Senate
28 October 1966

25th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 25th Parliament
  3. 1966

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1595

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. Will the Minister advise of the latest action taken to provide efficient long range television facilities for Cairns and other far northern areas? Will the Minister inform me when such improvements are likely to come into operation? Will the Minister advise the reason for the Government’s continuing failure to provide television facilities in the Mackay area?

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I will seek the information from the Postmaster-General. Having regard to the fact that today is the last day of the session, I think that the information that the honorable senator seeks will have to be communicated to him by the Postmaster-General. I do not concede the allegation of failure that the honorable senator introduced into his question. Indeed, the whole history of the introduction of television into Australia is a story of. a phased, successful achievement. I am quite certain that the community at large accepts that summary of the position to be true.

page 1595

QUESTION

MARRIED QUARTERS FOR SERVICEMEN

(Question No. 952.)

Senator McCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. How many married members of the (a) Navy, (b) Army and (c) Air Force are on waiting lists for married quarters?
  2. Is a points system in use to determine the servicemen’s positions on the wailing list?
  3. If so, what matters are taken into consideration in determining the number of points, and what is the maximum number of points allotted for such matters?
  4. How many houses have been constructed for married members of the (a) Navy, (b) Army and (c) Air Force in each of the years since1960?
Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · VICTORIA · LP

– The Minister for Defence has furnished the following replies -

  1. The following numbers of married members of the Services are on the waiting lists for married quarters -

Where permanent quarters are not available, temporary accommodation allowance is provided to bring the rental for private dwellings within the reach of servicemen.

  1. A points system is used in the Army and Air Force to determine the servicemen’s positions on the waiting list. The Navy does not employ a points system.
  2. The following factors are taken into consideration in determining the position of a serviceman on the list and, in relation to Army and Air, the actual points allotted -

Navy:

Homes are allotted in order of date of application, with priority given to special cases.

Army:

Length of service: Five points for each completed year of service.

Separations from family: Ranging from one pointa month for local separations to four points a month for separations due to overseas service.

Dependants: Ten points for each dependant.

Compassionate circumstances: Thirty points covering such matters as medical, housing and finance.

Air Force:

Length of service: One point for each month of continuous R.A.A.F. service up to 10 years,½ point each month thereafter.

Separations from family: Two points for each month of separation occasioned by R.A.A.F. service within last five years.

Dependants: Twenty-four points for first dependant. Thirty-six points for each other dependant. (All unmarried children living at home and dependant parents living with member to be counted. Pregnancy of over six months to qualify.)

Length of married life: Two points for each month of married life of continuous R.A.A.F. service up to 10 years, one point per month thereafter.

Waiting time: One point first month waning time, two points second month waiting time, three points third month of waiting time, up to 10 points for tenth month and 10 points for each month thereafter.

  1. The following houses have been obtained since 1959-60 for married members of the Services, either by construction, acquisition or through the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement -

These figures do not include houses rented by Service personnel from the Department of the Interior in the Australian Capital Territory, in accordance with the normal conditions of tenancy prevailing there. There are about 1,900 houses currently in course of construction.

page 1596

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BUREAU OF ROADS

(Question No. 970.)

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice - 1.Has all technical staff of the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads been appointed?

  1. What period of time, since the passing oft he legislation by this Parliament in 1964, expired before the Bureau was established and fully stuffed? 3.What has the Bureau achieved?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport has supplied the following answers -

  1. No.
  2. The Commonwealth Bureau of Roads Act 1964 received the royal assent on 1 0th September. 1964. The Bureau was formally constituted by the appointment of its part-time members on 10th February 1966. As indicated in 1. the Bureau is not yet fully staffed.
  3. The Bureau, which is an advisory body, has commenced its principal immediate task of making a detailed analysis of the current road situation in Australia.

page 1596

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 1024.)

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

  1. What extensions have been approved to the passenger lounge and other facilities at West Beach Airport, Adelaide?
  2. Will any such improvements be carried out in the current financial year?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has supplied the following answers -

  1. The major development of terminal facilities at Adelaide Airport is in the design stage, with discussions taking place between my Department, the Department of Works and the airlines. A new method of passenger handling, recently put forward by the airlines, has involved some changes in the Department’s thinking about how these developments can best be done.
  2. It is hoped, however, to commence some improvements during the current financial year, as part of a larger scheme for development of the terminal facilities.

page 1596

QUESTION

AIR TRANSPORT FOR SERVICEMEN

(Question No. 1026.)

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

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

Will the Minister consider the appropriateness of providing for servicemen who return from combat areas, such as Vietnam, transport from the port of disembarkation to their homes by air at all times?

Senator McKELLAR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The Minister for the Army has provided the following answer to the honorable senator’s question -

Rail is the accepted means of transport for members travelling on leave at public expense and no reason is seen to make any general variation to this. Modern interstate and long disance intrastate rail travel is comfortable and reasonably fast. Any time necessarily involved in travelling to and from the leave destination is granted additional to the leave period to ensure that the member’s home leave is not reduced irrespective of the distance he may have to travel to take his leave. On the specific point raised, as units returning from service in Vietnam are normally returned to the locality from which they departed for Vietnam, in the majority of cases the wives and families of the married members would be resident in the locality to which the unit returns, and hence the question of long distance travel in this case is of limited application.

page 1596

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 1051.)

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the adverse trade balance of $48.8 million during September was mainly due to final payments made in the United States of America for H.M.A.S. “ Hobart “?
  2. How many more Australian ships are to be built or equipped in the United States of America, and why cannot such ships be built and equipped in Australian dockyards, thereby providing work for Australian manufacturers and employees?
Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The Minister for the Navy has supplied the following answers -

  1. The Commonwealth Statistician has advised that the total value of H.M.A.S. “ Hobart “ ($34.2 million) was included in the value of imports recorded as entering Australia during September 1966, because H.M.A.S. “ Hobart “ first entered Australian waters in that month. Total recorded imports in September exceeded recorded exports by $48.8 million.

The Statistician has mentioned that the difference between recorded imports and recorded exports is not the same thing as the balance of trade, as measured for the purpose of balance of payments statistics. Apart from adjustments to valuation and coverage, there are important differences in timing - thus the total value of H.M.A.S. “ Hobart “ has already been taken account of in the statistics of Australia’s balance of trade for the December quarter of 1965, because the vessel was handed over to Australian authorities in December 1965.

The Statistician has added that the periods in which entries are made in recorded trade statistics and the balance of trade may differ again from the periods in which international reserves are affected, since these will depend on the nature of the payment arrangements.

Actual payments for H.M..A.S. “ Hobart “ are being made by annual instalments phased over nine years.

  1. One further guided missile destroyer - the third - is currently being built in the United States of America for the Royal Australian Navy. The reasons for the decision to have these three vessels built in the United States were fully explained in Parliament at the time. (See for example Parliamentary Debates. House of Representatives, 29th August 1961, page 596, and Senate, 5th September 1961, pages 336-337.)

page 1597

QUESTION

FEDERAL ELECTION ADVERTISING

(Question No. 1054.)

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Is the Postmaster-General aware that commericial television stations have greatly loaded their rates for political advertising in the federal election campaign?
  2. Has the Government any means by which it can prevent this type of discrimination?
  3. Has the Government any mechanism to ensure that commercial stations allocate sufficient free time to political parties for a fair statement of their case in the election?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The PostmasterGeneral has provided the following answers -

  1. The General Manager of the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations advises that, whilst advertising rate structures and charges differ between stations, to the best of his know ledge and belief, political announcements in connection with the forthcoming Federal election not exceeding two minutes duration, which is normally the maximum duration for an advertising message, are charged for at the same base rate as commercial advertisements. However certain discounts apply according to the money value of advertising placed by an advertiser. The General Manager advises that for other election material special rates have been struck which for most stations are higher than those charged in connection with the 1963 Federal elections. The General Manager points out that in the intervening years stations’ costs of operation have risen. 2 and 3. Under the Broadcasting and Television Act arrangements in regard to the televising of political matter including any charges made are entirely a matter for determination by the licensees subject to certain requirements prescribed in section 1 16 of the Act.

page 1597

QUESTION

MEDICAL BENEFITS

(Question No. 1064.)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Would it not be reasonable that patients referred by optometrists to ophthalmologists should have the same benefits conferred on them, of receiving the Commonwealth contribution and the benefit from medical benefits funds as those provided in payments to medical patients?
  2. Is it a fact thai in most cases an optometrist, with his special scientific training, is in a better position to assess the necessity for specialist attention than a general practitioner?
  3. Does the Minister agree that it is reasonable that medical benefits funds, which make payments towards the cost of spectacles prescribed by ophthalmologists, should also make a similar payment in relation to spectacles prescribed by optometrists; if so, will the Minister take steps to direct or influence the various medical benefits funds to adopt this course?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Health has furnished the following replies - 1 and 2. Under the National Health Act a patient is required to be referred to a specialist by a qualified medical practitioner in order to qualify for the higher rate of specialist benefit. This requirement recognises the accepted practice within the medical profession and is considered to be in the best interests of the patient. In many instances the symptoms which cause a patient to consult an optometrist may have their origin elsewhere than in the eye. Such cases require a more extensive physical examination which only a qualified medical practitioner can perform. Frequently the root cause of the eye complaint can be corrected without recourse to the services of an ophthalmologist. The proper person to whom the patient should be sent in such cases is his own medical practitioner. It would be improper to allow the higher specialist benefit where the patient did not require specialist attention.

  1. It is a basic principle of the medical benefits scheme that the registered organisations are left free to conduct their own affairs with a minimum of Commonwealth interference. It is important to note that the benefits for spectacles are paid wholly from the medical benefits funds of the organisations concerned. In the circumstances it is left to the organisations themselves to determine whether they will provide a fund benefit for spectacles prescribed by optometrists.

page 1598

QUESTION

TELEVISION

(Question No. 1066.)

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Will the Postmaster-General provide details of the 4 per cent. of television films recorded as being imported from countries other than the United States of America and Britain (vide 18th annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. 1966, at page 55) showing, in particular, the nations included in this grouping?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answer -

Detailed information in regard to this matter is not readily available but the countries concerned were various European countries and Japan.

page 1598

QUESTION

FUNERAL BENEFIT

(Question No. 1067.)

Senator FITZGERALD:

asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that, upon the death of a pensioner who has contributed to a funeral benefit fund during his lifetime, no allowance is paid by the Department of Social Services to relatives who meet the funeral costs, if the amount received from the pensioner’s fund covers the undertaker’s charge?
  2. As many pensioners pay for years in order to prevent their families being left with financial worries arising from their deaths, and as funeral costs have considerably increased, will the Minister take action to avoid this apparent injustice to pensioners and their relatives?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Social Services has supplied the following answers -

  1. If the expenses of the funeral of a deceased pensioner are met from a contributory funeral benefit fund - other than a fund of a trade union or friendly society - so that the person claiming the funeral benefit is not liable to pay an amount in respect of the funeral no funeral benefit is payable. In other words a funeral benefit is not payable unless the person claiming the funeral benefit is out of pocket in respect of the funeral.
  2. Funeral benefit is designed to meet in part the amount payable in respect of the funeral of a pensioner. Where there is no amount payable this objective cannot be met.

page 1598

QUESTION

POSTAL SERVICES

(Question No. 1068.)

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. In view of the approaching Christmas season, will the Postmaster-General consider special concession rates of postage for Christmas parcels and other mail to the troops in Vietnam?
  2. Because of many delays in the delivery of mails to the troops, will the Postmaster-General guarantee that all such mail will be delivered within a minimum time, and at least in time for Christinas?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answers -

  1. Special postage concessions have been ex tended to normal mail for members of the Australian Forces serving in Vietnam and these will also apply to Christmas mail. These special concessions are already significant and are about half the usual civilian rates.
  2. The closing times for Vietnam Christmas mail were fixed in close consultation with the Department of the Army and special arrangements have been made to ensure that this mail arrives in Vietnam in time for distribution to units before Christmas.

page 1598

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

. -I present the following paper pursuant to section 10 of the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947 -

International Monetary Agreements Act -

Report on the operations of the International Monetary Agreements Act and of the operations insofar as they relate to Australia of the International Monetary Fund Agreement and the International Bank Agreement for the year ended 30th June 1966.

Ordered to be printed.

page 1598

NORTHERN TERRITORY ORDINANCES

Ministerial Statement

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · Victoria · LP

– Pursuant to section 4z of the Northern Territory Administration Act 1910-1965, I lay on the table a statement of reasons for withholding assent to the Land Tenure (Transitional Provisions) Ordinance 1966.

I ask for leave to make a statement.

The PRESIDENT:

-There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator GORTON:

– The Northern Territory (Administration) Act requires that where assent to an Ordinance passed by the Legislative Council for the Northern Territory is withheld the Ordinance and a statement of reasons for withholding assent shall be laid before each House of the Parliament. I wish to inform the Senate of the considerations leading to the withholding of assent to the Land Tenure (Transitional Provisions) Ordinance 1966. On the 19th October I tabled in the Senate a statement of reasons for withholding assent to the Agricultural Development Leases Ordinance which had been passed by the Northern Territory Legislative Council. This Ordinance provided that the Minister for Territories (Mr. Barnes) might grant certain developmental leases only in accordance with a recommendation of the Administrator-in-Council. Assent was withheld to that Ordinance because the power of the Minister to grant leases for developmental projects is a necessary part of the Government’s responsibility for the economic development of the Northern Territory. The considerations which led to the withholding of assent to the Land Tenure (Transitional Provisions) Ordinance are similar. The Ordinance passed by the Legislative Council provided that development licences, which carry a priority right to the grant of the pastoral lease, should be granted by the Administrator-in-Council.

The Ordinance was designed to reserve land in the coastal plains region and in the Daly River Basin from long term alienation while the best use of the land is being assessed. It also sought to preserve the rights of the former pastoral lessees and grazing licensees who had been engaged in the buffalo meat and hide and pastoral industries by granting to them interim developmental licences carrying a priority right to a pastoral lease.

The Government is concerned to ensure that the withholding of assent to this Ordinance does not adversely affect these individuals. Arrangements will be made under the existing law to ensure that so far as possible they are placed in no worse position. The licences they now hold are not terminated by the withholding of assent. It is proposed to offer each licensee a grazing licence over the area occupied by him and, in addition, in the coastal plains area, to grant a special purposes lease over the area occupied for buffalo abattoirs and associated facilities. Holders of grazing licences are entitled to some priority if the land they occupy is made available for pastoral leasing.

page 1599

AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION

Ministerial Statement

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works and Minister in Charge of Commonwealth Activities in Education and Research · Victoria · LP

– by leave - Mr. President, honorable senators are aware that Sir Leslie Martin will retire at the end of December from the position of Chairman of the Australian Universities Commission after most distinguished service as the foundation Chairman of that statutory body over a period of more than seven years. As successor to Sir Leslie, the Government has chosen Mr. C. L. S. Hewitt who is presently the Deputy Secretary (Supply and General) in the Australian Treasury. Mr. Hewitt is a graduate in Commerce of the University of Melbourne and holds specialist qualifications in accountancy. He has been made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire in recognition of his public service.

Mr. Hewitt has been a senior officer of the Treasury for 13 years. Prior to that he held positions of Official Secretary and Acting Deputy High Commissioner at Australia House, London, and at an earlier date was an economist in the Department of Post-War Reconstruction. Mr. Hewitt has been an outstanding administrator and adviser to the Government in a wide range of important matters, and we are confident that he will serve the universities, the Australian and State governments and the nation well in this new capacity. The term of Mr. Hewitt’s appointment will be five years.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– by leave - Upon the retirement of Sir Leslie Martin, I would like to say that a very great debt is owed to him by the universities and people of Australia generally for his chairmanship of the Australian Universities Commission for the past seven years. Many young people in the community today would not be at universities if some of the recommendations made by Sir Leslie Martin to the Australian

Universities Commission had not. been endorsed and adopted as part of university policy throughout the Commonwealth.I think that the Commonwealth is always very fortunate in the choice of men for positions such as that held by Sir Leslie, and generally in the Public Service. These men give their time and talents in serving on very important commissions which mean so much to the ordinary folk in the community, even though they are not always aware of the work that these men do. I join the Minister in expressing appreciation of the work done by Sir Leslie Martin.

page 1600

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1966

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Anderson) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill provides for the validation, until 30th June, 1967, of customs duties collected in pursuance of Customs Tariff Proposals moved in another place since the 16th August last and which deals with changes arising out of Tariff Board reports on glassware; motor vehicles; hollow bars, tubes and pipes of iron or steel; clothes pegs; coffee; footwear; candles; vanillin and ethyl vanillin; and industrial chemicals and synthetic resins. They deal also with reports of the Special Advisory Authority on P.V.C. products and metal-working sawing machines, changes following international negotiations, and certain amendments to improve the translation from the Customs Tariff 1933-1965 to the present tariff.

Honorable senators will recall that earlier this weekI tabled a Tariff Board report relating to industrial chemicals and synthetic resins from which stemmed certain tariff changes which form part of the subject of this validation Bill. Bearing in mind the short time that has elapsed since the tabling of the Tariff Board report and the introduction of this Bill in another place, the comments I now make may give honorable senators a better understanding of the Board’s report.

The Board made alternative recommendations for assistance - one through bounties with reduced tariff rates and the other essentially through tariffs. Honorable senators will be aware that the Government has accepted the second alternative recommended by the Board. On that basis, the Board’s recommendations are -

  1. Payment of a bounty of 5 cents per lb. on cellulose acetate flake. This represents a continuation of the existing bounty.
  2. Payment of a bounty of $8 per ton on sulphate of ammonia. This, too, represents a continuation of the existing bounty.
  3. Payment of bounty of $16 per ton on urea. This will be a new bounty.

These three bounties are to be payable till 31st December 1969 with maximum amounts of bounty in respect of sulphate of ammonia and urea payable in any one year, but without profit limitations.

  1. Duty to be payable on the chemicals as set out in Schedule III to Appendix N to the Board’s report. These are essentially the changes made in the proposals.
  2. Special duties to be collected when the duty paid cost of certain chemicals named falls below a price nominated in the report for those goods, such special duty to be at the rate of 90 per cent. of the amount by which the duty paid cost is below the support value.
  3. Further allegations of disruptive low pricing to be dealt with by some reasonably fast moving machinery for the application of support values in future cases where it can be established that normal protection is being rendered ineffective and the local industry is suffering detriment from disruptive low pricing. If local industry can establish a prima facie case to that effect, the question as to whether urgent action should be taken by the application of a support value should be referred under section 18a of the Tariff Board Act to the Special Advisory Authority who would inquire into the question and report within 30 days.
  4. A review of goods subject to these special duties to be undertaken by the Board once every year to determine the need for, and the level of, support values with an overall review in 1969.
  5. Substitute chemicals to be dutiable at the rates set out in Part I of Appendix P, that is to say, at the rate applicable to the goods for which they are substitutes, with checks made on future developments of substitutes, and by-law admission for substitutes when used for purposes peculiar to the qualities of the substitutes.
  6. Where anticipatory protection has been given, that is for chemicals not yet made, by-law admission be granted in the meantime.
  7. A by-law system to replace the drawback system in relation to goods for export.

