Senate
13 October 1960

23rd Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 23rd Parliament
  3. 1960

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1073

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF CANNED HAM

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Customs and Excise aware that governmentsubsidized canned hams and other pig meat from overseas are being offered in Australia at prices which are below the cost of production in Australia? Is it a fact that these prices constitute a serious threat to the Australian canning industry? What is the Minister doing to protect that industry and the Australian pig industry from these subsidized imports?

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · TASMANIA · LP

– Information has been given to my department that canned hams and other pig meat are being offered for sale in Australia, and in fact sales have been made in Australia at prices which suggest that they are below the current selling price in the producing countries and are subsidized by the governments of those countries. As this represents a serious threat not only to the Australian canning industry, but also to the Australian pig industry, I have referred the matter to the Tariff Board and asked for its advice. Meanwhile, the department will collect cash securities on all such imports into Australia at a figure which will be the difference between the current domestic value in the producing country, and the prices at which the articles are offered for sale in Australia. At present it would appear that on some imports the cash security will amount to almost 4s. per lb., which suggests that the prices are so low that the sale of these meats is a serious threat to the Australian industries.

page 1073

QUESTION

DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES IN AUSTRALIA

Senator KENNELLY:
VICTORIA

– I desire to direct a question to the Acting Minister for External Affairs in the harmonious atmosphere that now prevails in the Senate. Can he inform me when I am likely to receive an answer to question No. 2 on the notice-paper, which was asked on 1st September?

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · VICTORIA · LP

– The honorable senator should receive the answer to that question on the next day of sitting. I have already seen it in draft form.

page 1073

QUESTION

SEARCH FOR OIL

Senator WADE:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for National Development aware that the Government’s accelerated oil search policy is encouraging many small companies to engage in drilling operations? Does he know that among these operators the opinion is fairly generally held that any oil found in Australia will be tied to overseas interests? Is the Minister in a position to deny this allegation?

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

– Senator Wade was good enough to tell me he intended to ask this question. So, in view of its importance, I got together a little information. First, I want to make it plain that there is no differentiation between large and small companies in the award and distribution of subsidy payments. Each case is considered on its own merits in the light of the information that can be obtained. There is no differentiation based on whether a company is a large or a small company, or whether it is an overseas or a local company. Secondly, I do not agree that there is a genera] view that, if oil is found, it will be tied to an overseas interest. Indeed, the facts that I shall outline later do not bear out that proposition. It is true, however, that because of the large amount of capital that is needed for the search for oil, and the need to draw on technical know-how overseas, many Australian companies are seeking overseas capital and technical assistance. For my part, I believe that is a healthy trend. I believe that the task is so big that the more finance and know-how we can get the better it will be.

During the last decade £56,000,000 has been invested in the search for oil in Australia. Of that sum, £39,000,000 has come from overseas. Thus, £17,000,000 of the total of £56,000,000 has been found in Australia. That is not a bad proportion, having regard to the size of the task and the knowledge and capital that are available overseas. Of the companies that are searching for oil in Australia 48 have a 100 per cent. Australian constitution, 21 have a 100 per cent, overseas constitution, and twelve have a mixture of Australian and overseas capital.

No doubt on the average the overseas companies would have more capital resources than have the Australian companies; but there is a big Australian interest in the search for oil, as is evidenced by the fact that 21 Australian companies are now engaged in the task and £17,000,000 has been invested by Australia in it.

Senator Hendrickson:

– How much of that amount has the Government put in?

Senator SPOONER:

– Although I should be able to answer that question, I am sorry I cannot give the exact figure. Government assistance is running at the rate of about £2,500,000 a year. My approach to this matter has been to encourage assistance from all sources - to say, “ Let us get all the Australian capital we can and encourage capital and knowledge from overseas “.

As every one knows, our annual bill for petroleum imports is £120,000,000, and there is no lack of appreciation of the extent to which our balance of payments would be eased by the finding of oil. I believe it is premature to be concerned at this stage about the problems that might arise if we struck oil. The first task is to find it. Even if oil were found by a company wholly owned overseas, our balance of payments situation would be tremendously strengthened. But I am confident that, if oil were found by an Australian organization, that organization would be able, if it so desired, to find ways and means of getting within Australia the necessary capital to develop the oil strike, and to refine and market the oil. I think we over-simplify matters if we start talking about what will happen when we strike oil. I repeat that the first task is to get on with the search with all the assistance we can get from overseas. I cannot help but believe that what my technical officers tell me is correct - that the great task is to make the first strike of oil. That will show the experts the geological conditions under which oil can be located in Australia. Their view is, that when they get that knowledge from the first strike, they will be able to repeat the occurrence elsewhere.

Senator SCOTT:

– I direct to the Minister for National Development a supplementary question to that asked by Senator Wade regarding overseas investment in the search for oil in Australia. Has the Government revised and amended the income tax laws of Australia to encourage private investors to take shares in oil companies which are searching for oil in Australia and its Territories?

Senator SPOONER:

– There are no more favorable conditions for any industry than those provided under the income tax laws to encourage the search for oil in Australia. Subscriptions to the capital of companies engaged in the search for oil are allowable deductions. Profits of such companies are also favorably treated.

page 1074

QUESTION

BUSH FIRE PREVENTION

Senator PEARSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Army. In the Adelaide “ Advertiser “ of Monday, 10th October, a correspondent has suggested that in view of the growth of herbage and bush on roads and vacant areas, a greater than usual fire hazard will exist in the summer. Similar growth in the past has been the cause of several outbreaks of disastrous fires, and these have resulted in some cases in loss of life. They have caused untold damage to stock and fences. That has prompted the correspondent to suggest that all available means should be taken to avoid a repetition of this serious state of affairs in the coming summer. Among the suggestions that he put forward is one that the Army, in conjunction with the fire brigades organization, might combine in the use of flame-throwers to attack heavy undergrowth. The use of flame-throwers is well understood by Army personnel and ex-servicemen. I ask the Minister whether, in the event of a request being made to the South Australian Government to this effect, Army personnel resident in South Australia will be permitted to cooperate.

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The question suggestsshutting the door before the horse has bolted, and the proposal has great merit. I suggest that the honorable senator put the questionon notice, and I will refer it to the Minister for the Army for his consideration.

page 1074

QUESTION

JAPANESE TRADE AGREEMENT

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– I direct a. number of questions to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it a fact that the Japanese Trade Agreement is about tobe revised? Has the Japanese Government’ announced that it will purchase less Australian wool during the coming year, because it proposes to make less money available tor the purchase of such imports? Has the Australian Government received any encouraging reports from its official negotiators, who have been in Japan for the past fortnight? Would it be possible for us to sell more butter to Japan? Butter production at present is considerably in excess of the pre-war production, but exports have decreased from 90,000 tons pre-war to 77,000 tons last year. Furthermore, because of the activities of the European “ Six “ and “ Seven “, the export of Australian primary produce to Europe is likely to suffer setbacks in the immediate future.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– Negotiations are now proceeding for a renewal of the Japanese Trade Agreement. My recollection, like that of the honorable senator, is that a restriction has been placed on Japanese purchases of wool, but I point out that under the terms of the existing agreement Japan is obligated to make available a stated percentage of its total foreign exchange for Australian wool purchases. Therefore, if there is a restriction, it is because the Japanese are short of foreign exchange. That is a situation with which we cannot cope. I do not pretend to have a detailed knowledge of the progress of the negotiations, although I have an overall knowledge because this is a matter in which I am interested. Mr. McEwen says that satisfactory progress is being made. I should not think that, with his knowledge, he would overlook the possibility of selling more “butter to Japan. However, the point is of such consequence that I shall bring the question to Mr. McEwen’s notice, to make sure that it is not overlooked.

page 1075

QUESTION

NEWCASTLE FLOATING DOCK

Senator ARNOLD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. When was the floating dock at Newcastle last surveyed? In view of the considerable age of the dock, and its great value for defence, will the “Minister make sure that, if possible, it is in a proper state of repair? If it is beyond repair, will he take whatever steps are necessary to have a new floating dock built?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I have no detailed information about the condition of the dock and when it was last surveyed. I shall refer the question to Mr. Opperman and get a reply for the honorable senator.

page 1075

QUESTION

SEARCH FOR OIL

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for National Development. Reference was made in an earlier question to the income tax benefit in respect of money that is spent in the search for oil. Am 1 correct in understanding that the law also makes provision for a tax benefit in respect of money that has been paid to finance houses for the purposes of oil search and not actually applied to oil search in the same year? Has the Minister made any assessment of the extent to which those provisions have been availed of?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I hate to ask an honorable senator who addresses to me a question relating to my own portfolio to place it on the notice-paper, but I am afraid that 1 must do so now. The question relates to the provision of housing for a company engaged in oil search.

Senator Wright:

– Money that is advanced to financial institutions.

Senator SPOONER:

– I cannot answer the question, and I ask the honorable senator to place it on the notice-paper.

page 1075

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I desire to direct a question to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Can he inform the Senate whether any date has yet been fixed for the introduction of television, both national and commercial, into the Australian Capital Territory? In view of the Minister’s statement in Perth some months ago, on the occasion of the opening of the very fine new radio and television studios of the Australian Broadcasting Commission that, with the opening of the Hobart television station, all the Australian capital cities would have television services, does not the Minister regard Canberra - the National Capital - as a capital city? In view of the uncertainty and doubt that are now confronting the citizens of Canberra and the retailers of radio and television equipment in Canberra, will an early decision be given on the date for the introduction of television into this city?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I think that the position in this matter is very well known.

The appropriate authority - the Australian Broadcasting Control Board - has conducted an inquiry in relation to applications for television licences in Canberra in the same way as it has done in relation to television licences for other centres. The PostmasterGeneral has stated that he has received the board’s report and is considering it. The report has not yet been placed before Cabinet. I do not expect that it will be long before a decision i,« made in this matter.

page 1076

QUESTION

CENSORSHIP

Senator WEDGWOOD:
VICTORIA

– Will the Minister for Customs and Excise inform the Senate whether he has received replies from the State governments concerning the proposal to hold a conference between the Commonwealth and the States on literature censorship?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– Letters were written to the State governments some weeks ago asking them whether they see any merit in the holding of a conference between the Commonwealth and the States on this matter. Western Australia, Tasmania, South Australia and Queensland have intimated that they see merit in the proposal and are prepared to send representatives. Victoria has stated that it does not see a great deal of merit in the proposal but that if the conference is to be held it will be represented. New South Wales has not yet answered the letter.

page 1076

QUESTION

TIBET

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

– I desire to ask the Acting Minister for External Affairs whether it is a fact that the investigating committee established by the United Nations has issued1 a document of 340 pages dealing with the Chinese occupation of Tibet and its terrible consequences. If it has, will the Minister make copies of this document available to honorable senators?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I have no knowledge that the United Nations as such has issued a document on this subject, but I believe that the International Committee of Jurists did issue a document along those lines, accusing red China of the equivalent of genocide in Tibet. I shall endeavour to find out whether I can secure a copy of this document for the honorable senator. I understand that the question of Tibet has been inscribed on the agenda of the United Nations, and no doubt there will be discussions there on the armed incursion into Tibet by China.

page 1076

QUESTION

MINISTERIAL VISITS OVERSEAS

Senator AYLETT:
TASMANIA

asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, upon notice -

  1. Will the Leader of the Government furnish to the Senate a list of the Ministers who travelled overseas on State business during the financial year 1959-60?
  2. How many trips were made by each Minister in cases where more than one trip was made?
  3. How many persons accompanied each Minister on each trip?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follows: - 1 and 2. This information is contained under Division 622 (Miscellaneous Services) of the Estimates of the Prime Minister’s Department.

