Senate
7 May 1963

24th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 249

ABORIGINES

Petition

Senator COHEN presented a petition, signed by 38 citizens, praying that Parliament will take early action to remove, from the Commonwealth Constitution, section 127 and the words in section 51 which discriminate against aboriginal people.

Petition received and read.

page 249

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation whether it is a fact that in a statement reported on 30th January, 1960, relating to cross-charter arrangements between Ansett-A.N.A. and Trans-Australia Airlines, he said that when and if any developments happened they would be reported to him and he would then make a statement. I ask the Minister whether, on 2nd February, 1960, three days later, he made a statement which included the following sentence -

The cross-charter arrangements proposed are a normal feature of airline operations and the Government would give favourable consideration to them . . .

Will the Minister explain why he has changed his mind about making a statement in view of the statement made by him on Wednesday last that no agreement was made between the two operators until 26th February of that year?

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

– I am afraid that I cannot answer that question off the cuff. I want to refer to the statements that I made and to which the honorable senator has referred before I attempt to reply. I shall do that on the earliest possible occasion.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Is it a fact that Trans-Australia Airlines is having a sixteen-story head-quarters building constructed in Melbourne at a cost of £1,500,000? Is this not another indication of the progress and prosperity of this

F.3822/63.- S.- [ti] airline under the guidance of the Menzies Government? It will be remembered that the airline was losing money when the Australian Labour Party was in office. How is the finance for this building being arranged?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– The fact that T.A.A. proposes to construct in Melbourne a very fine head-quarters building, which, incidentally, will initially consist of twelve stories and subsequently will be taken to sixteen stories, is an indication of the growth and prosperity of the airline and shows clearly that it has become a successful government utility and is so regarded by everybody in Australia.

Senator KENNELLY:
VICTORIA

– I address these questions to the Minister for Civil Aviation: Is it a fact that the Minister contemplates making a flight to Norfolk Island on Friday next? By whom does he propose to be accompanied? By what aircraft will he fly? By whom is such aircraft owned or operated? What is the purpose of the trip? Is it contemplated that the aerodrome will be extended to enable heavier aircraft to fly to and from the island? Is Qantas Empire Airways Limited likely to be deprived of the right to serve this route in favour of Ansett-A.N.A.? Has the Minister any knowledge of the aim of AnsettA.N.A. to institute a service from Norfolk Island to New Zealand?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I am rather astonished that the honorable senator is aware of the fact, but it is true that I contemplate making a trip to Norfolk Island on Friday next and returning, I think, on Monday morning. I shall be travelling in a departmental aircraft which will be crewed by departmental officers. I propose to take with me the Director-General of Civil Aviation, the Director of Airports, and other personnel who can appropriately advise me in respect of the matter about which I am going to the island. As the honorable senator suggests - again he has been well informed - I propose to look at the airstrip there. I should point out that I am going in response to a submission which was made to me by His Honour, the Administrator of Norfolk Island, when he was in Canberra during the recent visit of the Queen. He put to me certain aspects of the air service and suggested that there was room for- some improvement. The proposal raises a number of knotty technical and operational problems. What has to be resolved is the type of aircraft that can succeed the DC4 aircraft which now makes the trip.

The honorable senator asks whether Qantas Empire Airways Limited operates the service to Norfolk Island. The answer is, “ Yes “. The route from Norfolk Island to New Zealand is operated by Tasman Empire Airways Limited under charter from Qantas. I have not heard a word from any one about the intention of Ansett-A.N.A. or any other airline to apply for a licence to operate on this route. The honorable senator probably will recall that intermittently over the years, because of poor patronage, this route has been subsidized.

page 250

QUESTION

TRADE

Senator WEDGWOOD:
VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Trade been directed to a statement by the spokesman of a trade delegation from mainland China to the effect that at present trade between Australia and China is out of proportion and that Australia should offer equal opportunities to China? Will the Government give an assurance that it has no intention of reversing its proclaimed policy with regard to trade with mainland China?

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

– I have not seen the statement, probably because I have only just returned from a visit to New Zealand and have not been kept in touch with such matters over the past week. I shall have a look at the statement and, if possible, give the honorable senator an answer to- morrow.

page 250

QUESTION

FINANCE

Senator COLE:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: Is it a fact that the central bank has directed all Commonwealth trading banks to limit temporary loans to six months, including those to applicants for War serice homes loans whose applications have been approved and who are awaiting finance from the War Service Homes Division?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I am rather amazed at this question, because it was announced only recently that the Com monwealth Bank’s policy in respect of housing loans had been very significantly liberalized. That announcement, I appreciate, applied to housing generally. The honorable senator’s question made special reference to war service homes. I am not aware of any variation that has been made in this respect which might operate to the disadvantage of the returned soldier. I shall certainly make inquiries to see what information I can get for the honorable senator.

page 250

QUESTION

SKIN CANCER

Senator WADE:
Minister for Health · VICTORIA · CP

– It is true that a survey has been conducted recently in the rural areas of Queensland. Whilst it was reported that there was a significant correlation between the incidence of skin cancer and persons having fair complexions, enough research has really not been done into this interesting subject to enable any firm conclusion to be recorded. It is true to say that the information that has been gleaned is being studied with great interest.

page 250

QUESTION

ANSETT-A.N.A

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– So that the Senate may have a picture of future events, will the Minister for Civil Aviation say what requests from Ansett-A.N.A. are before him at the moment?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I am not aware that there are any requests from AnsettA.N.A. before me at the moment. If Ansett-A.N.A. or any other airline operator makes submissions to the Government, they will be considered by the Government and a decision will be made on the basis of equity and fairness.

page 250

QUESTION

AIRLINE SUBSIDIES

Senator VINCENT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for Civil Aviation explain to the Senate why payments to airline companies by way of subsidy for services provided are regarded and treated by the Government as confidential?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– Looking back, I think that this practice, like Topsy, just grew. It has been in existence for a long time. As far as I can understand, it was adopted because the airline operators in receipt of subsidy felt some sensitivity about the amount of their subsidy being known publicly. As 1 say, this has persisted for a number of years. The vote for subsidy has always been a single-line vote, and remains so. In my first annual report to the Parliament as Minister for Civil Aviation I devoted quite a lengthy proportion of it to discussing the subsidy and subsidy payments, explaining the different types of subsidies and setting out the routes that were subsidized. However, in conformity with the then existing practice, 1 did not clearly state the amount of subsidy paid to each subsidized airline. This position, as I say, was apparently accepted because no questions were asked about it until quite recently, following a quickening of interest in this matter. As a result of that quickening of interest, I propose putting myself in communication with the operators concerned. Indeed, I have already done that in respect of some, informing them of my intentions. When I issue my report for the year ended 30th June last, the amounts of subsidies paid to each operator, and other relevant details, will be published in that report.

page 251

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator DITTMER:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. I ask whether it is a fact that in a letter dated 6th July, 1961, signed by Mr. R. M. Ansett, chairman of Ansett Transport Industries Limited, published in the press of Australia and circulated to all members of this Parliament, Mr. Ansett said -

It is essential that private enterprise have equal access te finance for this jet re-equipment programme even if it necessitates the use of government finance.

Is it a fact that the legislation of October, 1961, provided that the Government should guarantee Ansett Transport Industries Limited to the extent of £6,000,000 to enable the company to purchase new jets? Would it be correct to state that the airport amenities and facilities at Townsville, Queensland, are not in keeping with the requirements and prestige of the city and its region? Does the Minister know that the amenities and facilities at Bilinga airport, Queensland - and I do not propose to deal with all the inadequacies in Queensland - are hopelessly inadequate and unfair to passengers using the airport?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I think I identify the letter published in the press by Mr. Ansett to which the honorable senator has referred. I am not familiar with the particular passage that the honorable senator has quoted, but I do not doubt that he was quoting from that letter. In actual fact, it has been a practice adopted by this Government, not since 1961 but since 1952, to make available to the major private operator in Australia government guarantees to support the purchase of aircraft for the privately owned fleet. As I pointed out before, these guarantees might be described as “ copper-bottomed “ guarantees. They did not place the Australian taxpayer at any risk at all. As to Ansett’s use of government guarantees, he did not avail himself of those guarantees to the full extent and every penny of the existing loans made against government guarantees will be repaid by this time next year.

Senator Dittmer:

– That will be done by imposing higher fares. What about the £6,000,000 for jet equipment, and what about Bilinga and Townsviile airports?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– The sura of £6,000,000 was not taken up by Ansett. So far as the airports are concerned-

Senator Dittmer:

– What about the £6,000,000?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I have explained the guarantee. If it is beyond the capacity of the honorable senator to understand the explanation that is his affair, not mine. As to the Queensland airports to which the honorable senator has referred, I have answered questions about Townsville before, including, I think, questions asked by Senator Dittmer. I have indicated the difficulty of programming and how each airport project has to take its place in the list of priorities. I have had correspondence with the people concerned in Townsville and have explained the position. Beyond saying that to the honorable senator, all I can do is to say that it is my desire and the desire of the department I administer to have in Australia the best airport facilities that 10,500,000 people can support; but it i9 childish to expect that 10,500,000 people can do all the work required on all the airports in Australia at the one time. There has to be a list of priorities.

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. In approving the transfer of shares representing a controlling interest in MacRobertson Miller Airlines Limited to Ansett-A.N.A. what steps, if any, did the Minister take in an endeavour to ensure that the offer to purchase the shares of the principal shareholders was extended to the other 800 shareholders in Western Australia?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– As I tried to make clear last week, the honorable senator’s question is based on quite false premises. The transfer did not result from an offer to purchase made by Ansett-A.N.A. to the MacRobertson Miller interests but from an offer to sell made by the MacRobertson Miller interests and Miller Investments Limited to Ansett-A.N.A.

page 252

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Senator BRANSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior: Is it a fact that the pressure that was brought to bear on Miss Russell was successful in that she decided not to nominate as a candidate in the Grey by-election? Will the Minister inform the Senate whether the Minister for the Interior intends to proceed with his investigation to ascertain whether there has been a breach of section 158 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act?

Senator WADE:
CP

– The question assumes two things. The first is that pressure was applied to Miss Russell and the second is that, as a result of the pressure, she withdrew her candidature in the by-election. As public attention has been directed to this matter, the Minister for the Interior announced in another place his duty prompted him to investigate it and that he would confer with and seek advice from the Attorney-General. I have no further information to add at this stage.

page 252

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator AYLETT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Civil Aviation.

Is it a fact that in December, 1959, AnsettA.N.A. and Trans-Australia Airlines each made application to the Minister for authority to purchase an Electra aircraft? Was authority granted speedily to AnsettA.N.A. and was the Electra delivered in February, 1960? Was authority for T.A.A. to purchase an Electra deferred until after the conclusion of the cross-charter agreement between the two operators on 26th February, 1960? Was the deferment of T.A.A’s. request part of the technique to compel T.A.A. to accept the cross-charter agreement? If not, why was the request deferred?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– That question is rather difficult to follow, but I take this opportunity to say that no pressure was brought to bear at any time to induce T.A.A. to sign any cross-charter agreement or anything else. With regard to the issuance of permits for the purchase of aircraft, I suggest that the honorable senator could be expected to remember that this is a matter regulated by the provisions of the Airlines Equipment Act, which was passed by this chamber. No doubt he was familiar with the legislation at the time, but because of his diverse interests he has since forgotten the details.

page 252

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Has the Minister’s attention been directed to a recent press report wherein a prominent agriculturist is alleged to have said that the figures on which the wheat stabilization scheme was based were fictitious and ancient, and also that the taxpayers had been paying for years to support wheat-growers? Can the Minister state briefly the basis upon which the figures for the present stabilization scheme are determined? Can he say for how many years the stabilization scheme has been operating and on how many occasions the Government has contributed financially to it? Is it not a fact that wheat-growers for many years contributed large sums annually to the stabilization fund, and is it not a fact that the wheat industry has virtually subsidized consumers in this country to an estimated total of something like £200,000,000 during the period of wheat stabilization?

Senator WADE:
CP

– I am aware of the reported statement which has been attributed to Professor Campbell. However, as the report was a brief one, it may not have given the full context of his remarks. The calculations used in the present wheat stabilization scheme were based on the results of a survey taken in 1957 by the Division of Agricultural Economics. The declared cost of production for 1958 was 14s. 6d. a bushel. I speak subject to correction, but it is pertinent to say that the cost of production figure has been adjusted annually having regard to a fixed system of costing. The growers’ own contribution to the stabilization fund financed all pools prior to 1959- 60. It was held by wheat-growing interests that when wheat was sold through the International Wheat Agreement on world markets they accepted a price considerably lower than they would have obtained had they been selling on a free market. It is true that the loss to the growers as the result of their inability to sell on the open market is estimated at about £200,000,000.

page 253

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Has any approach been made by him to the governments of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia to permit Trans-Australia Airlines to operate aircraft intra-state? If not, will the Minister make an approach to each of the State governments referred to?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– No, I have not made any approach to those governments in respect of this matter. The Commonwealth has made completely clear its policy on intra-state operation. As I have said over and over again, its policy is based upon the fact that intra-state operation necessarily is subsidized operation which obviously will not support two airlines. Let me repeat that if two airlines are to operate side by side and in competition one with the other, obviously that will take away completely the basis of subsidization. The effect will be that the country people concerned, or the people living in isolated areas who now enjoy a subsidized service, will get no service at all.

page 253

QUESTION

CHOWILLA DAM

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the

Minister for National Development tell me whether points of difference remain to be negotiated between the States concerned and the Commonwealth regarding the commencement of the Chowilla dam in South Australia, or whether any points at all still remain to be negotiated? Is it necessary to introduce, either in the State parliaments or in the Commonwealth Parliament, amending legislation to enable South Australia to go ahead and call for tenders for the commencement of the dam? If so, can the Minister indicate when such legislation may be coming forward, at any rate in the Commonwealth Parliament? Is it necessary for legislation to be passed before South Australia may call for tenders for the commencement of the dam?

Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER:

The machinery whereby this matter is being brought to finality is the amending of the River Murray Waters Act, which constituted and established the River Murray Commission on which all States are represented. The commission has met and has reached its conclusions concerning the amendments that should be made. Those amendments have been circulated to the Premiers and to the respective legal officers. I am not quite certain where the matter stands at the moment. All the agreements are in circulation. Senator Buttfield will no doubt remember that there has been an understanding that this arrangement will cover not only the building of the Chowilla dam but also the use of the Menindee waters. New South Wales is making the Menindee waters available. Although the agreements have not yet been signed, there is an arrangement that the other States are to have the benefit of the Menindee waters as from 1st January last. In order that the matter will not be delayed, South Australia is proceeding with the preliminary work in relation to the Chowilla dam storage, the arrangement being that South Australia will proceed with the work and the amount expended by it will be added to the total cost. The matter will be regularized when the agreements are completed.

page 253

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation.

Is it a fact that Ansett Transport Industries Limited and its subsidiaries have a fleet of 90 aircraft operating in Australia, whilst Trans-Australia Airlines has a fleet of only 59 aircraft? Apart from the advantage of feeder services on interstate routes, does not the bigger fleet permit greater economies in aircraft maintenance and enable the fleet to be disposed to its maximum productive capacity?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I saw the figures to which Senator Hendrickson refers given in a newspaper over the week-end. I meant to have them checked but I have not yet done so. I do not dispute them. They are probably correct but the circumstance that the private enterprise organization has 90 aircraft as against T.A.A.’s 59 is accounted for by the fact that it conducts a far greater number of competitive services.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Non-competitive services.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I am sorry. I should have said “ non-competitive “. It is true that, up to a certain number, economies in aircraft engineering or any other engineering can be achieved where the size of the fleet is increased. At just what point that ceases to become a comparative advantage I do not know, but I do know that, by comparison, T.A.A.’s engineering costs are very satisfactory and that its engineering work is carried out very efficiently by its various workshops. I should say that the same remark applies to Ansett-A.N.A. I cannot agree that the difference between 59 and 90 aircraft constitutes some advantage in the way suggested by the honorable senator.

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation why he persistently declines to publish agreements under which subsidies are paid in respect of intra-state air services. I ask this question because I believe that the matter is of such importance that the public should know, through this Parliament, just what these agreements contain and how much public money is involved.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– If the honorable senator had been here earlier he would have got the answer to at least the greater part of his question. It may be that he was a little late in coming into the chamber.

It is perfectly obvious now why honorable senators opposite were all so late in entering the chamber. As I explained earlier this afternoon, it is my intention from this time forward to publish in my annual report details of individual payments to those airline operators who receive subsidies.

The honorable senator asks about agreements. This matter was raised during the debate last week in connexion with the MacRobertson Miller agreement. At that time I had not had the opportunity of conferring on the tabling of the report. I have since had that opportunity, and I propose to table the report. As to the general tabling of reports relating to subsidies, I am giving that matter consideration now.

page 254

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

Senator CORMACK:
VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Civil Aviation read the book called “ The Hidden Persuaders “? If he has, will he note the significance of the constant barrage of questions directed to him over the last few days, and will be take steps to discover who are the hidden persuaders in this instance?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I am not familiar with the book “The Hidden Persuaders”, but I have never been in any doubt at all that the real persuaders of the Labour Party are the 36 shadowy men. I think that always has been, and always will be, the case.

page 254

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation whether he agrees that the Ansett-A.N.A. organization has made an extraordinarily quick recovery in that it is now making reasonable profits and in amortizing before the due date its indebtedness to the Commonwealth Government under a guaranteed loan. Has there not been a hidden persuader used on both airline operators to establish a type of costplus fare and freight fixation? Has not the Government’s policy of allegedly enforcing parity between the two major airline operators on interstate routes led to the establishment of higher fares and charges than would otherwise have been the case?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I do not agree that pressure of any sort has been brought to bear on either of the airline operators in connexion with fare fixation. The honorable senator poses a question which goes something like this: But for the Government’s two-airlines policy would not air fares be cheaper than they are now? I say to him quite emphatically that it is my view that they would not be cheaper. The experience we had when a Labour government was in power, with its own airline policy which led to the chaos that I described last Thursday, amply illustrates the merits of the two-airlines policy, which has not only brought stability to the industry but has also been the means of providing for the Australian people an air service which is second to none in the world.

Senator MARRIOTT:

– Can the Minister for Civil Aviation tell me how many Fokker Friendship aircraft Trans-Australia Airlines asked for and obtained permission from the Menzies Government to purchase? Did Trans-Australia Airlines later claim it had more of these aircraft than it required and did it either lease or sell the surplus?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– In all, the Australian National Airlines Commission has purchased 12 Fokker Friendship aircraft, lt is true that the commission subsequently found that it was in a position to provide aircraft to other airline operators, and that was done, as the honorable senator is well aware. One was supplied to East-West Airlines Limited on a rental basis. The MacRobertson Miller organization obtained one under contract to purchase and another was made available, temporarily, to a subsidiary of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited. I think it is still on lease to that organization.

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. In the event of his being requested to approve the transfer of shares from Connellan Airways Limited will he agree that TransAustralia Airlines should be given the opportunity to bid for such shares?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– If there is any move at all by any of the shareholders in Connellan Airways Limited to sell their shares I should think that they would very properly regard that as a matter for their own determination and not for the determination of a Minister.

page 255

QUESTION

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Senator VINCENT:

– Can the Minister representing the Attorney-General tell the Senate why the death sentence on Daniel Norris Nicholls was commuted to life imprisonment? Having regard to important law reforms which are now in force in Great Britain, and in view of the somewhat vague and uncertain provisions of the Commonwealth law in relation to capital punishment, will the Minister undertake to review the law relating to this matter?

Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · VICTORIA · LP

– The death sentence was commuted by Cabinet after full consideration of a report covering all facets of the case which had been placed before it by the Attorney-General. The honorable senator has asked whether the AttorneyGeneral would consider altering the law in any respect. All I can do is to bring the honorable senator’s suggestion before the Attorney-General for his consideration.

page 255

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

– I desire to ask the Minister for Civil Aviation, who is very much overworked this afternoon, some interesting questions’. They are these: Does the profit standard of 10 per cent., after payment of taxes and the provision of reserves, which was set for Ansett-A.N.A. and to which Trans-Australia Airlines was required to conform relate to all the activities of Ansett Transport Industries Limited or only to the airways operations of that company? What effect has this standard had upon the fares and freights that are payable by the users of interstate aircraft?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– Late in 1961 this Parliament passed legislation in respect of certain commercial standards which were to be adopted by T.A.A. That legislation made it quite clear that for the purposes of comparability as between the private enterprise airline and the governmentowned airline regard must be had in the fixation of dividends to the fact that the private enterprise organization was engaged in other activities such as surface transport and the conduct of hotels. The net effect was to confine the comparability to the airline activities of the Ansett complex.

The second part of the question relates to the fixation of a dividend for T.A.A. The honorable senator stated that T.A.A. had had to conform to a standard of 1 0 per cent., that being the figure which was determined by Ansett Transport Industries Limited. That is not the position. If my memory serves me correctly - I think it does - the first fixation of dividend was at the level of 6 per cent, as against a dividend of 10 per cent, paid by the entire Ansett complex. In my view, the fixing of this very moderate dividend rate for T.A.A. has not had the effect of increasing fares in the manner suggested by the honorable senator. Where a government enterprise operates in competition with private enterprise in an undertaking of this kind, it is only reasonable that it should be asked to pay a reasonable dividend on its investment. At least, that is the belief of this Government. We are well aware that it would not be the belief of a socialist government and that it was not the belief of the last Labour government when it tried, unavailingly, to run private enterprise out of the air by putting it in a position where it had to combat quite inequitable and unfair commercial opposition from T.A.A.

page 256

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Senator BRANSON:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs. Does the Government agree with President Soekarno’s suggestion that the Indian Ocean should be re-named and should be known as the Indonesian Ocean? Will Australian maps be altered to show the Carstens Range as being the Soekarno Range and Mount Carstens as being Mount Soekarno? What right, if any, has President Soekarno to re-name places in West New Guinea in view of the fact that Indonesia is responsible for the administration of that area only until such time as a plebiscite is taken in relation to its future? What body is responsible for determining the border between West New Guinea and the Australian part of New Guinea? If there is no dispute about the present border, why has Indonesia suggested that an exact determination of the border should be made?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I shall take the last part of the question first. The delineation of the border between the two parts of New

Guinea has been the subject of international agreements which date back to the last century and which have been registered with the appropriate international authorities. The border has the great and distinct advantage of following, except for a couple of deviations, the 141st degree of longitude. As far as I know, there is no significant questioning of this internationally admitted boundary between the two parts of New Guinea. Perhaps the honorable senator’s question is based on a suggestion which was thrown out by the Indonesian Ambassador during a television interview.

Senator Branson:

– The suggestion of General Suadi.

Senator GORTON:

– As far as I know, that has been the only reference by anybody associated with the Indonesian Government to the delineation of the border between the two parts of New Guinea. From what I have read about what President Soekarno said, I think he used the phrase, “ the Indian Ocean or, as we prefer to call it, the Indonesian Ocean”. What this ocean is called by anybody else does not cause me any great worry. I think it is likely to continue to be designated on the maps of the world as the Indian Ocean.

page 256

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator RIDLEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address the following questions to the Minister for Civil Aviation: - Is it a fact that in a letter dated 6th July, 1961, signed by R. M. Ansett, chairman of Ansett Transport Industries Limited, and published in the Australian press and circulated to all members of the Parliament, a number of requests or demands were made upon the Government? Was one of them a request that AnsettA.N.A. be given access to Darwin from the eastern routes which were operated by that airline? Was that request acceded to in the 1961 legislation? If so, could that be the hidden persuader referred to by Senator Cormack?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The honorable senator has his story quite wrong. Access to Darwin was not accorded to the Ansett organization under the provisions of any act. Such matters are referred to the rationalization committee and are not determined by any legislative provision. This matter was before the rationalization committee for a very long time - I think for three years - before it was resolved. It is a favorite practice of the Opposition to try to create the impression that the rationalization decisions heavily favour the Ansett organization. However, a close examination of the decisions that have been given, and which have been published to the world in my annual j port, will indicate that that is not so. Indeed, it was pointed out in the first report, which I had occasion to refer to recently, that of all the decisions given on submissions made to the rationalization committee, four were in favour of each party and in relation to the remainder a compromise was reached at the committee’s proceedings. One other point about the rationalization scheme is of importance. If either party disagrees with the decisions of the committee it has always had and still has a right of appeal to a judge. Formerly the judge was Mr. Justice Latham but currently it is Mr. Justice Spicer. I put it to the Senate that in recent years there has not been one appeal from a decision of the rationalization committee to the judge who has been appointed to hear these cases. This is so, despite the fact that on occasions either one party or the other has expressed its dissatisfaction to me at a decision which has emanated from the committee. I have said to each party in turn, “ If you are not satisfied, you have a right of appeal provided for you “. Despite that fact, no appeal from a decision on rationalization has ever been directed to the judge.

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation: Is it a fact that the letter cited by Senators Ridley and Dittmer, which was signed by Mr. R. M. Ansett, published in the press, and circulated to all federal members, stated that a private operator who had to provide for reserves as well as to raise substantial funds on the loan market at interest rates far in excess of that payable by the Government was in difficulties? Did the Government, in its legislation of October, 1961, in compliance with that submission, require T.A.A., after payment of tax and making a reasonable allocation to reserves, to aim at a profit of 10 per cent.?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I do not mind this questioning. Indeed, if it continues I shall get some support from the Opposition, whereas in the past I have always had opposition, because clearly many of these questions stem from a completely erroneous idea of the facts. T.A.A. has never been asked to pay a dividend of 10 per cent. As I put it to the Senate not three minutes ago, the requirement by this Government for this year is the quite modest, reasonable dividend of 6 per cent.

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Health. Does not this afternoon’s performance by honorable senators opposite, in respect of civil aviation, indicate that most of them have a fixation about Ansett-A.N.A. and private enterprise? Does the Department of Health possess any facilities for head-shrinking or psycho-analysis, which the Minister could place at the disposal of honorable senators opposite, in order to assist them in getting rid of their inhibitions in this matter?

Senator WADE:
CP

– The answer to the first part of the question is, probably, “ Yes “; to the second portion, definitely, “ No “.

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. On 10th April last, I asked the Minister about the litigation instituted in the High Court of Australia in November, 1961, concerning the re-allocation of Ansett’s Airlines of New South Wales air routes. The Minister then said that the case was set down for resumption late in April. Has the case been heard? If not, when is it expected to be heard? Is Ansett still benefiting by the delay in bringing the case to a conclusion because of the agreement made on 17th November, 1961, that no change was to be made in the allocation of the areas until the hearing of the action or until further order?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I remember the honorable senator having asked this question. I answered him to the effect stated. It was my understanding that the case was to be resumed late in April. I thought it had been resumed. If it has not been resumed, that is the business of the court. The honorable senator has prodded me into making myself aware of when it will be resumed. I do not know when that will be, but the honorable senator will know because of his position with the legal fraternity, that the court, and on one else, will fix the date for the resumption. I do not know whether the Ansett organization is benefiting particularly as a result of the delay in the proceedings. I cannot see why it should do so. If it is, that is entirely due to the fact that the hearing has not been resumed.

Senator Maher:

– Whilst Senator Cavanagh was directing a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation a while ago, he referred to Senator “ Dittmar “. I just want to make it clear to all my friends here and my constituents in Queensland that I have not assumed a new Christian name. I am Senator Ted Maher and the “ Ditt “ does not belong to me. I presume that the reference was to Senator Dittmer. So far as I know, the correct pronunciation of his name is Dittmer, not Dittmar

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I should like the Minister for Civil Aviation to clarify a point. Is it a fact that in the letter to which reference has been made this afternoon, and which was circulated to us in 1961, a complaint was made by Mr. Ansett that T.A.A., which carries its own insurance, paid premiums otherwise payable to an insurance company into a reserve account and had access to these funds for use in its own business? Did the October legislation accept Mr. Ansett’s viewpoint and require T.A.A. not to use such reserves in its business but to invest them in Commonwealth Government securities?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– Yes, the act did precisely that. It did so for the reason, quite candidly stated by me, that it was thought proper that this advantage should not be retained by T.A.A. at the expense of its competitor operating in the same field. I shall pose a question if I may, Mr. President, by way of answering the honorable senator’s question. T.A.A., as a government utility, had made - practice of investing its contributions to provident funds in its own business.

Senator Cant:

– What is wrong with that?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I put this to the honorable senator: Would he be prepared to let any private enterprise firm do that? Of course he would not. The reason why the act was amended was to place both entities operating in this field on a common base in respect of the use of these reserve funds.

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the

Minister for Civil Aviation: In what instances, under the two-airline policy on interstate routes-

Senator Sir William Spooner:

– I suggest at this stage that any further questions be placed on the notice-paper.

Senator FITZGERALD:

– … has

Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited or Ansett-A.N.A. been disadvantaged to the advantage of T.A.A.?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I did not hear the question.

page 258

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– I have a question which is not directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation.

Senator Sir William Spooner:

– I have made a request that further questions be put on the notice-paper.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I rise to order. Is it proper for the Minister to interrupt a senator who is already asking a question, in order to ask that further questions be put on the notice-paper?

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Fitzgerald’s question was asked but the Minister did not reply to it. (Senator Hendrickson having proceeded to ask a question) -

The PRESIDENT:

– I d:sallow the question on the ground that it is frivolous.

page 258

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator SANDFORD:

– I ask question No. 1 standing in my name on the noticepaper. I point out, Mr. President, that I gave notice of this question on 6th December last.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honorable senator will ask his question.

Senator SANDFORD:

– I ask the

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

  1. Is it a fact that officers of the Common.wealth. Employment Service have bee* instructed not to divulge the number of unemployed migrants in migrant holding centres?
  2. If so, what is the Government’s motive in refusing to reveal these unemployment figures?
Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has supplied the following answer: - 1 and 2. It is a cardinal rule of the Commonwealth Employment Service that it makes no discrimination among those registering for employment whether on grounds of nationality or otherwise. It follows that it does not prepare separate statistics relating to migrants registered with it. Such migrants whether seeking their first or subsequent employment are, subject to what follows, included in the statistics published monthly. Assisted passage migrants who are accommodated in the Department of Immigration migrant reception and accommodation centres pending movement to hostels or private accommodation and entry into initial employment have not since the inception of the post-war immigration programme been included in the published statistics of persons registered for employment and for the following reasons. These migrants do not become immediately available for employment on their arrival in the centres. Moreover, the unevenness of shipping arrivals has a more pronounced effect on the fluctuating numbers of workers accommodated than the availability of employment.

page 259

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Senator FITZGERALD:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

How many forms Ar.4, under the War Service Homes Act 1918-1962, were issued during the months of January, Februaryand March of this year to families in New South Wales who were behind in their repayments on war service homes?

Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER.The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows: -

January 196; February 1,568; March 717. The increase in the numbers of forms Ar.4 issued in February occurred as a result of improved accounting procedures and was not due to any change in policy.

page 259

QUESTION

SEARCH FOR OIL

Senator SHERRINGTON:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

  1. What is the total amount of subsidy paid to date for oil search?
  2. What proportion of this amount has been paid for oil search in Queensland?
Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER:

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: -

  1. Total subsidy payments, including the Territories of Papua and New Guinea, as at 30th April, 1963, were £7,520,606.

    1. Subsidy payments spent in Queensland as at 30th April, 1963, were £3,507,427, or approximately 47 per cent.

page 259

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Senator BROWN:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice -

  1. Has the Minister noted a press statement that, since Port Moresby hotels were opened to natives, consumption of bread has dropped by more than 1,000 2-lb. loaves a week and that flour used by a bakery chain has dropped from 50 tons to 15 tons a week?
  2. Is it true that bar takings at a Lae hotel, where the bar drinking has been almost entirely taken over by natives, average £300 a night?
  3. Are native women participating in this drinking?
  4. Will the Minister have a report prepared for the Senate outlining the position as far as the consumption of alcoholic liquor, bread and flour is concerned?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– The Minister for Territories has now supplied the following answers: -

  1. I have seen the relevant newspaper article. I am informed that there are no official statistics on the consumption of bread and flour in the Territory. On the basis of estimates prepared by the Administration, it appears that the consumption of these commodities in the Port Moresby area decreased by only around 15 per cent. immediately the new legislation was introduced and that within about two to three weeks the consumption began to increase. I understand that current consumption is approximately equal to that prior to the lifting of the liquor restrictions.
  2. The Administrator of Papua and New Guinea has informed me that during the first five months after restrictions were lifted the local consumption of beer produced by the Lae brewery rose by only 13 per cent. compared with the same period twelve months earlier.
  3. I am advised that the amount of drinking by native women is negligible,
  4. The Administrator is keeping under constant review all matters relating to the new liquor legislation. I shall be glad to make a statement on the situation in the Territory at the appropriate time, should this be warranted.

page 259

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH AND STATE FINANCIAL RELATIONS

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– On 8th November, 1962, Senator Laught asked the following question in the Senate: -

What revenue did each State receive in 1961-62 from (a) Commonwealth sources, and (b) its own sources, apart from business undertakings?

The following information has been made available by the Commonwealth Statistician: - {: .page-start } page 260 {:#debate-26} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-26-0} #### TRADE WITH NEW ZEALAND {: #subdebate-26-0-s0 .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP -- by leave - I visited Wellington at the invitation of the New Zealand Government to conclude an agreement which would implement the understanding which had previously been reached between the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** and the New Zealand Minister for Industries and Commerce that goods imported into Australia from New Zealand or into New Zealand from Australia should not be subject to dumping duties without prior consultation between our two governments. It has been agreed that if either Government considers that any product is being imported from the other country under such conditions as may cause material injury to producers of like or directly competitive products in the country of importation, and gives written notice to the other Government accordingly, the two Governments shall thereupon consult together immediately to consider measures to prevent further injury. While consultation proceeds, neither Government shall make direct inquiries concerning the matter in the territory of the other. Only in the event that the two Governments do not reach a mutually satisfactory solution to the matter within 60 days from the commencement of consultations, would the imposition of dumping duties be considered. The New Zealand Minister for Customs and I feel confident that this agreement to maintain close consultation on dumping questions will operate to the mutual advantage of Australia and New Zealand. I lay on the table of the Senate the following paper: - >Letter from the Minister for Customs and Excise, **Senator Henty,** to the Honorable N. L. Sheldon, New Zealand Minister for Customs, dated 29th April, 1963, containing a copy of the Agreement on Dumping Duties concluded between the Governments of Australia arid New Zealand. {: .page-start } page 260 {:#debate-27} ### CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL 1963 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Henty)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-27-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-27-0-s0 .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP -- I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. The bill now before honorable senators proposes amendments to the schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1962. The bill comprises twelve schedules witu each schedule having a different date of commencement. For the benefit of honorable senators I shall outline very briefly the subjects covered by the bill as they appear in each schedule. The First Schedule provides for increased protective duties as recommended by the Tariff Board, on soluble coffee, roasted coffee and liquid extracts. The increased duties recommended by the board on raw coffee are being deferred pending the completion of international negotiations. Meanwhile, the present by-law arrangement will continue, whereby local coffee processors may import a certain proportion of their raw coffee needs free of duty provided they purchase a given quantity from Papua and New Guinea. In the Second Schedule the protection accorded fibre glass rovings, chopped strand, chopped strand mat and yarns is approximately the same as it was when the former temporary duties were in operation. Increased duties apply to certain other glass fibre products. This schedule also comprises a redraft of the tariff on textile fabrics along the lines of the Brussels nomenclature. The general textile reference to the Tariff Board envisaged a revision of the textile items of the customs tariff and this action, which is essentially a drafting measure, was taken at a time considered opportune to assist the board in its examination of the general textile reference. The Third Schedule gives effect to new commitments entered into by Australia under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade during the last round of " open season " negotiations. These new commitments were entered into as compensation for commitments withdrawn by Australia. This schedule also provides for a temporary duty of 7s. 6d. each on television deflection yokes from all sources consequent upon a report by a Special Advisory Authority. The Fourth Schedule provides for tariff changes in regard to tinned iron and steel plate and strip, metal-working machines, road wheels, and weftless fabrics. In respect of tinned iron and steel plate and strip, the operation of the deferred protective duties has been further postponed until 1st January, 1966. The new duties on metal-working machines protect a wider range than before. They are designed to accord protection to manufacturers of all types of machines on which the Tariff Board received evidence of economic and efficient Australian manufacture. Weftless fabrics and certain sizes of truck and trailer wheels have been accorded new or increased protective duties. Conveyor or elevator belting fabric becomes subject to a temporary duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem under the Fifth Schedule when composed wholly or chiefly of cotton or man-made fibres and weighing more than 1 8 ounces per square yard. This action follows a recommendation of a Special Advisory Authority. The Sixth Schedule provides for protective duties on taximeters, tapered roller bearings, automotive electrical equipment, and styrene monomers, polymers and copolymers. In respect of taximeters, the board found that the local manufacturer was experiencing competition from comparatively lowcost meters from Japan. The board considered the local industry worthy of assistance and expected that demand would increase. The protection accorded tapered roller bearings and automotive electrical equipment, including those goods for use as original equipment in motor vehicles, should materially assist these industries. The new duties on styrene plastic materials represent increased protection on polymers and copolymers. Basic styrene monomer, the production of which commenced in Australia in 1961, is accorded protective duties for the first time. In the Seventh Schedule, folowing reports by a special advisory authority, temporary duties are imposed on knives incorporating "Waterloo" bolsters, and polyethylene, other than high density. This schedule also provides for protective ad valorem and sliding scale duties on yarns up to count No. 60 following acceptance by the Government of the Tariff Board's recommendations on cotton yarns. The main effect of these duties is to extend the protection to finer yarns now being produced in Australia. The Eighth Schedule provides for tariff alterations consequent upon the Tariff Board's reports on aluminium and aluminium alloys, and linseed, linseed oil, &c. In respect of aluminium, the board's recommendations have been implemented in respect of semi-fabricated products only. The board has been requested to make a further examination in respect of unwrought aluminium and aluminium alloy in the light of the changed world supply situation. In the meantime, quantitative import restrictions will be maintained. Higher duties, which are imposed on safflower, soya bean and linseed oils, accord additional protection to crushers with the object of also assisting growers. The Ninth Schedule provides for temporary duties on certain furnishing fabrics. This action follows a report by a special advisory authority who found that the industry was in need of some holding action pending the outcome of investigations by the Government into " close-out " sales by overseas suppliers. In the Tenth Schedule protective duties, somewhat lower than the combined ordinary and temporary duties, are imposed consequent upon the Tariff Board's reports on electric shavers and synthetic rubber. A temporary duty of 20 per cent. ad valorem as recommended by a special advisory authority will operate under the Eleventh Schedule on conveyor or elevator belts or belting not being wholly of rubber or synthetic rubber. The Twelfth, and last, Schedule contains tariff amendments affecting garment formers and other yarns, that is, yarns other than of wool, man-made fibres, cotton and glass fibre. In both instances the new duties establish a level of protection in accordance with the Tariff Board's recommendations. In conclusion, I invite the attention of honorable senators to the summaries of tariff alterations which have just been distributed. The changes involved will be found set out in some detail, including the previous rates, those now proposed, and the reasons for the changes. I commend the bill to honorable senators. Debate (on motion by **Senator O'Byrne)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 262 {:#debate-28} ### CUSTOMS TARIFF (CANADA PREFERENCE) BILL 1963 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Henty)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-28-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-28-0-s0 .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP -- I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. This bill proposes a number of amendments of the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) 1960-1962. This action is complementary to that being taken in Customs Tariff Bill 1963. I commend the bill to honorable senators. Debate (on motion by **Senator O'Byrne)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 262 {:#debate-29} ### CUSTOMS TARIFF (NEW ZEALAND PREFERENCE) BILL (No. 1) 1963 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Henty)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-29-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-29-0-s0 .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP -- I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. This bill proposes a number of amendments of the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) 1933- 1962. This action is complementary to that being taken in Customs Tariff Bill 1963. I commend the bill to honorable senators. Debate (on motion by **Senator O'Byrne)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 262 {:#debate-30} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-30-0} #### INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION {: #subdebate-30-0-s0 .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia -- I move - >That the Senate takes note of the report of the Australian delegation to the51st Conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, held at Brasilia, October-November, 1962. I submit this motion in the belief that the Australian Parliament and the people of Australia should have recorded in " Hansard " a report on the proceedings of the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference held last year because of the significance of that conference. An Australian delegation of seven, of whom I had the honour to be the leader, attended the conference. For the record, the Inter-Parliamentary Union is a union of parliaments. Under its constitution, before a country can qualify it must have a democratically elected government and it must have a national parliament. There are some 64 members at present and about 500 delegates attended the conference in Brasilia. Each country is accorded eight votes and, depending on the population, an extra vote is given, up to a total population of 200,000,000 people, in which case the country would have an extra twelve votes. Consequently, countries such as Russia and America have quite a few more votes than smaller countries. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator Dittmer: -- Do you maintain that the representatives are democratically elected? {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT: -- It does not matter whether I maintain that or not. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator Dittmer: -- I am referring to your previous statement. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT: -- I said that the InterParliamentary Union, under its constitution, had- {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator Dittmer: -- I am asking whether the representatives were democratically elected. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT: -- The union consists of countries which have national parliaments, the members of which are democratically elected. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator Dittmer: -- Is that what you said earlier? {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT: -- Yes. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator Dittmer: -- Do you maintain that? {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT: -- That is the constitution of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I am not giving my own view. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator Dittmer: -- Was your previous statement a statement of fact or not? The **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKellar).** - Order! {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT: -- It is a statement of fact. It may not be my view that representatives of some other countries are democratically elected, but before those nations are admitted to the InterParliamentary Union, they must have a national government, democratically elected. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator Dittmer: -- That is all I asked. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT: -- Well, you have the answer. {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'Byrne: -- Don't get huffy. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT: -- I am not getting huffy. Because of the importance of the Inter-Parliamentary Union I thought I should explain the position so that it will be understood. It is sometimes difficult when attending a conference such as this for the first time to understand the proceedings, but I shall talk about that later. It may be of interest to the Senate to know that when we were gathered in the Parliament House of Brasilia some 20 or more languages were spoken, yet each language was instantaneously translated. For instance, if a person was speaking in Russian or Japanese, his speech would be translated by some one in the gallery so that it would be understood by Australians, Frenchmen or Spaniards. That interested me very much. To get back to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, I point out that representatives at the conference had to be ordinary members of parliament and not ministers. Thus members of parliament have a chance to meet, to discuss world problems and each other's problems, and to get to understand each other. One of the main objectives of the union is to endeavour to maintain peaceful co-existence in the world. It is believed that if members of parliament can get together at a conference and discuss each other's problems, the nations of the world will be brought together. Whether they are Communist countries or rightist countries, if they can get together to discuss their problems, surely that must be in the interests of peace. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator Dittmer: -- If I may ask, what do you mean by " rightist " ? {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT: -- Completely the opposite to you; you are completely leftist. {: .speaker-JUM} ##### Senator Dittmer: -- No, I am radically progressive; 1 am neither leftist nor rightist. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT: -- By " rightist " I mean a government such as ours, which is not under Communist control; by " leftist " I mean Russia. I think I should go on now to say a little about Brazil, which acted as the host country. We were very honoured to be entertained while we were in the new capital city, Brasilia. Brazil has a population of 70,000,000 or 80,000,000, and that population is increasing at the rate of 3 per cent. a year. Brazil is a very rich country with a great potential. Its main product is coffee, and it is the world's greatest producer of coffee. It produces a large quantity of sugar and has probably the greatest timber resources in the world. Also, it has huge deposits of iron ore and is- now starting to develop its secondary industries. Sao Paulo, which is the main industrial city, is now manufacturing quite a lot of goods and there is an endeavour to increase manufacturing industries so that the standard of living can be raised. I think it can be generally recognized that for a country to expand its economy and raise its standard of living it has to establish secondary industries. In Brazil the people are endeavouring to do that. We were delighted with the new capital city, Brasilia, which one could say has been carved out of the bush since 1957-58. In 1957 there were but a few farms in the area; now there is a population of 350,000 in a city which has the most futuristic buildings of any capital in the world. If honorable senators look at the report of the delegation they will find on the first page a picture of Brazil's parliamentary buildings. On one side they will see a domed building, and on the other side a saucer. They are the galleries of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The tall building between the two structures houses the offices of the members. All that has been built since 1957. The city also has a lake similar to that now under construction in Canberra. There, it is an accomplished fact. Rainfall in the region of Brasilia is about 70 inches a year, 50 inches of which falls in the seven months' wet season. The lake forms a Y, and the President's Palace is in the centre of that Y. From the palace, running in a straight line are the government buildings such as Parliament House and the administrative offices. Crossing that line to form a T are the buildings of private organizations. Very important problems were discussed at the conference. The first motion proposed while we were there was to the effect that the conference take note of the Cuban crisis. A request was made to the powers involved in an endeavour to reach a peaceful solution. As honorable senators know, when the Cuban crisis broke we were almost at the point of war. President Kennedy of the United States of America said that he wanted the nuclear bases and missiles removed from Cuba, and it was then necessary for **Mr. Khrushchev** to decide whether they would be removed. The matter was discussed at the conference and certain resolutions were passed in the hope that a peaceful outcome would result. The matters that were discussed included an appeal for peace; the role of international trade; measures to be taken in the international field against those guilty, in the exercise of public office, of fraudulent enrichment prejudicial to the public interest; the methods and requisites for general disarmament; and the principles and methods to be followed for accelerating the implementation of the United Nations declaration granting independence to colonial countries and peoples. As I have mentioned, there was an appeal to the great powers for a peaceful solution of the Cuban crisis. The role of international trade was debated with the idea of accelerating the development of backward countries. I think it is now understood by all that unless we can accelerate the development of backward countries we cannot expect to improve their standard of living. At the conference, lengthy debate took place on the role that we should endeavour to play in international trade to promote the social progress and economic development of backward countries. It was noted that there still exist various obstacles in the way of extending the trade of developing countries. Those obstacles include sharp fluctuations in the demand for, and in the prices of, their export commodities, and the unfavorable ratio between their export and import commodity prices. It was noted also that increased exports by the developing countries were to some extent limited by restrictions of various kinds in certain of the more industrialized countries. It was thought that when we set out to help some of the developing countries to expand their primary industries it would be found that, while a lot of money was being spent on increasing primary production, when the products were sold on the world markets they would bring lower prices than they brought in 1953. We discussed coffee as an example. The world production of coffee has increased by almost 100 per cent, since 1953, but the price which the growers of coffee are receiving has dropped by 50 per cent, since then. The countries which produce coffee are having great difficulty in selling it. Not only must we try to increase the volume of primary production in the developing countries; we must also see that other countries get together with a view to ensuring that just prices shall be paid for the commodities. That, of course, is a difficult matter. The conference resolved to report on ways and means of helping the people in developing countries to obtain adequate returns for the goods they produce. A matter which I thought was of great importance was the discussion on the principles and method to be followed in accelerating the implementation of the United Nations declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and people. A resolution was passed by the relevant committee to the effect that the United Nations should inspect all colonies which had not received their independence by 31st December, 1962, and report back to the United Nations on the way in which the colonies were being run and on what should be done to ensure their independence. We of the Australian delegation were not very keen about that at all. In fact, at the committee stage we moved an amendment with the object of deleting the reference to 31st December, 1962, because we did not believe that Australia should grant complete independence to New Guinea by that date. The amendment was defeated by one vote. When the committee's recommendations came before the conference, I, as the leader of the Australian delegation, obtained the permission of the conference to move an amendment in the same terms as that which had been moved in committee. The amendment was lost by a quite substantial majority. 1 stated, as 1 had mentioned in my speech earlier, that if the motion were defeated Australia would vote against the resolution as a whole. We did so, and the resolution was defeated. We believe that that was a great achievement by the Australian delegation. As we stated at the conference, the matter has now been left in abeyance for another couple of years. Members of the Australian delegation had asked, " How could Australia give New Guinea complete independence in the immediate future, since the people of New Guinea have not reached a stage at which they could govern their own country? ". We pointed out that about a quarter of the 2,000,000 people of New Guinea have not yet been contacted by our Administration. I believe that a lot of blood would be spilt if independence were granted immediately. In this respect the Australian delegation achieved a success which is of importance to this country. The conference also discussed disarmament. It is interesting to note that although all the speakers from the various countries were in complete agreement regarding total disarmament, there were differences of opinion on the methods of policing it. The Americans believe that there should be complete disarmament, that nuclear tests should be discontinued and an independent committee set up by, say, the United Nations, to police both. The Russians say that they believe in complete disarmament and that nuclear tests should be discontinued, but at the conference they said they did not think it was necessary to set up a special committee to police it. So there were two lines of thought at the conference which finally passed a recommendation that certain countries should be asked to undertake complete disarmament if they could possibly do so. I have mentioned three points. The fourth point was also an international matter which related to the guilt of certain persons in engaging in certain practices, which we know have been engaged in by certain cabinet ministers of certain countries and by members of the administrations of certain countries. For instance, we were informed that the leader of Argentina, Peron, and his wife, exported large amounts of capital from Argentina. We were given to understand that other people had also done that and then got out of the country themselves. Steps will have to be taken to prevent that practice, and the sooner it is done the better. While we were in Brasilia we were entertained extremely well by the Brazilian group, who took us out to various functions, including luncheon on Sunday at the country club. Dinners were also given to the whole delegation by both members of the Brazilian group and members of the Brazilian Parliament. I should like here to make particular reference to two officers. Firstly, on behalf of the delegation I want to express appreciation of the great assistance we received from **Mr. Loof,** who accompanied us as adviser and guide. He looked after us very well indeed. In fact, we could not have had a better person for the task, and his advice on all occasions was most helpful I pay tribute, also, to the great help rendered us by **Mr. Gates,** from the Department of External Affairs, who was with us during the whole of the conference. He was there to advise us and he was very helpful indeed. I come now to the number of delegates attending the conference on behalf of the various countries represented. Many of the delegates attend these conferences continually whereas representatives from Australia take turn about. I would recommend that serious thought be given by the Australian Parliament to giving Australia some continuity of representation in future. At the present time we have **Mr. Ian** Allan on the executive of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I understand that he is appointed for four years. **Mr. Davies** was elected for twelve months and was able to attend two conferences. I suggest that in future if we propose sending six delegates at least half of that number be delegates with previous experience, for that would be much more beneficial than sending six new delegates on every occasion. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator Ormonde: -- Would you go again? {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT: -- I am not talking about myself; I am recommending what I believe to be an improvement in our representation at future conferences. I am making a sincere recommendation to the Government because I believe there is a great need for a longer term of representation. For instance, I was completely in the dark when I attended the conference and, had we not had the help of **Mr. Loof** and **Mr. Allan,** both of whom had previous experience, we would have been in great difficulty. Therefore, I think it is in the interests of the InterParliamentary Union that we should endeavour on all occasions to ensure that at least three of our six delegates are men of previous experience. {: .speaker-K7A} ##### Senator Sir William Spooner: -- What is the approximate total number of delegates? {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT: -- There are about 500 delegates representing some 64 countries. The delegates of some of the countries have attended conferences for several years. The countries that they represent send them each year because they believe that experienced representatives can put up a better case for their respective parliaments. I, too, believe that we should not have all new delegates each year. I should say that in future we should send three experienced delegates and only three new representatives. In effect, we would have a system of continuity somewhat similar to that produced by the varying terms provided for in elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator Ormonde: -- Is that what the other countries do. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT: -- No. The representatives of many countries have been attending for several years; some of them have been attending these conferences for eight or nine years. I suggest that for the next conference we should send three experienced delegates with three newly elected representatives. If we adopt the system I am recommending we will be electing three new representatives each year. I make that recommendation in all seriousness after having given the matter a great deal of thought. I believe that the Inter-Parliamentary Union will be playing an ever-increasing part in world affairs. Honorable senators will remember that it was set up back in the 1880's, and I would emphasize that the big powers of the world are paying particular attention to its activities and looking upon it as being important enough for them to send high ranking advisers to accompany their delegates. Because of its importance I feel that it is essential that Australia's voice be heard at the Inter-Parliamentary Union. There can be no doubt that at the next conference the granting of independence to colonies will be discussed again. I gathered the impression while there that the representatives from Russia, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary were all very keen that independence should be granted to the colonies immediately. That places us in a very embarassing position, because it is obvious that these representatives do not understand or appreciate the conditions existing in New Guinea at the moment. I have just stated that it is my view that we cannot yet grant independence to New Guinea because at the moment in New Guinea there are 2,000,000 people who speak 500 different dialects. They are not ready for independence. I stated at the conference that Australia was doing everything in its power to speed up the education of the peoples of New Guinea with a view to fitting them for independence. I mentioned also that the Australian Government was spending £17,000,000 a year at present and' that, if we take as a guide the rate of increase in expenditure over the last few years, that figure will soon reach £30,000,000 a year. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator Ormonde: -- Are we being criticized overseas about the administration of New Guinea? {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT: -- All the peoples of the world who have colonies are being criticized. We are being criticized at the moment. Some of the speakers at the conference said that we should grant independence to New Guinea immediately. It is not this Government's policy to do that, and I am sure it is not the policy of the Opposition. At the conference members of the Australian delegation spoke as one voice. We spoke as Australians and presented our views on this problem. We must be very careful about what we do in New Guinea, and I believe we must give greater publicity to what is happening there. Some of the African delegates voted with the Soviet bloc on this subject, and I felt that they just did not understand the conditions that exist in New Guinea. So I invited some of them, subject to the consent of the Minister for Territories **(Mr. Hasluck),** to come over and have a look at New Guinea. I suggested that if they did so the Minister for Territories might agree to act as their host. I have since spoken to the Minister and have written to these people to whom I spoke. The Minister has stated that, if a group of responsible representatives of the African parliaments come to New Guinea, he will be only too pleased to entertain them and to show them the conditions that exist there. I believe that, if we could get delegates to conferences of the InterParliamentary Union to understand those conditions, they would come around to our way of thinking. As I have mentioned, we were very fortunate to have **Mr. Loof** with us. He was elected to the Executive Committee of the Association of Secretaries-General of Parliaments which body is to study the law, procedure, practice and working methods of different parliaments, to propose measures for improving those methods, and to secure co-operation between the services of the different parliaments. **Mr. Loof** will remain in that position for three years, and he should find it very interesting. I should like to thank **Mr. Radwanski,** of the Brazilian Embassy, for having invited members of the delegation to the embassy and for having briefed them on conditions in Brazil. We asked him many questions, which he answered, and he was of great help to us. I believe that continuity of membership of the Australian group is important. The Inter-Parliamentary Union is of great importance, and I hope that the president of the Australian group will make himself available for membership of the next delegation. If he were appointed to the next delegation, its prestige would be enhanced. {: .speaker-KNR} ##### Senator Hannaford: -- Who is he? {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT: **- Mr. Speaker** is the president of the Australian group. I should like to see him go to the next conference, which is to be held next year. I believe the Inter-Parliamentary Union can play an ever-increasing part in world affairs. It is certainly a discussion group at the moment, but it could be the forerunner of a world parliament if one is ever established. Conferences of the union bring the nations of the world into closer contact. The fact that delegates come together at social functions and are able to debate various subjects enables them to approach difficult problems with a clear understanding of their respective views. I have much pleasure in proposing the motion. {: #subdebate-30-0-s1 .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN:
Queensland -- I wish to refer briefly to the conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union which was held in Brasilia last year, and to outline briefly the organization of the union. This body was established approximately 80 years ago by a member of the British Parliament who no doubt appreciated that at that time the British Parliament was called upon to consider matters the importance and effect of which extended to other countries. Conferences are held annually in different countries. **Senator Scott,** mentioned that the conference which was held in Brasilia last year was attended by approximately 500 delegates. Some of the delegates were from countries which only recently had been granted independence. From my observation, I should say that they took as keen an interest in the debates as did delegates from any other country. Let me mention some of the subjects that are discussed at these conferences. At Vienna in 1954 the Inter-Parliamentary Union considered the problem of the reduction of armaments and security. At Helsinki in 1955 it discussed the problem of international security and disarmament in the light of existing circumstances. In 1956 at Bangkok the problem of disarmament was debated, and in 1958 at Rio de Janeiro the strengthening of peace, including the problem of atomic weapons and nuclear tests, was considered. The conference which was held at Warsaw in 1959 fully discussed and adopted a resolution on general and regional measures which could contribute to the solution of the disarmament problem. Last year's conference had a very interesting agenda. One of the items listed for discussion was, " Principles and Methods to be followed for accelerating the implementation of the United Nations declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples ". I commenced by stating that the InterParliamentary Union was established 80 years ago, which was many years before the United Nations Organization was established. We can all recall the work of the League of Nations, which functioned prior to the establishment of the United Nations. The League of Nations was nothing more than a political body without any economic power. It had only a faint power over the implementation of any of its decisions. After World War II., I think in 1945, conferences were held at San Francisco between certain nations, including the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, for the purpose of establishing the United Nations. To-day we have ,in the United Nations the strongest international organization possible. It is certainly a political body, but in addition it is an economic body and it does have power to implement its decisions. The main function of the InterParliamentary Union is to summon conferences, compile agenda, and conduct conferences, but its great weakness - a damning weakness from the point of view of being a worthwhile body in the world - is that it has no power to implement any decisions reached. In the vernacular, one may say that it is only a baffle-gabbing organization. It has its good features. One goes there - I think I speak for many senators - with an open mind, and hears delegates express themselves. The talking time of each speaker is only six minutes. That restriction is something that could be followed in the Senate and in some other parliaments with advantage. The subjects are of great importance, but they are borrowed from the United Nations. The organization follows in the wake of the United Nations. One can see in the motions resemblance to the work and decisions of the United Nations. I have already referred to one matter listed for discussion, relating to the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples. The charter of the United Nations provided for the granting of independence to those countries which in 1945 had not won their independence. In passing, may I say that every person with any intelligence believes in the principle of selfgovernment for all countries. It is a sound principle; all support it. Since 1945 at least 21 countries have been granted independence. The number may be higher now, because Africa is changing every day. The number of people affected by the winning of independence is about 800,000,000. The Inter-Parliamentary Union will debate, at its conference next year, very important matters which are closely related to world affairs and which have been more or less fully debated and dealt with at some time or other in the United Nations. I differ from **Senator Scott,** who said that delegates to the last conference should go to the next conference because they had experience. I firmly disagree with him. I went to the last conference as a person who had not been previously to a conference and I did not feel any disadvantage at all. As a matter of fact, I did make a contribution to the debate and I would not be ashamed for it to be read anywhere. {: .speaker-KNR} ##### Senator Hannaford: -- Off the cuff? {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- Yes, off the cuff; it does not make any difference to me. It was a good speech, so far as it went, on the question of independence for New Guinea. The United Nations had appointed a committee of seventeen persons to ascertain why certain countries had not been granted independence. As I said a little while ago, every intelligent person in the world agrees with the principle of self-government. I can understand some people in some countries wondering why Papua and New Guinea had not been granted self-government. They would not be aware of the disadvantages, encumbrances and hindrances unless they actually visited the country and for a month or two saw for themselves the conditions that prevailed. They would then understand why self-government had not been granted to the native people of Papua and New Guinea. I hold the opinion that if government of the Territory were left to the natives - not the white population, who should not be elected to share in the government - the people would revert to a condition of savagery within five years. They must first be educated to the level of responsibility which is necessary for any form of government. Self-government in the Territory now would be hopeless. I could enlarge on that, but I do not propose to do so. I went to the conference to listen to what the delegates had to say upon the subjects listed for discussion. I attended the sittings regularly; I did not miss more than a minute of the discussion at any time. One point I noted particularly, because I was sitting not very far away, was that the representatives of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were not absent from the conference for a second on any day. They seemed to be greatly interested in all that took place. I deduced from what I heard and saw that they were propaganda organizers. They deal with the subjects on the agenda and a certain amount of understanding is arrived at. People go there with opinions on various matters, but while they are there they learn something about the subject discussed and they are able to form an opinion for themselves. I think that was the objective of the fathers of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I want to stress that it was founded 80 years ago and it is still carrying on. If one compares reports of the discussions in the United Nations with those of the InterParliamentary Union conferences one finds a striking similarity. They deal with the same subjects and there is an expression of almost similar views. I hope that the holding of interparliamentary conferences in various countries will continue because they give opportunities to the typical member of parlia ment to go to another country, hear the opinions of other people, and associate closely with the representatives of all countries. For that reason, I shall always support the holding of these conferences and their practice of dealing with items of the kind they discussed over the years. I am pleased to say, too, that I enjoyed my stay in Brasilia. There I used to imagine that I was in Ingham in North Queensland. The temperature, clouds and sky were similar in both places, which also are about the same distance north of the Tropic of Capricorn. Similar jungle heat is experienced in both places. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator Henty: -- The buildings would not be similar. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator BENN: -- No. I would say that those at Ingham are more homely. I found that the typical Brazilian is a friendly soul. The average Australian would find no difficulty in living in Brasilia. But I would not suggest that any Australian should throw his fishing-line into the Amazon in the hope of getting a perch or a trout. I rose in order to make a brief, thumb-nail sketch of the conference held in Brasilia. I have spoken longer than I intended. I do not look forward to going to another conference of this type. I think it is a privilege that should be extended to all members of this Parliament. For that reason, I shall stand down in future in favour of other members. {: #subdebate-30-0-s2 .speaker-K6W} ##### Senator COLE:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labour Party · Tasmania -- As a member of the delegation to Brasilia I should like to congratulate the leader of the delegation, **Senator Scott,** who did a very good job in the controlling of the delegation. It needed control, especially in Brasilia itself, and I congratulate him on the care that he took to ensure the observance of protocol so far as our delegates were concerned. He did everything possible to see that Australia was well and faithfully represented. I was very fortunate to be at the conference in Brasilia. After a bit of worry and trouble as to whether I would go, I finally arrived in Brasilia. I should like also to congratulate **Mr. Loof,** the secretary of our delegation. He did everything possible in preparing for our arrival and to ensure that our delegates followed the proper procedures. He also ensured our attendance at the various entertainments provided for delegations. I congratulate him on the hard work that he performed and the consideration he gave to all members of our delegation. It was a very happy delegation. We had a few little troubles as far as transport was concerned. Now and again, the transport officers whom we selected did not come up to scratch. But we overcame those difficulties and it was a very harmonious delegation representative of all parties in the Parliament. It is a grand experience to be a member of a delegation of this kind because at these conferences one meets people from all parts of the world and of all races. It is very interesting to study the various differences in political beliefs and to see how the United Nations must work when it comes to such matters as voting. I say that because we had exactly the same type of discussion and the same method of voting as, I presume, prevail in the United Nations. It was very interesting to observe the solidarity of the voting of the Communist bloc, all the members of which invariably voted in the same way. It was not the same with the representatives of the democratic nations who voted differently on various issues. The Communist bloc had a very large delegation at the conference. It rather amazed me that on certain sub jects the Communist representatives were out-manoeuvred. I believe that this was brought about mostly by the efforts of the Australian delegation which proposed certain amendments. The Communist delegates took a certain line. Then, at the finish, they would find that they could not change with the result that they abstained from voting and certain things happened in the voting which they did not want to happen. If honorable senators read the report of the conference they may get an idea of what I am talking about. An amazing aspect of the conference, I think, was the part played by the AfroAsian nations. Generally, one finds that there is a bloc of Afro-Asian nations such as exists in the United Nations. That did not occur in voting in the InterParliamentary Union. Different views were expressed by various countries in the Asian bloc and by the African people. It was very interesting to find that these people were not there with fixed ideas like the members of the Communist bloc but were quite ready to listen, to try to understand, and then to vote according to their understanding. That is what happened at this c of reference which provided a good example of nations participating in the international scene forming independent judgments instead of following rigid philosophies. I suppose that the Inter-Parliamentary Union cannot be described as a democratic union, as Communist countries are represented in it. Finally, I should like to thank the Parliament for choosing me as a member of the Australian delegation. The visit gave me an opportunity to tell the Communist representatives to their face at the conference what I thought of them. Like **Senator Scott,** I think there should be a certain continuity in representation. It would be helpful, not necessarily for all of this delegation to go again, but if at least one or two members of it did so. That practice is followed by other countries, notably by the United Kingdom. Of course, that would not pass in this Parliament. It is understood, I suppose, that these trips are some recompense for the hard work that members of the Parliament have done for some years. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- They are also an attempt at individual education. {: .speaker-K6W} ##### Senator COLE: -- That is important, and I think that one of the most valuable aspects of these conferences is the experience that is gained by those who attend. I thank the leader of the delegation and **Mr. Loof** for the work they did in seeing that Australia was appropriately represented. {: #subdebate-30-0-s3 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP:
South Australia -- I rise only to seek some information about one of the draft resolutions adopted at the conference and also to express an opinion on the question of continuity of representation. I feel rather strongly about this matter. **Senator Scott** expressed the opinion that there should be some consideration of balancing the delegations. I think it was **Senator Benn** who disputed this attitude and said that experience gained by the delegates to the conferences was more valuable than continuity in the membership of delegations. Whatever value is derived from sending a delegate continually to a conference, whether it is a conference of the Inter-Parliamentary onion or of the International Labour Organization, or any other meeting, it is not as great as that accruing to ordinary members of the- Parliament who gain experience and share in the benefits of participation. I have attended conferences of the International Labour Organization and know that one gains rauch experience from them. You have to attend and hear the debates to get any value from them. It may be argued, of course, that a casual delegate does not gain as much benefit as would be had from continuity of attendance and a repetition of the experience of attending. Year after year at the International Labour Organization conferences the same people from the United Kingdom have represented employers and trade unions, and I think that for that reason the whole industrial movement and the community in the United Kingdom lose a great deal of benefit from the talents of individuals. I think too much weight can be given to continuity. There is no substitute for personal experience and I hope that the weight **Senator Scott** has placed on this aspect will not be given too much emphasis when the report is studied in future. Most of us who have attended international conferences have found that there is no substitute for a down-to-earth study of situations and proposals. One is able to return and give informed opinions on these matters. I was interested in one point which I think was not mentioned by **Senator Scott.** In the report of the 51st conference by the Australian delegation, at page 21, there is reference to the adoption of a draft resolution and the concluding sentence, referring to agenda item 5 (a) under the heading " Measures for Lessening International Tension ", is as follows: - >No request' was made for a roll-call, and the Draft Resolution was adopted, with twelve abstentions. It would appear that this resolution is based on the report of the committee which appears in Appendix " J " at page 103. It refers in a general way to disarmament and denuclearized zones. I should like to know what stand the Australian delegation took on this question. Did the Australian delegation support or oppose the adoption of the proposal or were the Australians among the twelve delegates who abstained from voting on the draft resolution? {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator Scott: -- The twelve delegates voted with the group. We did not abstain. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 271 {:#debate-31} ### COPYRIGHT BILL 1963 {:#subdebate-31-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 30th April (vide page 129), on motion by **Senator Gorton** - >That the bill be now read a second time. **Senator MURPHY** (New South W a 1 e s' [5.31]. - The purpose of this bill is to alter section 13a of the existing Copyright Act 1912-1950. That section deals with voluntary arbitration in disputes concerning the public performance of literary, dramatic, musical or other works or concerning the use of records. The bill is intended to make uniform and improve the procedure governing such arbitration. The existing sub-section (1.), which is not disturbed by the bill, provides for the submission to arbitration of disputes regarding the rates and methods of payment for the right to perform such works in public or use such records for public performance, or the terms and conditions under which such works or records may be so performed or used. Although referred to as voluntary, the arbitration procedure may be invoked by any one party to a dispute, who may apply to the Attorney-General for the determination of the dispute by what is described in the act as voluntary arbitration by an arbitrator mutually selected or, failing such selection, by an arbitrator appointed by the Governor-General. Section 13a was inserted in the act following the report in 1933 of a royal commission appointed to inquire into and report upon performing rights, including the rates, methods and conditions of payment to owners of copyright for the right to perform their works in public. That report showed that the law of copyright in Australia was most unsatisfactory. Users of copyright works especially were in an unhappy position. The. main controller of copyright was the Australasian Performing Right Association Limited, known as APRA, which, for example, held the copyright of some millions of musical compositions. The conclusions of the royal commissioner, **Mr. Justice** Owen, were, inter alia - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. The Australasian Performing Right Association is, to all intents and purposes, a super monopoly, controlling or claiming to control most of the music which users in public must use and is able to dictate its own terms. 1. That disputes have arisen and are likely to arise and continue between the Association and practically all classes of users of musical works in public. 2. That at the present time and under present conditions, the Associated Record Manufacturers practically control the Australian market for high class records incorporating the best music and can impose such conditions as they think fit on records to be made available to users in public. Further, he said - >The evidence established that the public interest demands that harmonious relations should be restored and maintained, and that some form of tribunal should, failing agreement, determine the disputes between the parties concerned. The act was amended subsequent to the report but the recommendations of the royal commissioner were not adopted in their entirety. Provisions for compulsory arbitration were not introduced, but section 13a was inserted, providing what is described in the marginal note as voluntary arbitration in disputes concerning public performance of works. It appears that when the bill to enact section 13a was introduced, the AttorneyGeneral, **Mr. Latham,** as he then was, said, according to volume 143 of " Hansard ", page 5839- >In this bill an effort has been made to provide a practical method of solving this problem which may avoid the international and legal difficulties to which I have referred. The bill provides for a voluntary tribunal instead of a compulsory tribunal. The measure sets up a tribunal and permits parties to approach it if they so desire and provides that they are bound by the award of the Arbitrator for which provision is made in the bill. It may be, thought that this tribunal will be entirely useless, but I can assure honorable members that before making this proposal I consulted many of the interests concerned. APRA and certain other bodies, including the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the associated gramophone manufacturing companies, had approved of the intended legislation. APRA, in particular, indicated that it was prepared to accept arbitration if arbitration was not forced upon it. The B class stations were of the opinion that unless there was something more than voluntary machinery it was unlikely that it would work. The then Attorney-General thought that whether section 13a would work depended largely on the position of APRA. He said - >It provides an opportunity to determine these matters, but I admit that if the parties do not avail themselves of that opportunity the. position will have to be reconsidered. The passing of time showed that the parties have not availed themselves of the provisions of section 13a. Thirty years have proved the provision useless, as some thought it would be at the time of its introduction. No attempt was made to invoke it until now, and on the first invocation the provisions have been found so defective that this bill has had to be introduced to remedy the procedural defects. It was evident by 1954 that the whole of the copyright law in Australia was antiquated and inappropriate. The GovernorGeneral's speech on 4th August, 1954, included a statement that a committee would be appointed to consider what alterations were desirable to the copyright law of the Commonwealth. The committee was not appointed until four years later - in September, 1958. It made its very valuable report on 22nd September, 1959. It has not been acted upon. The chairman of that committee was the then **Senator Spicer,** now Chief Judge of the Commonwealth Industrial Court. The report deals, among other things, with the question of a tribunal to resolve disputes. It shows that APRA claimed to own the performing right to over 80 per cent. of all copyright music performed in Australia. The report states at page 343 - >Although APRA has proved useful both from the point of view of the copyright owners and the music users,the amount of music it controls is so large that it might fairly be described, we think, as having monopolistic control over the performance of copyright music in Australia. The report continues - >Over a period of years, concern has been expressed in many quarters, particularly in the early days of the Association, regarding actual or potential abuse of this monopolistic power. The report deals with some of the history and goes on to state that all the parties which appeared before the committee agreed that some form of compulsory arbitration is desirable and that both the APRA and the record manufacturers now strongly supported the creation of a permanent tribunal. The Senate will realize that this meant that the APRA had completely changed its outlook. Once it desired only voluntary arbitration; by 1959 it had come to see merit in compulsory arbitration. The committee reported that, in its opinion, the advantages flowing from continuity of decisions and consistency in the application of principles are sufficiently great to warrant the creation of a permanent tribunal to deal with disputes relating to performing rights. It ultimately recommended that there should be a tribunal to bc called the Copyright Tribunal to deal with disputes between bodies authorized to grant licences for the public performance of works and persons desiring licences. The committee made certain recommendations concerning the working of the tribunal. The provisions of this bill do not carry out the recommendations of the committee concerning the tribunal or other outstanding major problems. In that respect the bill is defective. As far as it goes, however, it will improve the existing section 13a. Until now the law governing procedural matters in an arbitration under section 13a has varied from State to State according to the place where the arbitrator sits. Under the provisions of this bill the procedure will be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. That is a decided improvement. The bill also vests power in " the Court ", as defined in the act, to perform certain functions. These functions include the removal of an arbitrator for misconduct. There is power to order a reconsideration by the arbitrator in the case of defects or error on the face of an award, a mistake, the fresh discovery of material evidence, or misconduct by the arbitrator. An opinion of the court may be obtained if the arbitrator states a case for the opinion of the court upon a point of law. The bill provides that the court may also direct that the arbitrator state such a case for its opinion. Pausing here, there is no specification of the circumstances in which the court may direct an arbitrator to state a case for the opinion of the court. In either case, however, the opinion will be binding upon the arbitrator. Except for the definition of the court as the " High Court ", the Opposition does not oppose the bill. This does not mean that the Opposition considers that the provisions of this bill are the most desirable way of dealing with these disputes. This can only be determined after a complete review of the act by Parliament. It is obvious, and indeed admitted, that this amendment is stop-gap, introduced only because for the first time since 1933 application has been made under section 13a. **Mr. President,** the copyright law should have been subjected long ago to a comprehensive review by this Parliament. The urgency and importance of this can be gauged by the fact that Australia has not yet ratified three international copyright conventions. The first is the International Convention for the Protection of Literary Scientific and Artistic Works, signed at Brussels on 26th June, 1948. Although Australia is a signatory, it has not yet ratified the convention. The second convention is the Universal Copyright Convention signed at Geneva on 6th September, 1952. Again, Australia is a signatory but has not yet ratified the convention. The third is the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations, made at Rome on 26th October, 1961. Australia has not yet signed that convention although it attended the proceedings out of which the convention arose. It is important that Australia keep its copyright law consistent with that of other countries, especially English-speaking countries. This will enable Australian composers and authors to enforce more easily their copyright in such countries. Important changes have been made in the British copyright law. The British Copyright Act 1911 was replaced by a new act in 1956. Many of the British changes would probably be included in a revised Australian copyright act. However, we are still operating largely on the basis of the British Copyright Act 1911. The British Copyright Act is set out in the schedule to our existing act, and section 8 of our act provides that the British Copyright Act of 1911 shall, subject to any modifications in our act, be in force in the Commonwealth. Although the British Parliament has brought its act up to date, we are still operating on the basis of the British act of 1911. We are doing this, not because of deliberate choice, but simply because of neglect. Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m. {: #subdebate-31-0-s0 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- **Mr. President,** the copyright law is the business of the Com.monwealth Parliament. This Parliament is vested with legislative power to deal with copyright under section 51 of the Constitution, placitum (XVIII.). The Government has also entered upon the subject of copyright in the field of external affairs by becoming a party to international conventions. The Government's delay in introducing a comprehensive and up-to-date bill dealing with the law of copyright, a delay for which no excuse or explanation is offered, demonstrates that this subject has been dealt with in a most unbusinesslike way. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Did the Spicer report recommend a new act entirely? {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- It made recommendations on a whole host of matters, of which the establishment of a copyright tribunal, with which I have dealt, was only one. It recommended, for instance, that a number of provisions of the British Copyright Act of 1956 be adopted here. It recommended also that certain other provisions be not adopted. In all, it recommended an overhaul of the whole act. I think the Senate will agree that this delay has gone on for far too long. It is hardly satisfactory to deal with so important a matter by leaving something that was necessary in 1954 still not dealt with adequately in 1963. This is an important matter to authors, to composers and their associations, to broadcasters and to the general public. The culture of our society can be profoundly affected by the copyright law. The Government is to be commended for setting up the Copyright Law Review Committee. That committee made an excellent report in 1959, but since then there has been really nothing but delay. Indeed, it is clear that this bill is not intended at all as an attempt to deal with the law of copyright as it should be dealt with. It is not suggested that this is anything more than a temporary provision to deal with something that has been forced on the Government, namely, the necessity to handle an application under section 13a. Honorable senators may feel it is a tragedy that this section proved to be in need of amendment the very first time it was invoked. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Have you any practical experience of the frequency with which disputes, such as those referred to in this section, have arisen, and the importance of them? {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- I can only judge by what was reported by the royal commissioner, **Mr. Justice** Owen, in 1933. He considered at that time that numerous disputes had arisen and that some tribunal should be set up in order to restore harmonious relations, as he put it. So, the position must have been that, in 1933, a tribunal was called for in order to resolve disputes. In 1959, the report of the committee, of which **Mr. Justice** Spicer was chairman, indicated that there were disputes, because it was thought by all the parties that there ought to be some means of compulsory arbitration. There is threaded through both reports reference to threats of groundless legal proceedings and various other matters. I cannot give **Senator Wright** details concerning numbers, but it does seem that there have been such disputes. Indeed, a number of members of this Parliament have spoken to me about problems with which they have had personal experience in the last few months over the enforcement of copyright and the resistance by bodies such as charitable associations, little clubs, persons operating such places as milk bars, and so on. It does seem that there is a need for some resolution of these matters. We hear from time to time of proceedings being taken in the equity courts to obtain injunctions against the use of works which have not been licensed. It seems that there ought to be some body to obviate the necessity for such proceedings; a body to which a citizen may turn and from which he may obtain an order or permission to proceed, without feeling that he is endangering himself. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- These disputes refer not only to the terms and conditions on which a licence is granted but also to the question of whether or not the licence should be granted. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- I should think they do. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- That might have some effect on television copyright in metropolitan areas. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- The law on this matter is somewhat of a mystery. In fact, the one thing which seems to be clear is that the law on the subject is unclear. It should be revised and brought up to date. The effect of the amendment to be proposed by the Opposition, which I understand has been circulated, is that the court referred to in section 13a would be the Commonwealth Industrial Court and not the High Court. I have referred to the functions of the court under this bill. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Could you deal with that in committee? {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- I should like to make some general observations. Because the High Court at the moment is overburdened with work, and will be so in the foreseeable future, it is a most unsuitable tribunal to be vested with the jurisdiction conferred by this bill. The Minister for the Navy **(Senator Gorton),** in his secondreading speech, reminded the Senate that the Government was giving attention to the question of relieving the High Court of some of the burden now laid on it by Commonwealth legislation. The Minister indicated that when the proposals are considered in detail, the question of jurisdiction under all of the Commonwealth industrial property legislation will be looked at as a whole. The Attorney-General **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** has stated elsewhere that it was not without some reluctance on his part that the bill proposed to vest the jurisdiction in the High Court. If we are realistic, then, notwithstanding the hopes expressed elsewhere, the Copyright Act will not be amended comprehensively in this session and there will not be any comprehensive legislation relieving the High Court of this work or setting up a new federal court. It is wrong to place this extra burden on the High Court. It should be relieved of work, not given more work. It is generally agreed that a federal court should be vested with jurisdiction under this bill. Apart from the High Court itself, the only appropriate existing tribunal is the Commonwealth Industrial Court. The Commonwealth Industrial Court is eminently suitable to exercise the jurisdiction which is both appellant and supervisory. Its members have great experience in matters of industrial property, and copyright is a species of industrial property. The procedures of *the* Industrial Court are such that cases come before it speedily and are heard quickly, and judgments are given without undue delay. These considerations of expedition are extremely important to those who may be engaged in a dispute over copyright. Delay might well be fatal to the interests of one or both parties. Subject to the question of which court should be vested with the jurisdiction conferred, the Opposition does cot oppose the bill. {: #subdebate-31-0-s1 .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP .- in reply- There seems to be little objection to the bill as such, judging from the speech of **Senator Murphy.** The main objection he raised was that the bill does not go far enough and does not seek to bring down a comprehensive copyright law. This statement by **Senator Murphy** was in fact expected by the Attorney-General **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** when he introduced the bill in another place, because he made it clear then that this was a bill merely to meet an immediate problem, and that the fact that it was being brought in to meet an immediate problem in no way meant an abandonment of his desire to meet the larger problem of introducing a comprehensive copyright bill. He indicated that this was still the subject of his first consideration, that he is still considering which of the recommendations of the Spicer committee should be incorporated in such a bill, and that he is still receiving from the conflicting interests concerned in such legislation representations as to what should or should not be done. If we are to judge from the speech made by the AttorneyGeneral in the other place, he is sorry that such a bill could not be brought in this session, as he hoped it would be. So I think that both sides of the Senate can look forward to considering soon a comprehensive bill such as **Senator Murphy** desires. In the meantime, as I say, this is a bill to meet an immediate problem and, subject to a consideration of one matter in committee, the bill has the support of both sides of the Senate, so far as I can judge. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In committee: The bill. {: #subdebate-31-0-s2 .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator BROWN:
Queensland .- I should like to ask a question. I do not know whether I am in order in bringing this matter up when discussing a copyright bill, but it seems to me that I am in order, in one particular. I refer to the work and activities of my friend Henry Dohan who, after exercising his inventive genius for 14 years, produced a nylon stocking that would not ladder or snag. He was very jubilant when I helped him to bring publicity to bear on the matter by speaking at a conference in Sydney last May. He expected that his invention would be received with open arms and that applications for his patent would come from all over the world. No, after 12 months of grievous experience, **Mr. Dohan** finds himself almost forced into bankruptcy. Instead of receiving this invention of his gladly, the stocking manufacturers have done everything in their power to cripple him and to prevent the stockings that he treats mechanically and chemically from reaching the public. Seeing that the stockings that **Mr. Dohan** wishes to buy for processing are not patented, I should like to ask the Minister for the Navy **(Senator Gorton)** a question. The stockings to which I refer are ordinary ladies' nylon stockings. The manufacturers have boycotted **Mr. Dohan** and refused to sell to him. He has had to restart to subterfuge in order to get them, and I have helped him. Working through a very rich trader 1 got dozens of stockings for him because the wholesalers thought this friend of mine was buying them for himself. He handed them to **Mr. Dohan.** Only last Thursday night I went to **Mr. Dohan's** house in Sydney. This agent had bought for **Mr. Dorian** a number of stockings that Dohan could not buy himself. Even **Mrs. Dohan** was boycotted if she went along to buy stockings. I repeat they are ordinary nylon stockings, yet this man has been threatened with prosecution if he uses these stockings for his process. {: .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator Gorton: -- I think you are talking about a different law. {: .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator BROWN: -- That is the point I am asking about. This concerns a form of copyright, in one way. Are nylon stockings copyrighted? I can name one firm which did alter its stockings by building a patent toe into them. That firm has actually threatened **Mr. Dohan** with prosecution if he uses its stockings. I can quite understand that the matter of which I speak might not be relevant to this bill, but I do feel that it does involve a form of copyright in the stocking business. He cannot use those stockings, and I ask my question in the hope that the appreciative and clever Minister will be able to reply to it. {: #subdebate-31-0-s3 .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP -- The only reply I can give is that the matter to which the honorable member refers does not come under this bill. If anything, I think it comes under the Patent Act. This bill seeks to give copyright to enable people to draw royalties from entertainment writings and television. Whilst it might apply in some cases to what goes into the stockings, it does not apply to the stockings themselves. {: #subdebate-31-0-s4 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania .- I rise, first, to ask of the Minister the question that I addressed to **Senator Murphy** as I listened to his speech. The question is, whether or not under this provision to which the arbitral procedures in the bill are ancillary a dispute can be raised if " X " company has a copyright to a television programme in a big city and I in a provincial or country town complain that the monopolistic copyright is being withheld from me. Is there any procedure by which I, as the owner of a subsidiary television station, can raise a dispute about whether or not the owner of the metropolitan copyright can be compelled to grant me the right to use the programme? Again, could such a dispute be submitted to arbitration under this bill? I think I have made a perfectly general reference which could have rather potential and topical force. While the Minister is considering that question in the light of the information which is now being given to him, the other matter to which I wish to address myself is the amendment that **Senator Murphy** has proposed. I cannot say that I remained unimpressed by the historical fact that he mentioned to us, that is, that in 1954 it was announced that a committee on copyright was to be set up and that apparently blood pressure was so much feared that we could not gain enough momentum to set up the committee until 1958. I have a feeling that there has been a little slowness in the procedures here. Then we had a report in 1959, but that has not been comprehensively considered yet by either the Government or a committee of this House. Why do not those who have the time to do it set up a committee to consider the framing of the modern bill which the Spicer committee recommended? I have raised these matters because 1 was interested when 1 saw **Senator Murphy's** proposed amendment. For the last five, six or seven years we have all been told that the High Court is getting such a lot of work that it is now timely that matters of subordinate importance should be deal with by an intermediate court and that the High Court should be reserved for the consideration of constitutional matters and legal matters calling for the top level of judicial consideration. As I understand the situation, all that the court will be concerned with under the terms of this amending legislation will be whether or not the arbitrator's award is valid. As I see it, the court will have to consider the matters that are set out in proposed new sub-section (13.) of section 13a. These are familiar grounds of objection to an arbitrator's award either in common law or in State arbitration acts. If, as **Senator Murphy** properly has in mind, the Australasian Performing Right Association is extending its authority into every hamlet and village and is requiring the owner of every little hall, and every committee, charitable or otherwise, to take out a licence, and if in the event of dispute the parties are entitled to resort to arbitration, an appeal is absolutely illusory if it can be made only to the High Court. The position is bad enough when an appeal lies to the Commonwealth Industrial Court. Any Commonwealth court is comparatively inaccessible, but because the Industrial Court is not overburdened with work - I think that is a moderate statement to make - it would be promptly available and the expense of getting to it would be very much less than that of getting to the High Court. I was impressed by the Minister's comment. He said that the High Court provides jurisdiction for matters related to industrial property, trade marks, trade names, copyright, and for other matters covered by the provisions of the bill. However, it does not seem to me that the artistry of our copyright legislation requires that we retain a symmetry in relation to court jurisdiction. It seems to me that, if we are to make these arbitration procedures as effective and as inexpensive as possible, there is great merit in providing that, if an award is challenged on legal grounds, the reference should be made not to the High Court but to the Commonwealth Industrial Court. I place that viewpoint before the committee because in relation to a simple technical matter such as this, which is of no political significance, one viewpoint is as good as another. Let us consider it and within the next twenty minutes make a decision upon it. {: #subdebate-31-0-s5 .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator BROWN:
Queensland .- I am not satisfied with the reply that was given by the Minister for the. Navy **(Senator Gorton).** I admit that I am not as interested in what goes into stockings as he is but, as I have said in this chamber many times, one is never too old to yearn. As an ordinary proletarian who is untutored in the intricacies of copyright and patent law, I should like to ask him whether the subject I have raised does fall within the scope of patent law. Firms all over the world are producing ladies' silk and nylon stockings. I ask the Minister whether the name of a firm which produces stockings is copyright. Stockings are produced in Australia by the Holeproof and Prestige organizations, for instance, as well as by firms in other parts of the world, including Japan. The point I am raising is not a matter of patent law; it is a matter of stockings being made, and of my friend, Henry Dohan. not being permitted to use them. If what I say is correct and the names of these stockings are not subject to patent law, then they come within the scope of the copyright legislation. I ask the Minister: Is the name of a pair of stockings copyright? {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- I rise to take the point that stockings have no relevance to copyright and that the submission which is now being made is quite, irrelevant to the provisions of the bill. {: .speaker-K6P} ##### Senator BROWN: -- It is not a question of whether **Senator Wright** is right or wrong; it is a matter for decision by yourself, **Mr. Chairman,** or the Minister for the Navy. Surely a senator has a right to ask questions in this chamber even though he may seem to be ignorant when compared with **Senator Wright** and other people. Every senator has the right to ask questions, and that right should be exercised. When a senator has any doubt in his mind, he should not be afraid to ask questions or to feel ashamed when he does so. If musical productions can be copyrighted by an act of Parliament or by approaching the appropriate department, is it not possible for the name on a pair of stockings to be copyrighted? Is that right or wrong? {: .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator Gorton: -- It is not right. Clause 3 - >Section thirteen a of the Principal Act is amended - > >by omitting sub-sections (5.), (6.), (7.) and (8.) and inserting in their stead the following sub-sections: - " (17.) In this section - person ' includes a company, association or body of persons; the Court ' means the High Court. {: #subdebate-31-0-s6 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South Wales -- I move - >Leave out "High Court", insert "Commonwealth Industrial Court ". This amendment relates to the judicial provisions of proposed section 13a. The effect of the amendment would be that the court referred to in that section would be the Commonwealth Industrial Court and not the High Court. The functions of the court will be, first, to entertain cases for opinion on points of law referred to it by an arbitrator; secondly, to direct an arbitrator to state a case for the opinion of the court; thirdly, to remove an arbitrator who has been guilty of misconduct; and, fourthly, to remit an award for reconsideration if it is satisfied that there is some defect or error on the face of the award or that fresh evidence has been discovered or that there has been some misconduct on the part of the arbitrator. As has been stated by myself and **Senator Wright,** it is generally agreed that the High Court is overburdened with work. Because of this congestion, matters dealt v;th in the High Court, especially, before single judges, are heard relatively tardily. We, on this side, believe that the High Court should be relieved of work and not invested with more, even as a temporary measure. The Attorney-General **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** has stated that he is giving attention to relieving the High Court of some of the burden of work. Apart from that, the Solicitor-General, at the legal convention which was held in Tasmania earlier this year said, with the authority of the Attorney-General, that Cabinet had authorized the Attorney-General to design a new federal court so that Cabinet might consider legislative action. The purpose of this was to relieve the High Court of work. So it has become quite an urgent matter and is of importance not only to persons who may seek to take advantage of the judicial provisions of the bill but also to litigants before the High Court. When everybody concedes that no more work should be placed on the High Court but rather that it should be relieved of work, a measure comes before us which makes quite a joke of that view of the High Court's work. It is grievously overburdened with work. Litigants are not able to be heard before it as speedily as they might be. Justice has been delayed. The old saying is: Justice delayed is justice denied. Yet the Government brings forward a measure of this kind, which will put more work on the High Court. The Government says, " True, it is only temporary, because we are considering setting up some other court, but in the meantime let the High Court have it ". Is it necessary for this jurisdiction to be vested in the High Court? The only answer is that it is not. There is another appropriate tribunal, the Commonwealth Industrial Court, the constitution of which makes it suitable for this jurisdiction. It is eminently fitted, by reason of its membership, to undertake this work. It has an appellate jurisdiction and an original jurisdiction, which cover matters of interpretation and references of questions of law. Its members are experienced in industrial property matters. Indeed, as was said earlier, the Chief Judge - then **Senator Spicer** - was chairman of the Copyright Law Review Committee. Honorable senators will be aware of his association over many years with various types of industrial property matters, while he was a senator. This court, in addition to matters under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, entertains under the Navigation Act appeals from Commonwealth courts of marine inquiry. Under the Broadcasting and Television Act I960, it hears appeals against revocation of licence and against orders to share television programmes. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- And in the Territories where the judges sit - for instance, in the Australian Capital Territory - would the Industrial Court hear actions for injunctions against infringement of copyright? {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- As **Senator Wright** reminds me, the Parliament has vested the courts of the Territories with general jurisdiction in those Territories, and the Government has seen fit to have a number of judges of the Commonwelath Industrial Court appointed as judges of those Territories, so that those judges will hear in the Territory all matters, including matters of copyright law. The view has been taken that the members of this court are fitted to undertake consideration of matters of the nature covered by the judicial provisions of this bill. Indeed, I think, no one would' contend to the contrary. Therefore, in our view, it is a mistake to vest this jurisdiction in the High Court, even as a temporary measure. However long or short the period may be before a permanent arrangement is made, jurisdiction in the meantime should be vested in the existing appropriate tribunal, the Commonwealth Industrial Court. {: #subdebate-31-0-s7 .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP -- I think I should reply to one or two questions asked or comments made by **Senator Wright.** He asked, I believe, what the position would be under the act in a dispute regarding the copyright of a television show, the copyright being held by a city exhibitor and a country exhibitor taking objection to being unable to use the material in respect of which the copyright was issued. The answer is that under this act no provision is made for anything of that kind. The act deals solely with arbitration undertaken by agreement of both parties to a dispute. I presume that in a dispute such as the one to which the honorable senator referred, if both parties agreed, it would go to arbitration. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- I thought we were creating compulsory arbitration. {: .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON: -- No, it is purely voluntary. That answers the honorable senator's question. The matters of patents and trade marks have been dealt with. Neither comes under this bill in any shape or form. The Government does not accept the amendment moved by **Senator Murphy,** for a number of reasons. One is, of course, that throughout the whole body of this sort of industrial law, such as the act we are considering, the copyright law, the patent law and the trade marks law, appeals lie to the High Court. Indeed, I am informed that in the principal act that we are amending under sections that we do not propose to amend appeals will still lie to the High Court. To accept the amendment would lead to the introduction into this whole body of law of an unusual appeal - an appeal different from that which applies in the parent bill and in other sections of the law. While it is admitted that the High Court should be relieved of a great deal of the work which at present comes to it, and while it is hoped that perhaps some special court can be set up to take a good deal of such work off its shoulders, it is felt that it would be better for this to be done as a whole rather than in shreds and patches, with one shred such as this brought into the body of the law. For practical purposes, it seems unlikely that, if this amendment is rejected, there will be a great accretion of work or a great number of appeals to the High Court as a result of the bill. After all, the bill has been brought in to meet a special situation which has arisen for the first time in 30 years, in which two parties agree to go to arbitration. If this is the experience, it seems unlikely that a great deal of work will be thrown onto the High Court. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Why can they not do that under State law if they wish to submit to arbitration, even if it relates to copyright? {: .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON: -- Because of constitutional considerations with which I am not completely familiar. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- I do not wish to embarrass you. {: .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON: -- I understand that the broad answer is that it is because of constitutional considerations. Until such time as there is a comprehensive enactment, we wish to keep uniform the appeals under the body of law that includes this act. In practice, it seems, a great accretion of work will not come to the High Court as a result. The Government would prefer to keep the bill as it stands. It is perhaps reinforced by the feeling amongst the legal officers that even if we did provide for the matter to be heard by the Commonwealth Industrial Court, an appeal from that court could still lie to the High Court. I do not know the merits of that legal opinion, but it is current among the legal officers, who no doubt do know. For these reasons the Government does not accept the amendment. {: #subdebate-31-0-s8 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania .- If the last statement of the Minister for the Navy **(Senator Gorton)** is correct - and I do not throw any doubt on it - I failed entirely to follow the drift of **Senator Murphy's** address. I understood from him that the effect of his amendment would be to substitute compulsory arbitration for voluntary arbitration which has been in existence since 1933. In order to clarify this position I go to the original act, section 13a. I want to be corrected by those who have had some interest in the matter if I am wrong. It seems to me that the ambit of the dispute referred to in this section is only a dispute between a manufacturer of records by means of which any such works may be reproduced and any person using or desirous of using them. I want to know whether or not we have all been speaking as if these disputes had a wider and more general application in relation to licences and copyright. If they are confined only to disputes between the manufacturers of records and those who are licensed to use them it is a very particular matter. Then, as it seems to me, we want to be informed whether either party to that dispute can give notice to the arbitrator and the dispute must be referred to arbitration. If that is not so I cannot understand why if there is a dispute between the manufacturer of records and the person who wants a licence to use the records concerning the fee, and if both parties are agreeable to go to arbitration, they cannot use the State arbitration acts and submit it to the award of an arbitrator. {: #subdebate-31-0-s9 .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP -- Perhaps, before **Senator Murphy** replies to the points raised by **Senator Wright,** I might put the position as I understand it. We are not, in fact, dealing purely with a dispute between a manufacturer of records and another party. The original section 13a of the Copyright Act which I think **Senator Wright** has before him reads as follows: - (1.) Where any dispute has arisen between any person - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. being an owner of copyright; or (b) claiming the right to payment of royalty in respect of copyright, in literary, dramatic, musical or other works, or between any person being a manufacturer of records . . . So it goes beyond the mere question of the manufacturer of records. However, the bill before us deals purely with the method of arbitration when two people agree to arbitration to settle differences and not to compulsory arbitration. {: #subdebate-31-0-s10 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South Wales -- I want to deal with one matter suggested by the Minister which may affect **Senator Wright's** approach to the matter. The Minister said that if the jurisdiction were vested in the Commonwealth Industrial Court the parties would necessarily have a right of appeal to the High Court of Australia and nothing could be done about that. {: .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator Gorton: -- I did not say that. I said it would be subject to the decision of the High Court itself. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- **Senator Wright** said it. Section 73 of the Constitution reads - >The High Court shall have jurisdiction, with such exceptions and subject to such regulations as the Parliament prescribes to hear and determine appeals from all judgments, decrees, orders and sentences - and paragraph (ii) reads as follows: - > >Of any other federal court, or court exercising federal jurisdiction; That means that the jurisdiction of the High Court can be excluded when the Parliament so desires. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- That section refers to appellate jurisdiction. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- Yes. The Minister indicated that if the matters under discussion were dealt with in the Commonwealth Industrial Court there would have to be a further appeal to the High Court. Of course, Parliament can exclude such an appeal from the Industrial Court or any other federal court. It has done so in relation to various matters under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in which original proceedings may be before the High Court. There is no appeal to the High Court because the Parliament has prescribed an exception in such matters. It is an easy thing for the Government so to change the bill that that matter shall be attended to. {: #subdebate-31-0-s11 .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
Minister for the Navy · Victoria · LP -- I do not think **Senator Murphy** understood what I said; if he did, he misquoted me. The section of the Constitution which he quoted is not relevant to what I said in speaking to his proposed amendment. I merely said that if that amendment were passed there would still remain, subject to the High Court's decision, a right of appeal to the High Court. The honorable senator was quite right when he said that if it were desired to alter the law it could be altered. Question put - >That the words proposed to be left out **(Senator Murphy's amendment)** be left out The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator G. C. McKeliar.) AYES: 27 NOES: 28 Majority . . . . 1 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported from committeewithout amendment; report adopted. Bill read a third time. Senate adjourned at 8.53 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 7 May 1963, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1963/19630507_senate_24_s23/>.