This is a case where the Tariff Board has reported on all products of an industry, rather than on specific commodities, and the recommendations of the Board are designed to solve the broad problems of the industry.

The Tariff Board found that chemicals can be divided into two broad groups, one requiring protection at rates of 40 per cent. general and 30 per cent. preferential and another at rates of 25 per cent. general and 15 per cent. preferential. For certain chemicals of fundamental importance and for which economies of scale of the Australian industry demand higher protection, a general rate of 60 per cent. has been recommended. These industry rates were set after an examination of 80 key chemicals, and were set to meet the needs of the production complex involved. Certain products which do not form part of a production complex do not have these industry rates applied to them. Citric and tartaric acids, and pigments and colour lakes, recently the subject of a Tariff Board report, are examples of these.

One of the main problems of the chemical industry is that substitution of one substance for another is relatively easy, although there are few chemicals which are completely interchangeable in all applications. The Board’s recommendations cover the problem of substitution as it affects the Australian chemical industry at present. However, new chemicals are continually being developed and undoubtedly new problems of substitution will follow. Furthermore, new uses may be found for imported chemicals resulting from changes in technical qualities, and these too, could lead to substitution for local chemicals. The Board is of the opinion that action in line with that now recommended should be taken in cases of future substitution as they arise. This action will be implemented, both’ in the specific cases covered in this report and in future cases, by applying a protective duty through a change in the relevant legislation, that is, by amending the Customs Tariff Schedule.

In one important aspect, the Board recommended a substantial change in practice to cope with disruptive low pricing. Due to the size of chemical plants overseas, further additions to such complexes often result in excess capacity, which may be used in export markets. This has, at times, resulted in prices for imports which, while not breaching the present anti-dumping legislation, have had serious consequences for local industry. The Tariff Board has therefore recommended that for certain chemicals which have been subject to disruptive pricing, special prices be established, and that any imports which fail to reach this special price when their cost, transport and insurance charges, and ordinary duties, are totalled, should be subject to a further duty to bring their landed cost up to that special price. To allow an element of competition, the extra duty will only be imposed on 90 per cent. of the differential

The special price, to be known as the “ support price “ has been determined by comparison with imports under normal conditions during the period of the Tariff Board’s inquiry. The prices will be subject to annual review and in any future instance the support price will be established only after an inquiry conducted under the provisions of the Tariff Board Act. The method by which price support duty is imposed can be expected to be substantially changed when legislation is brought forward in the autumn sessional period to amend the Customs Tariff, and specific sections will need to be inserted in that Act to impose the duties.

I trust this explanation of the matters dealt with in the Tariff Board’s report on industrial chemicals and synthetic resins may be of assistance to the Senate. Honorable senators will appreciate that long term legislation to enact the changes covered by the proposals cannot be introduced and debated before the end of the present session, hence the need for this Validation Bill. Legislation to enact these proposals is intended to be introduced in the autumn sessional period of the new Parliament, and the opportunity to debate them will then become available to honorable senators. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Byrne) adjourned.

page 1602

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL (No. 2) 1966

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Gorton) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · Victoria · LP

.- I move-

That the BUI be now read a second time.

The main purpose of this Bill is to vary the legislative provisions in relation to the employment of married women as permanent officers in the Commonwealth Public Service. For the future, permanent female officers in the Commonwealth Public Service will not, on marriage, automatically lose their permanent status. Also, married women will be eligible for appointment to the Service. The Bill should have the approval of this Parliament. Judged by public responses to date, it will have the endorsement of the community at large, and certainly that of the various women’s organisations.

The Bill removes an element of discrimination against one section of our work force, or potential work force - an element deriving from social attitudes of another era. It must not be thought that when the Bill becomes law, married women will for the first time be eligible for employment in the Commonwealth Public Service. Nothing could be further from the truth. Married women are employed in the Public Service now. In fact they presently comprise about one-third of all temporary female employees. But henceforth the Commonwealth will be permitted to retain on its permanent staff trained and experienced female officers who marry, and to recruit qualified married women. Thus, this group of women will not be denied the opportunity to pursue a full and satisfying career in the Commonwealth Public Service.

The increasing tendency for Australian married women to work has received considerable publicity in recent years. The tremendous contribution which married women in the work force have made in our expanding economy needs no emphasis. The same sort of thing has been happening in other developed countries - indeed, in some like Britain, Canada and the United States of America the trend has been even more evident than in Australia. Between 1954 and 1961 the number of married women in the work force in Australia increased by 148,000 or 57%, while the total female work force increased by 214,000 or 25.3%. The male work force increased in the same period by 10.8% .

I have no doubt that the recent census will show that married women are continuing to enter the work force in large numbers. The Statistician’s sample work force survey in the six capital cities gives us some indication of the trend. The latest figures, for May 1966, show that 37.3% of all married women aged between 20 and 44 and 26.7% of those aged between 45 and 64 were in the work force. The comparable figures in May 1961 were 30.9% and 23.8% respectively.

I believe we can expect these trends to continue. However that may be, provisions which deny to the Commonwealth Public Service, the services of women, highly skilled women, women often trained with Commonwealth funds, are no longer tenable. Other employers have not been subject to this sort of restriction.

This does not seem to be a case when it is necessary to persuade the Parliament of the good sense of, and justification for, a measure. So let me pass to explain the Bill’s provisions. The principle we are following is to treat married women officers and married women recruits similarly to other officers and recruits. We are not removing the discrimination against married women only to replace it with discriminatory provisions in their favour. So married women will be treated on an equal footing with their colleagues so far as status, recruitment, promotion, transfer, discipline and so on are concerned. Married women officers will be subject to all the provisions of the Public Service Act and other relevant rules. Consequently, their recruitment will be subject to the normal selection processes. Their continued employment will be on the basis of efficiency and be dependent upon their observing the same conditions and code of conduct as all other officers. I am stating only the obvious, having regard to what I have already said, when I say that they will be liable to the normal disciplinary procedures, which may result in dismissal if they fail to observe the relevant provisions - for example, if they do not attend regularly and assiduously to their duties. This is the normal rule where married women are employed, and there can be no exception in the case of the Commonwealth Public Service. Married women, particularly those with young children, may feel the burden of domestic responsibilities more than other officers of the Service. But this is equally the case in other areas of employment, and if they cannot meet normal conditions they cannot expect to be carried on the permanent staff. I have no doubt that married women in the Service will fully understand this. It is, of course, a matter for decision by the woman at any time whether she desires to continue in the Service as a permanent officer.

Although there are many married women temporaries in the Commonwealth Public Service now, it is rather difficult to predict the sorts of problems that could be pre sented were permanent officers employed in some sectors. I am thinking of areas of employment such as those where odd hours of duty or conditions of service apply, which might result in special problems for the employment of married women. We gave a deal of thought to this and decided to make provisions so that, if experience shows a need for some special provisions relating to the employment of married women in particular areas of the Service in order to safeguard the efficient running of the Service, this can be done by regulation. The inclusion of this regulationmaking power is no more than a necessary precaution.

The decision to permit married women to be permanent officers necessitates provisions for absence in relation to childbirth. Of course, the circumstances of confinement differ from case to case, but it is universally accepted that women should cease to be actively employed some time before childbirth and not be permitted to resume for some time after confinement For example, the relevant Internationa] Labour Organisation Convention provides for a period of absence of not less than twelve weeks of which not less than six weeks is after the birth. The Government proposes that any officer who is to have a child shall absent herself from duty for a minimum period of twelve weeks. Provision is contained in the Bill for an absence of up to six months, at the option of the officer. It will be for the woman to decide whether she uses any sick leave, recreation leave or furlough entitlements which she may have, to cover her absence or some of it. Otherwise, the absence will be without pay. Although conditions vary in the different countries, it can be said that this provision is in general accord with those in the public services of the United States of America, Britain and New Zealand.

The whole idea behind these proposals is to allow women who wish to continue in employment to be granted the necessary leave without jeopardising their career. I think there will be general agreement that what is proposed in no way conflicts with the principle of equality of treatment; rather it recognises, in a reasonable way, the needs of these female officers. I again stress that the use of sick leave and other entitlements to cover absence for childbirth is entirely at the option of the officer. Incidentally, experience in countries with similar social attitudes to our own suggests that the majority of women terminate their employment when they are to have children. It is not anticipated that a different situation will prevail here. However, the proposed provisions will enable those women who anticipate returning to employment after their confinement, to do so with full retention of their employment rights. Those officers who cease, upon marriage or later, may, If they desire, subsequently apply for re-instatement to the permanent staff, subject to the normal conditions applied to other former officers of the Service.

I turn now to an existing provision in the Public Service Act which provides that any female officer with five but less than fifteen years permanent service who retires upon marriage shall receive a payment based on her years of service. This is commonly known as the “ marriage allowance “. It is proposed that those women already in the Service should continue to be eligible for this allowance if they retire on marriage, since it can be argued that the marriage allowance was part of their original contract of employment. But, as the marriage allowance was introduced as a form of compensation for the loss of career - under the “marriage bar” embodied in existing legislation - it is logical to eliminate it now that this bar is being removed.

A corollary to the decision to permit married women to be employed in a permanent capacity in the Commonwealth Public Service is the provision for them of pension and like rights. My colleague, the Treasurer (Mr. McMahon), will be introducing amendments to the Superannuation Act to permit married women to commence or to continue as contributors under that Act. Bearing in mind also the need to issue detailed instructions on the relevant procedures under both Acts, the legislation will operate from a date to be proclaimed. This Bill is confined to the Commonwealth Public Service. The question of the extension of its principles to other areas of Commonwealth employment is under examination. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Willesee) adjourned.

page 1604

SUPERANNUATION BILL (No. 2) 1966

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Henty) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

.- I move-

That the Bill be now read a second time.

At present the Superannuation Act precludes a married woman from becoming a contributor and requires single women to cease to contribute if they marry. With the amendment of the Public Service Act proposed by the Public Service Bill (No. 2) 1966 to permit the employment of married women as permanent officers in the Commonwealth Public Service, it is necessary to amend the Superannuation Act 1922-1965 if married women are to enjoy superannuation cover like other permanent officers. This Bill makes the necessary changes in the existing Act to enable married women who are recruited to the Commonwealth Public Service to join the Superannuation Fund or the Provident Account and to permit single women who continue as permanent officers after marriage to continue as contributors. The Bill will also permit temporary employees of the Commonwealth who are married women to become contributors on the same conditions as other temporary employees, and will equally apply to married women who may be employed by approved authorities of the Commonwealth under the conditions applicable to other employees of such authorities.

The basic decisions of the Government to employ married women as permanent officers and to admit them to superannuation benefits raised a number of important questions in regard to their participation in the superannuation scheme. The first is whether they should contribute under the Superannuation Act on the basis that now applies to single women - that is, as contributors for personal benefits only - or whether they should contribute for dependants’ benefits in addition to personal benefits in the way that male contributors do. After careful consideration, the Government concluded that, as a married woman could be the breadwinner for the family, she should participate in the superannuation scheme on the basis of providing benefits for her children and for her widower, if he is dependent upon her at the time of her death. The Bill therefore includes provisions to extend to the children and dependent widowers of female contributors the existing benefit provisions that apply to the children and widows of male contributors and pensioners. Thus the children of existing female contributors who are widowed or divorced will in future be entitled to pension in the event of the death of their mothers.

Naturally, this improved basis of benefits for female contributors is likely to result in some additional cost to the Fund and the next question was whether the existing rates of contribution prescribed for females would be adequate in the future. This question was put to the Commonwealth Actuary but he has advised that it will not be possible to determine the adequacy or otherwise of the existing contribution rates until he has some knowledge of the numbers of married women who will become contributors and of the experience of this group as regards invalidity, mortality, etc. He has therefore recommended that the existing rates of contribution should continue to apply for the time being and this Bill makes no variation in those rates. However, the rates of contribution for females will be reviewed by the Actuary in conjunction with the next quinquennial investigation of the Superannuation Fund as at 30th June 1967.

The admission of married women to the Commonwealth Public Service and as contributors for superannuation benefits presents a new possibility - that a husband and wife may both be permanent officers and may both be contributors. This raises the further question of the amount of pension to be paid when both the married woman and her husband have retired. A case could be made for some restriction upon dual benefits, especially where the husband predeceases the wife who would otherwise, upon his death, be entitled to a widow’s pension in respect of his contributions in addition to the full pension in respect of her own contributions. There is a precedent for such a restriction in an existing provision of the Act which limits the total pension payable to the widow of a former contributor who, as a widow, and therefore a single woman, subsequently becomes a contributor in her own right. On the other hand, there are strong arguments for treating each contributor as an individual who has paid the full cost of contributions during service and, therefore, for paying both pensions iri full. The Government has decided in favour of the latter course, and the Bill therefore provides no restriction upon dual benefits where a husband and wife have both contributed. Moveover, the Bill repeals the existing limitations upon widows who become contributors in their own right. Any widows who were contributors and who have retired and are now receiving pensions in respect of both their husbands’ contributions and their own will therefore receive an increase in pension when the Bill becomes law.

Honorable senators will appreciate that this Bill makes some rather progressive changes. Many schemes that presently admit married women as contributors for superannuation confine their participation to personal benefits or provide for them to receive only a lump sum benefit on retirement. The only distinction between benefits for male and female contributors that will exist after this Bill is passed is that the widower of a deceased female contributor will qualify for pension only if he is wholly or substantially dependent on her at the time of her death. This is believed to be a reasonable requirement in our society and one that will minimise any increase in rates of contribution for females that might later prove to be necessary.

It is necessary to make some further incidental changes. For example, because they could not be re-appointed to the Service, the Act now makes special provision in relation to a female who is retired on the ground of invalidity, marries whilst in receipt of pension and subsequently becomes restored to health. This provision is repealed by the Bill to place married women in the same position as other invalidity pensioners and a number of other consequential amendments is made. However, owing to the extreme pressure of work upon the Parliamentary Draftsman and his staff at this stage of the parliamentary session, it has not been possible to attend to all the minor consequential changes which are seen to be necessary, such as to provide for the disposition of her pension upon a married women pensioner being detained as a patient in a hospital for the insane or committed to prison. Clearly, such matters are not urgent and it is proposed to attend to them in a further bill early next year. But I can assure honorable senators that the Bill now before the Senate contains all the provisions necessary for the admission of married women as contributors and for the payment of benefits to them or to their dependants upon their retirement or death. I regard this Bill as an important measure and I commend it to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Willesee) adjourned.

page 1606

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 2) 1966

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Henry) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

– I move-

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill proposes amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act in respect of losses incurred in carrying on primary production in the Northern Territory. As honorable senators will recall, the Act was recently amended to remove the seven year limitation on the carry forward period in respect of losses incurred in carrying on primary production. That amendment applied to primary production losses incurred anywhere in Australia in the 1957-58 income year or a subsequent year.

Representations have been made to the Government that the earlier amendment does not fully meet the position of primary producers in the Northern Territory who were severely affected by drought conditions prior to the 1957-58 income year. In order to meet the special circumstances of these primary producers, it is proposed by this Bill to remove the limitation on the carry forward period for primary production losses incurred in the Northern Territory during the 1950-51 income year and subsequentyears. The amendment proposed by the Bill will, as in the case of the earlier amendment, apply in assessments in respect of the 1965-66 income year and subsequent years. I commend the Bill to honorable senators.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– This Bill makes adjustments in respect of income tax paid by primary producers in the Northern Territory. As the Minister for Supply (Senator Henty) has pointed out, the recent amendment of the principal Act did not provide fully for the position in the Territory. This amending Bill remedies that. We do not oppose it. We believe that it will bring a measure of relief to the people engaged in primary production in this northern part of Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1606

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA BILL 1966

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 th October (vide page 1579), on motion by Senator Anderson -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MURPHY:
New South Wales

– There is no more important task than the granting by one nation of freedom and independence to the people of another nation. That is the task upon which we are engaged in this Bill. The Bill proposes amendments to the Papua and New Guinea Act. It is really another step towards establishing a constitution for a free and independent Papua and New Guinea. We are in the process of giving birth to this new nation.

Papua and New Guinea is not independent. It is not free. But we trust that soon it will be free. The process is strange because we are not entirely free and independent ourselves. A glance at the Constitution of this Commonwealth shows that we still retain in form and to some extent in substance the position of a dependent country. We still retain traces of colonialism. Our very Constitution is not an act of will of our own people. It is the statute of the parliament of another country. The Constitution retains in it features that are inconsistent with a free and independent government of this Commonwealth. Yet, we are proposing to establish in Papua and New Guinea a Constitution which will be free of such elements. In other words, we propose to give freedom and independence to peoples although we do not have freedom and independence completely ourselves.

How is this possible? It is possible because our relationship with Papua and New Guinea is not one that is restricted to ourselves alone. There is a third party in this relationship. This is the people of the world whose voice is expressed through the United Nations Organisation and the decisions of the Trusteeship Council of the General Assembly. That constitutes the third party. It is that which enables this extraordinary position to arise where we shall confer that freedom in greater terms than we actually enjoy ourselves. We trust that ultimately the people of Papua and New Guinea will not have the vestiges of colonialism such as the appeal to the Privy Council which mars our own independence and which is inconsistent with the dignity of a supposedly free people.

The Trusteeship Agreement is the basis upon which we deal with the Trust Territory of New Guinea. As all honorable senators are aware, we have joined with that Trust Territory the other Territory or colony of Papua. The Trusteeship Agreement for the Territory of New Guinea was adopted, together with a number of other trusteeship agreements by the General Assembly of the United Nations. In Article 3 we, the administering authority, undertook to administer the Territory in accordance with the provisions of the Charter and in such a manner as to achieve in the Territory the basic objectives of the international trusteeship system which is set forth in Article 76 of the Charter. Article 76 states -

The basic objectives of the trusteeship system, in accordance with the Purposes of the United Nations laid down in Article 1 of the present charter shall be -

to further international peace and security;

to promote the political, economic, social and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories and their progressive development towards self government or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and the freely-expressed wishes of the peoples concerned and as may be provided by the terms of each trusteeship agreement;

to encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion and to encourage recognition of the interdependence of the peoples of the world; and

to ensure equal treatment in social, economic and commercial matters for all Members of the United Nations and their nationals, and also equal treatment for the latter in the administration of justice, . . .