  1. In most cases, Ministers proceeding overseas on Government business are accompanied by their wives and private secretaries.

page 1076

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

  1. Does any Commonwealth statute prohibit the use of languages other than English for the conduct of communications by radio telephone or telegraph by amateur operators in Australia?
  2. Does any statutory rule made under any statute prohibit communications by amateur radio in languages other than English?
  3. Is the Postmaster-General aware that the great majority of countries in the free world impose no restrictions on the languages which amateur radio operators may use in national and international communications and, that if such restrictions were imposed, international amateur communication would be stifled?
  4. If no statute or statutory rule prohibits the use of languages other than English by Australian radio amateurs, by what right does the radio administration of the Postmaster-General’s Department purport to compel Australian amateurs to use the English language only?
  5. Will the Postmaster-General give directions that the present restriction, if arbitrarily imposed by officials of his department, be discontinued forthwith?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The PostmasterGeneral has furnished the following answers: -

  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. Whereas some countries do permit amateur radio operators to transmit in foreign languages, certain others allow transmissions only in their own languages. There is no evidence that conversations between Australian amateurs and those in other countries are being unduly hampered.
  4. Such a ban was in operation from inception of the amateur service until October, 1953, and was then withdrawn. In June, 1958, it was considered desirable, for security reasons, to re-impose the ban on the use of languages, other than English, by amateur radio station operators in Australia.
  5. Consideration is being given to the question of removing the ban on the use of languages other than English.

page 1077

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Senator KENNELLY:

asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice -

  1. What ships of the Royal Australian Navy of more than 1,000 tons displacement have been completed since January, 1957, or are now under construction?
  2. To what classes of warship of the Royal Navy are they the equivalent?
  3. What are their displacements, armaments (in guns, torpedoes, depth charges, anti-submarine weapons and guided missiles), standard horsepower, speeds, oil fuel capacity and radii of endurance at 10 knots, 15 knots, 20 knots and full speed respectively?
  4. What is their capacity for distilling fresh water per day, and what does this represent as an allowance per man per day?
  5. Has any Australian ship of frigate, antisubmarine frigate, destroyer or Daring class the capacity to steam without refuelling from Fremantle to Ceylon or from Sydney to Pearl Harbour?
  6. Have any of these ships separate galleys for officers and men, and if so, is this an economical use of space furthering fighting efficiency?
  7. What considerations prompt the regulations of the Royal Australian Navy permitting alcoholic drinks at sea to officers but not to ratings?
  8. Has consideration been given to - (a) the United States naval custom of permitting no alcoholic drinks at sea to any one, officers or ratings; and (b) the French naval custom permitting such drinks to everybody?
Senator GORTON:
LP

– The following answer is now supplied: - 1 and 2. Completed- H.M.A.S. “Voyager”, H.M.A.S. “Vendetta”, H.M.A.S. “Vampire”; Royal Navy equipment, Daring class. Under construction H.M.A.S. “ Parramatta “, H.M.A.S. “Yarra”, R.A.N. 02, R.A.N. 05; Royal Navy equivalent, Whitby class anti-submarine frigates.

  1. Horse-power, endurance, speed and fuel capacity of Her Majesty’s Australian ships is classified information. Information that can be given is as follows: -

4.-

  1. The endurance of Her Majesty’s Australian ships is classified information.
  2. All these ships have separate galleys for officers and men. The provision of more than one galley in a ship is an economical use of space furthering fighting efficiency because it is necessary for the action organization when the crew is “ standing to “ at battle stations for long periods and must be given the best meals possible without leaving those stations; in these circumstances both galleys cater for the needs of the crew in the assigned areas of the ship regardless of rank.
  3. Beer is issued to ratings at sea. 8. (a) Yes. However, the present arrangements are considered to be the most suitable for Royal Australian Navy ships, (b) Yes. In fact, an issue of beer as indicated in the answer to question 7 is, when possible, made to ratings at sea.

page 1078

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the third report of the Printing Committee.

Report - by leave - adopted.

page 1078

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) BILL 1960

Motion (by Senator Gorton) agreed to -

That leave be given to introduce a bill for an act to amend the International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1948.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator GORTON:
Minister For the Navy · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to make two amendments to the International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1948.

The first amendment would extend the operation of the 1948 act to the Territories. This matter is dealt with in clause 3 of the bill. By way of comment on this clause, I merely say that the Government believes it to be both logical and desirable that legislation of this nature should extend uniformly throughout all areas administered by the Commonwealth. On this basis I commend the clause to honorable senators.

The second amendment would enable the making of regulations to confer in Australia on international organizations, of which Australia or the Commonwealth Government is a member, juridical personality and such legal capacity as is necessary for them to exercise their functions. This matter is dealt with in clause 4 of the bill. The conferring of juridical personality on an international organization would merely mean that the organization would become a “ person “ in the eyes of the law. It could then do all the things which, in law, a person may do, such, for example, as enter into contracts, sue and own real property.

There are in Australia, at present, offices maintained by the United Nations, the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration and the World Health Organization. Other international organizations may well be represented here in the future. Juridical personality and appropriate legal capacity have already been conferred upon the United Nations in Australia by regulations made under section 5 (a) of the 1948 act. But that act, as it stands, will not necessarily empower the making of regulations to confer juridical personality and legal capacity on other international organizations which might establish offices in Australia.

The Government believes ‘that the daytoday work of international organizations will be much facilitated if they have the powers of persons in the eyes of the law, and can thus, for instance, contract or sue. But apart from this, it is the case that the constitutions of many of the international organizations of which Australia is a member, expressly provide that the organization shall, in the territory of each member, have juridical personality and the legal capacity necessary for them to exercise their functions. Australia, which has accepted these constitutions as a condition of membership of the organizations, has thus entered into international commitments on these matters, and the Government desires to be in a nosition to give effect to these commitments.

For these reasons T commend the bill to honorable senators.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I adopt the course of saying at this stage that the Opposition offers no objection to the bill. T have had a preview of it and an opportunity to consider its effects. 1 have nothing to add to what the Minister for the Navv (Senator Gorton) has said in bis explanation of the bill. I cannot conceive any real difficulty in the matter. The “°pd for jurien! personality is quite ob”:”“i.s. in order to enable international organizations, of which Australia is a member, to act with proper legal capacity, to hold property and to enter into contracts. Whilst I take it that they will enjoy immunity against legal action, except with their consent, under the existing convention that has operated since about 1948, it is desirable that those international organizations should be so vested.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 1079

QUESTION

ROAD SAFETY

Debate resumed from 12th October (vide page 1070), on motion by Senator Anderson -

That the Senate takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Road Safety, presented to the Senate on 21st September, 1960.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I was addressing myself to this motion when the Senate adjourned last evening. 1 proffered congratulations to the chairman and members of the Select Committee on Road Safety, but I overlooked conveying similar congratulations and thanks to the officers of the committee. 1 have in mind the secretary, Mr. Cumming Thom, and Mr. O’Brien who assisted the committee. From my experience of select committees, I know the indispensable part that highly competent officers, such as those officers, play in the work of a committee. On this occasion they were faced with a very difficult problem in the presentation of the report. It is quite obvious that the report has been presented exceedingly well after a great deal of planning and forethought. So, I should like to include the officers of the committee in the congratulations that I offer. 1 mentioned briefly the problem posed in road safety by pointing out that last year 2,321 nersons were killed and 57,246 persons w°re injured in Australia. On the estimate of the committee, that involved the community in a loss of about £70.000.000 for the vear. The commit’ee has approached the question of cost conservatively. Tn the report i’ has explained that it did not include any as*ssment of nain and suffering. Also, in pa”aph 200 it has listed seven matters of wu’ although thev are all matters of cost to the nation, the committee took no cognizance because of the difficulty in getting precise information on them.

So one may take it that the sum of £70,000,000 is a conservative estimate of the economic loss. It appears from the statistics that in Australia one person in every 166 will be either killed or injured through road traffic accidents every day in this year and every other year. Moreover, we are facing the loss of or injury to 163 persons every day.

If that casualty and fatality rate were to take place in a single airship accident, in a single accident at sea or in a single train accident, the nation would be horrified. The attention of the populace of Australia would be focussed upon it very dramatically. One tends to lost sight of the seriousness of the problem when it is spread1 over the whole continent, when it is not subject to detailed report day by day, and when only because some significant factor is associated with a road accident any regard at all is paid to it. That is one of the reasons why the magnitude of the problem and its seriousness are not appreciated by the people at large.

One of the first functions of those who are concerned with road safety should be to have the extent of the problem known and understood’. I was impressed by what was said by Mr. Paterson, the chairman of the Australian Road Safety Council, some years ago when he wrote a foreword to a supplement to a Current Affairs Bulletin dealing with the very important matter of road safety. I recall that at about that time the Senate debated the Current Affairs Bulletin, which was prepared under the auspices of the tutorial classes at the University of Sydney.

Senator Wright:

– What was the date of that bulletin?

Senator McKENNA:

– I particularly looked to see whether there was a date on the document, but there was not. I am speaking from memory when I indicate that it was about 1953. In making that statement I am fortified by the statistics which appear in the supplement to the bulletin. It quotes statistics running from 1946 to 1953. 1 was rather astonished1 to find that the document did not bear any identifying date of publication. Mr. Paterson had this to say -

Although we must necessarily appraise and present the road accident problem in the cold language of statistics. ultimately it is expressed in personal terms. It is a matter of human life and limb; of suffering, pain and death. Each accident is a tragedy in itself, and all possible means must be used to make every Australian aware of the fact that failure to accept personal responsibility in the cause of road accident prevention is failure to measure up to the minimum standard of good citizenship.

That puts the position exceedingly well and accurately, and it focuses attention where it should be focused - upon the question of broad public education, a feature of the problem which has been stressed throughout the report of the Select Committee on Road Safety.

I note the emphasis that the committee has placed upon the need for research into not only the causes of road accidents but also the remedies to be applied. The committee has stressed, too, the need for accurate statistics. In doing so, it has very properly voiced no criticism of the Commonwealth Statistician, who prepares the most detailed figures for our consideration. I have before me the statistics that he published recently. The criticism offered by the committee is directed against the basis upon which the information is prepared for, and is supplied to, the Statistician. As the committee points out at some length, it is not done comprehensively or on a uniform basis, and1 accordingly the end result cannot, in all circumstances, be regarded as being a happy one for those who need to base remedial action upon the truly ascertained facts. The committee, in paragraph 4 of its report, refers very properly to what should be done to find solutions. The paragraph reads -

The finding of solutions to the problem is a matter of the greatest complexity. There can be no one answer to it, as road accidents occur, in so many instances, as a result of combinations of circumstances inter-acting upon each other and involving that most complicated and so little understood factor, the human element.

What the committee has said is quite true.

As the chairman of the committee indicated yesterday, some fifteen major factors are dealt with by the committee in its report. Some 46 recommendations have been made. One cannot in a single speech even begin to do justice to or touch upon the various recommendations. One would need to devote considerable time to each of the recommendations to do justice to them. Every one of them deserves ample consideration, but I repeat that it is a practical impossibility to do that in the course of one speech. I know the danger that is inherent in selecting one or two of 46 recommendations and in devoting one’s attention to them in the course of a speech. It may be thought that one was selecting the matters that he regarded as being the most significant and most important in the field. I do not propose to do that. I believe there will be general public support for most of the recommendations of the committee. There may be some difference of opinion as to the emphasis that is placed on some things as against others.

I propose to limit myself to dealing with three matters, two of which are controversial. One has to do with the committee’s recommendation that legislation should be introduced to authorize and even require a doctor, when he has advised a patient that he should not drive a motor vehicle, to inform the appropriate authorities. The second has to do with the consumption of alcohol and driving on the roads. I shall deal with the committee’s recommendation on that presently. The third matter concerns one aspect of the recommendations which have been made about the Australian Road Safety Council.

I repeat that my concentration upon those first two matters, with their controversial content, is not to be taken as an indication that I or the Opposition regards them as being matters of prime importance. I select them solely because I believe that it is there that whatever difference of opinion may exist will emerge. With regard to the important matter of driver licensing, the committee directs attention to the fact that there is no regular medical examination for applicants for licences and that renewals take place from year to year without a medical examination of any kind being made, except in very extraordinary circumstances. One exception to what I have said is the holding of an eyesight test. I understand that that test is applied in some States but not in all States. Theoretically, it would be ideal if, prior to a licence being granted for the first time, the applicant was submitted to a thorough medical examination to determine his physical fitness to drive a motor vehicle. Because the situation changes from time to time, it would be desirable for that to be done every year when the applicant seeks a renewal of his licence. But I should think that it would be impracticable for three reasons. The first has to do with the numbers involved. I have been told that approximately 3,500,000 licences are issued each year. It would be impracticable for the traffic authorities to recruit the medical personnel who would be involved in any such thorough examination. Finally, the cost would be really of very high order.

Another alternative would be to prescribe standards for disqualification - I shall say something about that presently - and circulate them to the medical profession. An applicant for a licence or renewal of a licence would then be required to approach his own doctor who would examine him in the light of the standards that were set for him. The applicant should then have to produce a certificate of fitness to drive from the doctor of his choice, he paying the fee. That would approximate what is done in New South Wales in relation to the inspection of motor vehicles where no registration is granted or renewed unless a certificate from an authorized mechanic certifies as to the road-worthiness of the vehicle. If it were thought desirable, something of that nature might be applied in relation to the question of physical fitness. The recommendations that the committee has made appear at page 20 of the report in paragraphs (6) and (7) under the heading “ Recommendations “. They state -

  1. Medical authorities should establish a set of physical standards for use by medical practitioners in considering whether patients should be advised not to drive a car.
  2. Legislation should be introduced providing that when a medical practitioner gives a person advice not to drive a car the practitioner should be required to report the matter to the licensing authorities who would then require the driver to attend for special medical examination and subsequent decision as to his continued holding of a licence.

It is interesting to note that in paragraph 85 at page 19 of the report, the committee points out that a medical consultant group of the World Health Organization, an agency of the United Nations Organiza tion, has compiled a list of 21 medical conditions which could constitute a barrier to the granting of a licence to drive any vehicle. A list of 23 medical conditions which should be taken into consideration for the granting of a licence to drive heavy commercial vehicles, taxis and other vehicles oil that type is also included. This is just an indication of the need for consideration of some physical examination of people who are entitled to drive. After all is said and done, they have put into their hands an instrument which, unless properly controlled, could be a powerful means of destruction, not only of life and limb, but also of property. The committee assessed the damage to property alone in any year from motor accidents at something in the nature of £47,000,000.

Senator Wright:

– Including compensation for loss of personal earning capacity?

Senator McKENNA:

– The details are given at page 32 of the report and they cover material damage; not loss of earnings. The assessment is contained in paragraph 196 in the following table: -

Senator Brown:

– In what period?

Senator McKENNA:

– In one year the total reaches almost £70,000,000. The committee has gone to very great pains to set out the basis upon which it has arrived at these estimates. In quite a number of paragraphs, the committee has set out the difficulties it encountered, the help it received and the bases it used in arriving at its computations.

Senator Wright:

– Has any attempt been made to assess what proportion of that damage is attributed to medical troubles such as you have referred to?

Senator McKENNA:

– In paragraph 202 of the report, material damage is defined under three headings. The committee states -

Material damage is defined as the gross cost of repair to motor vehicles involved in road traffic accidents plus an allowance for some of the expenses of insurance companies and damage to property other than motor vehicles.

So the estimate is confined to material damage and injury to property.

Senator Wright:

– I was wondering whether the committee made any assessment of how many of these accidents have been caused by physical difficulties which would be discoverable by medical practitioners.

Senator McKENNA:

– No; I misunderstood the honorable senator. That question is answered in paragraph 89 at page 20 of the report. The committee admits that there is no factual information on that point. That is one of the elements of statistics upon which the committee had no proper information. Paragraph 89 is lengthy and I shall not read it all, but I can give the honorable senator some indication of what it states. The paragraph begins -

The classification of drivers as fit to drive or not fit to drive reveals the almost total absence of factual information.

The committee argues that it is logical and reasonable to assume that that is a factor, and it proceeds to state - . . In fields of physical defectiveness it would appear wise to exert every effort to ensure that, even if such defects are not sufficient cause for refusal of a licence, machinery should be available, as part of a pre-licensing examination system, for the discovery of such defects in applicants.

Senator Wright:

– Medical examination of 3,000,000 licensees would cost 3,000,000 guineas a year at least, would it not?

Senator McKENNA:

– I should say at least that amount. Spread over all as individuals, it might not be burdensome. I realize the problem involved in getting it done. The committee also apparently recognizes it because it has proposed either of the possible approaches that I have indicated in theory should be made. Its recommendation is to pick up the period between the time a person is given a licence and when he ceases to drive. The committee has regard to the fact that inevitably, people will seek medical advice in the ordinary course of events and that doctors will feel constrained to advise them not to drive if they are a danger to themselves and to other people. The committee suggests that here is a checking point which will pick out certain elements and dangers without additional expense. It seems that the committee has made a very sensible approach to that problem as a first step.

The matter is dealt with at far more length than I have attempted at the moment in the section of the report dealing with driver licensing; but it is quite obvious that some danger would be encountered even if there were a medical examination preliminary to the granting of a first licence if, thereafter, the licence were renewed annually without check of any kind as to driving efficiency. One might feel that there is some gross infringement of personal liberty in requiring a doctor to notify the authorities in the circumstances I have outlined; but I would like to say to the Senate that that sort of thing is not without precedent. As the committee points out, doctors are required at present lo notify the authorities of infectious diseases, persons suffering from gun-shot wounds and wounds that could have been caused by violence, a breach of the peace and that sort of thing. Therefore, there is no new principle. The argument I have heard is that persons suffering from disabilities may be dissuaded from presenting themselves to their doctors if they fear that the doctors may advise them not to drive and that the doctors would then be under an obligation to notify the appropriate authorities. As the committee points out, many people who are suffering disabilities from a driving viewpoint are not aware of them.

My own judgment, for what it is worth, is that only a very small quantum of persons needing medical attention would refrain from seeking it for fear that the doctor would give them advice of that character. I think that most people would be surprised when they did get the advice. I have heard the argument that doctors would be disinclined to tender the advice when they thought it should be tendered. I reject that completely, because I think doctors are amongst the highest classes in our community, with a sense of responsibility not only to their individual patients but also to the community at large. From the pretty wide experience I have had of the medical profession, T would not expect a doctor to refrain from advising a patient not to drive when he felt that he ought to give that advice. To so refrain would involve being false to his oath, to his duty to his patients and, indeed, to his duty as a citizen. I do not think that that situation would arise at all. The doctor’s report, in the committee’s recommendation, would not be conclusive. He would advise the patient and he would be compelled to then notify the traffic authority, but that would not automatically bring about cancellation of a licence. The committee proposes that at that point the traffic authority would have a thorough medical examination, would consider all the factors in the situation, and would then determine whether the licence was to be continued or discontinued. So, really, the committee only recommends that the necessary steps be taken for a full and proper investigation. lt may be said that there is some infringement of the liberty of an individual in having a doctor report his condition, as it affects his driving capacity, to the authorities. I think that an argument of that type confuses licence with liberty. Failure to take such a precaution when it is possible to take it is really more an interference with the right of a good many individuals tolive or to continue living without being maimed. Those appear to me to be the dominant considerations that should pervade one’s thinking, rather than that we should confuse liberty with licence in a situation where one person’s alleged liberty is at stake. I think that one must accordingly support the committee, and the Opposition does support the committee in this recommendation.

I have no thought, and I am certain that the traffic authorities and the committee have no thought, that people with what could be substantial pbysical disabilities should be necessarily disqualified from driving. We in this Parliament recently relaxed sales tax on motor vehicles, in favour of people suffering leg injuries disabling them from using public transport, the idea being that they might be able to go to work in private motor vehicles whereas otherwise they could not be so usefully employed. I have been driven quite recently by a professor of law at an Australian university who is completely immobilized from the hips down. He has to be lifted into and out of a wheelchair and to and from his car, but hand controls are provided in the car and he drives as efficiently as anybody I have ever seen drive. So, in considering the committee’s recommendation, one does not have to fear that a legless man or a man with certain other physical disabilities would be under some new set of standards debarred. That would not be so at all. In determining the standards, regard could be had to the facilities that could be provided for, say, limbless people to drive. I know many persons, lacking one leg or two legs or the use of two legs, who are most competent drivers. I have driven with quite a number of them, including on one occasion a former member of this Parliament.

Whatever attitude we might take about the part that is played in the accident field by people with disabilities, there is no doubt about the major influence that alcohol combined with driving exerts on the road toll. The recommendations of the committee are as follows: -

  1. . There should be an intensive educational publicity campaign to educate the community to understand the influence of alcohol upon driving skill.
  2. Chemical tests to assist in determining the degree of intoxication of drivers should be introduced on a compulsory basis.

It is clearly established, I think beyond contradiction, that drinking by both drivers of vehicles and pedestrians is a powerful factor in road accidents. I like the fact that the committee’s emphasis is upon public education rather than upon prosecution and heavy penalties.

Senator Wright:

– Is that effective in the ordinary administration of criminal law?

Senator McKENNA:

– That is very hard to assess. Public education is useful in everything. I should think that a proper understanding of the problems involved in road accidents would have a far more salutary effect upon the road toll than would convictions and penalties, no matter how heavy the penalties may be. I take Senator Wright to mean that there is a deterrent effect in prosecutions, convictions and penalties. That is undeniable, but I think that what is required more is, as the committee suggests, an inculcation into the minds of the people of the danger level in drinking and the difficulties and disasters that flow from over-indulgence in alcohol when engaged in driving a motor vehicle. I should like to read briefly from two paragraphs of the committee’s report. Paragraph 119 on page 24 states, in relation to drink and driving -

An attack on the problem has become an absolute necessity, and the Committee is of the opinion that the soundest and most lasting way to overcome it, regulation and enforcement notwithstanding, would be by an intense campaign of public education, creating in the public mind an appreciation of the scientifically accepted effects of alcohol upon driving skills, the percentages of blood alcohol produced by varying numbers of drinks and all the other relevant factual information of which the general public are at present almost completely unaware.

And in paragraph 120 the committee states -

An education programme of this type appeals as the most acceptable method of harnessing existing drinking habits and developing a responsible attitude among drivers. Restriction and punishment, without the backing of a comprehensive educational campaign, are likely to have a lasting effect, but compulsory chemical tests for suspect drivers, introduced in a background of enlightened public opinion, must make a contribution towards accident reduction. As a commentary upon the public reaction to such proposals the Committee records that in 1959 a Gallup Poll of public opinion revealed that the vote in favour of compulsory tests was 76 per cent.

Senator Paltridge:

– Was that opinion revealed by a gallup poll?

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, the gallup poll in 1959 indicated that 76 per cent, of the people were in favour of compulsory tests. It is rather a powerful persuasive argument for the committee’s recommendation in the matter that such a high percentage of the people were in favour of compulsory tests.

The element of compulsion in medical examination is not new in Australian law. We have the provision for compulsory X-rays in the campaign against tuberculosis; that emanated, really, from this Parliament. Next, there is the provision for the compulsory treatment of recalcitrant patients who are sufferers from tuberculosis. The Commonwealth, in promoting the scheme to wipe out tuberculosis, made it a condition of providing the necessary finance to the States that they should legislate in that way, and all the States have legislated to provide those two elements of compulsion.

In a number of the States with the law of «bich “I am familiar - in Tasmania in par ticular, in New South Wales, and although I have not looked at it I believe there is a similar provision in Queensland - there is power not only to take a photograph but to take the fingerprints of a person charged with an offence. On the authority of a sergeant of police, or a police officer of a higher rank, a doctor can be required to examine the person of a suspect if it is thought that evidence of the commission of a crime may be obtained by that examination. I have had some experience of that type of thing and I know that it can involve a very violent invasion of the person of a suspect. So the element of examination - medical examination - is well established in law, both as a means of preserving the health of the community and as a means of crime detection.

The type of legislation that the committee proposes is not new; other countries have it. Compulsory tests operate in Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland. In Holland, chemical tests are not obligatory but they are in fact a matter of routine. The provision for compulsory tests operates in France, Czechoslovakia, Canada and the United States of America. So there is acceptance of the scientifically valid base for chemical tests in all those countries.

I should like to say a word about the type of test in the United States of America. The broad effect of the provisions in America is that if the blood of a person has an alcoholic content of .05 per cent, or less, he is reasonably safe; he is not likely to be under the influence of alcohol. To relate those very abstract terms to reality, I understand the position to be that an alcohol content of .05 per cent, in the case of an 11 -stone man represents some four middies of beer; in the case of a 14-stone man, it represents some five and a half middies; and in the case of an 8-stone man it represents some three middies. The reason for the variation, of course, is that the human body is mostly water; we are 70 per cent, water and, of course, the quantum of water-

Senator Hannaford:

– As a matter of interest, senator, how many ounces are there in a middy?

Senator McKENNA:

– I cannot answer that question. It is rather interesting to consider the way that that amount of water and the variation in bulk affects the dilution of the blood. It simply means, as one witness told the committee, that the little man must not be expected to keep pace with the big man.

Senator Paltridge:

– Have you the figure showing how many middies a 16-stoner can drink with safety?

Senator McKENNA:

– No, I have not seen the figure for a 16-stoner, but I do not think the honorable senator would have any difficulty in working out by simple proportion what is his safe limit. I think it is important that the people of Australia should understand what quantum of alcohol - let us forget about the percentages - of various kinds brings them to the danger level.

Senator Wright:

– Every scientist will admit that the effect on the individual varies from those scientific percentages.

Senator McKENNA:

– I propose to deal with the effect on the individual, and if the honorable senator will let me develop my theme, I will come back to the matter he raises. In America, if the alcohol content in the blood of a person is from .05 per cent, to .10 per cent., he is possibly under the influence; if the content is from 10 per cent, to .15 per cent., he is probably under the influence; but if he gets over the plimsoll line of .15 per cent, he is definitely and emphatically under the influence of alcohol.

Senator Hannaford:

– Not quite sunk, but just about.

Senator McKENNA:

– No, the percentage is enough to convict of itself. It really indicates that he is definitely under the influence. There is one important consideration about these tests. If they are compulsory they are a tremendous safeguard to the innocent person. I myself in my legal experience have encountered cases in which a man has shown all the clinical signs of being under the influence - glazed eyes, thick speech and uncertain step, nausea and all kinds of other clinical symptoms as a result of a concussion or trauma sustained in an accident. One could well think - and police officers have thought - that the man exhibited signs of drunkenness. An absence of alcohol from the blood would completely clear that innocent person.

The basis upon which a test is proposed by the committee is that there shall be a chemical test to assist in determining the degree of intoxication, not to determine it. It is not proposed that the tests should be conclusive, and there are very good reasons why they should not be conclusive as to the degree of intoxication. It has been established that the mere cleansing of an arm with ethyl alcohol preparatory to taking a sample of blood could probably affect the alcohol content of the blood, lt is the practice too, I understand, for medical practitioners to use alcohol to cleanse syringes and containers, and inevitably precautions have to be exercised about that kind of thing when blood samples are taken. Any analysis ought to be open to attack on the basis that the sample has not been properly taken - that the proper conditions have not been observed.

Senator Wedgwood:

– -A chemical test failed in Victoria recently.

Senator McKENNA:

– I feel sure that the honorable senator is referring to evidence that was given by a government pathologist in a criminal case regarding the alcohol content in the blood of a dead woman.

Senator O’Byrne:

– He issued a challenge that he would wager £5,000 to back his evidence. ‘

Senator McKENNA:

– As I understand the position, the doctor was giving evidence based on tests that he conducted, not on live bodies but on corpses in the morgue. He claimed that he got different results according to the portion of the body from which he took the sample. That was immediately and completely contradicted by Dr. Hansman, a noted pathologist in New South Wales. I do not think the scientific validity of the test itself is really in dispute any more.

A medico-legal committee of the Australian Transport Advisory Council made a report in 1957 dealing with the subject of voluntary blood tests. The committee comprised some of the most distinguished people in Australia with a knowledge of the subject. It comprised representatives of the Federal Council of the British Medical Association, the Royal Chemical Institute, the Victorian police, the Tasmanian and South Australian Crown

Solicitors, the Victorian Attorney-General, State analysts, Melbourne and Adelaide university faculties, the Victorian Hospitals Commission, New South Wales stipendiary magistrates, and the New South Wales Road Safety Council. The names of the members of the committee appear at the outset of the report. They are all distinguished people and they brought in a unanimous report, confirming the technical and scientific validity of blood tests. 1 note that in the report they make this comment -

On 16th March, 1956, the Federal Council of the British Medical Association in Australia reaffirmed its endorsement of the scientific principles of blood tests for determining intoxication in persons suspected of driving or riding a vehicle whilst under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

Against that background, I say to the honorable senator who interjected that the type of test to which she referred does not convince or affect me very much. The consensus of opinion in all those countries T have indicated - and accepted at the levels 1 have indicated - is that blood tests should be accepted as being scientifically valid and proper. This medico-legal committee, too, faces up to the difficulty of relating a test made at a particular time to the time when the offence of driving a vehicle under the influence was committed. There may be a gap of hours. The problem has been gone into most thoroughly by this committee, which has drawn up a model act and model regulations. It has laid down a complete formula for relating the blood content at a particular time to the blood content at the time when the last drink was taken.

The fact of the matter is that whilst the blood readily absorbs alcohol, it immediately engages in the task of discharging the alcohol. The heavy task is imposed upon the liver of oxidizing and disposing of the alcohol, but the body is continually throwing off alcohol while it is absorbing it. The alcohol passes from the body in sweat, in the breath and in the normal bodily functions. This process of absorption into the blood stream and discharge from it is going on continually, but the rates of absorption and discharge are completely determinable. With complete confidence, the committee advocated a formula for relating the alcohol content of the blood at one point of time to the content at an anterior point of time. Without that information on the functions of the body in relation to alcohol, a blood test would not be of very much use as evidence.

I think it is important to know that all these things are in mind. Probably one of the things the committee ought to direct attention to particularly is the way that alcohol operates upon the system. 1 refer the Senate with confidence to an article written by Dr. F. S. Hansman, which appeared in the Australian Law Journal of 1953-54. It is entitled “ Driving Under the Influence “. Dr. Hansman is a noted pathologist in Sydney who has played a prominent part in activities connected with road safety. This article contains a heading, “ Some Physiological Considerations “. Under that heading information is given that I think should be available to everybody who drives a motor car so that he will be able to understand what happens. The doctor points out that there are three levels of cerebral activity. The highest is that which governs the intellectual functions. He points out that cerebral activity at this level governs the self-critical faculty and that alcohol has the most influence upon that faculty. The power of self-criticism prevents us from doing completely silly things. When alcohol operates on that self-critical faculty, it dulls it, then deadens it and ultimately atrophies it and puts it out of action altogether. That accounts for people doing completely silly things, and yet having the feeling that they are being exceedingly bright and clever.

The second stage of intoxication is nerve involvement, where the nerves are affected in a way that impairs sight and the other senses. The third stage, of course, is the ultimate stage. The self-critical faculty is blacked out, the nerves cease to function and the person is drunk or dead drunk. His emotions and impulses are in complete control of him and his critical faculty is not functioning at all.

I think that information on the effect of alcohol on the body, and the quantum of liquor that a person may safely imbibe, are two vastly important things that should be understood and made known. It is true, as Senator Wright said, that the effect of alcohol varies from person to person, apart altogether from the size of the individual. It depends on the power of concentration, or the will-power of an individual. lt is possible for a person who has had his self-critical faculty affected by drink to make a special effort and to overcome the impairment, temporarily at least. Of course, with mounting absorption of alcohol, it is inevitable that the alcohol will win, and that the self-critical faculty will flag at a very critical time. There are instances where men by the exercise of strong will-power have overcome the effects of the fumes of alcohol. That does happen.

I do not support the proposal that breath analysing tests should be used. There is no degree of medical concurrence in support of the validity of such tests. Anybody who has given even slight consideration to the matter will agree that completely wrong conclusions can be arrived at. Before 1 conclude, I should like to say that to my knowledge, one State in Australia - Western Australia - has adopted a system of voluntary blood tests.

Senator Wade:

– Victoria has done so too.

S?nator McKENNA. - I have not had time to investigate the position in all States. The tests have been on a voluntary basis right through, I take it.

Senator Paltridge:

– Yes.

Senator McKENNA:

– According to the information I have, three States have now accepted the validity of the tests. I think we can proceed on the basis that the recommendation of the committee in this respect is well-founded.

I have only one other thing to say, and that is that we of the Opposition do not favour the recommendation of the committee in relation to the Australian Road Safely Council. The committee suggests that the offices of chairman and chief executive officer of the council should not be combined, but it makes out no case for the recommendation. In fact, it gives a pretty good argument against the suggestion, because it points out that it does not wish to reflect in any way on the work which has been carried out under the existing arrangement, as that work has been of a particularly outstanding and devoted nature. However, the committee believes that benefit could be gained from the appointment of an independent chairman.

I do not think anybody will deny that, in putting forward that argument, the committee has not made out a case for a change. [Extension of time granted.] I thank Senator Wedgwood for moving that I be granted an extension of time. I shall take advantage of the extension only to complete what I have to say on this theme. The Opposition feels that the recommendation of the committee regarding the Australian Road Safety Council is not justified. As the committee has indicated, the occupant of the two offices has done a marvellous and dedicated job in road safety matters. In the absence of any sound argument in favour of the committee’s recommendation, we of the Opposition do not support it.

The Australian Road Safety Council has done extraordinary work. Yesterday, while Senator Anderson was speaking, I think I heard the question asked whether the work of the council had had an effect on the road toll. The “ Current Affairs Bulletin “ of 1953, to which I have already referred, contains an amazingly descriptive graph. It shows that while the number of motor vehicles registered increased between 1946 and 1953, the number of persons killed per 100,000,000 miles travelled or per 10,000 motor vehicles registered, declined after the Australian Road Safety Council became effective. I support the recommendation that the work of the council be continued and extended, and that further moneys for its valuable work should be provided.

I conclude, as I began, by congratulating all members of the committee for their devotion to the work they undertook and the excellent report they have produced. In doing so, I also congratulate the officers who assisted the committee.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I should make it clear at the outset that in speaking to this motion I am not appearing in my customary role as the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I am speaking because of my deep interest in this subject, an interest which has persisted for many years and which, of course, was accentuated during the time that I held the portfolio under) which the Australian Road Safety Council and the Australian Transport Advisory

Council operate. I shall confine my remarks to what I regard as some of the fundamentals of the problem of road safety. 1 shall resist the temptation, which the report holds out, to follow through some of the recommendations and the reasons for them, lest a detailed consideration of them may subsequently be thought by some one to represent Government thinking on the matter. I repeat that I am confining: myself to just a few generalities.

Before I deal with the road toll, I want to say how much I commend the Select Committee on Road Safety for the work that it has done. It has laboured well and fruitfully. It has produced a document which, so far as I am aware, is unique, inasmuch as this is the first time that information concerning road safety in Australia has been brought together between one set of covers. That is not the only merit of the report. I should hate that to be thought. The report indicates the measure of research and thought that has gone into its compilation. Those qualities, I am sure, make it a base document that will be used for many years to come whenever the problem is being studied.

What is the nature of this problem of road safety? It can be stated statistically, and possibly that is the most arresting way to state it. Senator McKenna referred to the accepted but nonetheless alarming fact that road fatalities are accepted as a matter of course. I do not think that every one in the community takes up the Monday morning newspaper with the same dreaded anticipation that you, Mr. Acting Deputy President, and the other members of your committee do, or as I did when I was Minister for Shipping and Transport, to see how many people in Australia have met their death on the roads during the weekend. It was with the same dread that I received from my department reports of the fatalities or injuries that had been inflicted in the various States of Australia during vacation periods. When you are brought face to face with statistics of that nature, Sir, it is then, if not before, that you realize the magnitude of this problem.

The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) regretted that he was unable to give figures relative to the fatalities in the various branches of transport. I have heresome figures which refer to the year 1958.

They are the most recent figures I have been able to obtain, but they are nevertheless illustrative of the fact that fatalities and injuries on the roads are accepted, while death and injury relative to other forms of transport are regarded as rather more newsworthy. In 1958, there were 29 fatalities in the air in Australia. There is an unhappy coincidence about that number, because it is the same as the number of fatalities in the recent Mackay accident. That figure includes deaths in the air in respect of Royal Australian Air Force aircraft and those that occurred during the rather more hazardous exercise of crop-spraying, as well as deaths that occurred in workshops at Air Force stations and the like. In that year, for many years before and for nearly two years afterwards, there were no fatalities at all on the commercial airlines of Australia.

Deaths on the water, including deaths which might have occurred as a result of a seaman falling down a companion-way or industrial accidents of that sort, numbered 69. Deaths on the railways, also on an all-inclusive basis, numbered 111, and deaths on the roads numbered 2,230.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– Before the suspension of the sitting for lunch, I was discussing what I have described as the form of this road safety problem. I drew a comparison between the number of fatalities and injuries which occur in road transport and in forms of transport other than road transport. I indicated that fatalities and injuries which occur in road transport are, so to speak, taken for granted. That is a strange commentary on the state of social advancement in which we live. As has been said previously in this debate but may well be repeated, traffic accidents in Australia are directly responsible for the loss of over 2,300 lives per annum and for injuries sustained bv over 57,000 people. When Senator Anderson was speaking last night to the report of the committee of which he was chairman, he highlighted this problem rather more than it is highlighted in the report itself. I was interested in the statistics he cited and the words he used with reference to those statistics. In regard to the total number of casualties each year he said, in effect, that whatever individual causes are responsible for this toll of the road, if you make due allowances for such things as the condition of road surfaces, the condition of vehicles, road signs and their deficiencies, and street lighting, in your analysis you always come back to the inescapable conclusion that over 90 per cent, of road accidents occur as a result of some human deficiency. A little later I shall speak quite briefly about those other aspects, but at the moment I want to devote my comments entirely to this human deficiency which causes so many accidents, and the control of it.

Senator Anderson said that it was a personal problem. I think that is a very accurate statement. He said it was a comment on man’s failure of himself. That phrase is remarkably like the passage read by Senator McKenna this morning from a statement made some years ago by the chairman of the Australian Road Safety Council, Mr. Paterson, in which he said that this human failure was nothing but a failure to measure up to the minimum standards of citizenship. J. could not agree more emphatically with the analysis made by Senator Anderson last night when he took the total number of fatalities and injuries during the year and isolated one broad cause of the vast majority of the accidents which resulted in those fatalities and injuries. In doing so, he posed the question of how that category of causation might be treated. He also indicated something else in relation to those accidents. For the moment I am referring only to fatalities in order to illustrate my point. He said that only 3 per cent, of fatalities occurred in the capital city areas; 39 per cent, in the suburbs; and 58 per cent, in the remainder of a State, generally speaking out on the open highway. In respect of the total number of such accidents, he gave this interesting information which he listed under the heading of “ prime causes of fatalities “: Excessive speed accounted for 449 fatalities; inattention, 429; failure to keep to the left of the road 131; failure to give way to the man on the right 104; and intoxication 85. Those figures are for the year 1957. Those various causes - all instances of human failure - accounted for 1.198 fatalities and constituted the largest category of causes in that year.

The question which arises from that information is: How can we control that sort of failure or deficiency in human conduct at the wheel? That is an important question, because that is the cause of 90 per cent, of the fatalities in road accidents. A lot has been said about this question. Over a period of years I have formed very fixed views on it. I hope that because my views are fixed I do not fall into the error of over-simplifying the answer. If I were allotted the task of bringing this type of cause of accident to an end or to a minimum, and given the resources to do it, I would adopt the simple procedure of appointing more traffic constables. The figures that I have cited indicate that the majority of such accidents occur in areas where there are no or few traffic controllers. I am reminded of an experience I had some years ago when a friend of mine, who had been a senior traffic constable for a period of four years at that time, told me that he himself had never seen an accident occur.

I am indebted to Mr. Cumming Thom, the secretary of the committee, who has brought to my notice evidence given to the committee which confirms the experience of my friend. That evidence was given by Mr. E. Richards, the Commissioner of Police in the Australian Capital Territory. The chairman asked Mr. Richards -

Is it your view, Mr. Richards, from experience or observation, that the incidence of accidents has a direct relation to the extent of enforcement?

Mr. Richards replied ;

I am right with you there. Very few accidents are observed by the police.

Then the chairman asked -

Do not misunderstand my question. Would you say that a heavier set of penalties would reduce accidents?

Mr. Richards replied ;

No, but I believe that if we had more mobile police patrols on the roads we would reduce accidents. Very few accidents are observed by the police. In other words, a motorist observes the rules when a policeman is about.

It is as simple as that. It is the absence of law enforcement officers which give rise to the human failing that in turn causes accidents.

I regret to say that on the occasion of this debate, which is quite non-political, I hold a view which is different from that expressed by my friend the Leader of the Opposition when he said that he was rather pleased that the committee had placed emphasis on education rather than on enforcement or prosecution. In a few minutes’ time I hope to make a brief reference to the value of certain categories of education, but I want now to refer briefly to a particular experiment that has been conducted in Australia and which I believe has had very great success. Whilst I acknowledge the value of education in a limited way, I say quite emphatically that it is my view that the most effective way of dealing with the present body of motorists is not to educate them, either patiently or in some more salutary way, but to set up a system of enforcement which compels them to take notice.

Senator Wedgwood:

– And make the penalties fit the infringements.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I shall come to the matter of penalty in a minute. It would be quite impossible to put on the road the number of uniformed traffic officers that would be necessary to get to the point that I should like to see reached. Wc could increase the number, and I am sure we could do so with good effect. But we must go further than that, because no State police force could employ the number that would be required. I say quite unblushingly that the appointment of plainclothes traffic officers, would immediately create in the mind of the motorist the knowledge that he may be apprehended by such an officer and would have a startling effect on the conduct of the great body of motorists who frequently offend against the traffic laws.

It may be said that the appointment of such officers would be rather out of keeping with the Australian character. Australians generally shy away from any one who may be regarded as being a pimp, and for that reason such an approach to the problem may not fit the general Australian acceptance of things. But, let me say, without being the slightest bit emotional, that there are 60,000 reasons every year which justify the appointment of such men. There are 60,000 casualties each year. I am encouraged in my view by New Zealand’s experience. Such officers are employed in New Zealand. Tt is not only for that reason but I suggest it is largely for that reason that the New Zealand accident rate is considerably lower than that in Australia. 1 am quoting from the figures for the year 1956, they being the latest figures I could get. They show that fatalities per 10,000 registered vehicles were 5.1 in New Zealand as against 9.5 in Australia. So, first we should have more uniformed officers, within the bounds of financial possibility, and then appoint plainclothes officers.

But I believe that we must go further than that. Senator Wedgwood, by way of interjection, referred to penalties and the need to make them fit the offence. I agree. But my thinking goes well beyond the mere increasing of penalties. An increase of 100 per cent, in the penalty inflicted would not have a salutary effect on many motorists. In this day and age many people who have cars can afford the luxury of paying a fine, even at a greatly increased level. I have read - I am sure we all have - with considerable interest about the age group of from 1.7 to 23 years. Special attention has been given to this group by this committee. It is within that age group that we find a large proportion of the owners of soupedup bombs. Such people buy a car and spend money on it for the purpose of getting, unblushingly and unashamedly, the best speed they can out of it. A lad may get a bomb, soup it up, commit a traffic offence with it, and be fined. But then he gets on with the job again to see whether to-day he can better the speed that he achieved yesterday.

Senator Kendall:

– And he treats it as a joke.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– That is very true. The only effective way there is of dealing with such a traffic offender is to punish him through his licence. If his conduct is such that it does not meet the minimum standard of citizenship, take him off the roads, whether he be a man who is dependent on his vehicle for his livelihood, or whether he be a young man who merely drives fast or dangerously for speed’s sake. He has no right to be on the road and put into jeopardy the safety of other Australians, whether they be pedestrians or motorists.

In this matter, it will be seen that not only do I differ from the Leader of the Opposition but I also go rather further than the committee does itself. 1 put this point of view because I believe sincerely that unless action of this sort is taken, we will never achieve a down-turn in the accident rate that all of us desire. We have the tools at hand. We have the procedures available to us. 1 say with respect, and certainly with no idea of invading the sovereignty of the States, that 1 would urge, not as a member of the Commonwealth Parliament but as a citizen, that ihe governments of all States should use the powers available to them in a much more drastic and effective manner than they are doing. I am prepared to go on record as saying that if there were a real threat of the loss of a licence in cases which deserve that sort of treatment, our accident rate would drop dramatically. The justification for such action is plain - 60,000 casualties a year on the roads.

I have said that I do not discard - far from it - the value of education in these matters. I speak with very warm approval and appreciation - and with personal knowledge - of what many of the State road safety councils are doing in the schools, sometimes with the aid of police traffic officers and sometimes on their own. But I know of my own experience thai the action that has been taken in the schools in recent years has inculcated into the minds of kiddies a knowledge of traffic and how to handle it and manage it that was quite unknown in my day. The kiddies go out on to highways to-day with some knowledge of what to do and how to comport themselves and conduct themselves in traffic. I pay a warm tribute to all those executives, officers and men of the road safety councils and the police traffic branches and all others who have played a part in that very valuable social education of young children. You cannot do better, in my view, than to teach kiddies at an early age an appreciation of the hazards of traffic on modern highways.

But possibly even of more importance than that is the education of the adolescents and those in the 17 to 23 years age group who properly concerned the committee and claimed its attention. I hope I will be forgiven if I speak of something that has been done by the Road Safety Council of Western Australia which, I believe, sets a pattern that could well be followed in many other parts of Australia. Indeed, I have been, encouraged to learn only recently that the Western Australian example has been closely followed by the New South Wales traffic police who recently sent an officer to Western Australia to see what had been done there. In that State, the Road Safety Council has built an instructional centre. It comprises a maze and a criss-cross of roads in which I suppose almost all the hazards that a motorist might encounter on any road are simulated or represented. Instructors from the Road Safety Council tutor senior school pupils in the art of driving through these road hazards. This tuition is particularly effective. Sir Thomas Meagher, the chairman of the Western Australian Road Safety Council, has informed me that this instructional centre is the best in the world. He has given years of voluntary service to this movement and devotes a great deal of his time when overseas to research into traffic problems. Sir Thomas Meagher expressed the hope that within a few years the instructional school near Perth would not be the best in the world but the sixth best in Australia, because, from his own experience, he is aware of the value of this instructional centre in training and educating children who are near the end of their school days, and also adults who feel that they require some sharpening up in their appreciation of traffic hazards.

One of the best features of the Western Australian project is that it comes close to the tripartite idea which was expressed yesterday by Senator Anderson in relation to participation in this work by the Commonwealth Government, the State Government and private persons. The work was undertaken on land which was granted by the Western Australian Government; partly no doubt by expenditure from the Commonwealth grant and partly by subscriptions from the public. The subscriptions to the project amounted to about £6,600, but that amount does not include the value of work and time given by various persons who undertook parts of the construction, the provision of plant and things of that nature. I point to this project not only as something which might be followed elsewhere in Australia in a physical sense, but also as a method which might well be studied by other road safety councils.

The committee has very properly referred to the research that might be undertaken to further this magnificent cause. I am in a little difficulty in stating my views on this matter. I believe that within Australia a good deal of research is currently being undertaken. I am aware that research undertaken overseas has been studied in Australia and that the results achieved have been put to good effect in Australia. Senator Anderson, in a very realistic fashion, said that he did not believe a big Commonwealth organization would be required for the research to which the committee referred. I agree. Indeed, it occurs to me - I venture this view with some temerity, but nonetheless it is worth canvassing - that within the ambit of all those who are currently engaged in research of this sort there are sufficient numbers, sufficient ability, and sufficient enthusiasm to form a directional committee of the sort that I imagine the Senate committee had in mind. Certainly, we want to avoid a situation in which a group in Adelaide is undertaking the same type of research as a group in Brisbane. In Western Australia, right at this moment, a young man of the Main Roads Department, who recently returned from America, where he was sent to study road traffic engineering, is telling his fellow members of the Main Roads Department and any others who are interested what he found out. This young man, whose name is Stafford, is a brilliant road engineer. His services and knowledge should not be restricted merely to the Western Australian Main Roads Department.

Senator Hannaford:

– We have a good one in Adelaide named Johinke.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– The knowledge and ability of all these people could well be put into a common pool for the joint use and advantage of all the States. I agree that such a committee should be appointed, but I suggest that the nucleus - the personnel - is already there. No additional people are needed. The people are there, but they need to be organized. I hope that as a result of the Senate committee’s work some authority - possibly the Australian Transport Advisory Council - will enlist from those who are already engaged in these activities sufficient people to form a committee which will be direc tional and which will meet the requirements that the Senate committee had in mind.

There are other aspects of road safety which invite attention and comment. It should be pointed out that it is not unusual for public fictions to develop as to the causes of road accidents. One of the fictions that have developed here and elsewhere is that the condition of roads is the cause of a big percentage of accidents. I was interested to hear what Senator Anderson had to say yesterday about that aspect of the matter. He pointed out that the States had different approaches to this matter but that, on any approach, the condition of roads was not a major cause of road accidents. I think that that should go on record, because the position is frequently misunderstood. While I was speaking of that aspect, it is, in my view, worth mentioning that one firm selling roadmaking equipment in Australia invites people, by public advertisements to purchase its equipment to build good roads and thus cause a reduction in the large number of road accidents which it implies are attributable to road surfaces. I doubt that that kind of approach is ethical, and I take this opportunity of saying so.

There are other aspects of safety which could be developed at length. One is the form of construction of motor vehicles. In this field some useful research might be done by vehicle manufacturers to find out just what types of car are influenced most by certain conditions in accidents. Some work has been done on this aspect. Many road safety people have been won over to the use of safety belts in vehicles. I do not think that the manufacturers are very enthusiastic about that development. It would be well worth having a look at the rigidity of doors and taking action to ensure that they do not fly open as soon as a vehicle is touched in an accident. The use of a collapsible steering column - I think the term is “ sheer link column “ - might be examined with a view to cutting to a minimum the severe injuries caused to drivers by impact with the steering column after a collision. These are aspects of the matter into which the motor vehicle industry should undertake research. As a result of that research we might have a safety standards association concerned with motor vehicles, in the same way as we have standards applied in other branches of manufacturing. I am well aware that a proposal such as that would not be readily acceptable to the motor-car manufacturing industry, but in a matter which involves in this country 60,000 casualties a year all these things are worthy of investigation.

Sir, I have spoken for rather longer than I intended. The main point that I wanted to make was in relation to the enforcement of traffic laws, particularly by plain-clothes officers, and the punishment of offenders by. depriving them of their licences. I dealt with these aspects fully earlier in my speech. I honestly believe as a result of close study of this subject for a number of years that the adoption of those suggestions would do more than anything else to reduce the number of accidents in the category that has produced the largest number of fatalities and injuries.

I say again to the Senate that I for one am deeply appreciative of the work that has been done by the committee and of the report it has produced. This document will be of continuing value to all who are interested in this problem. If I have not agreed completely with the committee’s recommendations, I hope that its members will accept my comments only as an expression of goodwill in relation to the good work that the committee has done.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– It was most gratifying to me to hear the contributions that have been made to this debate by the chairman of the Select Committee on Road Safety, Senator Anderson, by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), and by Senator Paltridge, who is now the Minister for Civil Aviation but was formerly the Minister for Shipping and Transport. It is evident that there is a general and genuine appreciation of this great problem .which is facing the people of this country and of all other countries. I should like to pay a tribute to Senator Anderson for his initiative in introducing this very important matter in the chamber, and upon prevailing on the Senate to appoint the committee.

I should like the Senate to know that I considered it to be a great honour to participate in the deliberations of the fine body of men who composed the committee. All of them were united in the common pur pose of dealing with the realities of the situation. I regarded my participation in this inquiry as an invaluable experience, mainly for the reason that the committee came into contact throughout Australia with sincere men who were dedicated to applying themselves to this aspect of citizenship. I believe, Mr. Deputy President, that at the bottom of this whole problem is an appreciation of the fact that a person behind the wheel of a motor-car is apt to forget ‘his responsibilities as a citizen.

Conflicting views have been expressed on how we may get to the core of the problem. In order to present the picture as concisely and as clearly as possible, the committee found it necessary to include 46 recommendations in its report Generally speaking, the subject of a recommendation itself could have been divided into 46 parts. In the main, the problem that confronts us is: How are we to go about achieving the observance of a pattern of behaviour by the citizens who are licensed to drive motor vehicles, on the basis of live and let live?

I feel that the committee’s report will do a tremendous amount of good. As the Minister has said, this is the first time that a full review of the road safety problem has been presented in one publication.

I should like to pay a tribute to the work that has been performed by the Australian Road Safety Council, both at the federal level and in the States. The difficulties that have confronted the council were brought home very forcibly to the committee. It is realized that, until we can achieve co-ordination of effort between the States on a common level and for a common purpose, despite the valuable efforts that are being made by the dedicated men we will not be able to grapple successfully with this great problem. After visiting all States, gathering a vast amount of statistical information, and taking evidence from many people who have applied themselves to this problem the committee realized that unless the results could be co-ordinated to enable a scientific approach to be made to the matter we could not have a firm foundation on which to build. After taking evidence in New South Wales concerning the valuable research that has been undertaken by the road engineering and traffic engineering faculties of the University of

New South Wales, the committee realized that that type of research should be projected into as many phases of the road safety problem as possible. In recommending that a research group should be set up, the committee had in mind the utilization of mcn of great intelligence who have applied and are applying themselves scientifically to this problem.

One of the difficulties that exists is in relation to obtaining reliable statistical information. The committee found that there is a lack of uniformity in relation to the collection and presentation of statistical data by the police and by bodies that are attempting to solve this problem and to improve conditions on the roads. It found that the various report sheets that have to be filled in by traffic officers do not require enough detailed information to provide thoroughly reliable statistical data. Because of that members of the committee realized the importance of having a co-ordinating group to assist the various road transport organizations and road safety councils to bring into existence a national research code, quite apart from a national traffic code. The committee decided that this should be given priority, although it is only one of the factors that have to be taken into consideration.

The committee found that, despite the good work being carried out by road safety councils in the various States, there is still scope for other bodies in the community to assist in finding a solution to this problem. The story of the toll of the road has not. in my opinion, been brought to the attention of the general public as effectively as it should be brought, or as it will be brought, perhaps, in the future. Onlv with the co-operation of organizations throughout the community, acting with a sense of dedication equal to that which we found in the people associated with the road safety councils, can we expect any effective action to be taken to solve this problem. I personally feel that if the right approach were made, many more public bodies could be persuaded actively to support the campaign to educate people in road safety and to enforce the measures necessary to achieve road safety.

The committee spent a lot of time in considering the subject of education in road safety. It realized that such education is important as a means of achieving the end in view - that is, to inculcate a sense of responsibility in peoples’ minds. The committee realized that the child’s mind is very receptive and it directed attention to how the story of road safety was being presented to the children. The committee found that in individual cities and schools there are people fully seised with the importance of teaching this subject but that in other places there is almost a complete indifference to it. Unless the education departments of the States and the Commonwealth devote a period of time - either daily or weekly - to educating children in road safety, our ultimate aim will not be achieved.

Senator Wright:

– Are not the members of the Road Safety Council charged with that responsibility at present?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– The committee found that the members of the Road Safety Council are doing their utmost, with the funds that are available to them, and with the degree of co-operation they are receiving from officers of some of the departments of education. However, there are some schools, and some branches of education departments, where the same degree of enthusiasm does not exist. In some cases, the decision as to the degree of importance to be attached to road safety has been left to the teachers and the headmasters of schools, with the result that the message of road safety is not being brought home to a considerable proportion of the children.

The committee found that police lectures were very effective and had a good influence on school children. I feel that children are inclined to take more notice of a man in uniform than of one not in uniform. Perhaps some parents have always held a policeman up to their children as a person who will make them do the right thing, and therefore the children are prepared to take notice of a policeman. The police officers who have been associated with lecturing campaigns have carried out their jobs conscientiously and, in my opinion, very effectively. One sees the enthusiasm of children who have been encouraged to form their own road patrols at crossings near their schools. This enthusiasm shows that, in conjunction with the school teachers, the police lecturers are making children aware of the dangers of the roads.

Senator Paltridge came to grips with a most important aspect of this problem when he mentioned the need for more traffic patrol officers and said that plain-clothes officers should be added to the patrols. 1 have given this matter great consideration. 1 realize that, with the rapid increase in the number of vehicles on our roads, and with the highway problem that we have inherited from the past, the most effective form of education, in the short term, is enforcement. I agree with other members of the committee that the presence of a patrol officer in uniform, with his car well marked, has a certain effect. It has an educating influence because it reminds people of their responsibilities as drivers on busy highways. In addition, the presence of a patrol officer, who is ready to apprehend transgressors, is, in effect, speaking in the only language that many drivers understand. His presence warns of apprehension and detention for wrong-doing.

On this aspect, Mr. Acting Deputy President, I am of the opinion that the Slate governments, which are at present having great difficulty in financing governmental activities, should be assisted to provide more traffic patrolmen The need for increased patrols may be only a passing one. As the committee has suggested, education by means of lectures, films and so on. no doubt in time will result in a changed attitude on the part of many drivers. In the interim period, while the process of education is going on in the schools and while all other aspects of road safety measures are being improved, I suggest that the most effective way to improve the standard of safety on the roads is to put more patrols on the roads with a view to keeping people in line. Those drivers who are not prepared to heed the warning that a patrol officer is there to see that they obey the rules of the road, must accept the full weight of the penalties provided by the law for breaches of the traffic code.

The recommendation of the committee on law enforcement excluded reference to the educational side, but I am prepared to add to the recommendation that the provision of more patrol officers and, if necessary, part-time or week-end patrol officers, would have a great deterrent effect on people who endanger not only their own lives but also those of others in busy traffic streams, particularly at week-ends when the roads are so much used.

The introduction of a uniform traffic code was pressed most forcefully throughout the Commonwealth, during the committee’s inquiries. The anomalies, the shortcomings and the contradictions that exist in the traffic laws of the various States are such that it is rather miraculous that the accident rate for interstate travellers is not higher. There are variations in traffic signs, speed limits, the permissible overall length of vehicles, and the conditions governing the drivers of commercial vehicles. The fact that those conditions vary from State fo State makes the problem more complex and more difficult to solve than it should be. If there were a uniform traffic code, a person, no matter from what part of the Commonwealth he came, would know the exact position regarding traffic rules and exactly where he stood in relation to the law in any part of the Commonwealth. The introduction of a uniform code should be merely a machinery measure and a matter of time. The longer its introduction is delayed, the greater will be the burden imposed on those who are responsible to minimize the toll of the road.

The committee had a most interesting experience in Melbourne when it came in contact with the accident prevention squad, a body which is approaching the problem of road safety in a way similar to that in which the civil aviation industry and the railways approach it. As honorable senators know, if there is an accident on the railways there is an immediate investigation. All aspects of the accident are examined. The circumstances of previous accidents are considered, and a full report is made so that, if possible, the circum- stances may be avoided in the future. At the present time, an inquiry on the highest level is being held in Queensland into an unfortunate air accident in that State recently. The most thorough investigation is being made in an attempt to ascertain the cause of the accident. As has been stated here previously, the number of accidents on the roads is many times - perhaps a hundred times - greater than the number of accidents on the airways or on the railways. Yet, only in Victoria did we find the keenness displayed by that small group of people who were ascertaining the causes of specific accidents and placing them on record for the benefit of those who might have to investigate future accidents.

The subject of driver training followed on from the committee’s investigation of the desirability of basic education in road safety in schools. In practically every State of of the Commonwealth the committee found that there was no supervision of people in control of driving schools. An extreme case was quoted - that a young lad of sixteen years could obtain a licence in South Australia where he would need to answer only a few questions about his name and address, whether he could drive a car, and a few other matters, simply filling in a form. Then he could get into a semi-trailer, which was up to twelve feet longer than the longest vehicle he would be allowed to drive in New South Wales or Victoria, arid drive it to Queensland, where he could start a driving school and teach people to drive within a week, if he wished to. That extreme case shows that there is no supervision and no proper direction of the way in which driving school instructors are trained to carry out this very important task.

The committee was given evidence about a driver-training school among police patrol officers. After they had had thorough driver training the number of accidents among those patrol officers was reduced by about 75 per cent. That showed that people who went into the police force and were given appointments as traffic officers had learned to ride a motor cycle or drive a car simply as a result of their fathers, uncles or some other persons showing them how to go about it. They were appointed to jobs and had the necessary qualifications to carry out their jobs, but their basic training was not thorough enough, and consequently they themselves were being involved in accidents. However, the figures showed that after undertaking a properly organized driver-training, driving and riding course over a period of time, the number of accidents among the police patrol officers was considerably reduced. If that can happen among such people, to what extent can it happen throughout the rest of the community? So, the committee had no hesitation in recognizing that this is a field in which there should be definite leadership from driving instructors and every aspect of road safety should be communicated to pupils.

The age at which people should be eligible to obtain licences was the subject of quite a lot of controversy. The suggestions ranged from sixteen years to eighteen years. We realized that if the age was fixed at eighteen years there would necessarily be a gap between the time when youngsters in the schools were trained in road safety and were taking an interest in riding a motor -cycle or driving a car, and the time when they would be eligible to obtain licences, and that during the period of that gap they might be induced to drive without a licence and so break the law. I was of the firm opinion that as soon as the practice of providing road safety tuition and driving tuition as part of the school curriculum became nation-wide, when a pupil reached the age of sixteen years, which is the school leaving age in Tasmania, he should be able to obtain a driving licence. No specific recommendation is made by the committee as to the age of eligibility to obtain a licence, but it is a matter that will have to be faced because of the gap between the age of eligibility, which in some States is eighteen years and in other States sixteen years, and the school leaving age, which in some States is fourteen years and in other States sixteen years.

The matter of speed limits also raised quite a lot of controversy. Speed being the greatest killer on the roads, the committee felt that the matter of speed limits should be tackled with all the vigour that we had at our command. The statistics show that the difference between speed limits in the country and speed limits in the cities is producing results. In the cities, where the roadways are better, the speed limits are lower and relatively fewer accidents are caused by speed. On the open highways in the country more drivers and passengers are killed in accidents caused by speed and the fact that the highways are not as well constructed and not as well signposted - with warnings of speed limits and advisory signs - as the roadways in the cities. One witness before the committee said, “ The reason why more accidents occur in the country than in the cities because of speed is that in the country you can get a better run at the victim “.

Senator Wright:

– By that remark are you implying that there are some allegations of deliberate killing?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– No, but it indicates that when vehicles can attain high speeds and when there are no speed limits and no warning sign-posts, the tendency is for people to test the power under the bonnets of their cars.

Senator Wright:

– I thought you said, “ You can get a better run at the victim “.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– People do get a better run because, although the speed of the car is largely under the control of the driver, if the car hits a lamp post or is wrapped around a tree, the driver has had a better run at his victim, whether he be on the road, in the back seat, or in the front seat. That is what is implied in that statement.

Excessive speed is the greatest killer on the roads and the accident rate as a result of speed is greater on the open highways and country roads which are not as efficiently constructed as are roads in the cities, do not contain as many advisory sign-posts and are not subject to compulsory speed limits. Therefore, adequate sign-posting and the extension of advisory speed limit signs have been recommended. Recently, I have heard very favorable comment on the sign-posting on the road between Sydney and Canberra. Previously one heard about the hazards of that highway. Even so, I understand that the hazards have not been completely removed, because there is still quite a deal of heavy transport using the road. People feel safer and happier when they have warning posts to give them an idea about what is a safe speed for a certain bend or at what distance ahead there is a sharp curve or some other hazard.

I come now to a matter that seems to be exercising the minds of very many people. I refer to the effect of the consumption of alcohol before one drives. In tackling this problem, we must examine what has become one of the most firmly established social habits of the Australian people. I should say that, if one were to compare the number of persons who were charged with driving under the influence of liquor with the number of pedestrians dealt with for drunkenness and relate them in each case to the total population, one would find the percentages would be much the same. The only difference is that in one case the people concerned are still pedestrians, whereas in the other case they are behind the steering wheel of a car. I believe that to inform people how many drinks they may imbibe before they become unfit to drive a car would be a very effective form of education.

I recall that on one occasion I asked an hotelkeeper whether he would be prepared to put up in his bar a notice telling people that after they have had four drinks they are reaching the stage of becoming unfit to drive or of being influenced by alcohol. Being a businessman, he replied, “ Why should I tell people that they should drink only a certain quantity and drive them out of my bar? “ Of course, it is a matter of self-interest. I am not prepared to say whether we would be able to get the co-operation of the licensed victuallers, the hotelkeepers’ associations or the brewers in this matter. But education must start where the people forgather to consume alcohol.

The various witnesses who showed the committee photographic slides and presented statistics to illustrate the influence of alcohol on driving skill were so convincing that I came to the firm belief that a frontal attack must be made on the attitude of the public to their ability to drink alcohol and drive. I understand that in some parts of the world, particularly in the Scandinavian countries, if one drives after he has drunk alcohol his action is looked upon as being an offence against his fellow man. This slogan has been adopted: “If you drive, don’t drink. If you drink, don’t drive.”

I should say that it would be almost impossible to change the social habits of the ordinary Australian so that he would not drive a vehicle after he had drunk alcohol or would not drink if he intended to drive. But in some way or other we must bring home to the people the fact that their capacity to drive is seriously impaired after a certain amount of alcohol is consumed, and that if they do not respond to education enforcement is the only alternative.

Senator Wright:

– In the Air Force, is there not an absolute prohibition against the taking of liquor for a certain period before flying?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– There is an absolute prohibition. The same applies to the railways and to civil aviation.

Senator Wright:

– 1 really meant civil aviation.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– 1 should say that a motor car is a more lethai weapon than is an aircraft. On the roads, we have a dense mass of motor vehicles in a restricted area. The number of vehicles on the roads is growing and is rapidly approaching the stage of there being one vehicle to every three persons. But the skies are wide. Aircraft can be routed along certain paths, and the possibility of collisions and accidents is reduced to an absolute minimum. In the case of the railways, the tracks are fenced in and there is an elaborate system of signals to ensure the maximum safety. But on the roads, in many cases cars travel bumper to bumper. Drivers are confronted with the hazard of side streets, bad lighting, hoardings and various obstructions. Under such difficult conditions, those who are in charge of motor vehicles need to have their wits about them; in order to avoid accidents.

The normal method of apprehending a person who is in charge of a car while under the influence of alcohol is well known. If a man is driving erratically and is apprehended, the policeman asks him to get out of the vehicle and perform certain physical tests. He is asked to walk along a straight line, to pick up threepence or some other small coin, and to repeat such words as “ British Constitution “ to test the fluency of his speech. In addition, the policeman smells his breath. That is the orthodox method of judging whether a person is under the influence of alcohol. Throughout the Commonwealth, police officers admitted that it was very difficult indeed to prove to the courts that a person was under the influence of alcohol. We obtained figures to show that only four per cent, of accidents were caused through alcohol.

Senator Wright:

– Did you obtain any figures to show what percentage of prosecutions on that charge succeeded and what proportion failed?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Yes; in Queensland, 96 per cent, of the charges were successful.

Senator Wright:

– Why then is your argument strong when you say it is difficult to prove the charge?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Charges are laid only when there is no shadow of doubt that the persons charged are full - absolutely blotto! If there is an element of doubt, the person is not charged. For that reason, the committee realized that the police who have the responsibility of deciding whether to charge a person should have every scientific assistance they can get. I am not prepared to condemn the breathalyser. I remember as a youngster, if we put some lime in a beaker and breathed into the lime water, it would turn milky. That would show that you had carbon monoxide in your breath. We did the usual tests with Litmus paper which turned red or blue according to the presence of acid or alkaline elements. The test with the breathalyser is almost as simple as that. If a person has alcohol in his body, the breathalyser will reveal its presence in his breath just as the litmus paper shows the presence of alkalines or acids. If a person is told to breathe into a breathalyser, it is not so very much different in effect from being told to sign his name or register his fingerprints.

Senator Scott:

– What about blood tests?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– The blood test is different. I will not go into that matter deeply because in most States it is unlawful to take a blood test compulsorily. A person could be adversely affected or injured while struggling against a compulsory blood test. I would not like to say categorically that the breathalyser is the only criterion of the presence of alcohol in the blood or in the breath, but it would certainly make the task of police officers more straightforward in dealing with persons who were suspected of driving while under the influence of alcohol. We must remember that possibly other aids will be discovered to determine the quantity of alcohol in the blood; but in the meantime, I certainly think the breath.alvser should be used to produce evidence, either for or against a person who is charged or about to be charged. I make the point here that the breathalyser can be just as helpful in proving that a man has no alcohol in his system. A person suffering from concussion or trauma, or a diabetic apparently asleep at the wheel of a car, could be arrested for showing the symptoms of alcoholism although quite innocent. A test of a person’s breath, if taken immediately, might give the investigating officer a lead in determining the truth. Then, instead of charging the person, he might send for medical aid.

I wanted to refer particularly to the Australian Road Safety Council itself. The committee found that in the various States there is quite healthy competition among persons of goodwill who realize that they are doing a great public service in associating themselves with road safety work and directing their energies towards the elimination of road accidents. That is a desirable state of affairs. We found that some persons were perhaps a little ambitious to be the leaders in their own particular field. Some were dyed-in-the-wool individualists who felt that road safety should not be a matter for the Public Service. They considered that the Commonwealth Government should make funds available to private organizations to run this important branch of public activity.

Summing up, I would say that the people of Australia, the Commonwealth Government and the Public Service are extremely fortunate to have an officer with the capacity, energy, initiative and ability of Mr. T. G. Paterson, the administrative officer and chairman of the Australian Road Safety Council. I believe that he would be irreplaceable in co-ordinating the activities of this organization. The criticism that comes from some States and some particular groups of people that Mr. Paterson is not able to carry on the job of chairman besides being chief administrative officer, could quite easily be overcome by the recommendation that we, on this side of the chamber in particular, have supported, that the Commonwealth Minister should be chairman of the Australian Road Safety Council ex officio, with power to delegate his authority. If that were done to satisfy the demands of some people in the States, I am sure that the Public Service itself and Mr. Paterson in particular would not object.

The work that has already been done with the limited funds available, and the initiative and imagination displayed by the department through the Road Safety Coun- cil, have been of a very high standard. With the aid of Mr. Paterson’s guiding hand, the recommendations of the committee, the co-operation of the States and an awakening interest, the people will be seised of the great importance of this problem. If we have the will, we can reduce the road toll to a minimum. Unless we are prepared to tackle the problem at the highest level, we shall be failing to meet our public responsibilities. It has been a great honour and experience to be associated with this committee. Its report should lead to an increased momentum in the handling of this important national problem.

Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia

– I rise in a different atmosphere from that which prevailed last night. There seems to be an air of peace, love and harmony in the chamber. Last night there were frequent interjections, the bill we were considering was delayed, and war between the two sides was carried on with the utmost vigour.

I want to say a few words about this most important subject. Deaths caused by accidents on the road have reached alarming proportions, notwithstanding the action taken by various organizations interested in the matter. Since the beginning of the century more Australian deaths have been caused by road accidents than were caused by World War II. Since 1947-48, when the road safety organization was established, road fatalities have decreased from fourteen for each 10,000 registered vehicles to about eight for each 10,000. In 1956, the number of road fatalities per 10,000 registered vehicles was 5.1 in New Zealand; 6 in the United States of America; 6 in Sweden; 7.4 in Canada; 8.3 in Great Britain; 9.5 in Australia; 12.7 in Denmark; 14.6 in Italy 16.7 in Switzerland; 18.6 in West Germany; and 28.9 in Portugal. Those figures are very enlightening. The Australian figure of 9.5 was the sixth lowest of the eleven figures listed.

Senator Wedgwood:

– What is the relationship between fatalities and miles travelled?

Senator SCOTT:

– That is not shown. The New Zealand figure of 5.1 is the lowest. New Zealand has a stricter road code than Australia or any other country but it is possible to obtain a motor driving licence there at the age of fifteen years. The qualifying age in Australia varies between sixteen and eighteen years in the different States. So it cannot be said that a higher accident rate occurs if the age of qualification for a driving licence is low. I should say that one of the chief reasons for the low rate in New Zealand is that a maximum speed limit of SO miles per hour is applied. The committee found that in Australia many fatal accidents occurred on straight, open roads. In the central parts of cities, where the traffic is densest, the fatality rate is lower.

Two different viewpoints have been presented to us to-day. One is that we should pay greater attention to enforcement and the other is that we should pay greater attention to education. I think it would be correct to say that the evidence taken by the committee emphasized that in the initial stages we should pay particular attention to education. Some States are endeavouring, through their education departments, to give children lessons on road safety in the schools right from infancy until school leaving age. The very young child is taught how to cross a road. When he becomes a little older, he is taught the rules of the road. Again, some of the schools are providing driving instruction. So when a child goes to school, road safety lessons are impressed upon his mind.

Senator Willesee:

– Is not that aspect of the matter pretty well covered in the schools.

Senator SCOTT:

– It is in many of the schools, but not in all of them, and not to the degree we think is necessary if the toll of the road is to be reduced. When the child leaves school at the school leaving age, which in some of the States is fourteen years, he is too young to get a licence. He may not obtain a licence until the age of seventeen or eighteen years or, in some States, sixteen years. The position, therefore, is that, from seven or eight years of age until leaving school at fourteen years of age, the child receives tuition in road safety but then, for a period of three or four years, until he is eligible to obtain a driver’s licence, he receives no further road safety education. According to the State in which he is living, he may get a licence at seventeen or eighteen years of age. Most children at that age are full of the enthusiasm of life and the faster they can drive a vehicle the better they like it. The committee found that, on a percentage basis, drivers in this age group have been involved in more accidents than those in any other age group in Australia.

The committee travelled to all States and took evidence on this problem. In Western Australia, we found that a driver training school provided by the Road Safety Council in that State was in operation at Mount Lawley. It was opened earlier this year. Prior to that, the Western Australian Road Safety Council, in co-operation with the Traffic Branch, had conducted classes every Saturday morning to teach young people to ride motor cycles and motor scooters. It is interesting to note that, of the 400 or 500 riders who have been trained in this way since these classes were initiated two years ago only one has been involved in an accident. Therefore, I emphasize the value of education in this field. The instance I have just quoted shows that it has been proved that correct tuition enhances road safety. Take the case of a youth who leaves school at the age of eighteen or nineteen years and gets a rider’s licence. For want of a better name, I shall call him a leather jacket. He hops on to his motor bike and breaks the speed limit wherever he goes. He wants to travel as fast as the motor bike will go. Experience in Western Australia in the Road Safety Council’s classes has shown that if that lad could be persuaded to attend the classes he would soon become enthusiastic about road safety and thereafter would present no problem to the traffic police. Instead of being a danger on the road he would set a good example to other road users. I understand that the representatives of other States who were present at the opening of this driver training school expressed a desire for a similar type of facility to be provided in their respective States, and I think that this will be done within a few years.

This is the lesson of education - one of the three E’s that have been mentioned in this debate. Let us look at it from beginning to end. The child receives lessons in road safety - how to cross the street; how to ride a push bike; how to instruct other children on their behaviour when crossing streets, and the like. At the age of twelve or thirteen years, the child goes to a secondary school. If driver training were included in the curriculum of that secondary school, the child, upon attaining the age of sixteen years - and possibly at a younger age - and having undergone a course of driver training, should then qualify to obtain a driver’s licence. I think that the States could well review the minimum age of eligibility for a driver’s licence. As I have said, it varies as between States from sixteen to eighteen years of age.

I come now to a consideration of the manner in which drivers’ licences are issued in Australia. In South Australia, an applicant is granted a licence after he answers satisfactorily a few questions on the traffic laws, but in most of the other States applicants for drivers’ licences are tested and according to their ability to drive are granted or refused licences. One of the amazing things we discovered was that a person could obtain a drivers’ licence one day and become a driving instructor the next. He could teach other people to drive a motor vehicle and enable them to obtain a licence.

Senator Robertson:

– At what stage do you suggest we should teach the road hog to drive safely?

Senator SCOTT:

– There are plenty of answers to that question. Is. the honorable senator wanting me to say that enforcement is the only remedy? I will agree that under certain circumstances we must have enforcement.

Senator Armstrong:

– Answer the question.

Senator SCOTT:

– That is the answer.

Senator Gorton:

– The answer is that he should be taught at the appropriate stage.

Senator SCOTT:

– That is the question. At what stage? At the appropriate time we have to bring in enforcement.

Senator Armstrong:

– Senator Robertson never mentioned the word. “ enforcement “. Answer her question.

Senator SCOTT:

– I am attempting to do so. Senator Robertson has asked me at what stage we should handle the road hog, and in answer to that I am saying that there is a stage when you have to apply strict enforcement. That is how you catch the road hog. You cannot do it in any other way. I am trying to deal with the subject from the beginning. We endeavour to give the child an education in road safety. In due course, he is given a driver’s licence and we hope that he will not have accidents. If he is taught by an instructor of a road safety organization such as we have in Western Australia - I hope it will be copied in other States - it is probable that he- will not become a road hog, but if the education he received was not good enough to stop him from becoming a road hog, you have to apply rigid methods of enforcement.

Unfortunately we do have road hogs in Australia to-day. We have people who exceed the speed limit by a considerable margin. I mentioned earlier in my speech that in New Zealand the speed limit is 50; miles an hour, but in Australia we have no speed limits in any of the States, unless limits have been introduced recently.

Senator Kendall:

– The speed limit is SO miles an hour in Queensland.

Senator SCOTT:

– I am reminded that there is a speed limit of 50 miles an hour in Queensland. I think a speed limit is being considered in Tasmania. The Committee has recommended to the Senate that a speed limit be imposed in all the States and that a person who exceeds the limit shall be liable to a fine.

Senator Wardlaw:

– To drive at 30 miles an hour might be exceeding the speed limit.

Senator SCOTT:

– I am referring to the open road. In the cities there are speed limits varying from 15 to 25 miles, an hour, but in many States there are no speed limits on the open road.

Senator Hannaford:

– The sky is the limit.

Senator SCOTT:

– Yes, the sky is the limit. The evidence taken by the committee proved to its satisfaction that a large number of accidents occur, not on winding roads, but on straight highways in the open country. A speed limit would be one way of reducing the road toll in cases such as that. I think that if we had a. speed limit throughout Australia of 60 miles an hour on the open highway, that would be a fair thing.

Before the interjection, I was saying that a person could become a driving instructor although he had received his licence only the day before, or even an hour or two before. I think it is absolutely essential that driving instructors should be properly qualified. They should be required to pass an examination set by the traffic or police authorities in the various States before being allowed to instruct other people how to drive a motor car. There is not one State in which a person who has just obtained a licence cannot immediately start to give driving lessons to other people. I think that is a very queer set-up and that it should be altered.

I now want to touch on the problem of alcohol. In each State the committee heard witnesses who gave it the fullest possible information on the effects of alcohol. The evidence varied. Some witnesses estimated that from 70 per cent, to 80 per cent, of road fatalities were caused through indulgence in alcohol, while others suggested that the percentage was as low as 2 per cent, or 4 per cent. The evidence depended on the type of witnesses who were giving evidence. Dr. Hansman of New South Wales was adamant that 70 per cent, or 80 per cent, of the accidents that occur in New South Wales are caused through indulgence in alcohol. The committee took evidence from representatives of the Licensed Victuallers Association who claimed that the proportion of accidents which resulted from the consumption of alcohol was as low as 2.4 per cent. So, we have on one side Dr. Hansman saying that the proportion is between 70 per cent, and 80 per cent, and on the other, the representatives of the Licensed Victuallers Association saying it is between 2 per cent, and 3 per cent.

It is interesting to note that in Western Australia, where there is a system of voluntary blood testing, 80 per cent, or 90 per cent, of those who have volunteered to have their blood tested for alcohol content have been found to be driving under the influence of liquor because the content exceeded .15 per cent.

Senator Sheehan:

– No doubt that is why they volunteered.

Senator SCOTT:

– It appeared strange to the committee that such a high percentage of people who had volunteered to have their blood tested should have been found to have more than .15 per cent, of alcohol in their blood. I think that those people probably had reached the stage of reckless ness and had said, “ Right, brother. You can do what you like with me, because alcohol is not having any effect on me.” They then volunteered for the blood test and no doubt were amazed next morning to find that their blood had had an alcohol content of more than .15 per cent. That evidence leads one to believe that a person on the borderline who had in his blood an alcohol content of from .05 to .1 per cent, would not volunteer to have his blood tested because he would know that the result was a little doubtful. He no doubt would say to himself, “ I have had four, five or six beers, and I may come within a certain percentage group. If I do, that fact, together with other evidence, may go against me when it comes to deciding whether I have been driving under the influence of liquor.” A person in that position might not agree to a test, and perhaps the only people who would volunteer would be those who were so much under the influence of liquor that they were reckless.

The committee heard a great deal of evidence in each of the States regarding the influence of alcohol on driving. It also heard evidence on breathalyzers and on what could be done to encourage the States to take action against people who drove under the influence of liquor. Having travelled throughout the States and questioned many witnesses at each place we visited, we have recommended that there should be an intensive publicity campaign to educate the community to understand the influence of alcohol upon driving skill, and that chemical tests to assist in determining the degree of intoxication of drivers should be introduced on a compulsory basis. Those recommendations are shortly stated, but they are terribly important if we really want to tackle the problem of reducing the number of fatalities on our roads.

Taking the first of those recommendations to begin with, we come back to the importance of education in solving the ‘problem of road safety. The committee is of the opinion that the people should be educated in road safety by means of a comprehensive publicity campaign concerned with the dangers of driving when alcohol has been consumed, and of driving under the influence of liquor. The committee believes that publicity should be given to the fact that driving ability is impaired after a certain number of glasses of beer are consumed, and to the stage at which a driver who has been consuming alcohol should cease to drive a vehicle. Some of the witnesses who gave evidence suggested that we should seek the co-operation of hotelkeepers throughout the Commonwealth in having displayed in their bars notices stating the quantity of alcohol that it is necessary to consume for the blood stream to have an alcohol content of .05 per cent. I understand that between four and five middies of beer will give such a content, that the consumption of eight or nine middies will give a blood content of .1 per cent., and that the consumption of from twelve to fourteen middies will result in a blood content of .15 per cent., depending in each case, of course, on the size of the individual consuming the alcohol. I might say that in Western Australia, the glass that is referred to as a middy in other States is called a schooner.

Senator Sheehan:

– That suggests that there might have to be a uniform name for beer glasses.

Senator SCOTT:

– Yes, that may be necessary at some stage. No doubt, many hotelkeepers . would have been prepared to co-operate in making known the quantity of alcohol that it is necessary to consume for the blood to have a certain alcoholic content, but I think that that is a matter that will have to be left to the attention of the road safety organizations throughout the Commonwealth. The committee has reduced its recommendations to those concerned with major aspects.

The evidence tendered to the committee proves conclusively that the consumption of alcohol by drivers of vehicles is having a pronounced effect on road safety. The committee has therefore recommended, first, that educational measures be taken, and secondly, that compulsory clinical tests be required, the results to be considered with other evidence. If those recommendations are adopted, I think that the motorists of Australia will realize that they will have to watch themselves if they consume alcohol before they drive a vehicle.

Another interesting recommendation of the committee relates to drivers in the 17 to 23 years age group. A specific problem was presented in this instance, because statistics did not provide the information that the committee required. Most of the information available in the statistics concerned the age groups of 17 to 20 years and 20 to 29 years. However, I think that the evidence taken by the committee showed conclusively that the greatest number of accidents in Australia, on an age group basis, occur in the younger age group. Various methods have been devised to reduce the high accident rate in this age group. The matter was covered fairly well by the previous speaker, Senator O’Byrne.

A very important piece of evidence was given to the committee in regard to vehicle design and safety equipment. I think it can be quite truly said that up until the last few years very few, if any, car manufacturers bothered about building a safe car for motorists and providing safety facilities in the vehicle. In a 1935 or 1940 model car the steering column comes straight up, and a few prongs stick out to which the rim of the steering wheel is attached. In an accident, at the moment of impact the steering wheel will almost certainly injure the driver’s lungs so considerably that he will be very lucky to live. However, lately the dish-type steering wheel has been introduced and the steering column has been placed closer to the dashboard. Some manufacturers put padded dashboards in their cars and provide inset handles so that in accident they will not scratch the people of the car. They also provide door locks that will stay locked when a car turns over. The committee was also given evidence to the effect that some car manufacturers are thinking of installing safety belts. In one State we were given evidence that in a country other than Australia a motor car manufacturer marketed a car which had safety belts included in its paraphernalia. We were informed that sales of that make of car immediately dropped. No doubt, prospective purchasers said: “ What is the use of buying this motor vehicle? The manufacturer gives us safety belts. Therefore, it must be dangerous “. However, there is no doubt that the evidence given to the committee established the need to compel persons riding in motor vehicles to wear safety belts.

I understand that certain companies operating in Australia to-day, which employ large staffs of drivers, insist that their drivers wear safety belts at all times. If any of their employees are caught with their belts undone while they are driving, they are immediately dismissed.

SenatorO’Flaherty. - Did you get any evidence from anybody who had been dismissed?

Senator SCOTT:

– No, but I have evidence from people who were employed by companies that were enforcing it who, in the initial stages, thought that it was completely silly, but who to-day will not drive their own private vehicles -let alone company vehicles - unless they wear a safety belt.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– They are faddists.

Senator SCOTT:

– You might believe that, senator, but in Western Australia, with its wide open spaces, people travel fairly fast on the open highways and safety belts could save many lives. An instance was given to me of a car making three complete somersaults and finishing up on its bonnet, with the driver still held by his safety belt. Another car drew up alongside the wrecked car and created a cloud of dust, and the driver of a third car, blinded by the dust, came round the corner and collided with the first car in which the driver was still held by the safety belt and turned it over another couple of times, but the driver of the first car got out without a scratch. That instance is completely true. That is one reason why, if we want to reduce the death-rate and the number of accidents on the roads in Australia, we should comply with this recommendation that drivers wear safety belts, particularly when driving on open roads at a speed in excess of 30 or 40 miles an hour.

Senator Gorton:

– I believe that.

Senator SCOTT:

– Thank you. I have no doubt that Senator O’FIaherty will say that it is completely stupid for people riding motor-bikes and motor-scooters to wear safety helmets. We have evidence that where it is compulsory for such people to wear safety helmets the fatality rate in accidents has been reduced by more than 50 per cent.

Senator Anderson:

– In one year.

Senator SCOTT:

– Yes. I think that was in New Zealand. At present I do not think it is compulsory for a motor cyclist to wear a crash helmet in any of the Australian States.

Senator Kendall:

– It is in Queensland.

Senator Gorton:

– I think it is in Victoria.

Senator SCOTT:

– Some States may have recently introduced the provision or were about to introduce it when we were visiting them. It is difficult for me to remember what was happening in each State. I would be safe in saying that in the majority of the States at the present time it is not compulsory for a person riding a motor cycle or a motor-scooter to wear a crash helmet. If the State governments made it compulsory for people travelling in motor cars at speeds in excess of 30 miles an hour to wear safety belts, and for motorcycle and motor-scooter riders to wear crash helmets at all times, the fatality rate in accidents would be immediately reduced by 50 per cent. in the case of motor-bikes and a lower percentage than that in the case of motor cars.

I think it can be said that 90 per cent. of accidents are caused by the drivers of vehicles and not by the condition of the vehicle or the road. The figures show that only about 4 per cent. of road accidents are caused by the road conditions. The better and the straighter the road, the greater is the number of accidents; and the more winding and the rougher the road, the fewer are the fatalities. I suppose that is understandable because when some people get on to a straight road they go as fast as their vehicles will travel. But on a winding or rough road it is too uncomfortable for the driver and the passengers to drive fast. So one is compelled to drive more safely, with the result that on such roads there arc fewer accidents. We really cannot expect to reduce the number of accidents simply by improving the standard of our roads. But what we can do where there is dense traffic is to have two parallel roads separated by a median strip. Although such roads are very expensive to build, possibly a saving would be achieved in the long run. However, I believe we could do it only with the major highways and through densely populated metropolitan areas. I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 4.47 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 13 October 1960, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1960/19601013_senate_23_s18/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant