases. In the case of Colrain, he was hit by a case of earth, which was dropped on him from the top of a hold. Fortunately, he was struck only a glancing blow on the shoulder and was not killed. An attempt was also made to knock him into an open hold. If either of those attacks had succeeded, it would have been a simple case of murder.

I am not one of those who believe that every member of the Labour party is1 a Communist or a Communist sympathizer. Far from it. But the silence of every member of- the Labour party on this issue has, been very difficult to understand. Perhaps Dr.. Evatt’s. implied! approval in a recent television interview of the waterside workers’ conduct at Hobart would be the key to the situation. At all events, it is painfully clear that help for decency and freedom on the Hobart waterfront can come only from this Government, and I personally hope, apples or no apples, that that help will be forthcoming.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.6 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 30 April 1958, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1958/19580430_senate_22_s12/>.