It is evident that in this Bill we are partially attaining some of those objectives. However, when we consider the Papua and New Guinea Act and the amendments proposed, it is seen that we are providing a rather poor Constitution for the peoples of Papua and New Guinea. One does not find in it the great constitutional guarantees of freedom usually found in present day Constitutions. The necessity for such protections has been shown by events all around the world. We seem to be producing a Constitution which has more of the characteristics of a local government act than of a constitution for a new nation. When we consider the actions of the third party to our relationship with Papua and New Guinea - that is the United Nations - we have some cause for concern. The Secretary-General of the United Nations in his annual report on the work of the organisation, made on15th June 1966, said in relation to questions concerning trust and non-self-governing territories, under the heading of New Guinea -

On 18 December 1965 the Fourth Committee approved a draft resolution on the Trust Territory of New Guinea and the Territory of Papua by 61 votes to none, with 19 abstentions. On 21 December 1965 the General Assembly adopted this draft resolution as resolution 2112 (XX) by a roll call of 86 to none, with 22 abstentions. By this resolution the General Assembly noted that the Administering Authority had not yet taken sufficient steps towards the full implementation of the Trusteeship Agreement and resolution 1514 (XV) and called upon the Administering Authority fully to implement General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and, to this end, to fix an early date for independence in accordance with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples.

The people of the world, through their representatives, have stated that Australia has not yet taken sufficient steps towards the implementation of its trusteeship agreement and towards the full implementation of a resolution of the General Assembly. Therefore, it behoves us to look at this resolution that the Administering Authority has failed to implement fully. The resolution in question was entitled “ Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples”. It declared -

  1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
  2. All peoples have the right to self determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

The next point is most important -

  1. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.

This House is aware that if ever there has been a pretext for delaying independence in the Territory, it has been inadequacy of political, economic, social or education preparedness. The General Assembly declared also -

Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Nbn-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the people of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

In its conclusions and recommendations, the United Nations Visiting Mission of 1965 said that efforts had been made by the Administering Authority to develop representative institutions already in existence and to create new ones. It considered that these efforts should be vigorously pursued with a twofold objective in view - first, to confer additional powers upon the institutions in question and to broaden their field of activity, and secondly, to increase the sense of initiative and sense of responsibility of the political cadres in order that they may develop greater confidence in themselves and in the destiny of their country. Certain recommendations were made. In paragraph 325 the Mission said -

With regard to the House of Assembly, the Mission notes with satisfaction the results already achieved since its election. It would be well if the Administering Authority in the House of Assembly could come to an agreement whereby the latter would actually be able to exercise the prerogatives to which it is entitled. The Mission thinks it would be very fruitful if the House were to hold more frequent and longer sessions and if the system of parliamentary committees were to be further developed. It welcomes the prospect of the establishment of a select committee of the House to draw up a draft constitution and earnestly hopes that this project may be put into effect. Indeed, we feel that, apart from its own merits, it is calculated to provide a framework in the political evolution of the Territory in the next few years, to develop the political education of the elite and of the whole of the population and to dispel the uneasiness and uncertainty that is appearing in the Territory with respect to the future.

That select committee was in fact appointed, and after a preliminary report, it made a second interim report on 1st September of this year. In its report the committee made certain recommendations, which are summarised as follows -

That electorates be contained wholly within District boundaries.

That the number of open electorates be increased from the present 44 to a total of 69.

That special electorates as they now exist be abolished and a new form of electorate to be known as Regional Electorates instituted.

That there be an educational qualification for the - candidates nominating for such electorates, such qualification being the attainment of the Territory Intermediate Certificate or an educational qualification equivalent thereto.

That there be 15 of such electorates.

That voting for these electorates be from a common roll.

That in addition to the existing qualifications a candidate for nomination who was not born in the Territory must have resided in Papua and New Guinea for at least five years.

By and large, the recommendations of the Committee are being carried out in this Bill, or it is proposed that they be carried out by ancillary measures, either by ordinance or by administrative action.

Of course, these recommendations are perhaps the least that might be expected. There is some movement towards removing the discriminations which have existed on the ground of race. There is the elimination of the provision for the election of nonindigenous people by substantive provision that some of the representatives be persons with certain educational qualifications irrespective of race or origin. That, of course, ought to have been the position all along. We ought not to have placed in an enactment provisions which appear to discriminate between persons on the ground of their race when the real reason for differential representation was the necessity to have some persons of education and administrative experience in the representative House in the Territory.

Senator Wright:

– Does the honorable senator recall the terms in which those persons were classified?

Senator MURPHY:

– JJ it is convenient, I shall refer to them at the Committee stage. The Bill deals not only with representation in the Territory but with a number of other matters which were carefully outlined by the Minister in his speech. I do not propose to deal with all of them because it is evident that these are steps along the way to achieving for the Territory a completely independent judiciary, a completely independent legislature and an Executive which will be independent except so far as it will be responsible to the legislature. These are great goals. They are goals which are the rights of all mankind. They are consistent with the standards which have been set out in the famous Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That Declaration states that everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country directly or through freely chosen representatives; that everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country; that the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; and that this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

I have said that we welcome the Bill. I think that the Government is acting correctly in doing what has been asked by the Committee on Constitutional Development in the Territory. I must say, though, as a representative of the people of Australia, that I think the people of the Territory and those who have acted on their behalf in the Committee on Constitutional Development have set too slow a pace. In seeking constitutional development, they have set goals which are too low. Their recommendations are given the highest regard in Australia. It is for them to make recommendations which will ensure that the common standards of rights and freedoms set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights will be incorporated in the Constitution which is emerging in Papua and New Guinea. This Bill is not good enough. The great constitutional guarantees ought to be incorporated in legislation at this stage. The suggested recommendations which are being carried into effect are perhaps important in themselves, but the rate of change and the amount of change envisaged in these ‘recommendations are, respectively, too slow and very small.

The advances that have been made by peoples elsewhere ought to be shared by the people of Papua and New Guinea, but it is for them to make claims for these rights and freedoms. The history of human affairs shows that those people who have become free and independent all have had a great thirst for those things. The people of Papua and New Guinea are not demonstrating either themselves or through the Select Committee on Constitutional Development very much enthusiasm for freedom. They are not expressing any great demand for self-government.

Senator Wright:

– Are they not showing a sense of caution due to the fact that they have recognised that money is necessary to give them a foundation of security?

Senator MURPHY:

– That may well be so in relation to financial arrangements made between the Territory and Australia, but in respect of the basic rights of peoples and the standards of constitutional protection set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights there should not be any delay on financial grounds.

Senator Wright:

– No, but is not one of the measures we have before us one to ensure an independent court, and are not the tenure of office and appointment of that court such as to ensure that there is to be a rule of law?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman). - Order! Senator Murphy has the call.

Senator MURPHY:

– I welcome what what has been said by Senator Wright, Sir, because he referred to the rule of law. He said certain steps are being taken in this field to provide for the independence of the judiciary. That is right. But it is going only a fraction of the way. The people of Papua and New Guinea are too timid in their approach to their basic rights and freedom. The Papua and New Guinea Act that will stand after this Bill has been passed will not be sufficient. Leave aside the question of independence tomorrow or in five years time. Even if the date of independence were to be left indefinite, there is no reason why the basic rights and freedoms which are generally recognised as the entitlement or the inalienable right of every man should not go into this Bill now. They are not going in because the people of Papua and New Guinea and those acting on their behalf are too timid. They should think in greater terms. The recommendations which have been made by them do not disclose a proper appreciation of the inalienable rights of their own people. They ought to set their standards much higher. Perhaps 1. should say in fairness to them that this is the second interim report of the Select Committee. Let ns hope that when the final report is made it will disclose a much greater appreciation of what should be in a Constitution for Papua and New Guinea than has appeared so far.

We support the Bill, lt is in accordance with what has been requested of us by the United Nations. It is not a full implementation of the resolutions of the United Nations; it is far from it. We are doing the very thing the United Nations has said we must not do. We are allowing the inadequacy of political, economic, social and educational preparedness to serve as a pretext for delaying independence. However, although not fully implementing the wishes of that great body, nevertheless we are taking some steps towards that end and the Opposition therefore supports the Bill.

Senator BULL:
New South Wales

– I support the Bill. Having been in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea for a short time during the winter, I have gained a better appreciation of the Territory’s affairs. I shall direct my remarks particularly to the House of Assembly. The numbers in that House are to be increased from 64 to 94. An important aspect is the abolition of the 10 seats now reserved for non-indigenous residents of the Territory. This, I believe, is a very important step towards self-government in Papua and New Guinea. I do not agree entirely with Senator Murphy’s suggestion that provision for representation of this kind should be in the present Act. The report of the Select Committee on Constitutional Development stated, in paragraph 33 -

In agreement with the previous Select Committee, your Committee is opposed in principle to a form of representation based on racial grounds. In addition, the inquiry just completed did not show the overwhelming demand by the people for a special form of non-indigenous representation, such as existed . . .

These are the important words - . . at the time of the investigations conducted by the previous Select Committee.

So the previous Select Committee obviously was of opinion that this provision was necessary in the first instance.

As a general principle, I do not support the enlargement of the size of parliaments. I have said so in the Senate. But in this particular case I believe that a wise decision has been made. We have here a people who are inexperienced in constitutional government. We must remember that because of the terrain of the Territory and the lack of roads and communications, it is necessary that representatives have electorates that are smaller in area than is the case in other countries. This will give them an opportunity to have closer contact with the people, who will get a better appreciation and knowledge of the responsibility of Government. This is tremendously important and is quite evident to one who spends even a short time in the country. The people of the Territory must be educated and from experience they must realise that they will be responsible for raising their own revenue and making decisions in regard to the expenditure of the revenue that they raise.

No economic improvement or worthwhile stability can come unless there is a strong desire in the people to be up and doing in their own interests. One of the things that disturbed me when I was in the Territory was that, possibly because of the climate and possibly also because of the lack of the proper kinds of foods, the people were inclined to be lethargic and not to realise that the future of the Territory depends largely on what they are prepared to do to lift their own standards of living. It seems to me that there is an inclination for them to believe that Australian assistance by way of grants will not only continue but also will increase in size. We must get across to them the realisation that thenfuture is very much in their own hands and that they must help themselves. I believe that step by step and over not too lengthy a period full responsibilities for government and administration must be placed on their own shoulders. This Bill, I believe, is a very important step in this direction. I therefore support it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 3.

Section5 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting in sub-section (1.), before the definition of “Acting Administrator”, the following definition: - “ ‘ a Full Court ‘ means a Full Court of the Supreme Court;”.

Senator MURPHY:
New South Wales

.- I move-

At the end of the clause add the following paragraph: - “ and (b) by omitting from sub-section (1.) the definition of ‘the House of Assembly’ and inserting in its stead the following definition : - “ the House of Representatives “ means the House of Representatives for the Territory;

This is a simple amendment. The purpose of it is to uplift the status of that House, because the phrase “ House of Assembly “ has traditionally been associated with representative chambers of a somewhat subservient status. It is an expression that was used in colonial times. Research has been done by members of our own Party into the names of the various chambers round the world, and it is notable that most of the chambers of representatives that can be regarded at either fully independent or almost fully independent are called “ Houses of Representatives “. This is the modern term to denote a chamber that is representative in an independent country. If we seek to have the chamber there emerge as an independent chamber, now is the time to use a phrase which is more descriptive of such a body. It may not seem a very great matter, because one would say: “ After all, you look at the powers.” But we know that people tend to categorise institutions by their names. It is common to describe as legislative councils bodies which were not at all independent, and bodies that were partially independent were called assemblies, or something of that nature. Where a body is to be the legislature for the whole new country, we think that “ House of Representatives “ is a better name for it, without any vestige or atmosphere of colonialism surrounding it.

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

– The Government does not accept the amendment. The history of the matter is that the United Nations Foot Commission recommended that the legislature be called the “ House of Representatives “. Knowing of that recommendation and after hearing the views of the people, the Select Committee of the former Legislative Council recommended that the legislature be called “ House of Assembly “. Indeed, the Opposition unsuccessfully moved an amendment similar to this when the Papua and New Guinea Bill 1963 was before the Parliament. The present Select Committee of the House of Assembly can be taken to be aware of this history, but it did not recommend any change of name. The Government sees no reason for imposing on the people of the Territory a change of this kind, for which they have not asked.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 4 and 5 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 5a.

Senator MURPHY:
New South Wales

.- I move-

That the following new clause be inserted in the Bill- “5a. Section 19 of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (2.) and inserting in their stead the following paragraph: -

ten members of the House of Assembly.’; and

by omitting sub-section (3.) and inserting in its stead the following sub-section: - (3.) Each member of the Administrator’s Council (other than the Administrator) shall be elected by the House of Assembly and shall, subject to this section, hold office during the pleasure of the House.’.”.

This means that we seek to enlarge the Council and change its character. At present it consists of the Administrator, three persons who are official members of the House of Assembly and seven persons who are elected members of the House of Assembly. The provision in the Act is to the effect also that each member of the Council, other than the Administrator, shall be appointed by the Minister on the nomination of the Administrator and shall, subject to this section, hold office during the pleasure of the Minister. The change that we seek to make is that 10 members be elected - they will be the elected members of the House of Assembly - and that they be elected to the Council by the House of Assembly and hold office during the pleasure of that House.

This is a step towards responsible government. In effect the changes are that there will be 10 elected members instead of seven persons, who happen to be elected members of the House of Assembly, together with three persons who happen to be official members of the House of Assembly, constituting the Council, all of them being appointed by the Minister on the nomination of the Administrator, and their tenure being dependent upon the pleasure of the Minister. We seek to alter those features which are inconsistent with responsible government and provide that all of the persons who are part of the Council, apart from the Administrator, shall be there by the act and will of the House of Assembly; that they be, in the first place, elected members of the House of Assembly, and that they be responsible in that their tenure of office is dependent not on the pleasure of the Minister but on the pleasure of the House. That is responsible government. The present provision does not make for responsible government.

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

– The Government does not accept the proposed amendment. In order to present its report in time for legislative changes to be made before the processes for the 1968 election had to be commenced, the Select Committee limited its recent inquiries to matters affecting the composition of the House of Assembly. This is made clear in paragraph 8 of the Select Committee’s report. It is understood the Committee will shortly be seeking the views of the people on aspects relating to executive government. The amendment relating to the House of Assembly has to be passed now if the necessary amendments to the Territory ordinance and alterations to the electoral rolls are to be made. This does not mean that changes in the form of executive government cannot occur at some time after the next Territory elections. To accept the amendment now proposed by the Oppo sition before the views of the people of the Territory on this matter have been expressed to the Select Committee would be directly contrary to the Government’s approach of making constitutional changes only if there is strong and widespread support for change in the Territory.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Proposed new clause 6a.

Senator MURPHY:
New South Wales

– I will not proceed with the proposed amendment which was circulated and which was designed to insert a new clause 6a after clause 6. Instead I now move -

That the following new clause be inserted in the Bill- “6a. After section 38 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: - 38a. Until the House of Assembly otherwise provides, each member shall receive an allowance of Three thousand dollars a year as from the day on which he is elected.’.”.

We feel that this is a reasonable provision which should be made for the members of the House of Assembly. The dignity of those members and the tasks in which they are involved call for some proper salary. We believe this proposed provision would be more consistent with their situation than are the present arrangements. This meets the objection put previously by the Minister that any changes should be in accordance with the views of the people because this is subject to any other provision which may be made by the House of Assembly.

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

– The Government does not accept this proposed amendment. It was proposed in 1963 and rejected by the House at that time. The House of Assembly has passed an ordinance providing machinery for the fixing of fees and allowances of members of that House. This machinery is working adequately and there has been no proposal in the House of Assembly for it to be changed. The rates of fees and allowances of members of the House of Assembly are now under consideration and discussions have taken place between representatives of the members and the Minister to arrive at an appropriate figure.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Proposed new clause 6a.

Senator MURPHY:
New South Wales

.- I move

That the following new clause be inserted in the Bill- “ 6a. Section 54 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (2.) and inserting in its stead the following sub-section - (2.) Subject to the next succeeding sub-section, within three months after the day on which the Ordinance was presented to the Administrator for assent, he shall declare according to his discretion but subject to this Act -

  1. that he assents to the Ordinance;
  2. that he withholds assent; or
  3. that he reserves the Ordinance for the Governor-General’s pleasure.’.”.

We believe that assent, the withholding of assent or reservation should occur within a reasonably brief time. The present provision is that every ordinance passed by the House of Assembly shall be presented to the Administrator for assent and, subject to the next succeeding sub-section, he shall thereupon declare according to his discretion but subject to the Act whether he assents, withholds assent or reserves the ordinance for the Governor-General’s pleasure. There is no time limit in the Act and there should be one because the researches which were made, I think at the direction of the Deputy Leader of the Australian Labour Party in the other House, disclosed that there had been extraordinary delays in the Territories in dealing with ordinances. I think there had been an instance in the Northern Territory where a delay of something like two and a quarter years occurred before a decision was made. There had been inordinate delays also in respect of other Territories. We are seeking here a reasonable limit on the period in which the Administration has to make up its mind. If we are to have the emergence of a representative body that will be responsible for law making, its decisions should not be subject to indefinite withholding of assent. There should be no uncertainty as to whether the laws made by it are to be operative.

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

– This amendment is not accepted by the Government. It is another Opposition proposal that was rejected in 1963. The section that the Opposition wants to amend relates to the decision of the Administrator to assent, withhold assent or reserve an ordin ance for the Governor-General, which means for the Government’s decision. The present Act provides that the Administrator shall, upon presentation, make his decision. In fact, 127 ordinances have been examined for the years 1965 and 1966. There is no evidence that the ordinances were not assented to on the date on which they were presented to the Administrator, except for one which was assented to on the day after presentation. So I do not think Senator Murphy’s claims in this connection have been substantiated. There have been delays in respect of the Northern Territory, but my information is that there have been no delays in the sense that the honorable senator mentioned. There is no reason to allow three months for an action that can be taken straight away. No request for change has been made from the Territory.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clauses 8 and 9 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 10. (1.) Sections 61 and 62 of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections inserted in their stead - “ 62a. - (1.) The judges of the Supreme Court or a majority of them may make Rules of Court, not inconsistent with this Act, with respect to the practice and procedure of and in the Supreme Court. “ (8.) If a disallowed Rule of Court or part of a Rule of Court amended or repealed a Rule of Court in force immediately before the commencement of the disallowed Rule or part, the disallowance revives the previous Rule of Court on and from the date of publication of the notice of disallowance as if the disallowed Rule or part had not been made.

Senator MURPHY:
New South Wales

.- I move-

After sub-section (8.) of proposed section 62a insert the following sub-section: - “ (8a.) Where the Governor-General disallows any Rules of Court or part of any Rules, the Minister shall cause a statement of the reasons for the disallowance to be laid before each House of the Parliament as soon as possible, but in any case within fifteen sitting days of that House after the date of disallowance.”.

The reason for this amendment is that, when there is a disallowance of rules of court, the Parliament ought to be informed of the reasons for such disallowance. Under the amendment, each House of the Parliament has to be given such reasons within at least 15 days of the first sitting of that House after the date of disallowance. This is a matter of supervision by the Houses of the Parliament of the actions of the Government in relation to the disallowance of rules of court.

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

– Disallowance of rules of court made by judges is most unlikely. Certainly, if such action were taken, there would be clear reasons for the action, which the Minister would most certainly make known. The amendment is designed to require that the reasons be made public or tabled in this Parliament. The proposal does not really add very much to what is likely to happen in practice, in any case. For that reason, the Government is prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 13 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator McKellar) read a third time.

page 1614

STATES GRANTS (RESEARCH) BILL 1966

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27th October (vide page15 10), on motion by Senator Gorton -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WILLESEE:
Leader of the Opposition · Western Australia

– This is a small Bill. It makes some alterations to the States Grants (Research) Act. Where, under the existing Act, a payment is for research to be carried out in a State university, the Australian Government’s contribution is conditional upon an equal matching contribution by the State. The purpose of this Bill is to allow some flexibility in this matter. The flexibility is required because not all States may share with the Australian Government in sup porting grants recommended by the Australian Research Grants Committee for projects in State universities. The evidence provided by the Government is that this change has become necessary after the brief period of operation of the States Grants Research Act. The Opposition supports this Bill. If it does something for education, if it provides flexibility in order to help people to be better educated, of course the Australian Labour Party is not against it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1614

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL (No. 2) 1966

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1604).

Senator WILLESEE:
Leader of the Opposition · Western Australia

– The Opposition does not oppose this Bill. It is designed to make it possible for married women to stay on in the Commonwealth Public Service and to receive the benefits for which officers of the Service are eligible. I note that the Minister for Works (Senator Gorton), in his second reading speech, said that because of the strain on the draftsmen the Government was unable to amend the Public Service Act as fully as it would have liked, but that this Bill contained all the components that were necessary to achieve the purpose that I have just mentioned. The only comment that I make on that is that it is some time since the Government made up its mind to make this alteration to the Public Service Act. It seems that once again the Government has been caught up in this matter of draftsmanship. It would appear to me that it would have been possible for the draftsmen to start dealing with this matter some time ago.

Some very interesting points arise from this Bill. They will have to be watched carefully by the Public Service Board and finally reported on to the Government. Before I discuss the Bill in detail, I wish to refer to one matter on which the Minister may wish to comment. I notice that the Minister is very vehement in saying -

Now, it must not be thought that when the Bill becomes law married women will for the first time be eligible for employment in the Commonwealth Public Service. Nothing could be further from the truth. Married women are employed in the Public Service now. In fact they presently comprise about one-third of all temporary female employees.

The Minister has given that figure, but he does not say where these people are employed. 1 assume that by “ married women “ he does not mean widows. It is surprising to me that the figure is so high. The point is not important but if the Minister has any comment to make on the matter I would like to hear it.

Later in his speech, the Minister said - . . it is rather difficult to predict the sorts of problems that could be presented were permanent officers employed in some sectors.

Some unusual problems will arise. Let me give, as an example, the case of a husband and wife who are working in the Public Service. The husband is transferred or promoted to a position in a distant State. Normally, this would not cause any strain on the household. The family would pack up and go to a new address. But with the provisions of this Bill the situation would arise that if no suitable job was available in the distant State to which the wife could be transferred - I am not suggesting that a job should be created for her - she would face two alternatives. Either she would remain behind or she would resign from the Public Service. Such a situation could produce marital stress. It would throw stress also on the Government in relation to eligibility for long service leave and also the marriage allowance.

In his second reading speech the Minister referred to the question of odd hours of duty. He said -

I am thinking of areas of employment such as those where odd hours of duty or conditions of service apply, which might result in special problems for the employment of married women.

The Government will have to watch this matter very closely to ensure that stress is not thrown on other sections of the staff. This includes even those people who are welcoming the recognition of married women as permanent officers of the Public Service. We on this side of the Senate have always been interested in the question of equal pay for work of equal value; but on the matter of odd hours of duty the Government will have to watch carefully that no other officers take over the duties that would normally be performed by the officer if that officer were not a married woman. I am not raising these matters as stumbling blocks. 1 underline them as being teething troubles, as it were, that will need to be watched during the early stages of the operation of the new arrangement.

I notice in relation to absence relating to childbirth that the Minister said -

The Government proposes that any officer who is to have a child shall absent herself from duty for a minimum period of 12 weeks. Provision is contained in the Bill for an absence of up to six months, al the option of the officer.

An absence of six months is the minimum period laid down by the International Labour Organisation. I would have thought that in a country such as ours the Government could provide more than the minimum proposed by the I.L.O. in relation to this matter. The Bill provides that when a married woman lakes time off to have a baby, she can take a period of absence of up to six months. She has the right to decide whether she will use any sick leave, recreation leave or furlough entitlements that she may have to cover her absence or some of it. Otherwise, her absence will be without pay. This provision seems to me to extend a principle that has a vital application. At no stage in the history of the Public Service have sick leave provisions been allowable for use as credits, although 17 years or 18 years ago sick leave entitlements were allowed to be used in relation to compensation. But there was a special relationship in that case. Injury had been suffered. If the compensations credits were cutting out and hardship was being caused to a family, the injured public servant was allowed to use the sick leave credits that he had built up. But what may be termed the cashing of these credits has always been resisted. The provision in the Bill in this regard gives wide latitude concerning this matter. We are not opposing the provision. We merely point out that a married woman who has absented herself from duty for the birth of a child can take this time off without pay or receive pay by converting sick leave, recreation leave or furlough entitlements.

I have one further query on this point. What if a woman in certain circumstances wishes to remain off duty for a longer period than six months? The relationship between mother and child in the early stages of rearing the child is an indefinable sort of thing. I wonder whether the Public Service feels that a situation such as this can be covered by leave without pay. lt would be pretty difficult to classify this extended absence under sick leave, lt would be tough to ask a doctor to certify that the continued absence was due to sickness. It is not a question of sickness. It is a question of the relationship between mother and child. The mother’s instinct will tell her whether her child should be left by her in daytime. Therefore, I query whether the provision of absence for up to six months is long enough. 1 ask the Government to note this matter and to watch the development in this respect, as experience is gained. A woman could easily find herself in the situation where her Department said: “ Your six months’ leave of absence is up. lt is time you came back to work.” The woman would not be sick, but instinctively she would know that she should not return to work and leave her child. But in remaining at home she would be running up against the provisions of this Bill and also offending her Department.

In Committee the Opposition will move for the deletion of proposed new section 54c (1.) (b). The amendment, if adopted will have the effect of retaining the marriage allowance that is available to women employed in the Public Service today. As honorable senators will be aware the Bill provides that those women who are now in the employment of the Public Service or who have contractual arrangements with the Public Service will receive a marriage allowance payment should they resign from the Public Service in order to get married. This payment is equivalent to the amount of furlough entitlements due to them. The marriage allowance will be maintained for women already in the Public Service, but it will not apply to women who remain in the Public Service and get married after this Bill becomes law. What the Government is saying in essence is this: “ We are going to allow you to remain in the Service after you are married if you wish to do so. Before this legislation came into operation, you would have to forfeit the office you held at the time of your marriage. You will now be allowed to continue your employment. We shall give you time off for the birth of your children. We are giving you other provisions. But we will not continue the payment of this marriage allowance.”

In his speech, the Minister points out -

Incidentally, experience in countries with similar social attitudes to our own suggests that the majority of women terminate their employment when they are to have children. It is not anticipated that a different situation will prevail here.

The Minister is speaking in a different context. The Opposition considers (hat if, in fact, marriage results in a number of resignations from the Public Service, (he marriage allowance should be paid. We feel that when a woman decides to get married she should have the right to say: “ 1 wish to be dealt with under the old provisions. 1 wish to follow the old-fashioned pattern that existed before this legislation and leave the Public Service when I become a housewife. I want to receive the marriage allowance.” The Opposition believes that this payment should be maintained. If the Government wishes to select a point of time or place a time limit in relation to the payment of this allowance, we will not object. We feel that the withdrawal of this allowance is unnecessary and niggardly, as it has applied for so many years and especially as it will continue to apply in respect of women who are already in the Public Service.

As I have already intimated, in Committee the Opposition will move in this respect for the deletion of proposed new section 54c(l.)(b). This will mean that the marriage allowance will be continued and that women who join the Public Service after the date on which this legislation becomes law will receive the marriage allowance if they decide to resign from the Public Service in order to marry. Except for the matters that I have mentioned, the Opposition has no objection to the Bill.

Senator WEDGWOOD:
Victoria

– 1 do not desire to delay the passage of the Public Service Bill (No. 2) 1966 at this time. However, I would like to say this: I thought that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Willesee) made extremely hard work of his attempt to damn this legislation with faint praise. In the first place, he tried - unsuccessfully I thought - to deal with the question of permanent service. He then referred to the matter of equal pay for work of equal value and said that the members of the Opposition were concerned with this matter. I admit that they are. But I say also that members on this side of the chamber are interested in equal pay for equal work. What we are concerned with further is the method by which this will be achieved. I would have thought that permanent service was an ingredient in the whole claim of equal pay for work of equal value. If we contend, as I do, that women should receive equal pay for equal work, I think we would consider that it would be for work of a continuing nature.

I turn now to two statements made by the Minister. He said -

This Bill should have the approval of the Parliament. Judged by public responses to date, it will have the endorsement of the community at large, and certainly that of the various women’s organisations. The Bill removes an element of discrimination against one section of our work force, or potential work force - an element derived from social attitudes of another era.

I repeat what I have said in this chamber on u number of occasions in speaking on the question of the removal of the marriage bar inside the Public Service, lt has taken the Government a long time to arrive at this decision. Australia is one of the last countries in the world to retain a marriage bar in its Public Service legislation. It was written into the Act in 1922, replacing a similar section of the 1902 Act.

In 1958 the Boyer report was presented to the former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, recommending the repeal of seclion 49, which is provided for in this legislation. Eight years after the presentation of the report, the Government has recognised that there has been discrimination against women in the Public Service and that this discrimination has derived from social attitudes of another era. As a matter of fact, the Boyer report referred to the anachronistic provisions of the Public Service Act.

Briefly, the legislation will do three things, all of which I consider to be most desirable. It means that women will be able to retain their positions in the Public Service after marriage. This will be of benefit to some women - perhaps not to a great number of women - but to the women who desire to carry on their careers. It will be exceptionally beneficial to the professional women who, instead of having to resign and perhaps accept a position in another area of work altogether, will be entitled now to carry on their professional work. By this change, the Public Service and the nation will have the benefit of their professional training and ability.

Senator Gair:

– The women will benefit and the children will suffer.

Senator WEDGWOOD:

– Some women may not have children. I said that it might apply to only a few women. There are women in the community who do not have children and they will be enabled to carry on until they desire to retire. I am not suggesting for one moment - I never have and never will - that a woman’s first responsibility is .not to her family, particularly a young family. Experience has shown that some women are forced by circumstances to retain employment or seek employment while having young children. There are circumstances where women are classed as married women although their husbands have deserted them, lt has become necessary for them to become the bread winners.

The second benefit is that married women will be eligible for appointment to the Public Service. In the past it has not been possible for the Public Service to recruit married women. Again, here is a situation where women without families, women whose children have not the same need for care and attention, and who have particularly good qualifications will be entitled to permanent positions in the Commonwealth Public Service. In the past they have been debarred from entering the Service, despite the great shortage in it of highly qualified people.

The third benefit to flow from the legislation is that married women who leave the Public Service on marriage or after marriage can be re-admitted to permanent positions in the Public Service, subject to certain conditions. 1 think this is a great breakthrough. Today, more young women are being educated in our universities. We have paid tribute to the great extension in university services provided by this Government. At present, we are encouraging girls to complete their education in universities and colleges of higher education, and it would be a waste to continue debarring them from giving their services to the nation through the Commonwealth Public Service.

Senator Gair:

– Even at the expense of our birthrate.

Senator WEDGWOOD:

– I think the honorable senator is talking about two entirely different matters. No one is suggesting for one moment that women should go out of their homes and leave their children, or should not have children. 1 would be the last one in the world to suggest that. However, I think the arbitrary bars on the employment of married women in the Public Service have been most unjust.

Senator Willessee referred to confinement leave. This legislation provides for a minimum of 12 weeks to 6 months at the option of the officer. Although this is a new provision in respect of permanent officers, confinement leave has been in force for temporary women employees in the Public Service. This point was highlighted in the Boyer report. After all, we are simply extending a provision to permanent officers that has applied over the years to temporary employees. The provision for superannuation naturally follows this Bill. Again may I say that I think the Government is to be congratulated on having taken this step at last. Certainly, it is 20 years behind the United Kingdom Civil Service. Nevertheless, action is now being taken.

I congratulate the Minister. 1 think this legislation is evidence of the fact that we are getting to a period in Australia’s history when men are prepared to accept the fact that qualified women are entitled to the same remuneration and to the same set of conditions as qualified men. I therefore support the Bill.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– Whilst I do not oppose the Bill, I think much more could have been accomplished for the female members of the Public Service if the Government, instead of introducing this measure, had agreed to the proposal we advanced recently for equal pay. It seems to me to be rather ironical that fulsome praise should have been lavished on women in the Public Service and that their achievements and ability should have been acknowledged. It seems that women are entitled to everything but equal pay. All this talk about the manner in which this legislation will benefit female members of the Public Service is rather ironical. I doubt whether a very big proportion of women in the Public Service will take advantage of the legislation. I think that most women who leave to get married have the maternal instinct; they wish to make a home and have children. A home in which the mother goes out to work is not a complete entity. In saying that I hops I shall not be regarded as being a traitor to the feminist cause. I have never believed in the feminist cause as such.

Senator Henty:

– The honorable senator gets the same pay as male senators.

Senator TANGNEY:

– I believe in equal pay for equal work. That is common justice. I believe that other people should get equal pay, too. I repeat that a great deal more could have been done for female employees in the Public Service if the Government had accepted the Opposition’s proposal in regard to equal pay. 1 hope I am right in suggesting that not a great number of women will want to take advantage of this legislation. I have worked in schools and have seen the difficulties that crop up in the lives of young children when their mothers are forced, by economic circumstances, to go out to work.

Senator Gair:

– There would be fewer difficulties if the Government doubled child endowment.

Senator TANGNEY:

– Exactly, if the Government took more interest in family allowances and so forth, it would help to solve many of the social problems that 1 have mentioned several times in this place in recent weeks. I am certain that, if we investigated social problems, we would find that many of them are the result of a lack of parental control when children come home from school. I am not a great believer in what this Bill seeks to do. I think that the men should be the breadwinners. If women are widows, that is a different matter altogether. It is rather hypocritical of honorable senators to lavish praise on female workers in the Public Service but to refuse to go all the way with equal pay.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

Clauses 1 to 4 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 5.

After Division 5 of PartIII. of the Principal Act the following Division is inserted -

Division 5a. - Special Provisions Relating to Female Officers. “54a. - (1.) Except as otherwise provided by this Act - “ 54c. - (1 . ) Where a female officer -

  1. has continued in the Commonwealth Service for not less than five years but less than fifteen years;
  2. wasan officer immediately before the commencement of this section and has continued to be an officer since that commencement; there is payable to her -
  3. where the period of her service is not less than five years but is less than eight years - an amount equal to her salary for one month;
Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I move -

In proposed new section 54c (I.), omit paragraph (b).

This provision implies a discrimination between two groups of workers within the Public Service. Under this provision, if a woman who has worked for less than five years in the Public Service decides to get married or to leave the Service, she will not be entitled to the payment prescribed in the proposed section. On the other hand, those who enter the Service in the future, who marry after completing five years service and who return for a further period in the Service will enjoy the privilege to which 1 have referred. It seems to me to be a bit niggardly on the part of the Government to draw this distinction when it claims that it is doing so much for female members of the Public Service. I believe that the deletion of paragraph (b) would correct the position.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · Victoria · LP

– The Government cannot accept the amendment. The effect of the amendment would be to give to women who join the Public Service in the future, in addition to the right to continue working in the Service after marriage, the right to a marriage allowance as well. Provision for the payment of a marriage allowance was included in past legislation because a woman who married had to retire from the Public Service. Because of that bar to employment and because it could be said that service leave was due to her, it was decided that she should be given a marriage allowance. That allowance was worked out roughly on the basis of the service leave to which she would have been entitled. But that provision will not apply in the future, because it will not be necessary for such a person to retire when she marries. She will be in the same position as all other members of the Public Service, both male and female. There seems to be no reason why that person should be singled out to be given a marriage allowance. If we applied the principle that Senator Tangney is so eager to apply, there would not be a marriage allowance for anybody in the Public Service.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreedto.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Gorton) read a third time.

page 1619

SUPERANNUATION BILL (No. 2) 1966

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1606).

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– The Bill before the Senate, which makes provision for married women to contribute to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund, is closely related and is complementary to the Public Service Bill (No. 2) 1966 which the Senate has just passed. The Bill makes provision for the complete integration of married women into the Public Service. That is a long sought achievement. We on this side of the chamber give the Bill our full support.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1619

DEFENCE (PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATES) BILL 1966

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20th October (vide page 1293), on motion by Senator Gorton -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– The purpose of this Bill is to permit national service trainees to be relieved of their training in order that they they may contest, if they so desire, an election for the House of Representatives or the Senate. The first criticism which the Opposition offers of the Government’s action concerns the delay in introducing this Bill. In OUr democracy, every citizen has the elementary right not only to vote for the governing body but also to stand for election as a member of that governing body. There is a Prime Minister’s portfolio in every birth certificate. The Constitution provides that we cannot stand for Parliament if we are in a position of profit or gain under the Crown. That is understandable, lt prevents any corruption that might take place. Generally, appointment by the Crown is as a result of a civil contract. A person contracts out. of thai contract for the purpose of gaining parliamentary office. Generally a contract is for a period of years, and if a request is made to terminate the contract in order that a person may stand for election to Parliament, the legislation provides that a person can terminate that contract at the time of the election. This would apply in the case of a member of the Armed Forces.

We introduced a National Service Act which made it compulsory for men of a certain age group to undergo national service training. When we introduced that Act which called upon certain men to undergo national service training, we denied them the right, which is elementary in our community, to stand for Parliament. Between the time of the implementation of the National Service Act and this Bill becoming law, national service trainees have not had the right to stand for election to either the House of Representatives or the Senate. Had a by-election occurred during that period and they had desired to stand for Parliament, they would have not had the right to do so. If a vacancy had occurred, as it did last week in the Senate, and it had been the desire of the party which was replacing a senator to recommend the appointment of one of its members who was undergoing national service training, it would not have been able to do so because there was no legislation such as that which we are considering today. So until this Bill becomes law, we have taken away from these men undergoing national service training the right to stand for Parliament. I do not know whether or not that deprivation affected the filling of the recent vacancy in the Senate.

It is evident that the Government has denied national service trainees who desire to stand for Parliament the right to stand at the election on 26th November. First, they have no right to stand until this Bill becomes law, and secondly, they have lost any right to seek party endorsement because the parties have endorsed their candidates for the various electorates. National service trainees will not be able to seek party endorsement. They will be able to stand only as independents. Before they are able to stand for Parliament as independent candidates, they must comply with certain conditions. But time will not enable them to comply with those conditions, unless there is very hurried action on this question. I suggest to the Minister for Works (Senator Gorton) that some publicity should be given immediately to the entitlement of national service trainees to stand for election.

Nominations close on 7th November. This is the end of October. So if we disregard the forthcoming week-end, there is a period of seven or eight days in which national service trainees who are as far away as Vietnam and who desire to contest the forthcoming ‘ election can comply with the conditions laid down. Before they can contest the election they must have on the nomination paper the signatures of six persons entitled to vote at the election. Possibly they may be required to have signatures of people within the electorate which they intend to contest. They have to arrange for the necessary deposit to be paid. If they know that they are entitled to stand - and they have not had the entitlement up to the present time - there are 101 things that they have to do before nominations close on 7th November. Amongst other things, they have to get the approval of the Military Board, but the Board would consider an application only after it had been made. I do not know what application forms they have to complete. Clause 1 1 of the Bill provides -

The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act, prescribing all matters necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to this Act. 1 presume that at some time the GovernorGeneral, by regulation, will prescribe the necessary application form, but the regulation cannot be given effect until it is gazetted. Because of. the lateness of this legislation coming before the Parliament, unless national service trainees have the machinery already in hand the procedure will prevent them from nominating for the forthcoming election.

Having criticised the delay in introducing the legislation, 1 submit that if we by an act of this Parliament have denied someone the democratic right to stand for Parliament, that restriction should be removed. The other remarks that I desire to make on the Bill cun be made at the Committee stage. In Committee, we will move amendments to clauses 4 and 5 but it will save time if further criticism of the Bill by the Opposition is expressed at the second reading stage. On this occasion it is difficult to express these criticisms fully, but possibly there will be future occasions when the Opposition’s views can be put.

We want to ensure that national service trainees will have the right to stand for election to Parliament, and that no legislation will deprive them of that right. Clause 4 of the Bill sets out the procedures that must bc followed by a national service officer before he cun stand for election. It is provided that he must make application to the Military Board to be transferred to the Regular Army Reserve and must satisfy the Military Board that he intends, if transferred, to become a candidate for election as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives at a particular election or particular general elections. Clause 5 refers to the discharge of a national serviceman from the military forces. This is necessary if he is to stand for election. It states that u national serviceman must make application to the Military Board to be discharged and he also must satisfy the Board (hat if discharged, he intends to become a candidate for election as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives at a particular election or particular general elections.

If we consider these provisions, it is evident that a national serviceman must, first, make an application, and, secondly, he must satisfy the Military Board. In the debate in the House of Representatives, there was criticism of the need for a serviceman to satisfy the Military Board, which 1 believe has as its Chairman the Minister for the Army, lt was suggested that the Board could act capriciously or could be influenced by the political activities of the applicant. I make no suggestion that the Board would not take a reasonable view of a case. But the onus is to be on the applicant to show that he intends to stand for election to the Parliament. A statutory declaration to that effect is not sufficient.

This requirement to satisfy the Military Board leaves the way wide open for the Board to justify rejection of an application by saying that the applicant has not satisfied it of his intentions. As we know, mistakes can be made. In England recently an investigation showed there was some doubt whether in fact a man was guilty of a crime for which he had been hanged. Often a person fails to satisfy a tribunal of his intentions although he is genuine. In this case, if the Military Board is not impressed with the attitude of an applicant and has some doubts about him, the Board may decide that he has failed to satisfy it. He might be genuine in his intentions, but if he fails to satisfy the Board his application can be rejected under the terms of this Bill.

We do not require any other citizen to satisfy anybody about his intentions before he becomes eligible to stand for election to the Parliament. If any other person wants to stand for election, he stands and does not have to satisfy a board. The Bill states further that if an applicant satisfies the Military Board, the Board “ may “ authorise his discharge from the Military Forces from a date fixed by the Board. Even if the Board is satisfied, it is not mandatory on it to discharge the national serviceman. Again, whether he stands for election to the Parliament is in the hands of the Military Board.

During the debate in another place, the Minister in charge of the Bill was quite definite that the Government’s wishes are in line with those of the Opposition - that no person who desires to stand for election shall be barred from doing so if he has the required qualifications under the Electoral Act. He questioned whether the word “ may “ implies that action by the Board is not mandatory. There have been many legal arguments on this question. Under some legislation, it is assumed that the word “ may “ puts an obligation on an authority to act in accordance with the legislation. We should have a thorough look at this Bill to ascertain what the intention is in this respect. The attention of the Draftsman was drawn specifically to the distinction between the words “ shall “ and “ may “. In clause 5 it is stated that where a national serviceman makes application to the Military Board - the Military Board may authorise his dis charge . . .

But clause 4 (2.) states -

The appointment of an officer who has been transferred underthe last preceding sub section shall, by force of this sub-section, be deemed to be an appointment that is for a period of service in the Regular Army Reserve. . . .

Senator Wright:

– A better example is to be found in clause 6.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Clause 6 provides -

Where a person is transferred to the Regular Army Reserve under section 4 of this Act or is discharged from the Military Forces under the last preceding section, the Military Boar d shall, if the person so requests, arrange for the person to travel, at the expense of the Commonwealth, from the place where he is when so transferred or discharged to the place at which he resided. . . .

Senator Gorton:

– I do not know whether it would help Senator Cavanagh’s argument if I indicated that I know of nobody who would say that the word “ may “ is mandatory.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– That makes it unnecessary for me to go any further with that point. On the statement of the Minister, it is not mandatory for the Military Board to grant a discharge so that a national serviceman may contest elections, even though the serviceman has satisfied the Board that be intends on his discharge to stand for election. We say the requirement to satisfy the Board is unfair and should not be there. But when he has met the requirements, and there is no doubt that he wants to stand for election, the position is that the Board may grant him a discharge.

If discharge is not made mandatory, there must be some intention to use a discretion and the Board in certain circumstances would not grant a man his discharge to stand for election. This would be denying a person over the age of 21 years his elementary democratic right to stand for election to the Parliament of the country. We are leaving it to an outside authority to decide that a man cannot stand for election. The Opposition thinks that it is wrong. The serviceman having satisfied the Military Board that it is his intention to stand for election, it should be the responsibility of the authorities to release him in order to permit him to become a candidate. No question at all should arise as to whether they may or may not give him a release for the purpose of enabling him to stand for Parliament.

I want to refer to two other matters. In Committee I shall propose amendments to Clauses 4 and 5. If a serviceman stands for election and is unsuccessful, there is an obligation on him to complete his period of service. He may be called up again. We cannot offer much objection to mat requirement. If the position were otherwise, a trainee who wanted to dodge his obligations could stand for election in order to terminate his service in the Military Forces. Clause 7 contains provision for a serviceman to be called up again to complete his training if he fails to be nominated in the election or general elections in respect of which he was discharged, or if he fails to be elected in those elections. If he does not nominate, he must complete his training. If he nominates and fails to be elected, he cannot dodge his obligations. This is in order to meet the case of a person who makes an application that is not bona fide, in an effort to get out of the Services. The fact that a serviceman has paid the necessary deposit and even lost it is not justification for his escaping service. If a person, having been successful in an election or in general elections as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives, subsequently ceases to be a senator or a member, he may be called up again for service. Ishould think that, having reached the stage of being elected, he could not be saidto have made a frivolous application for discharge in order to become a candidate. After serving a period in the Parliament - it could be six years as a senator - he would still be under an obligation to return to national service.

Senator Gorton:

– No. Liability to call up finishes at age 26 under the Act, and he would be past the age.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– To be frank, I could not find a reference to that position in the Act. I read the provision relating to obligation to register. Possibly I could look up the provision in the National Service Act before the Committee stage. However this does not get over the position of a man who has served in the Parliament for a period of three years, or for a lesser period as a result of having been successful in a by-election, who would be liable to be called up to complete the service that he had commenced before his election. Clause 9 gives to servicemen who are elected to the Parliament the protection of the Defence (Re-establishment) Act in relation to reemployment. After a serviceman completes his term in the Services he will have rights under that Act although he has been a politician for a period. I suggest that some explanation is needed as to whether obligation to complete service and obligations of former employers are terminated upon election to the Parliament. The obligation of the previous employer should not cease at the time a serviceman is elected to the Parliament and becomes a politician, no matter for what period. He should still retain rights under this legislation if he is called back to the Service after his election to the Parliament.

Senator Wright:

– What distinction does the honorable senator draw between Federal and State parliamentary elections?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I regard this legislation as applying only to Federal elections.

Senator Wright:

– It does.

Senator CAVANAGH__ The honorable senator brings up an important point. I was thinking only of Federal elections. I believe that the constitutions or other relevant laws of the States do not permit a person holding an office of profit under the Crown - State or Commonwealth - to stand for election to Parliament. I think that national servicemen would lose their democratic rights to stand for election to State Parliaments, but we would need to look at State legislation to see whether this bar existed. Speaking from memory, I believe that a person working for the Crown in a Federal jurisdiction is unable to stand for election to the South Australian

Parliament. If that is so it is for the Commonwealth Government to give relief from this bar so far as it is brought about by this Parliament’s legislation in relation to national service.

Senator Wright:

– It is the office of profit which would require discharge, but it is the actual fact of service that prevents one from standing for a parliamentary election.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I was under the impression that the difficulty existed under section 44 of the Constitution, which prevented one from standing if he held an office of profit under the Crown.

Senator Wright:

– But, also, the obligation of service under the National Service Act to attend a parade tomorrow morning instead of going out onto the hustings precludes effective electioneering.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– It precludes effective electioneering. I agree with that. I should like some information as to whether a serviceman is, because of his service, precluded from standing for a State Parliament.

Senator Gair:

– He is required to resign.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– He cannot resign from the services after a compulsory call-up; that is the whole position. I think we are indebted to Senator Wright. He has pointed out that while we are protecting the right to stand for election to the Commonwealth Parliament we have not extended it to State Parliaments. Perhaps the Minister could tell us the position in regard to that. A need may be shown for drastic alteration of the legislation to cover the position in relation to State Parliaments.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · Victoria · LP

– in reply - Senator Cavanagh covered a number of points to which I shall endeavour to advert as 1 go along. I do not believe that there is any substance in the criticism that there has been delay in bringing down this legislation. Particularly, I suggest that the Senate should not believe that this has had the effect of preventing a national serviceman who wishes to do so from standing for election to either the Senate or the House of Representatives at the coming elections. It is true that until this Bill becomes law there is no way in which a national serviceman can stand for election to either House. lt is also true that it has been known and publicly announced since 29th September that this law was to be introduced and that national servicemen were to be given the opportunity, not the right, to stand for election to either the Senate or the House of Representatives. So during that period there has been ample time for a prospective candidate to meet the requirements that Senator Cavanagh listed - obtaining a nomination form, saving up the deposit required or whatever might have to be done. These preliminaries have been open to anyone who wished to become a candidate at a Federal or State election. If. having gone through those preliminaries, he does not become a candidate for some reason he will not have suffered any loss other than the trouble of collecting signatures on the nomination form or having money in the bank which otherwise would have been spent with the nomination. 1 think 1 should mention one point. Senator Cavanagh spoke of the right of alt citizens to stand for election to the Senate or the House of Representatives. In fact, there is .no such right and there has nol been any such right applying to all citizens of Australia. This is because, as Senator Cavanagh pointed out, there is a constitutional disqualification of anyone who holds an office of profit under the Crown standing for election. The constitutional provision has been that anyone who holds an office of profit under the Crown is disqualified. Whereas it has been possible for some people who hold an office of profit under the Crown, such as a person in the Public Service, to resign and therefore not have an office of profit, the opportunity has not been available as of right to any member of the permanent armed forces of Australia to resign to contest an election. In the case of the permanent armed forces there has been a provision which enables a Service to discharge a man at its discretion if he seeks a discharge for the purpose of standing for election to the Senate or the House of Representatives.

Senator Tangney:

– There is no question of leave for that purpose?

Senator GORTON:

– No question at all. It is precluded, I gather, by the constitu tional provisions. Nevertheless, in the case of the permanent forces there was not the right but the chance to resign and there and then to have the right to stand for election. Until this Bill came along no such right was applicable to national servicemen. They were not able legally to obtain a discharge, so that they would cease to have an office of profit under the Crown, and stand for election. This Bill makes it possible for a national serviceman to be discharged, lt makes possible what previously was impossible. The national serviceman, therefore, has the same opportunities as are provided for all other servicemen wilh some variations, such as a liability to be recalled to complete his term of service whereas, as the law stands at present, a member of the permanent forces once discharged is discharged for good. However, I do not think we need go into that at this stage.

Senator Cavanagh also adverted to the use of the word “ may “ and said that a national serviceman was required to convince the Military Board that he was or was about to be, a bona fide candidate and in those circumstances the Military Board may discharge him. There is no doubt in my mind that there is no compulsion on the Military Board. If the Bill stated “the Military Board shall “ then it would be legally impossible for the Board not to discharge the national serviceman in any circumstances that may arise. In my view Senator Cavanagh is correct in stating that according to this provision the Military Board, provided it is satisfied that the man concerned is a bona fide candidate, may discharge him but that gives the Military Board a discretion. I believe the honorable senator was quite right in putting forward that proposition. It is the Government’s intention that national servicemen who are bona fide candidates should be discharged, but there is a variety of conditions applicable to the armed Services at different times and we will not make it absolutely mandatory on the Board that it should do this, in all circumstances, at all times, for the future. That may be the subject of disagreement but I think the points of disagreement are clear.

The honorable senator mentioned the conditions under which national servicemen, having been discharged for the purpose of contesting an election, may be called back to complete their term of service. Senator Cavanagh agrees it is reasonable that any national serviceman should be called back if he does not nominate because clearly he was not a bona fide candidate. But if he contests an election and fails to win he can be called back. Otherwise the Bill would say to a national serviceman prior to a Federal election: “ You can get a discharge but you do not have to win the seat. Your discharge can be obtained simply by standing for Parliament.” The honorable senator is worried for reasons not quite clear to me. He suggests it may be wrong for a national serviceman who has been discharged and elected to be called back to complete his period of service if he ceases to be a member of the House to which he was elected. As I have pointed out no lengthy period is involved. A man has to be 21 years of age before he can be elected and at 26 be ceases to be liable for national service.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I would dispute that under the terms of section 25of the Act.

Senator GORTON:

– Perhaps in the Committee stage the honorable senator can indicate the grounds of his dispute. What I have stated is in accordance with the Act as I understand it and I shall be glad to hear the honorable senator’s argument that it is not. The provision in question seems to me to be reasonable and necessary. Conceivably there could be motives for ceasing to do national service - becoming elected to a House of Parliament, having an opportunity of another job at a higher salary and retiring from the Parliament after a week or two and so on. If this were the case the objective of discharging a national serviceman so that he could do a job in the Parliament would not have been met. That is why provision has been made for a national serviceman to be recalled. Again, I am not quite clear as to what precisely is worrying Senator Cavanagh in relation to clause 9 (2.) of the Bill. Not being quite clear I shall leave it to him to advert to it further in the Committee stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 4. (1.) Where a national service officer -

  1. makes application to the Military Board to be transferred to the Regular Army Reserve; and
  2. satisfies the Military Board that he intends, if transferred to the Regular Army Reserve, to become a candidate for election as a Senator or as a Member of the House of Representatives at a particular election or particular general elections, the Military Board may transfer the officer to the Regular Army Reserve for a period of service ending on the date on which the period of ser vice, or the last of the periods of service, specified in his instrument of appointment ends.
Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

.- I move-

In sub-clause (1.), omit “ may “, insert “ shall “.

  1. move this amendment for the reasons that I stated in my contribution to the second reading debate. The interpretation given by the Ministerin this place is somewhat different from that given by the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Snedden) in another place. There is no doubt in the Minister’s mind that the Military Board has a discretion as to whether it will grant a discharge. The Minister thinks that that discretion is justified because there might be occasions on which the Board would be justified in not granting a discharge.I say that it is wrong that the Board should have that power. It could make decisions on the basis of prejudice or for other reasons. If the previous behaviour of the member of the Service concerned was not to the satisfaction of the Board, that might influence its decision somewhat.

Despite what the Minister says, I still claim that anyone in the community has the democratic right to stand for Parliament. Although the Constitution contains some restrictions, this Parliament has done everything possible to relieve a person of an obligation which, under the Constitution, would prevent him standing for this or any other Parliament in Australia. Whilst an ordinary citizen has the right to stand, there is no such right for members of the Services. There may be some justification for that being the position in respect of volunteer members of the Services generally; but if the Government is able to conscript an aspiring politician who may be preselected and elected in the future and permits a board to say whether such a person may stand for election in a democracy, that situation is wrong and should be changed. Having agreed that the Military Board has a discretion in this matter, we seek to amend the Bill by taking that discretion from the Board. If an applicant has the other qualifications, such as age and citizenship, there should be no bar to his democratic right to stand for election.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · Victoria · LP

– The Government does not wish to accept this amendment. It asks the Committee not to accept the amendment, for the reasons that I have given. I do not propose to canvass this matter at great length. Senator Cavanagh may or may not be right when he says that everybody should have the right to stand for election. But he is undeniably wrong if he says that everybody has that right, because the right of a member of the Regular Army to stand for election is dependent upon a decision of the Military Board on whether it will discharge him in order to do so. He cannot be discharged as of right.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5.

Where a national serviceman -

  1. makes application to the Military Board to be discharged from the Military Forces; and
  2. satisfies the Military Board that he intends, if discharged from the Military Forces, to become a candidate for election as a Senator or as a Member of the House of Representatives at a particular election or particular general elections, the Military Board may authorize his discharge from the Military Forces as from a dated fixed by the Military Board.
Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

. -I move -

Omit “ may “, insert “ shall “.

I move this amendment for the reasons that I stated earlier. I cannot take the matter any further. I ask the Minister to consider the distinction between a man who volunteers for the Services and a man who is conscripted into the Services.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · Victoria · LP

– I merely reiterate what J said in the course of the second reading debate. Rightly or wrongly, this provision gives a discretion to the Military Board. We as a Government expect that national servicemen will be discharged when they have satisfied the Board that they are bona fide candidates, but we believe that in the future there might be circumstances in which it would be unwise for it to be absolutely statutory or mandatory for the Board to discharge an applicant.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 1 1 - by leave - taken together.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

. -I wish to comment further on points that I raised in the second reading debate. Clause 7 states - (1.) Where an officer who has been transferred tothe Regular Army Reserve under Section 4 of this Act -

  1. Failsto be nominated in the election or general elections having regard to which he was so transferred;
  2. fails to be elected in that election or those general elections; or
  3. having been elected in that election or those general elections as a Senator or as a Member of the House of Representatives, subsequently ceasesto be a Senator or a Member of the House of Representatives, the Military Board may, by notice in writing served on the officer, require him to make application, within a period specified in the notice, for transfer to the Regular Army Supplement.

If a national service trainee, having served a term in one of the Houses of Parliament, is defeated, he may be called up again to complete his service. Whether he was called up again could be influenced greatly by the attitude that he adopted while he was a member of the Parliament. If, while he was a member of the Parliament, he was very critical of the activities of the Military Board and if the Board thought it would penalise him to call him up, we cannot say what decision it would make. The Minister suggests that there is not much danger in this provision because a trainee’s obligation to serve is terminated when he reaches 26 years of age. Section 25 of the National Service Act states - (1.) A person who -

  1. is registered, or is required to register, under this Act;
  2. has attained the age of twenty years, or, in the case of a person registered under Section Sixteen of this Act, nineteen years;
  3. is not exempt from liability to render service under this Act; and
  4. has not attained the age of twenty-six years or, in the case of a person included in a prescribed class of persons, thirty years, is liable to render service as required by or under this Act. (2.) A person who has commenced to render service under this Act but who has not completed that service, is liable to complete the rendering of that service.

So a person, having commenced his service, is liable to complete his service at any age. He is subject to the will of the Military Board.

Clause 9 deals with re-establishment. I have no complaints about it; but it seems to me to be unfair that the employer of a person who is called up and then serves for a period in Parliament is under an obligation which I doubt would rest upon him under the terms of the Defence (Reestablishment) Act. This Bill, it seems to me, imposes an obligation to re-employ someone whose period away from his employment has been increased by virtue of his membership of this or another Parliament. If someone has leadership qualifications sufficient to enable him to be elected to Parliament, then, with his knowledge and capabilities, he should have the responsibility of deciding his future.

Senator GORTON (Victoria - Minister for Works, [12.59]. - I shall comment very quickly on one or two points. When a man reaches the age of 26 years he has no liability to serve. Section 25 of the National Service Act makes that perfectly clear. A national serviceman is discharged and enters civilian life. When he reaches 26 years of age, he is under no further obligation to serve. The part of clause 7 to which Senator Cavanagh referred does not alter that situation. I have noted the other points that he made.

Clauses agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Gorton) read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 1.2 to 2 p.m.

page 1627

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1966

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1602).

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

.- Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the title indicates, this Bill provides for the validation until 30th June 1967 of customs duties collected in pursuance of customs tariff proposals moved in another place since 16th August last. The Bill deals with changes arising out of the reports of the Tariff Board on a very wide range of items, and also the reports of the Special Advisory Authority. In particular the Bill deals with recommendations on industrial chemicals and synthetic resins. This subject was carefully investigated by the Tariff Board. The Government is deserving of criticism for not having presented this voluminous report to the Senate until the dying hours of the Parliament. After all, the report was given to the Government in April last. In my view a delay of six months is inordinate. It has prevented thorough investigation and research by members of the Opposition. The implications of this report can be very widespread in respect of many facets of Australian life.

On behalf of the Opposition in another place, an honorable member proposed that consideration of this matter should be deferred until the new session next year to allow a much more comprehensive debate to take place and a closer examination of the subject matter to be made. The amendment was defeated, but the responsible Minister has given the assurance that honorable senators will be given the opportunity to subject the matter to close scrutiny. In this regard, the Minister said -

Honorable senators will appreciate that long term legislation to enact the changes covered by the proposals cannot be introduced and debated before the end of the present session, hence the need for this validation Bill. Legislation to enact these proposals is intended to be introduced in the autumn session of the new Parliament, and the opportunity to debate them will then become available to honorable senators.

Validation of the collection of duties is provided to 30th June 1967. Although the Opposition is critical not only of some of the recommendations but also of the manner in which this matter has been presented because we have not had sufficient time thoroughly to study the report of the Tariff Board, the Opposition does not oppose the Bill.

Senator ANDERSON:
New South Wales Minister for Customs and Excise · LP

– in reply - I thank the Senate for giving the Bill a speedy passage. During the autumn session of the new Parliament, full opportunity will be given to honorable senators to discuss the proposals. The present procedure has been adopted because the Parliament will be prorogued.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1628

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 1078.)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

  1. Did the then Minister for Civil Aviation, in August1964, inform the Senate that the runways at Kingsford-Smith international airport would be completed in mid 1966 and that the terminal areawas scheduled to be finished in mid 1968?
  2. Did the Minister state on 25th October 1966, in answer to a question on notice, that the approximate date of completion of the terminal is about the middle of 1969?
  3. Why is the completion of the terminal being delayed for the extra year?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has replied as follows -

In August 1964 it was anticipated that the new international terminal at Sydney could be completed by about the middle of 1968. Site investigation, including deep borings,indicated more difficult foundations than expected. Furthermore, as the plans of the building itself were developed, it became apparent that the project should be increased in size to meet the very rapidly growing air traffic. It was brought to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works in July 1965with an expected completion date of about July 1969.

page 1628

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 1059.)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

  1. Has the Minister seen a report that intrastate airline operators in New South Wales, namely. Airlines of New South Wales and East West Airlines, have discontinued flights to Colla- renebri, Goodooga, Coolah, Lake Cargelligo and Temora?
  2. What reasons have been provided by the two airline companies for the termination of these services?
  3. Was the Commonwealth Government or the Department of Civil Aviation consulted before the termination of the services?
  4. Has the New South Wales Government approached the Commonwealth for a review to be made of airline operations in New South Wales? If so, what was the date on which such a request was received?
  5. In order that a review of air routes can be effected expeditiously will the Minister give an assurance that any request by the New South Wales Government to the Commonwealth will be considered immediately?
  6. Will the Minister also assure the Senate that in such a review he will insist there be no curtailment of existing services by the airline operators?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has supplied the following answers -

  1. Yes, I have noted the Press reports referred to by the honorable senator.
  2. Airlines of New South Wales stated that heavy financial losses in the operation of the air serviceto Collarenebri, Goodooga, Coolah and Burren Junction had caused the discontinuance of the service to these four places. East West Airlines, some two months ago, substituted Fokker Friendship aircraft for DC3’s on its “ Western “ services to Condobolin, West Wyalong, Lake Cargelligo and Temora. The aerodromes at both Lake Cargelligo and Temora are not suitable for operations by Fokker Friendship aircraft and the air service to these two ports was discontinued.However, East West Airlines has arranged for a car service to be provided between Lake Cargelligo and Condobolin on the one hand and also between Temora and West Wyalong to connect with air services through these ports.
  3. The Department of Civil Aviation was given prior notification of the termination of these air services. Officers of the Department of Civil Aviation consulted with managements of the two airlines concerned with a viewto determining ways of resuming air connections to the various centres involved. I am also aware that the New South Wales Minister for Transport was also in close consultation with the company on this subject. As a result of these representations the company has agreed to resume a twice weekly service commencing next Tuesday. Sydney-Coolah-Barren Junction-Goodooga.
  4. Yes. by letter dated 2nd September 1966.
  5. Yes, I have already writtento the New South Wales Minister for Transport, agreeing to a review of the position in New South Wales.
  6. Where an air service is clearly uneconomic I am afraid that it would not be possible for me to give the assurance sought. However, in such review, 1 will bear in mindthe sentiments expressed by the honorable senator in this regard.

page 1629

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 1070.)

Senator DITTMER:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that, during a recent incident involving a Viscount aircraft operated by Ansett- A.N.A., one engine caught fire and the fire was automatically put out, but that, after the aircraft landed, the other engine caught fire and the automatic fire extinguishing apparatus would not work?
  2. Is the Minister aware that many engineers consider that insufficient maintenance work is carried out on Viscount aircraft?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has furnished the following replies to the honorable senator’s ques- t ions -

  1. In flight between Launceston and Hobart on 15th October 1966, the port inboard engine of Viscount aircraft VH-RMP was shut down due to indications of minor fluctuations in its rotational speed. This was a precautionary action by the captain, and was in no way connected with a fire warning. After landing at Hobart and approximately five minutes after the engines had been stopped and the passengers had left the aircraft at the terminal building, a fire started inside the tailpipe of the starboard outer, number 4, engine. This fire was extinguished within a few minutes by the combined action of the flight crew, maintenance personnel and the airport fire services. The aircraft extinguishing system was fully serviceable and a bottle was discharged to number 4 engine nacelle by the captain whilst ground personnel were simultaneously attacking the flames with carbon dioxide extinguishers. The aircraft itself was not damaged. Number 4 engine was removed for a thorough technical investigation that is still proceeding. Whilst the cause of the fire has not yet been completely defined, the evidence clearly indicates that this fire was not of a type that could have occurred in flight.
  2. Officers of my Department responsible for the surveillance of aircraft maintenance ensure that all aircraft arc maintained to standards laid down by my Department. They have found no evidence that Viscount aircraft are not maintained to these standards or that the standards do not ensure a proper level of safety.

page 1629

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 1072.)

Senator HANNAFORD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the

Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the provisions of the Warsaw Convention of 1929 laid down that international and domestic airlines of the signatory nations arc required to accept a certain liability for damages in respect of loss of life resulting from air accidents?
  2. Is it also a fact that the more recent Hague Protocol to the Warsaw Convention considerably raised the airlines’ liability limit?
  3. In view of the reported dissatisfaction by the United States Civil Aviation authorities with this higher liability limit, which is in the vicinity of $A1 5,000, will the Minister make a statement on the adequacy of the amount now provided, particularly when compared with the very large damages repeatedly awarded by courts in cases relating to other forms of accident?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has replied as follows -

  1. The Warsaw Convention established rules as to the legal basis of liability of airlines in respect of the death of passengers in the course of international flights between the countries which are parties to the Convention. The Convention limited the liability of the carrier for each passenger to $A7,500, in round figures. The Convention has no application to ordinary domestic flights.
  2. The Hague Protocol of 1955 doubled the limit of liability for passengers on international flights, that is to approximately$A15,000. Part IV of the Commonwealth Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 and complementary State laws, except in New South Wales, applied substantially the same principles of liability with a limit of $A 15,000 to claims for loss of life of passengers in accidents to aircraft operated by the holders of airline licences of domestic services in Australia, except on intrastate flights in New South Wales operated by the private airlines.
  3. The position as to damages arising out of aircraft accidents under the Warsaw Convention and the Carriers’ Liability Acts is not comparable with the position in respect of claims arising from accidents in other forms of transport. In broad terms air carriers are absolutely liable without proof of negligence or fault on their part, whereas in motor car and railway cases it is necessary for the dependants of the passenger killed to establish that there has been negligence on the part of the carrier or his employees before any damages can be recovered. In the circumstances, the amount of $A1 5,000 as a limit of liability in air accidents is considered adequate for Australian conditions, particularly as the great majority of verdicts for damages in motor car cases do not exceed this figure. However the adequacy of the limits is kept under review.

page 1629

QUESTION

VIETNAM

(Question No. 1071.)

Senator CAVANAGH:

asked the Minis ter representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has the Prime Minister seen a report in the Sydney “Sun” of 18th October 1966, quoting an article in the “ United States News and World Report” that the Australian Prime Minister wants the United States to win a military victory in Vietnam and opposes a negotiated peace?
  2. Does this article truly express the views of the Prime Minister or the Government?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions -

  1. Yes, I have seen the report.
  2. No.

page 1630

QUESTION

VIETNAM

(Question No. 985.)

Senator GAIR:

asked the Minister repre senting the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that, in Adelaide on the evening of Friday, 9th September, two students, who were engaged in an anti-Vietnam demonstration in front of the United States Consulate, set fire to and destroyed an American flag?
  2. Does the Prime Minister know whether the South Australian State Government has made or intends to make an apology to the American Consul on behalf of the Australian community?
  3. Is it the accepted custom in such circumstances for the national government to make an apology also?
  4. Docs the Australian Government intend to make an apology to the United States Consul on behalf of the great majority of Australians who have been disturbed by this irresponsible and discourteous action directed against the official representative of a friendly country?
  5. Have the two students concerned in the flagburning incident been charged by the South Australian police, or does the Commonwealth Police Force intend to institute charges?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions -

  1. An attempt was made to burn a poorly painted replica of the United States flag. Reports indicate that some university students were present.
  2. The Premier of South Australia personally expressed regret to the United States Consul in South Australia concerning the incident.
  3. A national government might express its regrets, where a specific complaint was lodged and the premises, property or personnel of a mission wereaffected or injured. An apology would be appropriate if the offence were carried out by persons or bodies under direct control of that government.
  4. See 2 and 3 above.
  5. The persons concerned in the incident have not been charged with an offence under South Australian law. There is no existing Commonwealth law which creates an offence relating specifically to the defacing of national flags.

page 1630

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION) BILL 1966

In Committee.

Consideration resumed from 27th October (vide page 1507).

The Bill.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Gorton) read a third time.

page 1630

UNIVERSITIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1966

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 27th October (vide page 1509). on motion by Senator Gorton -

That the Bill be now read a second lime.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

The Bill.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

.- I ask the Minister in Charge of Commonwealth Activities in Education and Research (Senator Gorton) this question: What degree of flexibility still remains in the situation? Last night at the second reading stage we debated the proposition that has emerged from the Minister’s second reading speech and also his statement on 21st September 1966 that there has been a reduction in the amount of the grant recommended by the Australian Universities Commission. The reduction is substantial. I do not wish to go over the ground we debated last night, but I point out that the total programme for the impending triennium 1967-69 has been cut by$56 million. The contribution by the Commonwealth is only part of that amount, but it is very substantial nevertheless.

The Minister must be aware of the uncertainty that has now been created in the minds of university people on the administrative and academic side. There is talk of rising fees and of difficulties that the universities will experience as a result of the cut. I do not wantto go over the ground we covered in the debate on the second reading of the Bill. I simply want to put it to the Minister to consider whether there is any flexibility left and whether consideration will be given, upon proper documentation of a case by any university, to an increase in the amount of the grant.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works and Minister in Charge of Commonwealth Activities in Education and Research · Victoria · LP

– I thought my speech at the second reading stage of the debate made it clear that the amount that has been voted to the universities by the Commonwealth

Government and State Governments is fixed for the three year period. The only alteration that would come about would be if there were an increase in the academic salaries paid during that period. I do not wish to canvass the whole ground of the debate, but merely to go on record as saying that: there has been an immense increase in the amount of finance for universities for the next three years, as compared with this three year period. 1 view with a lack of conviction statements such as those made by the ViceChancellor of the University of New South Wales, for example, that cuts would have to be made in the number of his staff, because I know that the amount to be paid to that university in respect of recurrent expenses - from which staff are paid - will rise by $7.7 million in the current triennium over the last triennium. I also know that in the coming year the number of students enrolled al that university will drop by about 1. 1 00 because of the application of the Wyndham scheme in New South Wales.

Senator TANGNEY (Western Australia) 12.12). - 1 would like to ask the Minister: Is it not a fact that all university authorities throughout Australia are very perturbed at the cut in the grant for universities? ls it not true that so much are they perturbed that the New South Wales Minister for Education has called a conference of the Vice-Chancellors of the five New South Wales universities because of the necessity in some universities for staff cuts of up lo 40 per cent.? That has occurred at the University of New South Wales. In the other States the quota system has been applied and fees are to be increased, which I strongly deprecate. It seems that a serious position is likely to arise in universities, lt is a far cry in Western Australia from the days of a free university. 1 have said before and I say again that had there not been a free university in Western Australia I could never have had the benefits of a university education. There are many others like me who were able to attend the university in Western Australia only because it was free. Of course, now the fees there are charged at about the same rate as in other States, except for students who are fortunate enough to win a Commonwealth scholarship. 1 would never have won a Commonwealth scholarship.

Even those students who win Commonwealth scholarships will find that their expenses are correspondingly increased. I refer also to students who will enter the colleges of advanced education, when they are lucky enough to gain entry. Fees will be increased in the halls of residence, as well as the university fees. 1 am sure that it is nol only the effect of the Wyndham scheme that will reduce the number of students enrolling in universities in New South Wales. They will be reduced because of economic circumstances and the fact that fees throughout Australia are rising so much that the universities are wondering what is to happen to them next. Honorable senators should realise that the grant that is being made by the Commonwealth is only part of the amount that the Australian Universities Commission recommended. Universities always pare their estimates of expenditure to amounts that they think will be acceptable to the Commission. If that figure is again pared by the Government it makes a very grim outlook for the extension of universities, or even their continuation at the present level during the next three years.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works and Minister in Charge of Commonwealth Activities in Education and Research · Victoria · LP

– In commenting on what Senator Tangney has said, I repeat that the universities are so receive an immense increase in the funds available to them for the next three years, compared with this triennium. However one looks at it and however much honorable senators opposite seek lo disparage it, the fact is that universities are to receive $120 million more during the next three years than they are receiving during the present three years. In those circumstances, reports of having lo reduce staff are clearly highly questionable.

Senator Tangney referred to a statement concerning staff’ cuts of 40 per cent. That statement was made by the Vice-Chancellor of the University of New South Wales, and was not made on behalf of all New South Wales universities, lt applies in circumstances in which the University of New South Wales is to receive an increase of $7.7 million in its recurrent expenses, which hardly leads one to understand why a 40 per cent, cut in part time teachers is necessary, lt applies in circumstances in which, simply because of the operation of the Wyndham scheme, the total number of students enrolled at the University will next year be 1,100 fewer than this year’s enrolment, solely because of the operation of the Wyndham scheme. That is another factor which casts considerable doubt on whether, at a time of lower enrolments and higher income, it. is really necessary to cut staff numbers.

On the question of fees, I point out that universities are established under State Governments. I think the States would have an influence on whether higher fees should be charged. However, the introduction of higher fees would take no burden whatsoever off the Commonwealth because its contributions will remain precisely the same. The application of higher fees could have the effect only of taking some of the burden off the State Budgets, because the Commonwealth’s contribution remains constant. An increase in fees would reduce only the amounts that State Governments have to pay.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- Last night, shortly before the adjournment I was putting a point to the Senate. In this States’ House I wish to have it on record that, by means of the legislation that we ore passing, we are developing very rapidly along the road of financial assistance to the States with conditions attached. The multiplicity of conditions in this legislation is growing quite significantly. One of the conditions at the end is common to both the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill and the Universities (Financial Assistance) Bill; that is, if the Federal Minister informs a State that he is satisfied that the conditions upon which the money has been paid have not been complied with, then the State comes under an immediate legal obligation to repay the money.

Honorable senators will notice that in the terms in which I state it, the obligation is based, in one bill, solely upon the communication by the Federal Minister of information to a State Treasurer, and in the other Bill it is expressed to be a State. So that the Federal Minister simply makes a statement giving information to a State Treasurer that he is satisfied that the conditions have not been fulfilled. He does not even have to put the information in writing. In the case where the information is required to go to a State, the method of communication of the information is left vague and indefinite. I mention that because I think that facet of the legislation could with advantage be more clearly stated when there is a re-edition of this legislation. That is only a minor point. I have mentioned it to put on record the necessity for the Senate to take note of the development of the constitutional progress of financial grants to the States upon conditions. The more you multiply these conditions, the more you overreach any independence that the States might have in pursuing State policy. Whether or riot that is a good thing I shall not stay to debate at this stage. It is obviously a tendency that this States’ House could neglect to notice only by neglecting its duty.

Senator Henty:

– I thought the honorable senator advocated that at one time - through the Commonwealth Grants Commission.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I have done so on two or three occasions. I wish to go on record now as not advocating the reverse. But in regard to the Grants Commission, it was a very general condition. Here it is very particular. I am raising this matter so that we may consider it together with the arguments that have been advanced this week in relation to the general financial relationship between the States and the Commonwealth, and to ensure that this thing does not develop through inadvertence but under the guidance of such wisdom and judgment as are moulded by experience.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works and Minister in Charge of Commonwealth Activities in Education and Research · Victoria · LP

– I do not think that anybody would quarrel with Senator Wright’s statement. As he has not drawn any conclusion, we are not called upon to debate the matter further at this stage. The granting of money to the States on conditions ensures that the Commonwealth is able to retain control over that money and that it is spent in the areas for which the Commonwealth Parliament has appropriated it. To that extent, such grants are quite different from making a general increase in a grant to a State and allowing that State to decide whether it will spend the money on education, roads or hospitals. Indeed, the only way in which the

Commonwealth Parliament can be sure that money which it wants to see devoted to education is applied for that purpose is to make a section 96 grant, subject to the condition that it is devoted to education and in particular to the area of education lo which it is desired to apply it. In my view, this is a good and proper approach to adopt. However, we do not need to debate that matter just now.

I come now to clause 12 of the Universities (Financial Assistance) Bill, which provides for making financial assistance available to a State on the condition that “ the Minister informs the State . . .” Let me make the point that this is not a new provision, ft has been in the principal Act for the last six years. Whereas previously it was the Commonwealth Treasurer who had to be satisfied that the money was spent in the way in which it should have been spent, now it is proposed that the Minister who is directly responsible for this area of activity shall be so satisfied. The point raised by Senator Wright is noted. lt is not necessarily agreed that a better proposal could bc advanced. No doubt we will hear again from the honorable senator on this matter.

Senator TANGNEY (Western Australia) 1.2.231. - I wish to reply to what the Minister said a little while ago. He said that certain arguments were being advanced in order to distort the position. I would not like the Minister or the Senate to think that any arguments I advanced were advanced for that purpose. I did not intend lo distort the position. What I said was that the fact that the amount which the Australian Universities Commission thought was necessary for the next triennium had been reduced was having an adverse effect on universities. Even in this morning’s Press there appears an article under the heading “ Crisis Conference on ‘Varsities “.

Senator Cormack:

– 1. rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Is the honorable senator entitled to quote from a newspaper? I draw your attention to the provision of the Standing Orders.

The CHAIRMAN:

-(Senator DrakeBrockman). - Order! The point of order is not upheld.

Senator Cormack:

– I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you refer to the relevant Standing

Order, lt provides that extracts from newspapers relating to current debates cannot be read.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The point of order is not upheld.

Senator TANGNEY:

– The Minister seemed to think that the University of New South Wales was the only university that was experiencing a crisis. According to Press reports, all five universities in New South Wales seem to be faced with a crisis. The position of the Wollongong University College in particular has been the subject of quite a lot of discussion during the past couple of weeks. The Minister said also that it was the responsibility of the States and not of the Commonwealth to determine students’ fees. I should like to remind the Minister that, in the claimant States, Western Australia and Tasmania, the subject of students’ fees is very much the concern of the Commonwealth. For years fees either were not charged at all in Western Australia or were much less there than in the other States. This was a matter for discussion before the Commonwealth Grants Commission. lt was suggested that grants could not be made to that State and it could not enjoy the benefit of certain sections of the Constitution if university students there were enjoying benefits that were not enjoyed by students at other universities. The State Government, after conferring with the university authorities, agreed to the payment of fees for university students.

Senator Henty:

– What is the Commonwealth Grants Commission in existence for, if it is not to balance out the situation?

Senator TANGNEY:

– Yes. We cannot divorce the fact that fees have been raised in all Australian universities from the fact that the grants that are being made to the universities by the Commonwealth are not adequate to meet the commitments of the universities.

Senator Cormack:

– As you know, Mr. Chairman, I have the highest respect for you as a chairman. I rise only to draw your attention to Standing Order No. 414. lt states -

No senator shall read extracts from newspapers or other documents, except “ Hansard “, referring to Debates in the Senate during the same Session.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Does the honorable senator disagree with my ruling?

Senator Cormack:

– No.I am just bringing to your recollection something that you may have forgotten for the moment.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I have not forgotten it.

Senator Cormack:

– I say that with due respect, of course.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works and Minister in Charge of Commonwealth Activities in Education and Research · Victoria · LP

. -I wish to say three things in reply to Senator Tangney. First, I did not accuse her personally of distorting anying. I was merely pointing out that there has been a great deal of distortion in the presentation of this matter - particularly in the suggestion that the funds being made available to the universities have been cut, when the position is that the income of the universities has been increased. That cannot be described as being other than a partial presentation of what has happened and therefore a distorted presentation.

Secondly, Senator Tangney mentioned a possible 40 per cent, cut in staff. As I said earlier, that applies to only one university in New South Wales. Only one vicechancellor in New South Wales has said that he may have to reduce his staff. I have pointed out that he will have fewer students but a greater income. So if there is a reduction in the number of part-time instructors, it is more likely to be because he does not need so many instructors. He will have 1,100 students fewer, but more income.

The third matter to which I refer is that of fees. I repeat that the raising of fees by a State university can only help the State budget. It cannot in any way help the Commonwealth Budget. If it is necessary to raise fees to help a State match the amount that the Commonwealth is now offering, obviously that State would need to raise its fees still higher if the Commonwealth were to offer more money. The fact that in some States fees enter into the deliberations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission has nothing to do with this argument at all. The fact that the Commonwealth Grants Commission tells a State which does not charge fees that it must get on the same basis as other States has nothing to do with grants to universities or the size of those grants.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Gorton) read a third time.

page 1634

UNIVERSITIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL (No. 2) 1966

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 27th October (vide page 1509), on motion by Senator Gorton -

That the Bill be now read a secondtime.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1634

JUDICIARY BILL 1966

Assent reported.

page 1634

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA BILL 1966

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate to this Bill.

page 1634

QUESTION

SUPERANNUATION

(Question No. 990.)

Senator GAIR:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. When will the next refund of surplus superannuation money be made?
  2. Is the refund free of income tax; if so, will the Treasurer issue instructions that credit be made to those taxpayers who have already paid income tax on past refunds?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers -

  1. My statement to the Senate on 25th October 1966 provided details of the arrangements for the final distribution of the surplus in the Superannuation Fund at 30th June 1962.
  2. The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that the distribution to be made in respect of the surplus in the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund will not be subject to income tax. The Commissioner has also pointed out that not all supernnuation refunds are exempt from tax. For example, if a refund is payable in consequence of retirement or resignation, 5 per centum of the capital sum received is subject to income tax. The Commission is not aware of any particular cases in which taxpayers have incorrectly borne tax in respect of past refunds. The Commissioner has suggested that any taxpayer who believes he has been charged income tax which was not properly payable could ask the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation in his State to examine the position and determine whether any adjustment is permissible.

page 1635

QUESTION

VIETNAM

(Question No. 1000.)

Senator FITZGERALD:

asked the Minis ter representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is it a fact, as stated in newspaper reports and to Senator Fitzgerald in conversations with people in Vietnam, that the Government, if successful in the forthcoming elections, may send a third battalion of troopsto Vietnam?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answer to the honorable senator’s question -

As has been stated on many occasions, the Government reviews from time to timethe Australian military commitment in Vietnam. No review is in progress or in contemplation at this lime. When and if a review is conducted which leads to a decision to change significantly the Australian military commitment in Vietnam, an appropriate announcement will be made.

page 1635

QUESTION

VIETNAM

(Question No. 1014.)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. In view of the fact that the Government has not issued any denial to reported statements that additional troops are to be committed to the Vietnam conflict, will the Prime Minister inform the Parliament of the total number of additional troopsto be committed and how many of them will be conscripts?
  2. Will the Government immediately extend the call-up of twenty year olds in order to obtain sufficient troopsto meet the added Australian commitment? .
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answer tothe honorable senator’s question - 1 and 2. As has been stated on many occasions, the Government reviews from timeto time the Australian military commitment in Vietnam. No review is in progress or in contemplation at this time. When and if a review is conducted which leads to a decision to change significantly the Australian military commitment in Vietnam, an appropriate announcement will be made.

page 1635

QUESTION

TRADE

(Question No. 1027.)

Senator FITZGERALD:

asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that, during recent talks in Tokyo between representatives of the Japanese Government and the Commonwealth Department of Trade and Industry, it was agreed that, in return for Japanese concessions for Australian primary products, substantial concessions would be offered to the Japanese, at the expense of Australian manufacturing industries?
  2. When will a report of any such agreements be tabled in Parliament?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Minister for Trade and Industry has advised me as follows -

  1. The recent talks in Tokyo between representatives of the Japanese Government and the Commonwealth Department of Trade and Industry were one of a scries of preliminary discussions between Australia and other countries connected with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade relating to the Kennedy Roundof tariff negotiations. It is not the intention of the Government to make tariff concessions which will prejudice existing Australian manufacturing industry.
  2. No formal agreement was negotiated.

page 1635

QUESTION

NATURAL GAS

(Question No. 1038.)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Will the Prime Minister inform the Senate whether any approach has been made by the Queensland Government for financial assistance in developing Queensland gas fields; if so, what was the date of such request?
  2. If no approach has been made, has any offer of Commonwealth assistance been made to the Queensland Government for the development of natural gas fields?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions -

  1. No such approach has been made.
  2. As 1 indicated at a Press conference on 17th June following the meeting of the Australian Loan Council, where some discussions took place ont his matter, it was left to the States to submit specific proposals to the Commonwealth for consideration.

page 1635

QUESTION

NATIONAL DISASTERS

(Question No. 1048.)

Senator TANGNEY:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

In view of the ever increasing burdens being placed on people in all States because of the drought, and the lack of any national disaster fund to insure against such calamities, will the Prime Minister procure and table in the Senate details of schemes at present in operation in New Zealand and the United States of America, so that adequate study may be made and appropriate action suggested by senators?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answer to the honorable senator’s question -

Efforts are being made to obtain the information requested by the honorable senator. She will bc informed of the results of our inquiries when the information is received.

page 1636

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 1010.)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

  1. Will the Minister make an investigation into the allegations made during the debate in the Senate on the Nationality and Citizenship Bill - vide Senate “Hansard” of 28th April 1966- with regard to the number of migrants admitted to Australia who had a history of war crimes and advise the Senate of the result of such an investigation?
  2. Will the Minister make an investigation into the entry into Australia of the late Hryhory Berkuta, a former German secret service agent, and the circumstances surounding his violent death at Bilpin, New South Wales, on 1st August 1966, and advise the Senate of the result of such an investigation?
  3. How many migrants in Australia during the past five years have been convicted of crimes of personal violence, and arc those convicted still resident in Australia?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Immigration has supplied the following answers -

  1. investigations have not substantiated the allegations made.

    1. The late Mr. Hryhory Berkuta was admitted to Australia as a migrant on 29th October 1948. He was granted naturalisation as an Australian citizen on 29th January 1956. Records relating to membership of the former German S.S. do not include his name. The circumstances of his death are being investigated by the appropriate authorities, and it would not be proper for me to comment on them.
    2. The Department of Immigration is informed by the various police forces of the detail of convictions - apart from traffic offences and insobriety - recorded against any person who was admitted to Australia as a migrant and whose conviction renders him liable for deportation under the provisions of the Migration Act 1958-1966.

Each case is considered on its merits, and in the national interest. The Minister’s power of deportation is discretionary, and in considering whether deportation is warranted a number of factors must be taken into account. During the period 1st January 1961 to 31st December 1965, 228 persons were deported following convictions for criminal offences, including crimes of personal violence. Figures are not available of those cases in which, for reasons of substance, it was decided that deportation was not justified.

page 1636

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motton (by Senator Henty) - by leave1 - agreed to -

That leave of .absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.

page 1636

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Henty) agreed to -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till a day and hour to be fixed by the President, which time of meeting shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter. .

page 1636

VALEDICTORY

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMulIin). - Honorable senators, we have come to the end of the session. There are a few things that I want to say concerning the activities of the past year. The first matter to which I refer is the retirement of Mr. Speaker. He was elected as Speaker in 1956 and has been Speaker for a record term. Under his skilful guidance there has been a very useful period in the House of Representatives. It is my opinion that during Mr. Speaker’s term of office the relationship between the two Houses has been of an order that we have not known previously. This is an extremely good thing and is due to the cordial goodwill that Mr. Speaker has always exhibited in dealing with this House. I have been associated with him as joint chairman of various committees. He has been of great strength and help to me. I personally want to place on record my appreciation of the work he has done as a parliamentarian and as a presiding officer.

That leads me to some other comments that I want to make. I wish to thank various people. First, I thank honorable senators for the assistance that they have given me during the year. It has made the year’s work as pleasant and as useful as it has been for the Senate. We have had during the year a new Leader of the Opposition. I look forward to working as happily with Senator Willesee as I did with Senator McKenna. We have made very considerable strides in the Parliamentary Library. According to a recent report which I have received concerning the reference section, 71 members have used its facilities. That is a very good indication of the volume of work being handled by the section. Those 71 members made approximately 318 requests for assistance during the time that the section has been operating fully.

I come now to members of the staff of the Senate. The Clerks at the table, of course, have been of great help to me and have given great guidance in the work of the Senate. The “ Hansard “ staff has worked long hours and has produced excellent reports. We pay full acknowledgement to them. The Joint House Department, which is a big Department, has been working under difficult conditions due to the changing labour position and difficulty in recruiting staff, lt has done a really splendid job in connection with the big functions which it has handled this year. To the messengers and the people employed in the Mouse with whom we do not come so closely in contact. I express my thanks and appreciation of the work they do and the quiet way in which they go about it. I trust that the coming year will be a pleasant one for them. To all concerned, 1 extend my heartiest and sincerest Christmas good wishes.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

– by leave - Because of the forthcoming election, we are extending goodwill greetings in the Senate a little earlier this year than in previous years. Mr. President, on behalf of all honorable senators, I would like to say to you how much we appreciate the services that you have rendered to the Senate. This year you established a landmark for a record term of office, which I think is something of which you can bc justly proud.

When we meet next year it will be a new Parliament - the Twenty-sixth Parliament. In the meantime we shall have had all the experience of the tumult and shouting of a general election. I would not like to think that the election or the end of the Parliament could overshadow or obliterate the season’s greetings. On behalf of Government supporters, 1 extend to you, Mr. President, best wishes and seasonal greetings. This has been an eventful year. You, Mr. President, have continued to preside over the work of the Senate in a calm, cool, practical and considerate manner. On behalf of all honorable senators, I would like to thank you for your work and for the firm and tolerant manner in which you have dealt with our occasional lapses from parliamentary procedure, which occur on both sides of the chamber.

At the beginning of this year I was honoured by being appointed Leader of the Government in the Senate. When I last made a valedictory speech, I was acting in that capacity. At that time I expressed the hope that our then Leader, the late Sir Shane Paltridge, would recover from his illness and return to take his place at this table. We all know that this hope was dashed and we were greatly saddened by his death. During the year we lost another man who had made his mark as Leader in the Senate, the late Sir William Spooner. We also have lost two of our colleagues. Senators Robert Sherrington and Charles Sandford. These are tragic events which must inevitably mark our progress over the years.

Since 1 became Leader of the Government in the Senate I have been conscious of the support given me by my colleagues and of their tolerance in my lapses. Their co-operation has made my work easier and more pleasurable. I would like to thank them for that. I am also grateful to the Opposition for its help in enabling the Senate to maintain the flow of work at an even tempo. It is most important in any parliament that there should be an even flow of work and that the procedures of the House are observed. This can be done by intelligent co-operation between those who are responsible for this work. This year there has been a change in the leadership of the Opposition, but we have continued to work well together, administratively if not politically. I am pleased to see the former Leader of the Opposition, Senator McKenna, established in his place in the back benches, and I reiterate my welcome to Senator Willesee as Leader of the Opposition.

I want to thank my hard working Whip for all his efforts during the year. No-one could claim that a Whip has an enviable job, but Senator Scott has accepted the responsibility. He has carried on with strict good humour and seems to thrive on his work. Our thanks go to Senator DrakeBrockman not only for his sterling work as Chairman of Committees but also for the admirable way in which he conducted the Senate during the- absence of the President overseas. We thank Mr. Odgers, the

Clerk of the Senate, and the other Senate officers and staff who have continued to give us their guidance and support in all our Senate business. I often wonder how we would manage without their friendly advice. The Senate has cause to be grateful that it is served by such competent and devoted people.

There are times when the Senate becomes self centred and a little introspective, but we should always remember that what we do is noted and reported to the public outside. Especially with elections in the offing, we might remember the public too much when we address the Senate. But we rely on accurate reporting by our friends in the Press Gallery who sit above us and work so efficiently day after day in reporting our deliberations. We owe them our thanks for the faithful way in which they deal with whatever is newsworthy in the Senate. Our thanks go also to the Australian Broadcasting Commission for recording with such devastating accuracy every word we say.

Senator Branson:

– Not every word.

Senator HENTY:

– There are times when the honorable senator should be glad that not every word is recorded. Also recording what we say are the “ Hansard “ reporters, whose work must be the most daunting in the Parliament. Not only must they capture every fleeting word with their pens, but also, with the aid of their backroom people and the Government Printer and his staff, must confront us with our own words in cold black and white a .few hours later. I thank all the reporters, typists, printers and readers for their efficient work. On behalf of the Government, I say to honorable senators, to the staff and to all who help to make this Senate so successful in its work: A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– by leave; - I endorse the remarks of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Henty) and thank him for having conveyed to the officers and staff of the Senate and to various other people good wishes on behalf of the Senate as a whole. On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Willesee), the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Kennelly) and all the members of the Opposition, I thank you, Mr. President, for the way you have presided over the Senate during the year. You have brought to this office great wisdom, and with fairness and good humour you have helped to raise the prestige of the Senate during your term of office.

We have learned more of Senator Henty during the past year since he became Leader of the Government in the Senate. The honorable senator has been a Minister for 10 years and has risen to the top through hard work. We congratulate him upon having achieved the status of Leader of the Government in the Senate. We owe a great debt of gratitude to him for having been the first to introduce a sane policy in the sittings of the Senate, avoiding allnight sittings. As a result, we can debate the matters before us reasonably and in a state of full consciousness, rather than many of us being semi-conscious after sitting until the small hours of the morning.

On behalf of the Opposition, I say “ Thank you “ to the Ministers in the Senate for the way they have responded to the many problems we have put to them during the year. Their courtesy at all times has been very gratifying. 1 wish to thank the Chairman of Committees, Senator Drake-Brockman, for the way he has carried on his duties, and also the Temporary Chairmen of Committees, who have occupied the Chair.

To honorable senators on the Government side, I would say that in the thrust and parry of politics perhaps at times we get heated but out of it all there comes a friendship which extends far wider than the immediate area of political battle. In 20 years in the Senate, I have learnt to appreciate the indefinable but cherished and valuable friendships I have made in this Parliament. I also want to thank my colleagues on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and personally. I join with the Leader of the Government in complimenting the Government Whip, Senator Scott. He is a worthy successor to my erstwhile opposite number, Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin. Our relationships over the years have been on a very friendly basis, and my duties could have been much heavier if it had not been for the co-operation I have received. 1 thank my colleagues for the co-operation they have given me as Opposition Whip.

I extend a special word of thanks to Mr. Odgers, the Clerk of the Senate, and his staff. The guidance they have been able to give us when we have needed advice on the Standing Orders and other matters in the Senate has been consistent and always reliable.

I must not forget the “ Hansard “ reporters for the hard work they do and the excellent results they achieve in making my speeches readable. When I think of the miracles they perform, not only for me but for many others, 1 realise that special thanks are due to them. Mention was made of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the work its officers do behind the glass curtain. We owe them very special thanks for their application to their duties and their presentation of the Senate proceedings. They are the eyes and ears of the Senate, as are the Press. Sometimes we do not agree with the Press in the way it presents the proceedings of the Senate, but 1 am quite certain that the Pressmen who sit in the gallery often feel mystified when they see the way their reports are massacred by their editors. We appreciate the work they do here. I must thank the refreshment room staff who minister to the interior and also look after our spirits. They deserve special commendation. Last but not least, 1. thank the staff of the Parliamentary Library.

The Senate can look back on the past year with considerable satisfaction. Constructive ideas have emerged from our debates, which have been on a level which brings credit to the Senate for its contribution to the political history of Australia. 1 take this opportunity to wish all Senators and officers of the Senate a happy recess and a happy Christmas. I hope that the New Year will bring good health to us and peace to a strained and troubled world.

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

– by leave - I should like to join in the sentiments that have been expressed by previous speakers in respect of you, Sir, and various others. The Clerk of the Senate has borne out the expectations that we had of him when he assumed that office. The Senate staff not only provides efficient help but provides it in a very cheerful way and in a spirit of goodwill that is appreciated by all of us. The same goes for the messengers and the rest of the staff with whom we come in contact. It is very encouraging, 1 think, for those of us sitting opposite the “ Hansard “ reporters to see a gleam of humour light up their faces, because if anybody is bored in the Senate surely it must be the “ Hansard “ reporters: I am very glad that they have not lost their sense of humour. To the Press and to the broadcasting officials, the Australian Country Party, along with everybody else, owes a debt of gratitude.

This has been another fruitful year for the Senate. As one who has always been very jealous of the reputation of the Senate, I feel that even if we have not enhanced it during the year - I do not think that we have had an opportunity to enhance it very much - at least we have done nothing to bring discredit to it. I hope that in the next 12 months we shall bring further credit lo the Senate. I thank Senator O’Byrne for his expression of appreciation of the way in which Ministers have endeavoured to answer questions that are fired at them. Indeed, even if one is on a kind of a rack there is something quite enjoyable about having to parry the cut and thrust that form part of asking and answering questions and taking part in debate. It is all part of the pattern. It is very good indeed that, while we can have strong and spirited opposition in the Parliament, outside - at least in most cases - we are jolly good friends. This is, I feel, for the benefit of the Australian people. 1. wish all of those who have been mentioned a very happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

Senator GAIR:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labour Party · Queensland

– by leave - Senator McManus and 1 join with the previous speakers in extending to you, Sir, and your Chairman of Committees our thanks for the manner in which you have conducted this Senate and also for the courtesies that you have extended to us during the period we have been here. Both of us are very well behaved and we do not seek tolerance from you on that account. We endeavour to co-operate with you because we know what a difficult task you have in controlling some members of the Senate. You can depend on us at all times, Sir, to give you assistance if you need it, but from what I have seen of your administration and control, I do not think that you will need our humble offering. I should like to thank the staff, particularly the messenger staff on whom we are so dependent for the services that are necessary in the discharge of our duties, and the “ Hansard “ staff, of course. I thank also the people at the other end of the building who keep body and soul together, and 1 thank all of those persons who contribute to the successful working of the Senate.

Hut as one who has spent 28 years in a State Parliament 1 must confess that I still feel strange at the conduct of business here. I have not yet become accustomed to this idea of voting on the blind, if 1 may say so. We tire expected to vote for the first reading of a Bill when none of us knows a single word that it contains. It is not until we get to the second reading stage that wc know the contents of the Bill. That is odd lo me. in the House from which 1 come, leave is sought to introduce a Bill, and its contents in skeleton form are laid before the House. Members are required to vote for or against what that Bill aims to do. Then the first reading and the printing of the Bill take place. At the stage of initiation a wide debate is allowed. On the second reading of a Bill one is confined to the principles of the Bill. I find the procedure here a bit odd. Also, I find that the handling of the Estimates is different from what I have been accustomed to.

In the House from which I come, questions were not asked without notice, except in exceptional circumstances or in an emergency - on the last day of a sitting or something like that - and then only if the questioner paid to the Minister to whom the question was to be directed the courtesy or respect of giving him in advance some knowledge of the question. Many times I thought that there was some merit or some virtue in questions without notice, but J have given that idea away since I have come here because I. think that that system is ineffective. When questions are put on notice the delay in getting answers is inexcusable. I do not know whether I ask odd or difficult questions; I do not ask many. But rarely have I received an answer until a session closed, and then I have received it in the form of a letter. I make allowances for the fact that many of the Ministers here are not administering the departments in relation to which questions are asked, but this takes away any virtue or merit that questions without notice have.

No-one could be expected to answer immediately some of the questions that are asked, because a great deal of data and research are required to answer them effectively. When senators ask such questions without notice, they cannot expect to get answers, because the questions have to bc referred to somebody else to get the information sought. The answers to many other questions that are asked are of no value whatsoever. 1 should think that provided there was a quickening up, if replies could be obtained more expeditiously, it would be much better to put all questions on notice. Every question asked in the Queensland Parliament was answered next day, with the exception of questions where research and the collection of a lot of data were required.

Senator Prowse:

– The honorable senator sounds as though he is homesick.

Senator GAIR:

– I am. I want to raise the standard of the Senate to what I have been accustomed to, and if the honorable senator has any complaint about that I am sorry for him. 1 cannot help it if he has nol had the experience that T have had. I value the experience I have had and I do not think that anyone should be too proud to accept my humble contributions on this matter. There are many phases of the conduct: of the Senate that might be minor lo some persons but they are important to mc. The decorum of this Parliament or of any other Parliament is important. The Parliament is one of the major pillars of our democracy and wc have an obligation to maintain its high prestige. I would say - and it happens in the Queensland House - that every time our worthy President enters this chamber, honorable senators should rise. We suspend for lunch and the President leaves wilh the rest of us. He or his Chairman of Committees comes back on the resumption of deliberations and walks in here unannounced. I do not suggest that he should be announced the second time he walks into the chamber, but I contend that for the sake of the decorum of this Parliament honorable senators should be in their places and should rise out of respect for him as head of the Senate. As it Ls. he wanders in, takes his place and just calls the order of business. These are little things but they are important things and T have taken the opportunity to mention them. I hope no one minds my doing so.

I should like to reciprocate the good wishes for Christmas and the New Year, lt is still quite a time until Christmas. Id the interim there will be an election campaign and 1 wonder whether the goodwill and jovial spirit which have been displayed here today will be demonstrated during the campaign. 1 doubt it. You can expect it from me and my little band but we will have a lot of criticisms to offer as well to both sides of the Senate.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Do not destroy your good wishes.

Senator GAIR:

– 1 do wish you and yours a very happy Christmas. Senator McManus and I are looking forward with great pleasure to the next session of the Senate because we are sure it will prove to be most interesting.

The PRESIDENT:

– Before I call Senator Branson I must say that I omitted - and I regret it - referring to my Chairman of Committees who, during my absence abroad and at other times during the year has rendered great service to me. I have already expressed that view personally to him but 1 wanted to express it in the Senate. He has been a tremendous help. I express my thanks also to the Temporary Chairmen of Committees. On behalf of the staff who cannot speak for themselves I want to say “ Thank you “ for your expressions of appreciation of their work.

page 1641

ADJOURNMENT

Business of the Senate - Television - Homes for the Aged.

Motion (by Senator Henty) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator BRANSON:
Western Australia

– I would not wish to reflect in any way on the proceedings in this place but I find it rather distressing that when the motion for the adjournment of the Senate is proposed we then move into what is called the valedictory and then come back to what I consider to be business. I think the business of the Senate is placed in the wrong perspective. I rose in my place in the hope that I would get the call but in the wisdom of the Senate I did not. I want to speak for a few brief minutes because I consider 1 am in the unique position of being the only senator who has a bill before the Senate which will die because of the effluxion of time. With that I have no particular argument because the Government, naturally, must run this place. You cannot have private senators frustrating the business of the Government.

Having said that, 1 now want to say thaI private members cannot direct the order of government business but I am rather distressed by the fact that a bill which was brought before this Senate has been frustrated because the Government is worried about an aspect of the bill which relates to second licences for television stations. I fought for four years to get translator stations. The Government replied to my representations, I would think on the advice of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, by stating that if a translator station was given the right to operate without a second licence it would mean handing over to the news media of this country a complete licence to operate. It is rather interesting to see now that the Government finally exempted translators from the requirement of a second licence. With great pride now, whenever a translator is put into operation, the Minister or his nominee tells us what a wonderful thing translators are. Of course they are. They are taking television to country people. But there are places where translators are not a feasible proposition and I have advocated that the next step should be a package type station. 1 did all the things that 1 thought a member of this place should do. The day before yesterday, yesterday, last night and again today I saw the Treasurer (Mr. McMahon) because - I believe I am permitted to say this - the Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Holt) was absent. I asked what was happening about my bill. I did not think I could let this Senate rise without saying something about it, although I was convinced that Cabinet would look at it to decide whether to accept or reject the principle that I had put forward. Reluctantly T have to inform the Senate that the Government will not accept the principles contained in my bill, because, I think, it is still waiting for a report from the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. All I say in passing, but I say with all the emphasis at my command, is that I wonder who is administering the Government’s policy in respect of television. Is it the Australian

Broadcasting Control Board or is it the Government? I will not canvass this any further because I can see that your advisers, Mr. President, are suggesting that 1 am canvassing my bill but I think I am entitled to say to the people of Australia that Liberal, Country Party and Labour senators from Western Australia, with a lot of goodwill, are behind this idea. But, as I have said, the Government apparently will not make a decision until it gels the advice of the Control Board.

We have been (old that my bill will allow the news media of this country to be controlled by the Press. That is pretty cold comfort lo the 20,000 people in Kalgoorlie and the 16,000 people in Geraldton. In passing, I mention the people of Mr isa and Darwin. Apparently those people will have to wait until the never never, perhaps 1970 or 1971 - I do not know whether anyone wants to disagree with me on that - before they get television. That is cold comfort to people prepared to go to the country and live in isolation without this medium, whether or nol we agree that it is a good thing.

Having initiated this bill, 1 would be failing in my duty if I did not give some sort of thanks to the people in Western Australia who have supported it. 1 will do so as briefly as I can by referring to the people of Geraldton who signed a petition to the Prime Minister, not Mr. Hulme, the Postmaster-General, the Mayor of Geraldton. the President of the Retail Traders Association, (he Apex Club of Geraldton, the Geraldton Jaycees, the Lions Club, the Regional Promotion Committee, the Geraldton Chamber of Commerce and the Country Women’s Association. Kalgoorlie has just as impressive a list. There is the Deputy Mayor of Kalgoorlie, the Mayor of Boulder, the President of the Shire of Boulder, the Bishop of Kalgoorlie, the Vice-President of the Chamber of Mines - these are pretty important people in this area - the President of the Chamber of Commerce, the General Manager of North Kalgurli Ltd., the Deputy Superintendent of the Western Mining Corporation, the General Superintendent of Gold Mines of Kalgoorlie, the General Manager of Lakeview and Star Ltd.. the General Manager of the Great Boulder Mine, the Project Manager of Kambalda nickel mines, the Presidents of the Rotary Clubs of Boulder and Kalgoorlie, the President of Kalgoorlie Apex, the VicePresident of Kalgoorlie and Jaycees-

Senator Webster:

– Why not incorporate this in “ Hansard “?

Senator BRANSON:

– There is no need for it to be incorporated in “ Hansard “. I have battled for this for eight years. It took me four years to get translators and I will not rest until I get this kind of television for the country people, lt might take a little while but 1 venture to say - I go on record - that the Government will accept this when it comes back. It will regard package type stations as not involving a second television licence and will tell us so when we come back. Time will tell that I am right and that all the people who agree with me on this are right. I will not let this occasion pass without mentioning Mr. Dick Burt, the member for Murchison, who is one of the most ardent supporters of this proposal. He is not coming up for election so I do not need to put in a plug for him. He has been around his electorate and has said that the people in this gold mining area are terribly perturbed that they are losing people from the area because it has not this amenity.

I will not detain the Senate any longer. 1 want to go on record as saying - let this be clearly understood not only by honorable senators but also by the Government - that when the Senate reassembles after the election I, as a private senator, will do everything within my power to see that these people get this amenity. I am not impressed by the stupid, stereotyped answers which I am receiving from the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, through the Postmaster-General, and which the Government is accepting. Members of the Government cannot make up their minds on country television policy because they are guided by the Broadcasting Control Board which at the moment is governed by Mr. Osborne, who I believe has a closed mind on this matter.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– On behalf of my colleagues, I wish to say how distressed we are to see this dissension in the Government’s ranks, particularly in the midst of the Christmas festivities and in this election year. I do not want to speak at any length on this subject. I merely recommend to Senator Branson that, when the Labour Government is returned on 26th November, he take this matter up with the new Labour Postmaster-General. 1 am sure that it will receive much more favorable consideration - as, indeed, will all other matters involving the provision of amenities - than it has received from the present Government.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

.’ - I regret having to rise at this time; but 1 wish to refer to a very important matter which 1 raised in this chamber last week and which has snowballed since then. I feel that this is the only opportunity 1 have to raise it. I believe that T should raise it in the interests not only of the Senate but of the community in general. Last week I raised the matter of homes for the aged and Commonwealth subsidies therefor. Since that time 1 have been inundated with correspondence on this matter from various States.

One particular feature came to light. 1 have not been able to corroborate it. That is what 1 want the Senate to do. 1 believe that something should be done when I am told that one block of flats that was subsidised by the Government has in residence people who are not retired but are in business. Some of them are in the $5,000 a year income bracket. 1 do not believe that it is the policy of this or any other government to subsidise the housing of people who are as comfortably situated as those people, particularly when we realise the conditions that apply to housing loans for young people and the very stringent conditions with which they have to comply before the Commonwealth gives them a grant of $500 for the $1,500 that they have saved. The Commonwealth is subsidising these homes for the aged on the basis of $2 for $1. Not only are some of the people in them not in need of housing; many of them are conducting their businesses from these homes. 1 have details of 25 cases in which people living in these flats are business proprietors or are employed in government or other services. I do not believe that that is at all in conformity with either the spirit or the letter of the homes for the aged legislation. Therefore, 1 am asking the Government to put in train an inquiry into the conditions of tenancy of these homes.

This afternoon Senator Gorton, when speaking about grants to the States for universities, said that because the Commonwealth Government was making such grants it should have some say in university affairs. They are not quite his words; but that is what he meant. 1 suggest that conditions should be attached to these subsidies for homes for the aged, particularly when these abuses are creeping in. Since only last week 1 have received all the letters in this file that I now have in my hand. Last week 1 said that the letters were from all States except South Australia and Tasmania. Now I have received letters from all States except Tasmania. I have received letters indicating all kinds of discrepancies and inequalities in the operations of these homes. I fear that in some cases there have been illegalities. I have been given evidence of illegalities but have not been able to verify it. There should be an inquiry, perhaps instituted by this Senate, into the matter of homes for the aged before the situation becomes a public scandal.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

– in reply - I wish to make only one or two comments. I am aware of Senator Branson’s disappointment that some areas of Western Australia do not enjoy television, but I submit that for 92 per cent, of the population of a country the size of Australia to be enjoying television within 10 years of its inception is a record of which the Government may be proud, notwithstanding that an odd area or two may not receive programmes. The Government’s record in this regard is a fine one. I am sorry that Senator Wheeldon has left the chamber. The people of Western Australia have been very patient but if they are to wait until a Labour Postmaster-General provides facilities for them, Heaven help them. They will all have long white whiskers.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 3.16 p.m. till a day and hour to be fixed by the President.

page 1644

QUESTION

SCIENTIST’S VISIT TO CHINA

(Question No. 1025.)

Senator GAIR:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is Professor W. N. Christiansen, Professor of Electrical Engineering at the University of Sydney, currently in Communist China assisting the Chinese in scientific research?
  2. For what length of time has Professor Christiansen been in Communist China?
  3. Is the research in which Professor Christiansen is engaged of any relevance to the development of China’s defence and military capabilities?
  4. Is Professor Christiansen the brother-in-law of Mr. E. F. Hill, the Secretary of the Australian Communist Party (Marxist-Lenninist), and was he prominent in the group of academics opposed to the appointment of Dr. F. K. Knopfelmacher to a position of lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Sydney in 1965?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions -

  1. It has been reported in the Press (see “ Melbourne Herald” of 1 3th September) that Professor Christiansen is in Communist China to assist the Chinese in building a radio telescope.
  2. The Hsinhua newsagency reported that Professor Christiansen arrived in Peking on 26th May. It should be noted that no restrictions are placed on the use of ordinary Australian passports to travel to Mainland China.
  3. See answer to question1.
  4. The activities of Professor Christiansen in relation to the appointment of Dr. Knopfelmacher were widely reported in the Press at the time.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 28 October 1966, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1966/19661028_senate_25_s32/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant