Senate
16 April 1969

26th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 26th Parliament
  3. 1969

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

page 813

PETITIONS

Export of Merino Sheep

Senator O’BYRNE presented a petition from 234 citizens of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory showing that the decision of the Government to lift the 40-year ban on the export of merino rams will do irreparable harm to the present and future merino wool industry of Australia; that the initial quota of 300 rams will be sufficient to make any future protest worthless; and that the production of fine medium quality merino wool in cheap labour countries will put the Australian merino wool grower and all connected with this industry out of business. The petitioners pray that the Government will cause to be held a referendum of wool grower?, lo determine this issue.

Petition received and read.

Education

Senator LAWRIE presented a petition from eightyfour citizens of Queensland showing thai there is a crisis in education in Australia; that a transformation of the classroom situation is necessary, where children will have reasonable freedom to develop as self-reliant, independent individuals and where they can learn to function as members of a democratic community; that proper preparation for school and thorough guidance there by qualified teachers are crucial to a proper education for Australia’s children; that the present rate of teaching training is far below the requirement determined by the Martin report which shows that 73% additional teachers in government schools will be required by 197S compared with those in service in 1963; that to obtain maximum benefit from the education system, preschool facilities should be available to all children; that insufficient State or Federal assistance has been made available to meet these requirements; that adequate finance to meet these requirements can only be provided by the Commonwealth Government; and that there is an urgent need for a national inquiry into all aspects of Australian education. The petitioners pray that the Senate and the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will give earnest consideration, during Human Rights Year, to this most vital matter.

Petition received.

Export of Merino Sheep

Senator MURPHY presented a petition from twentythree citizens of New South Wales showing that the decision of the Government to lift the 40-year ban on the export of merino rams will do irreparable harm to the present and future merino wool industry of Australia; that the initial quota of 300 rams will be sufficient to make any future protest worthless; and that the production of fine medium quality merino wool in cheap labour countries will put the Australian merino wool grower and all connected with this industry out of business. The petitioners pray that the Government will cause to be held a referendum of wool growers to determine this issue. Petition received.

page 813

QUESTION

BY-LAW ENTRY

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Customs and Excise: Why has your Department, without the recommendation of the Tariff Board, adopted a new hard line approach to by-law policy which will compel Australian manufacturers to inflate costs by adopting a local content similar to that which disrupted the vehicle industry?

Senator SCOTT:
Minister for Customs and Excise · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The Department of Customs and Excise, of which I am the Minister, is anxious to establish industries in Australia. We state quite clearly that through the establishment of these industries we have been able to obtain an unprecedented level of employment in Australia. We are quite fair in our decisions relating to the manufacturers of goods and to bylaw entry into Australia. We believe that the policy we have adopted is the best one, not only for Australian manufacturers but for Australia’s development as a whole.

page 813

QUESTION

CONTAINERISATION

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. Has the Minister noted the statement of Mr M. D. Nicholson, manager of a substantial meat exporting industry, as well as that of Mr D. D. Von Bibra, President of the Tasmanian Farmers, Stockowners and Orchardists Association, to the effect that containerisation of meat shipments, particularly fat lamb from Tasmania, is vital to the industry, more especially as the Tasmanian lamb shipments should arrive on the British market prior to the commencement of substantial shipments from New Zealand? Can the Minister indicate whether any progress has been made in inducing the people controlling the container services from Australia to the United Kingdom to include exports which, though proportionately small, are of great importance to Tasmania?

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– As I understand it, the question refers to containerisation of meat shipments but particularly fat lamb from Tasmania. Container ships serving the United Kingdom trade are calling at Fremantle, Sydney and Melbourne. Cargoes from Brisbane, Newcastle and Adelaide are being fed into Sydney and Melbourne and the container service charge will absorb the cost of centralising this cargo. It is the intention of the container consortia, as was stated 2 years ago, to provide feeder services from Tasmania but this can be done only when it is economically feasible. On rates being quoted at the moment it is clearly not economical. Studies in relation to this question are continuing. In the meantime, the conference is expected, as in the past, to provide an adequate service with conventional ships and thus there will be no disadvantage to Tasmanian exporters.

page 814

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he is aware that permits to explore for oil and gas on the Great Barrier Reef have been withheld by the Queensland Government and apparently by agreement with the Commonwealth Government. If the answer is in the affirmative, can the Minister inform the Parliament of the name of the company on whose behalf Philadelphian Specialist Oil Explorations is carrying out surveys in the Barrier Reef area? For the information of the Minister I state that the aircraft used in the survey is a DC3, registration No. NJ89-UM. ls this the only aircraft operating. Can the Minister advise the amount of damage being done to murine life and what types of explosives are being used in the survey? Will the Minister take the necessary action to ensure that all such oil searches in the Barrier Reef area cease forthwith?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– 1 think the honourable senator has asked me a series of questions - my memory cut out at the sixth of them - on the basis of some information included in his first question. As I do not have the information available to mc in relation to his first question, am nol in a position to give him an answer at this time to his subsequent questions. I think the appropriate Minister to answer the questions is the Minister for National Development. I will refer the honourable senator’s questions to him and get a reply for him.

page 814

QUESTION

HOMES FOR THE AGED

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– 1 address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. Will the Minister inquire whether any representations can be made to the Tasmanian Labor Government by the Minister for Social Services, even at this late stage in the life of that Government, to induce it to stop imposing a tax on moneys granted by the Commonwealth Government to church and charitable organisations for the construction of homes for the aged and, if possible, seek a remission of any such tax collected since this new imposition on aged people was commenced on 1st April?

Senator Murphy:

– Mr President, I suggest that the question is out of order. lt is an interference in the affairs of the Parliament o! a State.

The PRESIDENT:

– I will allow the question to go to the Minister for reply.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– Do I understand from the honourable senator’s question that when the Commonwealth Government makes a grant on a $2 for $1 basis to assist church and charitable bodies to provide homes for the aged the State Government imposes a tax on the grant?

Senator Marriott:

– That is right.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I believe that this question should have a reply from the Minister for Social Services and therefore I ask the honourable senator to put it on the notice paper.

page 815

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy. Has the Department of the. Navy in recent years employed the services of a business management consultant? If so. what is the name of the firm? When was its report received? When is the report being made available to the public?

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The firm of W. D. Scott Pty Ltd was employed by the Navy for this purpose in .1964. 1 understand that a report has been received. If it has been received, I am not in a position to say when it will be made public.

page 815

IMMIGRATION

Senator MULVIHIL1__ Does the

Minister representing the .Minister for Immigration feel that certain aspects of the Donnaleen Fong case merit a removal of duties in relation to immigration from the staff of the Trade Commissioner Service?

If she does not wish to apply to come for residence but wishes special consideration to approval for a working visit, this will be considered sympathetically as an exception to the normal rules in view of the presence of her fiance here. The normal rule in relation to the employment of visitors is in line with the practice in other countries, including Canada. It has two sound bases. Firstly, often a visitor seeking employment is not a genuine visitor, and secondly, the entry of workers on temporary entry permits can cause industrial disputes.

page 815

QUESTION

UREA

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– 1 address my question to the Minister for Customs and Excise. I refer to the price of urea to the Australian consumer, is it a fact that recently the price of urea fell significantly in Western Australia? Has the retail price become lower in other States of Australia? ls the Minister satisfied, and can he give an assurance to the Senate, that the Commonwealth subsidy paid on urea is being made available in full to the primary producers who use this fertiliser?

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– The price of urea has been reduced by SIO a ton throughout Australia. This action was taken as a result of inquiries I initiated through my Department as to the price of urea landed in Australia and as to whether the whole of the subsidy of $80 per ton of contained nitrogen was being passed on to the consumers. We found that there was a shortfall of about $10 a ton. For this reason the price to the consumer was reduced by that amount. The price in all ports in Western Australia is down now by $10 a ton. I think that in most of the other States the price has been reduced by $10 at capital cities. Of course, we are very interested in the cost of urea to the farming community and I. am quite confident that the whole of the subsidy of $80 a ton of contained nitrogen is now being passed on to the consumer.

page 815

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, ls the Minister in a position to advise whether she has any decision or advice from the Minister for Social Services regarding the reciprocal social service agreement between Australia and Malta as promised by her on 26th March last? 1 again draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that 400,000 Maltese residing in Australia are vitally interested in this matter.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The honourable senator has on more than one occasion asked this question of me as the representative of the Minister of Social Services. I well recall that an answer was given at the end of last year to a question put on notice in connection with this matter. The honourable senator brings it to my notice again today. I have taken this matter up again recently with the Minister for Social Services who informs me that the situation is still as it was when a reply was given to the honourable senator in November of last year. The matter is under consideration. When a decision is arrived at by the Government it will be announced in the usual way.

page 816

QUESTION

TOURISM

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities. Having learned that the Minister has recently investigated tourist development in the Flinders Range area of South Australia I ask whether the Minister can let the Senate know what plans he suggests should be carried out for such development.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– lt would be premature for me to indicate any plans that I have even contemplated. Through the good offices of the State Minister for Lands and Tourism in South Australia, the Hon. David Brookman, I accepted an invitation ot his during the last two days to visit the Flinders Range. Together we were given some insight into the potential for tourist development in that area. It is pleasing to learn that the Government of South Australia plans to spend a good deal of money on roads in connection with the area and other tourist facilities obviously would bring the area to a state of great improvement for the public. Tt is an area of significant tourist potential and is well worth consideration.

page 816

QUESTION

RAILWAYS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the fact that hazardous railway operations can again arise in similar circumstances to the tragic

Southern Aurora smash unless automatic braking devices of an international standard are installed on all mainline Australian locomotives? Will he arrange for officers of the Department of Shipping and Transport to study the current inquiry into that smash and to arrange discussions with all Australian Commissioners of Railways with a view to having such automatic braking devices made applicable to all Australian railways systems?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– 1 have noted the keen interest that has been taken by the honourable senator in the recent Southern Aurora crash. For that reason I shall have great pleasure in conveying his suggestion to the Minister for Shipping and Transport for consideration.

page 816

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry seen comments in this morning’s Australian’ concerning (he New South Wales Graziers Association’s opposition to any proposals to control the current wheat explosion? Is he aware that this Association is predominantly a grazier organisation; that it has only one representative on the Australian Wheat Growers Federation; that many of its members are predominantly wool growers and graziers who have been growing wheat only in recent years as a second line of production and who could be described as ‘cash ins’ on the wheat industry; and that some of its members who have been planting large acreages in the last few years and intend to continue to do so or to increase those acreages-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator must ask his question.

Senator YOUNG:

– I want to know whether the Minister will show his concern about these matters by bringing them before the Australian Agricultural Council and the Australian Wheat Growers Federation when he meets them, as I hope he will. I wish to explain that what is taking place in the wheat industry today is the concern of the Australian Agricultural Council and the Australian Wheat Growers Federation, and that it is in this area-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– I did not see the article in the ‘Australian’ to which the honourable senator referred, but I did see in another newspaper a report concerning the decision that was arrrived at by the New South Wales Graziers Association. I think it is on ail fours with the decision arrived at by the United Farmers and Woolgrowers Association. As I understand it. the decision arrived at by the Graziers Association was not to go along with the suggestion that there be a curtailment of wheat acreages but to accept a quota system of deliveries. The Secretary of the Agriculture Branch of the Graziers Association is reported as having said that seeing that the Federal Government had not made any pronouncement or statement regarding its policy on wheat growing the inference was that it desired increased production, i am at a loss to understand that statement, if the gentleman concerned was reported correctly. Yesterday 1 answered a question on whether the Minister for Primary Industry was going lo have further discussions with the States on this matter. 1 now find that he made a statement in which he said that he thought it would be necessary for Commonwealth and State legal authorities to be called together to discuss any question of the curtailment of wheat production.

page 817

QUESTION

CRAYFISHING

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– 1 direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Has the Department of Primary Industry received an application for an export licence for crayfish from the fish processors on Thursday Island? ls he aware that the granting of such a licence will be of considerable economic benefit to the Torres Strait Islanders? Can he explain the Department’s delay in granting such a licence?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– I have no personal knowledge of the matters related by the honourable senator. I ask him to put the question on the notice paper so that I can obtain a reply from the Minister for Primary Industry.

page 817

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– Will the Minister for Repatriation give earnest and sympathetic consideration to so widening the functions of the Repatriation Department as to make it a responsibility of the Department to secure suitable light work commensurate with the reduced physical or mental capability of a repatriation pensioner classified by a Repatriation Department medical officer as able to do light work only, and whose pension rate is determined by that medical assessment, but who finds extreme difficulty in getting suitable light work, as a consequence of which he is compelled to exist on a grossly inadequate income, thereby adding to his recovery and adjustment problems? Will the Minister also consider taking steps to ensure that a repatriation pensioner in those circumstances is placed on a total and permanent incapacity rate of pension until suitable employment has been secured for him?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– I will answer first the last part of the honourable senator’s question, as to whether an unemployed pensioner in the category slated by the honourable senator should be placed on the TPI pension rate until employment has been found for him. This is not possible. As to the earlier part of his question about having a separate section - I think this is what he meant - to find employment for such men. the position is that we do what we can to find employment for them, working in conjunction with the Department of Social Services and employment agencies. In many instances we have been successful, and it is no! felt necessary to set up a separate section for this purpose.

page 817

QUESTION

BANK NOTES

Senator WEBSTER:

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether it is a fact that the Treasurer recently indicated that the Treasury is considering the issue of new bank notes of a value greater than $20. In considering the engraving and pattern of the proposed notes will the Treasury give serious consideration to depicting the first Australians, the Aboriginals? ls the Minister aware that no engraving on an Australian bank note has ever depicted Australian Aboriginal life?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I answered a question on this subject asked, as I recall, by Senator Webster. I said that the Treasury was considering the issue of a note of a new denomination. I am not aware of the procedures in relation to engraving. I will draw the Treasurer’s attention to the honourable senator’s comments.

page 818

QUESTION

VIP FLIGHT

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

– I wish to ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister the following questions: 1. Does the Government approve of the use of VIP Flight planes for party political’ purposes? 2. Has the Government recently allowed members of Cabinet to take Party members on interstate flights when non-government business was the objective? 3. If this is Government policy, will the facilities be available to all Party leaders? 4. Can the Minister explain why it was that recently, when a senator and a member of the House of Representatives were in Darwin as representatives of Federal Parliament on an official occasion, permission was refused to these members to travel with a Minister on a VIP plane in which plenty of accommodation was available? 5. Does the Minister know that as a result of this refusal the Commonwealth had to meet the cost of unnecessary air fares, and that those members of this Parliament had to wait in Darwin an extra day and night before returning to their homes?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The honourable senator has asked a series of questions. I will seek some information for him in relation to the use of VIP aircraft. I do not know of the circumstances to which he has referred, but I most certainly will make inquiries about them.

page 818

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

Senator MARRIOTT:

– 1 address my question to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. I ask: As the ban on the broadcasting of political comment, speeches and advertising will operate throughout Australia as from midnight tonight because of the by-election in the Curtin division to be held in Western Australia on Saturday next, can and will any action be taken in the interests of consistency to cancel the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Representatives tomorrow - Thursday - so as to prevent unanswerable political electioneering through the national broadcasting service, a practice which Parliament itself has deemed to be abhorrent and has made illegal according to the relevant sections of the Broadcasting and Television Act?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The question asked of me by the honourable senator concerns the broadcasting of the proceedings of Parliament. This is a matter for the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings of which you, Mr President, are a member. In reply to the question asked by the honourable senator, I think that I should refer him to a section of the Parliamentary. Proceedings Broadcasting Act which states:

  1. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Australian Broadcasting Act 1942, the Australian Broadcasting Commission shall broadcast the proceedings of the Senate or the House of Representatives . . . upon such days and during such periods as the Committee determines.

So, I refer the honourable senator to the fact that this is a matter for consideration by that Committee.

page 818

QUESTION

BUTTER

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to a statement by the Vice-President of the European Economic Community, Dr Sicco Mansholt, that butter is being dumped by Common Market countries in South East Asia? If so, will the Minister advise the Senate what effect this dumping of butter is having on the Australian dairy industry and what steps are being taken to overcome this serious threat to the industry which already is in serious financial difficulties?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– I did see the statement referred to by the honourable senator. 1 read it with a great deal of regret, and some consternation. The practice obviously would have a very adverse effect on the sale of Australian butter overseas. I am not in a position to say what action can be taken by the Australian Government to try to combat the dumping referred to, but I will try to get some information on the matter for the honourable senator.

page 819

QUESTION

POSTAL SERVICES

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. As was to be expected with the introduction of once a day postal services in suburbia, deliveries are up to 4 hours late daily. Is there any explanation of the late delivery of mail on Saturday mornings when there has never been other than one suburban delivery of mail on that day?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I could not tell the honourable senator the reasons why there should be a delay in a particular area on a particular day. I imagine that 1 could get for him a much more definite reply to his query if he could tell me the area where there was a delay, the particular date and the time, because then inquiries possibly could be made.

page 819

QUESTION

OFFICE OF PRIME MINISTER

Senator GEORGES:

– I wish to direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. What does the Government intend to do to defend the prestige of the office of Prime Minister of this country against the strong attacks made on it by the ex-member of the Liberal Party, Mr E. H. St. John, member for Warringah in another place?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I do not know what the motives of the honourable senator are in asking this question. I would think that his motives would be political. If they are, 1 state that the Prime Minister of Australia has not got to worry about the assault that has been made on his office or himself in the unfortunate circumstances that have arisen in the past. As has been said in the Senate - and, indeed, by the honourable senator’s own Leader - we all - any of us who have anything in us at all - deprecate the vicious and cruel things that were said and the circumstances in which they were said.’

page 819

QUESTION

POISONS ACTS

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– J ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health a question. Will the Minister bring before the next meeting of State Ministers of Health the illogicality and wastefulness of separate State Poisons Acts? Is the Minister aware that the necessity for variations in packaging in each State increases the cost of drugs to the public and to the Commonwealth, which is the main user?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– 1 understand that the honourable senator asked that the Minister for Health put this matter before the next conference of Health Ministers. I will put his proposal before the Minister for Health.

page 819

QUESTION

CHEMICAL WARFARE

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

– 1 direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, ls it a fact, as reportedly stated by the Minister for Defence in Launceston on 10th April, that Australian troops in Vietnam are using a chemical gas known as CS gas? If it is a fact, docs the Government contend that the use of such gas by Australian troops is not in breach of the relevant international convention?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I understand that this is a non-toxic, non-lethal’ form of tear gas. I understand also that a similar type of gas is used by civilian police forces throughout the world. In fact it has the effect of saving lives as against the risk of increasing the mortality rate. I understand that its use - whoever uses it - is not in conflict with the Geneva Convention of 1925. My authority for that statement is a statement in another place by the former Minister for External Affairs, Mr Hasluck, as he then was, as far back as 1965.

page 819

QUESTION

SUPERANNUATION

Senator KEEFFE:

– fs the Minister for Supply aware that several employees of the Queensland division of the Department of Supply have been refused admittance to the provident fund covering departmental employees? Is he aware that the men were rejected medically as they were all returned servicemen who suffered injuries and wounds in the service of their country? Can the Minister inform Parliament how many ex-servicemen employed by the Department of Supply in Queensland have been rejected for membership of the provident fund because of war injuries and how many employees of the Department of Supply throughout Australia have been rejected on the same grounds?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

-I am not aware of the matters referred to by the honourable senator, but I most certainly will obtain the facts for him and for the Senate. My understanding is that a provident fund arrangement would not be peculiar to the Department of Supply. I take it that it would relate to the Public Service and comes within the ambit of the Public Service Act. I will obtain the facts. If there are circumstances in which some employees-

Senator Keeffe:

– 1 understood that they were wounded in action. But the fund does not want them.

Senator ANDERSON:

– The honourable senator has asked the question. He should not attempt to give the answer before I obtain the facts. T should think this would be a general Public Service fund and would not apply only to my department. I suggest we defer judgment until we have all the particulars.

page 820

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Senator ORMONDE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy. Is the Navy to persist in its policy of dumping unwanted war equipment at sea? Would it not be of more advantage to stockpile such metal’s rather than to endanger life and coastal shipping by dumping the materials close to the shore?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– I should imagine that if unwanted war materials were dumped they would be dumped in areas quite a distance from shore. The materials would be obsolete. I am not certain that that is the position, but I will try to ascertain the facts for the honourable senator.

page 820

QUESTION

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities report any progress on statements I made to him about joint Commonwealth-State action to preserve the colony of gannets on Cat Island in Bass Strait, having particular regard to the extra cost that would be incurred by the Tasmanian Government in the appointment of additional game wardens?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– 1 have pursued inquiries as requested by the honourable senator. This matter comes within the responsibility of the Animals and Birds Protection Board of the State of Tasmania particularly, but of course anybody with responsibility in tourism has an interest. The particular gannetry to which the honourable senator refers had a population of about 1,000 before the war and is now depleted to 5 or 6 new birds in this hatching. That is due to the ravages of fishermen. The manual protection of wardens is required. Although it is regretted that this gannetry has become, in effect, a relic gannetry. the honourable senator will be reassured when 1 tell him that my inquiries have revealed that there are two other significant hatcheries on the shores of Tasmania where the gannet population is quite encouraging.

page 820

QUESTION

MEAT INSPECTIONS

Senator GEORGES:

– J direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Are American veterinary surgeons at present carrying out inspections of meal abattoirs in Queensland? fs the Department of Primary Industry transferring Commonwealth meat inspectors from other abattoirs to the plants under inspection to meet the requirements of the American authorities? For how long does he think this policy of obvious deceit will mislead the American authorities? Why does his Department not appoint the many qualified men available to the positions of meat inspector so that this very important industry can be fully staffed?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– Some of the questions asked by the honourable senator could be answered only by the Minister for Primary Industry. With regard to the question as to why the Minister does not employ the many qualified men who are available, the truth of the position is that not sufficient veterinary inspectors are .available to be appointed.

Senator Georges:

– I am talking about meat inspectors.

Senator McKELLAR:

– I shall answer the honourable senator’s question if he will give me an opportunity to do so. One of the troubles that we are concerned with in the meat industry today is that there are not enough qualified veterinary officers to do the job. As to deceiving the American authorities. I do not think there is any question of. deceit. 1 am quite sure the honourable senator would realise that the American restrictions are so well policed that even if there were a wish to deceive it would not be possible to do so. I shall put the remainder of the honourable senator’s question to the Minister and see whether he has an answer for him.

page 821

QUESTION

TOURISM

Senator ORMONDE:

– Was the MinissterinCharge of Tourist Activities affronted recently over Senator Scott’s running fight with American tourists who came here by aeroplane? Would the Minister like to express a view on the cause of that incident and the results to his Department?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– 1 understand that this question refers to a news statement of some 10 days ago in which a version was given of the views of American visitors on some queries addressed to them by customs officers. I made a statement at the time. For the information of the Senate and particularly the honourable senator, it was to the effect that I had no doubt that the views expressed were the individual interpretations of isolated instances and that I had no doubt whatever that generally the customs officials were careful to displ’ay all courtesy to our international visitors.

page 821

QUESTION

PROVIDENT FUNDS

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Supply in his capacity as Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister representing the Prime Minister. Can the Minister inform the Parliament of the total number of exservicemen suffering from war disabilities who have been rejected for membership of provident funds in all Government departments? Can he also inform the Parliament whether it is the intention of his Government to reject all ex-servicemen who have suffered physical damage, as a result of involvement in the various wars in which this Government engages from time to time, for membership of provident funds and for participation in other benefits of a similar nature to which normally they would have been entitled had they not suffered injuries as a result of war?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The matter that concerns me, Mr President, in responding to the question, is how we can get the statistics that the honourable senator is seeking. 1 would presume that it would involve some representations to each department in order to ascertain how many employees of the Public Service have been seeking to become members of the provident fund and have been precluded because of war disability from so doing. I will take the question on board and see whether it is possible to get this information, it may be possible to get it from some other source - perhaps through the Repatriation Department - but I do not know.

I must admit that T am concerned to imagine that disability would preclude one from membership of a provident fund. 1 have a war disability, and other honourable senators sitting here have war disabilities in some form to a greater or minor degree. I think we should try to get to the principles involved in this matter and also try to obtain the statistics in relation to the number of individuals involved.

page 821

QUESTION

ARMY

Senator BISHOP:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer or the Minister representing the Minister for the Army. Has the Minister noticed that again there are delays in awarding pay increases to members of the armed Services? Yesterday an Army spokesman stated that 11.000 Army men were waiting for increases which had been promised 12 months ago and that some of the delay was due to the Treasury. I ask the Minister: Will he take steps to stop this frequent, almost yearly, delay in making up pay increases for members of the Services, which seems to be a common feature now of Public Service arrangements?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Yes, I will take the matter up with the Treasurer and get the facts. 1 also saw the Press cutting and put it aside in order to remind myself to get some information about the matter. I am sorry 1 do not have the answers now but 1 hope to have them fairly promptly.

page 822

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT

(Question No. 829)

Senator POYSER:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

What other Federal Acts of Parliament would require amendment if the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Act was amended to provide equality in relation to the benefits provided under that Act to all members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, whether they be male or female?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

On retirement, a female member of the Senate or of the House of Representatives, whether married, unmarried or a widow, is entitled to the same benefits under the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Aci as is a male member. There is, however, one difference between the benefits payable in respect of a deceased female member and a deceased male member when survived by an eligible spouse, namely, that pension is not payable to the widower of a female member. There is, however, provision for a lump sum benefit in these circumstances. No other Federal Act of Parliament would require amendment if the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Act were to be amended to provide for the same benefits to be payable in respect of deceased female members as are pay? able in respect of deceased male members.

page 822

QUESTION

BUSH FIRES

(Question No. 843)

Senator POYSER:

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

  1. Were employees of the Postmaster-General’s Department working at ‘The Granites’ in the Shire of Korong, Victoria, on 8th January 1969?
  2. Was that day a day of total Are ban in Victoria?
  3. Were Postmaster-General’s Department employees engaged in welding -operations in the open on that day at ‘The Granites’?
  4. ls there any evidence to show that a bush fire, which burnt many thousands of acres of crops and pastures as well as fencing and homes, started at ‘The Granites’ on the day in question?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes. Five officers of my Department and iwo employees of a contractor were working at the Borung radio relay station situated in the area known as ‘The Granites’.
  2. Yes, the 8th January 1969 was declared a day of total fire ban in Victoria.
  3. No.
  4. A grass fire did occur in the area known as The Granites’ on 8th January 1969. ll was first noticed by an officer of my Department at about 11.45 a.m. in the vicinity of the security fence surrounding the Borung radio station. Four other officers of my Department and two employees of a departmental contractor were present at the time and concurrently advised the rural fire brigade and attempted to extinguish the fire with foam and carbon dioxide. An additional two men arrived within minutes and assisted in fighting the fire but the measures taken were ineffective.

The Victorian police and the Victorian Country Fire Authority reports on their investigations into this and other fires on the 8th January are not yet available. My investigations, however, have found no evidence to suggest thai any equipment or staff of my Department or its contractor were in any way responsible for the outbreak of the fire.

page 822

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

(Question No. 866)

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. How much per pound is paid by the Commonwealth to the Department of Railways in each State and to the Commonwealth Railways lor the cartage of mail?
  2. How much per pound is paid by the Commonwealth to each of the airline operators for the cartage of mail?
  3. How long is it since these rates were altered?
  4. What was the total amount paid to each of the States and to each of the airline operators over the last 4 years for the cargage of mail?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The rates per pound paid to the Department of Railways in each State and to the Commonwealth Railways for the carriage of mails are:

In several instances the rates per pound vary wilh distance or destination and in such cases the average rate paid per pound of mail conveyed has been quoted above.

  1. Payments for the conveyance of mail by air are made on a weight-distance, basis and are quoted in terms of cents per pound mile, with the exception of Connellan Airways Pty Ltd which is paid a fixed amount each year. The current rates are .0366c per pound mile in respect of Airlines of New South Wales, Ansett Airlines of Australia, Ansett Flying Boat Services, East-West Airlines

Ltd, Qantas Airways Ltd (Domestic Services), Queensland Airlines, and Trans-Australia Airlines; and.05c per pound mile in respect of Airlines of South Australia and MacRobertson Miller Airlines Ltd. Connellan Airways Pty Ltd is paid a fixed amount of $64,000 per annum.

  1. The rates per pound paid for railway conveyance of mail were last altered, as follows:

New South Wales - 1st November 1968

Victoria - 1st September 1966

Queensland - 1st January 1964

South Australia - 1st January 1968

Western Australia - 1st October 1965

Tasmania - 1st May 1968

Commonwealth - 1st January 1962

In respect of the air conveyance of mail, the current rate per pound mile paid to Airlines of South Australia and MacRobertson Miller Airlines Ltd has applied since 1st November 1959 and, in respect of all other operators, since 1st July 1968. The present fixed amount payable to Connellan Airways Pty Ltd has applied since 1st January 1963.

  1. The total amounts paid to each of the State railways and to the Commonwealth Railways for mail conveyance over the last four financial years are:

page 823

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH RAILWAYS

(Question No. 893)

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Are Commonwealth Railways locomotives equipped with safety devices to stop the train immediately on passing a danger signal or in the event of any other emergency, such as is the common practice in other parts of the world?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

All Commonwealth Railways mainline locomotives are provided with devices to stop the train in the event of the incapacity or inattention of the driver. This equipment automatically operates if the driver (a) releases foot pressure on the deadman pedal; or (b) fails to acknowledge the audible warning siren of the vigilance control unit. Trip devices which automatically stop a train on passing a danger signal, such as are used on Sydney and Melbourne suburban systems are not used, as these devices are not considered suitable where train speeds are in excess of50 miles per hour.

page 823

QUESTION

PET FOODS

(Question No. 908)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

What power does the Department of Health possess to maintain standards in the pet food industry?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Standards in the pet food industry are the responsibility of State governments, my Department’s authority in this field being limited to the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. The Health Ministers Conference in 1967 and subsequently the Public Health Advisory Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council have discussed the need for standards in pet foods.I understand that some States are considering legislation in this Held.

page 823

QUESTION

DEVALUATION

(Question No. 918)

Senator WEBSTER:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Has there been undue loss of time between the announcement by the Government of devaluation compensation payments to certain primary industries and the payments?
  2. What are the considerations which make prompt payment difficult for the’ Government?
Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answerto the honourable senator’s question:

The undertaking given by the Government on losses arising from the devaluation of sterling incorporated an assurance that the losses to receive consideration would be those which were demonstrable and unavoidable. The Government also indicated that where a statutory marketing authority exists the distribution of devaluation compensation to the industry would he made through the authority.

As part of the arrangement for the distribution of compensation moneys for post devaluation losses the Department of Primary Industry agrees procedures for the receipt and examination of claims, lodged by exporters with the marketing authority. These procedures, which are designed to meet the particular practices in the industry concerned, ate subject to acceptance by the Treasury and approval by the Minister for Primary Industry. When the administrative procedures are approved and the marketing authority is in a position to pay compensation to the industry the necessary funds are made available by the Department of Primary Industry.

In the case of immediate losses from devaluation, i.e., losses on contracts, consignment stocks held abroad and shipments which were in course at the date of devaluation, the authorities lodge properly documented claims in the first instance with the Reserve Bank for the calculation of notional premiums for forward exchange cover and verification of the loss. The claims are then passed through the Treasury to the Department of Primary Industry for payment.

Some delays have occurred between the time of the announcement of devaluation compensation by the Government and the passing of compensation moneys to industry. Such delays are in the main attributable to administrative problems encountered by the marketing authority. Most authorities have now overcome the initial difficulties and to this stage compensation of $46.071m has been paid out by the Commonwealth. This amount has been paid for immediate losses and post devaluation losses on 196S marketing against an estimated compensation pay out of approximately $55.92m. Details of the estimated and actual payments are as follows:

The Government announced on 20th December 1968 that devaluation compensation would bc extended to rural industries for a further 12 months. It is estimated that this could amount to a further $30m. However, as statutory authorities are not yet in a position to submit claims for this period, no payment has yet been made.

page 824

QUESTION

DARTMOUTH DAM

(Question No. 944)

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. What means will be used to transport water between Dartmouth Dam and Adelaide?
  2. Will this transport be by pipeline? If so, what size pipe is to be used, and what is the estimated quantity of water that will be delivered to South Australia each day?
  3. If transport is to be by means other than through pipelines, what form will the transport take?
  4. If it is to be by open channel, (a) what is the distance to be traversed, and (b) how will flow.:pressure he maintained?
  5. What percentage of water leaving the dam will be lost by evaporation and soil absorption?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions.

  1. The storage at Dartmouth will be operated in conjunction wilh the Hume storage, and transport of water will be the same as at present, that is water will be released into the River Murray for division as required at all points downstream.
  2. The quantity of water that would be delivered to South Australia will he in accordance with the requirements of the River Murray Waters Agreement in which monthly totals, making up an annual total of 1.254 million acre feet per annum are specified. Although this is the quantity that would have applied if Chowilla had been built, it has recently been agreed, subject to ratification by the governments concerned, that South Australia’s entitlement will be increased from 1.254 to 1.5 million acre feet per annum when the Dartmouth storage becomes effective.
  3. This has been answered under 1 above.
  4. The distance along the river from Hume storage to the point from which water is pumped to Adelaide is a little under 1,300 miles, and the distance from Hume dam to the Dartmouth .Mie is about 80 miles. Since the flow is in the river channel, there is no question of maintaining pressure, and the regulation of the river will continue as at present, with the use of Menindee Lakes storage and Lake Victoria io assist in regulation of the lower river.
  5. As mentioned above, water leaving the Dartmouth and Hume storages is used in conjunction with downstream inflows and storages to maintain supplies throughout the river system. In view of the complexity of this system with its numerous points of supply and demand, it is not possible to give a reliable estimate of the loss in water released from Dartmouth via Hume storage in to the river system. It might be noted however that the increase in loss due to an increase in discharge as involved in the proposed development can be expected to be quite small, since it involves only a very slight increase in the water level and wetted surface down the river. Similarly the loss in water released from Hume can be expected to be quite small during periods when natural inflows downstream would in any case maintain some river flow. Much greater losses could be expected during droughts when under natural conditions there might be little water in the river channel. Since in this case, however, operation of the river requires a flow to be maintained throughout its length in order to met irrigation and other requirements, the additional flow required to supply water to Adelaide would once again involve very little additional loss.

page 825

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE

(Question No. 985)

Senator DITTMER:
through Senator Ormonde

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

When will copies of the report of the Nimmo Committee on medical and hospital services be made available to honourable senators, or does the Government propose to follow its not unusual practice of not making the report available?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answerto the honourable senator’s question:

A copy of the Nimmo Committee report which was tabled on 25th March 1969 has been made available to all senators.

page 825

QUESTION

OIL SEARCH

(Question No. 1003)

Senator GEORGES:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the $22,906 Commonwealth oil subsidy paidto Artesian Basin Oil Co. in Queensland, will the Minister ascertain the total value of exploration for which this subsidy was paid?
  2. Will the Minister relate this amount to the $60,000 paid by Exoil NL to Artesian Basin Oil Co. as compensation for exploration work on which subsidy was paid?
  3. Will the Minister assure the Senate, after investigation, that there was nothing unethical in this transaction?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The only operation by Artesian Basin Oil Co. Pty Ltd which has been subsidised under the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act was the Mutlaburra seismic survey in Queensland in 1959. The total audited cost of the operation amounted to $45,811 and under the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act 1959 this operation entitled the applicant to a subsidy of 50% of that cost.
  2. and 3. The Commonwealth subsidised the operation referred to in 1. in accordance with the provisions of the petroleum search subsidy legislation and was concerned to see, and did see, that all the conditions pertaining to the agreement were fulfilled by the operator. It was not thereby concerned in any way with any payment which may have been made by Exoil NL to Artesian Basin Oil Co. Pty Ltd.

page 825

QUESTION

COTTON INDUSTRY

(Question No. 1018)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the

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

Will the Minister investigate allegations made by New South Wales Australian Workers Union organiser Mr Rodwell that amenities for female Held operators in the cotton industry are virtually non-existent, and that in fact companies concerned resolutely refuse to consider better working conditions for the seasonal work force?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The wages and conditions of employees in the cotton growing industry in New South Wales are regulated by an award of the New South Wales Industrial Commission and are therefore outside myfield of responsibility.

page 825

QUESTION

PATENT OFFICE

(Question No. 1027)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the

Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. What is the staff establishment for patent examiners in the Patent Office?
  2. Flow many patent examiners arc employed at the present time in the Patent Office?
  3. What is the existing salary range of patents officers?
  4. What are the qualifications required of patents officers?
  5. What steps have been taken to overcome any staff shortages?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. The existing establishment of the Patent Examination Branch of the Patent Office is -

Note - It has been agreed with the Public Service Board that one position of Supervising Examiner of Patents, Class 2, and four positions of Supervising Examiner, Class 1, will not be filled until the number of examiners employed requires these supervising officers.

  1. Officers are employed in the Patent Examination Branch to the extent indicated hereunder in the designations shown:
  1. Positions attached to the Patent Examination Branch are classified as shown hereunder:

  1. –

    1. The qualifications required for appointment to positions of Examiner of Patents, Class 1, and those positions classified higher than Class 1 positions are the possession of a degree or diploma in science, engineering or other recognised field of technology or equivalent qualifications.
    2. The qualifications required for appointment to positions of Examiner of Patents, Grades A and B, are Matriculation, Leaving or Higher School Certificate with a pass in English, or other qualifications admitting to the Third Division of the Commonwealth Public Service, with partial qualifications towards a degree or diploma in science or engineering or towards membership of a scientific or engineering institute or practical knowledge and experience in a scientific, engineering or industrial field.
    3. Persons appointed asExaminer of Patents -usually in Grade B or Class 1 - are given a period of training in Patent Law, introduction to legal method, interpretation and criticism of specifications and patent examination procedure. They must complete this course successfully before being placed on examination duties.

  2. The following steps have been taken in an endeavour to overcome staff shortages:

    1. Vacancies are regularly advertised within Australia. Since October 1963 there have been twelve advertisements in the Commonwealth ‘Gazette’, all metropolitan daily newspapers and selected provincial newspapers.

The results of these advertisements were: 1,626 applicants (243 for Class1 and 1.383 for Grade B). 156 appointed (80 Class1 and 76 Grade B), 83 commenced training (36 Class 1 and 47 Grade B).

  1. Vacancies were advertised in the United Kingdom in 1964 and 1967. Twenty Class 1 and four Grade B examiners were recruited in 1964 and five Class 1 and nine Grade B examiners were recruited in 1967.
  2. Between advertisements any inquiries received regarding employment as examiner are promptly followed up. Persons from the United Kingdom and New Zealand have been recruited in this manner.
  3. The employment and career opportunities available in the Patent Office have been regularly brought to the notice of students through -

  4. campus interviews and/or lectures,

    1. the supply of publicity material to institutions,
    2. letters to final year students,
    3. visits of groups of students to the Patent Office, and
  5. vocational employment of students.
  6. A scheme for training cadets as Examiners of Patents has operated over the past 10 years.

page 826

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ROAD SAFETY COUNCIL

(Question No. 1039)

Senator ORMONDE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the subsidised Australian Road Safety Council has not met for over 12 months?
  2. Having in mind the road toll, will the Minister ask the Council whether lack of interest is the cause of the Council not meeting?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The Commonwealth Government does not subsidise the Australian Road Safety Council but provides the secretarial facilities for it. The Council meets annually and has met within the past 12 months, namely on 23rd and 24th April 1968. Sub-committees of Council have held meetings since those dates. The next Council meeting is scheduled for 7th and 8th May 1969.
  2. See answer to 1.

page 826

QUESTION

COTTON INDUSTRY

(Question No. 1042)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Will the Minister investigate reports of workers, employed in the New South Wales cotton industry as field hands, being billetted, in the Wee Waa region, in houses which the local shire council had deemed as unfit for human habitation?
  2. Were these employees charged high tariff for such habitation?
  3. Are these employees now provided with adequate living quarters?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: i refer the honourable senator to the answer which 1 provided to his question No. 1018.

page 827

QUESTION

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

(Question No. 1060)

Senator MCCLELLAND:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Were papers in respect of the short payment of duty on cigarettes forwarded by the Department of Customs and Excise to the AttorneyGeneral’s Department on 10th September 1968?
  2. Why has it taken 6 months, to date, for a decision to be made by the Attorney-General’s Department as to what proceedings, if any, are intended to be taken?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. The papers related to investigations which on 10th September 1968 had not been completed. Additional papers were forwarded in midNovember 1968 after the completion of the investigations. An officer has been working since the beginning of January 1969 continuously on these matters, together with other matters which relate to similar offences and in connection with which writs of summons were issued out of the High Court on 26th July 1968. As a large number of offences may be involved, it is likely to be some time before the examination of all the documents relating to the investigations have been concluded, and a decision made as to what proceedings can or should be taken.

page 827

QUESTION

TELEVISION

(Question No. 1065)

Senator MCCLELLAND:

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

What regulations have been made in respect of television networks since the repeal in June 1965 of section 16(3.)(e) of the Broadcasting and Television Act?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

No regulations have been made in respect of television networks since the repeal of Section 16(3.)(e) of the Broadcasting and Television Act.

page 827

QUESTION

PINE GAP INSTALLATION

(Question No. 1068)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. How many Cabinet Ministers and other members of the Government have visited Pine Gap?
  2. What are the names of those who have visited the area and when did the visits take place?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and 2. Two Cabinet Ministers and six other members of the Government, namely:

The. Honourable C. E. Barnes. M.P.- 8th August 1967.

The Honourable Allen Fairhall, M.P.- 18th September 1967.

Mr W. T. Arthur, M.P.; 3rd February 1968.

Mr S. E. Calder. M.P.; 3rd February 1968.

Senator A. G. E. Lawrie ; 6th February 1968.

Senator E W Prowse:

– -6th February 1968.

Mr S. E. Calder. M.P.; 6lh February 1968.

Mr R. C. Katter, M.P.; 6th February 1968.

Senator the Honourable Ken Anderson:

– 15th July 1968. i would add that the Leader of the Opposition. Mr E. G. Whitlam, Q.C., M.P., made a visit on 24th May 1968. All of these visits took place at an early stage of the construction of the facility.

page 827

QUESTION

CUSTOMS DUTY

(Question No. 1073)

Senator MCCLELLAND:

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. ls the Department of Customs and Excise required under Section 149 of the Customs Act to claim from shipping companies the amount of duly lost on pillaged and shortlanded cargo?
  2. How many claims have been lodged since 1st January 1968, and how many have still not yet been made?
  3. How many claims have yet to be lodged by the Department on pillaged and shortlanded cargo, and what, if any, is the estimated outstanding amount of duty?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. Section 149 of the Customs Act provides that, if any dutiable goods which are included in the report of any ship or aircraft shall not be produced to the officer, the master or owner of the ship or the pilot or owner of the aircraft shall on demand by the Collector, pay the duty thereon as estimated by the Collector, unless the goods are accounted for to the satisfaction of the Collector. A claim for payment of duty depends upon the Collector of Customs being satisfied that the pillage or shortage did not occur overseas.
  2. and 3. The following statistics for the period since 1st January 1968 provide the information requested:

There is a further quantity of pillaged or shortlanded cargo being investigated in each State. However, since demands for the duty involved will not be made if the goods are accounted for to the satisfaction of the Collector, there is no way to estimate the number of claims or the duty which might be involved.

page 828

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

(Question No. 1074)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. Has an internal audit check within the Department of Customs and Excise raised any queries relating to missing quarantine permits which have prevented finalisation of papers and customs clearance of goods brought to Australia in ships that entered the port of Sydney in 19687
  2. What is the total number of queries on all matters that have been raised to date by the internal audit check?
  3. What is the total number of queries relating to missing quarantine permits?
  4. How many of the queries referred to in 2 and 3 above have been cleared up, and how many are still outstanding?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senators question is as follows:

  1. The internal check system was established in the Department of Customs and Excise to check all aspects of departmental administration on a continuing basis Amongst other things, it ensures that copies of all quarantine permits and other documents are attached to ships’ papers before these are finalised. Ships’ papers cannot be finalised until all cargo is accounted for, and relevant documents are filed together.

The documents are used in various sections of the Department until they are brought together to enable the papers to be finalised.

  1. Queries totalling 4,287 were raised on some 464.000 manifestlines of cargo cleared in Sydney in 1968.
  2. One hundred and eighty-three.
  3. One hundred and fifty-nine quarantine and 3,326 other queries have been resolved. Twentyfour quarantine and 778 other queries are outstanding.

page 828

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

(Question No. 1076)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

Has the Quarantine Section of the Department of Health sent to the Department of Customs and Excise a list of quarantine permits relating to various ships, seeking information from the Department of Customs and Excise as to how it is that importers have approached the Health Department for the issuing of quarantine permits without in the first instance having been advised to do so by the Department of Customs and Excise?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

It is a usual and desirable practice for importers to obtain a quarantine permit from the Health Department before lodging papers in respect of imports to the Department of Customs and Excise.

The Departments of Health and Customs and Excise have a joint responsibility in this field. The Department of Customs and Excise undertakes to ensure that quarantine requirements are met where the import documents indicate that the goods involved are subject to quarantine control. If these documents do not so indicate, the quarantine requirement is supervised by officers of the Health Department who, for this purpose, maintain a continuous inspection of cargo.

Because of this joint responsibility, there is continuing collaboration between the officers of the two departments. This has become more intensive of recent date because of changes that have been introduced to facilitate the clearance of cargo.

As part of this collaboration, the Health Department continuously sends lists of quarantine permits to the Department of Customs and Excise to verify that the customs check has been effective.

page 829

QUESTION

MALAYSIA - SINGAPORE

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 4th March Senator Gair asked me. as Minister representing the Minister for Defence, a question regarding the transfer of Australian troops from Malaysia to Singapore. The Minister for Defence has now provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Prime Minister in his speech on 25th February 1969 referred to the location of the Australian and New Zealand ground forces in the following terms: ‘. . . These troops, in accordance with the advice tendered to us by our military advisers on military grounds, and because of the considerable financial savings involved will be based at Singapore, although one company will be detached in rotation to Butterworth. . . .’

In the subsequent debate on the Prime Minister’s statement on 27th February 1 amplified this reference. I pointed out that the decision on location of ground forces was taken after study of the best location and extensive discussions with senior officials in Kuala Lumpur and Singapore. The dominant consideration was to find the best and most economical way of providing a ground force contribution to the security of Malaysia and Singapore and make best use of the resources at Australia’s disposal.

I also explained that ‘the withdrawal of the British means the end of the British logistics organisation which has served our forces at Terendak. We and the New Zealanders will have to build up a logistics and communications support structure to support our forces or at least we would have been obliged to do so had the decision been one to remain at Terendak. Movement to Singapore shortens our lines of communication and lessens logistics problems. It avoids problems of medical and other support. We have immediate access to Singapore’s highly developed port and other maintenance facilities. We have the means of developing a basic organisation which could be expanded rapidly if the need for that should arise. The value and availability of our forces in Singapore is no less than if they were in Malaysia’.

It is important to view the disposition of Australian forces as a whole. The Army will be stationed in Singapore but will have a significant element on rotation in Malaysia at all times, while the Air Force will be stationed in Malaysia and will have an element on rotation in Singapore.

page 829

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION

The Postmaster-General has now furnished me with the following information in reply:

A facility already exists whereby the holder of a broadcast listener’s or television viewer’s licence may purchase stamps and fix them on a special card which may be obtained, free of charge, at any post office. The stamps are applied towards payment of the licence fee when it is due. The minimum postage stamp denominations which may be used are as follows:

page 829

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– On 15th April Senator McClelland asked me a question concerning the use of persons, other than customs officers or police officers, to perform the functions of officers of the Department of Customs and Excise on investigations conducted by the Department. 1 told the honourable senator at that time that 1 was not quite sure of the exact procedures, but that 1 would give him a detailed reply. I now supply the following information:

Section 4 (1) of the Customs Act defines an officer’ or ‘officer of Customs’ as a person -

employed in the service of the Customs: or

authorised in writing by the Minister to perform the functions of an officer of Customs.

I have on many occasions found it necessary during my period as Minister to give such authorities in writing for various purposes. In addition on several occasions since 1 became Minister, officers acting under a customs warrant in the form of Schedule IV to the Customs Act have called upon outside assistants, usually technical experts, to assist them in their investigations, as provided in Section 201 of the Customs Act. For instance, the service of such a technical expert was utilised by duly authorised officers in the investigation into Geophysical Service International. There are, of course, other provisions in the Customs Act which enable the Department to utilise experts who are not officers of the Department.

page 829

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– On 15th April Senator Bishop asked me a question concerning the customs clearance of Royal Australian Navy seamen at Adelaide. I now supply the following answer: 1 have made inquiries into this matter and have been informed that the Department of Customs and Excise was advised by the Departments of Navy and Marine and Harbours that the vessel was due to arrive at 9 a.m. on Monday, 14th

April 1969. The proposed arrival was checked by Customs at 4 p.m. Friday. 1 11th April 1969, with Marine and Harbours which confirmed that the arrival time was unaltered. Accordingly, arrangements were made for staff to be available at that time to process the disembarking seamen. However, the vessel arrived in Port Adelaide about 5.30 p.m. on Sunday, 1 3th April 1969. and customs was not advised of the requirements until 6.23 p.m. Customs officers were available and ready to process the seamen at 7.10 p.m. Unfortunately, rain occurred and it was not possible to use the wharf. Further arrangements were then made to use the shipboard mess. The first seaman disembarked at 7.45 p.m. and the last at 9. p.m. Discussions will take place with Navy in an attempt to obviate a recurrence.

page 830

DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

Formal Motion for Adjournment

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) - The President has received from Senator McClelland an intimation that he desires to move the adjournment of the Senate for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgency, namely:

The necessity for a public inquiry into and report upon the operation and administration of the Department of Customs and Excise under the Minister for Customs and Excise, Senator Scott, and, in particular, the facts and circumstances in and in connection with (a) the dismissal and ‘or resignation of Gerard Charles Hoffmann: (b) the conduct of Customs entries into private homes, including that of Miss Daphne Mayo; (c) the evasion of duties and excise on a grand scale, including the evasion of $l.9m of duty payable on cigarettes and cigars: (d) poor morale within the Department :and (e) the growth of drug abuse and illegal trafficking in Australia. ls the motion supported? (More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places)

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

– I move:

The matter 1 propose to discuss is the necessity for a public inquiry into and report upon the operation and administration of the Department of Customs and Excise under the Minister for Customs and Excise. Senator Scott, and. in particular, the facts and circumstances in and in connection with (a) the dismissal and/ or resignation of Gerard Charles Hoffmann; (b) the conduct of Customs entries into private homes, including that of Miss Daphne

Mayo; (c) the evasion of duties and excise on a grand scale, including the evasion of $].9m of duty payable on cigarettes and cigars; (d) poor morale within the Department; and (e) the growth of drug abuse and illegal trafficking in Australia. The matters of urgency arise out of the facts as they have emerged in this Parliament since it commenced its present sitting on 25th February and as a result of the daily interrogations of the Minister for Customs and Excise by the Opposition which have taken place in this chamber. Constant probing has shown that the Minister did not provide the Senate with full details of the administration of his Department relating to the dismissal and/or resignation of Mr Gerard Hoffmann when he had undertaken to do so on 26th February last. Since then there have been a number of other matters concerning the administration of his Department which most certainly call for a public inquiry.

The Minister’s story of the Hoffmann affair is fantastic and incredible, coming as it does from a Minister of the Crown. The Minister told us in his full and frank statement of 26th February that Hoffmann had been charged on 20th September 1968 with a grave offence and that the Department had recommended that he be dismissed. The Minister told us that the Public Service Appeal Board rejected Hoffmann’s appeal and that, on 30th October, the Public Service Board issued an authority to the Department to dismiss Hoffmann as from 15th November. He told us that in fact on 14th November Mr Hoffmann had tendered his resignation and it had been accepted before his dismissal became effective. So far as. the Minister was concerned at that time, that was all that was involved in the story or, at least, that is all that we in this Parliament were going to be told.

We had to learn the remainder of the details from our own probings, which took place daily in this place, and from the writings of Mrs Hoffmann as they appeared a couple of weeks later in the metropolitan Press. For instance, we were not told by the Minister in his full and frank statement what the nature of the grave charge was. We did not know whether the charge against Hoffmann related to evasion of duty or the wrongful issue of a by-law. We did not have any details and we did not learn the details from the Minister until 4th March. The Minister did not tell us in his statement that Mr Hoffmann had written to him. As it turned out, apparently the Minister was noi told by the Department, nor did he try to obtain from the Department, details of the charge against Hoffmann. Incredibly, it seems that it was left to Mr Hoffmann to tell the Minister in the letter which, we have since learned, was written by Mr Hoffmann on 11th November. On 4th March the Minister said that he had been informed that an officer of his Department was to bc charged with improper conduct but that he did not know the details of the charge unfit he received the letter from Mr Hoffmann. That was the letter dated 1 1 th November which I referred to earlier.

From that statement in the Senate by the Minister it would appear that the Department did not tell him the details of the charge agains: Hoffmann and thai he did not seek to obtain from the Department details of the charge against Hoffmann. According to the Minister, it was not until he received the letter of 11th November from Hoffmann that he was able to ascertain the details of the charge. Within 10 days of the Minister having received the letter and without his having done one single solitary thing about it, other than forward it to the Department without comment. Mr Hoffmann called on the Minister and thanked him and the Department for what they had done. Also, we understand, he gave the Minister a Bible bearing the inscription ‘Blessed are the merciful’. Yet we had been told earlier that the reason for the interview was that Hoffmann had offered to resign. According to the Hansard report of what the Minister said, neither he nor any officer of his Department had recommended that Hoffmann bc permitted to resign.

The Minister told us that Hoffmann’s letter of I hh November sought a discussion with him about the possibility of resignation. The Minister forwarded the letter lo his Department without comment. But who aca tally suggested to Mr Hoffmann that he lender his resignation? Was it an officer of the Department? According to the Minister it was not, but according to Mrs Hoffmann it was. Was it an officer of the Public Service Board who suggested that Hoffmann should tender his resignation? The Minister, after further questioning, told us that Mr Hoffmann subsequently submitted his resignation, (hat it was submitted to the chief officer of his Department who, acting for the Permanent Head, forwarded it to the Public Service Board. This went on despite the Minister’s statement that at no time did he or any officer of his Department recommend acceptance of Hoffmann’s resignation. The resignation was accepted and then the Department put machinery in motion to find him a job. Suddenly there was a tremendous change of heart by the Department. But apparently, according to the Minister, no-one within the Department was responsible for that. Fantastic as it is. that is the story that was presented to us in this Parliament by the Minister - despite a full and frank statement having been made by him on 26th February.

But, Sir, in addition to the Hoffmann affair there are other factors warranting the closest investigation of the Department, by way of a public inquiry, so that the community generally will know the real facts about its administration. Let us take ibo cigarette and cigar duty evasion which we learned about. We had to learn about it from our own questioning. The evasion amounted to some SI. 9m. There was not one word about it in the annual report of the Department of Customs and Excise. I suggest no-one would have been told anything surrounding the circumstances, other than for the short passage which appeared in the annual report of the Auditor-General, unless we on this side of the chamber had pressed the Minister. After all, Mr Deputy President, the Department had something to say in its annual report to the Parliament about the high level of illicit activities under the Distillation Act. The Department laid claim to fame because there were sixty-five prosecutions involving an amount of SI 0.000. yet there was not one word in the annual report about the evasion of duty, amounting lo $l.9m, on cigarettes and cigars.

On 4th March, in reply to a question by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy), the Minister for Customs and Excise told us that in the last 12 months a large amount of customs duty had been evaded by people bringing goods into the country; and he was aware that officers of his Department had been charged. He did not say at that time what the goods were; he did not say at that time the amount of evasion involved; he did not say at that time how many officers were charged; and he did not tell us the charges levelled against them. Everything has had to be dragged out in probing, interrogation and cross-examination of the Minister by the Opposition.

The next day. 5th March, Senator Davidson asked the Minister about the matter. The Minister then told us that the goods involved were cigarettes and tobacco - not cigars. He still did not tell us the amount involved in evasion of duty and went on to say that the officers had not been charged but had been reprimanded. Later the same day asked the Minister another question. He again amended his earlier answers by saying that the officers had been disciplined for negligence. We still were not told the amount involved in evasion of duty.

On 18th March the Minister, in answer to one question on notice, said that twenty officers had been charged under section 55 of the Public Service Act with improper conduct in relation to cigars. In answer to another question he said that twentyfour officers had been charged with offences relating to cigars and cigarettes. Then for the first time, after constant probing, we were told that the evasion of duty involved was $1.9m and that papers had been referred to the Attorney-General’s Department with a view to investigating other charges. Four officers appealed, so we were told at that late stage by the Minister; three appeals were upheld and then those officers were recharged by the Department with negligence.

As 1 have said, everything has had to be dragged out. If we had not been persistent in our interrogation of the Minister I suggest there would have been a complete sweeping of all these affairs under the Ministerial and departmental carpet. All the officers were comparatively junior officers. It appears that the indians in the Department have been penalised but not the chiefs, the people responsible for the administration of the Department. Indeed, the

Administrative and Clerical Officers Association apparently had a meeting on the subject with Mr Carmody, the ComptrollerGeneral of the Department of Customs and Excise, in early 1968. In a report to its members the Association had this to say:

Members of your Committee informed the C.G. that many of the officers to be charged had told Committee Members that they could do no other than what they had done without going against the current practice of the Branch concerned. This Branch practice was that there were to be no variations in the weights or quantities of any goods regularly imported.

The C.G. was informed that the Committee had heard that one officer who insisted on weighing goods in the prescribed manner was transferred. The C.G. was also told that the officers to be charged felt that they had to follow the then current Branch practice or else jeopardise their careers with bad reports and lose higher duties, etc. The Committee considered that the true guilt was with the Superior officers responsible for Branch practice.

Mr Carmody said he sympathised with these men. but they were guilty in that they had signed documents which were false. He agreed that a large proportion of the fault lay with the Superior Officers and said that those still in the Department had been dealt with verbally.

However, the Officers to be charged under Seclion 55 of the Act would be severely dealt with because of the very large monetary sum involved

So it appears, according to departmental practice, that there is one law for the indians and another for the chiefs. Why is it that the Minister has not yet answered the question I placed on the notice paper some time ago, namely, I think, on 26th March, as to what action, if any, was taken against the superior officers of the branch or branches concerned who were involved with the cigarette and cigar case?

On 8th December 1967 a memo was issued by the Department from Canberra under the signature of the ComptrollerGeneral. It was signed by Mr A. T. Carmody, the Comptroller-General, and was headed ‘Review of Procedures Relating to Examination of Goods’. Amongst other things that document stated:

Recently 1 have been presented with a series of extremely disquieting situations in the area of examination of goods by officers. The deficiencies have in some cases been due to lack of training of such officers in the jobs to which they have been allocated, to the absence of specific instructions and in many instances to an apathetic approach to supervision of examination activities.

The document then sets out some of the remedial steps that Mr Carmody advised his subordinates to take. It concluded by stating:

In addition lo the actions listed above, I emphasise thai officers in charge of people engaged in examination functions must accept responsibility for the actions of their staff particularly in relation to their training, the issue of directions and the exercise of controls.

The unfortunate thing about this, Mr Deputy President, was that the gate had been closed after the horse had bolted. I would still like to know, as the public would like to know and, certainly, members of this Opposition would like to know, what action, if any. was taken against any senior officers in charge of men who, according to their wory, were carrying out what was regarded by them as custom and practice that had existed in the Department for a number of years.

Senator Marriott:

– What was the document you were quoting from?

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– It was a document issued by the Department on 8th December 1967. I now come to the question of raids. Surely everyone in the Senate must be concerned-

Senator Marriott:

– Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise to a point of order. Under standing order 364 I move that the honourable senator be asked to table the document he quoted from.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– I will table the document.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Order! The honourable senator is not in order.

Senator Marriott:

– With great respect-

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– I now come to the question of raids. Surely every honourable senator in this chamber is concerned with the circumstances surrounding the raid that took place on Miss Mayo’s private home in Brisbane as a result of which, firstly, the Department itself and then the Minister had to offer apologies to the lady for the humiliating treatment to which she had been subjected. If for no other reason, surely a public inquiry is called for when the civil liberties of Australian subjects are infringed to the degree that they were infringed by the Department on this occasion. 1 too have asked the Minister a series of questions about a raid that took place on a business firm in Sydney. Firstly, the Minister said that an investigation had taken place. I asked him whether two sections of his Department - the investigation branch and the prevention and detection section - were involved in the raid. At first he did not answer that portion of the question nor did he answer my question whether any business records and documents had been removed from the business premises. 1 followed it with a further question and on 25th March the Minister told me that four separate premises were raided and that 21 customs officers were used in the raid, 10 being from the investigation branch and 11 from the prevention and detection section.

I now ask him whether in any or all of the raids a person who was not an officer of the Department or, for that matter, a police officer was taken along on the excursion in the capacity of an expert adviser. I think just prior to my commencing this speech the Minister, in answer to a question, said that on one of the raids a person was taken along as an expert adviser. Was the person concerned issued with a warrant or an identity card identifying him as an officer of the Department of Customs and Excise? If not, what authority did the Department have to use him on the raid? I ask the Minister further: Did this person come into the Department’s office on three or four occasions after the raids and go through the business documents that had been removed? Who was this expert adviser? What was he? Did he receive payment for any part that he took in the raid? For all anyone knows he could well have been a competitor of the business firm involved. What authority has the Department to use ordinary citizens in this kind of departmental activity?

Following the raid on Miss Mayo’s home on 5th March the Minister said that customs officers in general do not possess authority to enter and search premises and that warrants giving that authority are issued to only a number of selected officers. On 19th March, a fortnight after the raid on Miss Mayo’s premises, he said that he had directed that a critical review be made of the number of warrants on issue and the qualifications of the officers who hold them. ! do not know what the critical review was but if it was anything like the review that took place recently in the Sydney office in relation to identity cards it must have shown up what has been to date, or until recently at least, the looseness of the administration of the Department. On 10th March, 5 days after the Mayo raid, the New South Wales Collector of Customs issued to all branch heads a memo relating to identity cards and, amongst other things, this is what the memo had to say:

Each Branch/Section Head will be provided with a list showing, in his area, the name of each officer to whom a Card has been issued and the number of that Card. It is pointed out, however, that this list may not be complete, particularly in respect of Cards issued prior to 1960.

In other words, as late as 10th March this year the Department of Customs and Excise was unsure about which officers within the Department had been issued with identity cards for their identification. Then after setting out .certain procedures the memo went on:

All other members of the staff whose names do not appear on the list, are to be requested by Branch /Section Heads whether they have been issued with Identity Cards and, if so, to produce them for scrutiny.

They will be asked then, if they have not produced one, whether they have one. The memo continued:

Branch/Section Heads are to include on the list the relevant details of any Cards thus produced.

Apparently at that time, a little over a month ago after the administration of the Department had been under fire in this House, the Department felt unsure about which officers had been issued with or possessed identity cards.

There are other matters to which one must advert. I have raised already in this House the matter of someone having a rubber stamp bearing the words ‘May be delivered’. Already 80 different movements of cargo have been queried. There is also the question of the sale at auction of goods upon which duty had been paid and in relation to which the Department, after the sale, had to go cap in hand to the purchaser to make some financial settlement with him so that the goods could be returned to the rightful owner. Already questions have been asked about the evasion of excise duty on liquor. The Minister will see on tomorrow’s notice paper more questions on this subject.

As I mentioned in the Senate on 18th March, officers of the central manifest accounting section of the Department are being forced to work overtime since the Hoffmann affair was raised in the Parliament in order to overcome the backlog of work in the section. Only yesterday the Minister, in reply to a question that I had placed on the notice paper, had to admit that in the first 3 weeks of March a total of 699 hours overtime had been worked in this one section. By way of footnote he added:

The substantial overtime worked during the months of February and March was necessary to overcome a backlog of work. 1 asked the Minister on 26th March whether ‘Customs passed’ stamps and customs wax seal stamps have been found to be missing from a section of the Department in Sydney. We in this chamber anxiously await his reply. Surely all these things indicate the very great looseness within the Department. Because the Department is such a large revenue collector for the Commonwealth, these are matters of concern warranting the closest public scrutiny. 1 now turn to the morale of officers. The overwhelming body of men and women in this Department are fine decent people who are ready, willing and anxious to do a proper job of work but many of them are very much concerned that if at any time something goes wrong the blame will be sheeted home to them and that the senior officers responsible for the administration of their section once again will escape scotfree. Many of them have told me that the greatest single factor contributing to their disinterest and poor morale is that they feel enmeshed in an organisation which uses antiquated methods to obtain objects of doubtful need. The Minister has told us about twenty-four officers who were charged and dealt with in connection with the evasion of customs duty on cigarettes and cigars. In reply to a question in another place he has said that seventy officers of his Department have been dealt with by the Department in the past 2 years. If this state of affairs existed in any other government department I suggest there would be a hue and cry about it. Because it is admitted that it has been going on in this Department, seventy officers having been dealt with over the past 2 years, it is all the more reason why we should find out by way of public inquiry just what goes on. I would suggest to the Minister that if he occasionally patronised one or two of the hotels around the Circular Quay area of Sydney after work, especially on public service pay day, he would find out a lot more about his Department and the morale of some of his officers. He wouldlearn that there are a great number of officers who are dissatisfied and that there are allegations of victimisation. Let me cite again extracts from the information sheet issued by the Australian Clerical Officers Association.I cite first this one:

Following the interview, Mr Delaney reported to a meeting of the Section Committee that, although he was convinced of the authenticity of the claims made to the Section Committee by officers,–

That is, claims of poor morale and alleged victimisation of officers - he had achieved no more success at his interview than that achieved by the Section Committee itself at a previous interview.

The interview was with two senior officers of the Department, and Mr Delaney who is President of the ACOA. The report concludes

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Order! The honourable senators time has expired.

Senator Marriott:

– Under Standing Order 364 I ask that Senator McClelland be ordered to table the document, undated as far as we are concerned, and unnamed, from which he quoted at approximately 4.40 this afternoon.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - You will have to move for that to be done.

Senator Marriott:

– I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator McClelland:

-I agree to the tabling of the document.

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– I have listened with considerable interest to the comments by the previous speaker (Senator McClelland) and to those made about my Department over the past few weeks, particularly those by Senator McClelland. I have no particular desire to waste the time of the Senate further on the Hoffmann affair. Despite the tactics employed by the Opposition in this affair, its attacks have been entirely refuted, but it is of interest that, having been discredited, the Opposition has fallen back on general and unwarranted attacks on the Department of Customs and Excise.

Nobody has demonstrated any error in the decision of the Department to dismiss Mr Hoffmann. In a department involved in so many important mattersI can readily accept the opinion of the Permanent Head that an officer who deliberately makes a decision he knows to be wrong must be dismissed. The question of his resignation is a matter for the Public Service Board which in Mr Hoffmann’s case, accepted the resignation in accordance with the Board’s normal practice.

It is a wearisome process to get any facts into the collective heads of the Opposition, but let me say again what happened in the Hoffmann affair. On 27th September 1968 my Department recommended to the Public Service Board that Mr Hoffmann be dismissed as he had been found guilty of charges of improper conduct under section 55 of the Public Service Act. On 30th September Mr Hoffmann appealed against his punishment. The appeal was heard on 23rd and 24th October, and the decision to dismiss Mr Hoffmann was confirmed. On 30th October an authority of dismissal, to be effective from the expiration of 1 5th November, was issued by the Public Service Board. On 30th October, Mr Hoffmann was notified of the decision by my Department.

On 11 th November Mr Hoffmann wrote to me, having first tried to obtain an interview through Mr Whitlam’s office. He had been advised to put in writing what he wished to say. I passed Mr Hoffmann’s letter, without comment, to my Department on 13th November. On 14th November Mr Hoffmann saw the Chief Officer of my Department and submitted his resignation. The resignation letter was sent that day to the Public Service Board. On 15th November informal advice was received from the Public Service Board that Mr Hoffmann’s resignation had been accepted, to be effective from 4.51 p.m. on the 14th

November. On 20th November formal advice of acceptance of the resignation was received from the Public Service Board. On the same day my Department wrote to Mr Hoffmann to advise him formally that his resignation had been accepted by the Public Service Board.

On 26th November 1 gave a brief interview to Mr Hoffmann. This was the first time I had seen him or spoken with him. If honourable senators opposite care to check, they will find that these are the facts as 1 have given in numerous answers. What is more, every question has been answered. Those on notice have nearly all been answered during the first sitting day after they had been put on notice.

Mr Hoffmann did something which he knew was wrong. Because of the gravity of the offence the Chief Officer recommended that he should be dismissed. Mr Hoffmann exercised his right of appeal under the Public Service Act and all due processes of the law were observed. The Appeal Board confirmed the decision of the Chief Officer and the Public Service Board issued an authority of dismissal.

Any officer of the Department who knowingly commits a serious offence is liable for dismissal. An officer who takes a -bribe of any sort, who pillages cargo or illegally retains goods seized from a passenger will be recommended for dismissal. It has been implied that Mr Hoffman’s punishment was too severe compared with that of a number of officers who were guilty of improper conduct or negligence with respect to the importation of cigars and cigarettes where the amount of duty evaded was considerable. These officers did not carry out their duty and were charged and punished. Some of the punishments were very severe but the gravity of their offences was not as great as the gravity of that committed by Mr Hoffmann.

The Opposition was unsuccessful in its attempt to criticise the Department in this regard. It was unsuccessful in its attempt to involve the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation for cheap political reasons. Now the Opposition sees fit to criticise the operations of this important Department. What have we heard from the Opposition? We have heard criticisms that the Department has detected evasions of duty. I have given details of some of these evasions. Further details have been given in answers to questions on notice in another place.

These are not evasions that have recently taken place. The administration of the Department has detected evasions that have gone on for a period of years. This is a department that is continually improving its efficiency to ensure that the customs and excise law is obeyed. This is a department which acts without fear or favour. It does not surprise me that the companies which it has detected evading the law are getting this support from the Opposition. The evasion of duty on cigarettes and cigars was a conspiracy.

Senator Kennelly:

– I rise to order. I do not mind a fair speech being read but 1 object when the Minister reads that sort of thing. I refer to Standing Order 406 which provides:

No senator shall read his speech.

Senator Marriott:

– You do not want to hear the precise truth.

Senator Kennelly:

– That is all right. If he wants to get rough, we can meet him.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT -

According to the standing order, no senator shall read his speech. 1 would ask Senator Scott to refer to copious notes rather than read his speech.

Senator SCOTT:

– The evasion of duty on cigarettes and cigars was a conspiracy between importers and other types of business. It has been suggested that I hid this information, m fact, I advised members of the Senate of the evasion last year, shortly after it was notified by the Auditor-General, who in turn had been advised by my Department. It had gone on for a long time. New methods of checks and controls have enabled it to be detected. The officers who should have detected it under the old method either acted improperly or were negligent, and have been charged and punished.

What are these methods? My predecessor, Senator Anderson, announced to the Senate some time ago that a new method of control was about to be introduced into the Department over a wide range of commodities. This same system was examined and commended by the parliamentary Joint Committee of Public Accounts, lt is now being introduced over the full range of activities of this very important Department. I can inform honourable senators that this new method has brought about the sensational results of which we have now heard. This is not a reason for criticism; this is a reason for commendation.

Is the Commissioner of Taxation to be criticised because he detects the evasion of personal income tax? Perhaps he is criticised by the people concerned. But we commend him for doing his job. Of course, the companies concerned in major evasions amounting to more than $2m are critical. U the Parliament to criticise the Department for detecting these evasions? Is the Parliament to criticise the Department because it has introduced new methods which enable it to detect evasions of this sort more readily? Is the Department to be criticised because it has prevented people from avoiding the duties or from subverting the protection given to industry by this Parliament? lt becomes absurd when the Opposition, discredited on the Hoffmann affair, criticises a department which day and night not only is carrying out the law in relation to prohibited imports but also is ensuring that the Commonwealth receives the revenue that the Parliament determines; a department which seizes a virtual arsenal which a passenger recently tried to smuggle into Australia; a department which continues to seize large quantities of narcotics: and an efficient department which seeks continuously to improve its efficiency.

So I turn to the individual matters raised by Senator McClelland. I state clearly now that as usual his information is wrong in some cases and hopelessly exaggerated in others. Over the last few weeks the honourable senator has placed questions on the notice paper, seeking detailed information on the operations of the Department. The information relates to the new central manifest accounting section. It concerns section 149 of the Customs Act. lt concerns the responsibilities of the Collector under section 39. Some questions deal with particular and, in fact, confidential investigations by the Department. These questions could only be based on information from within the Department, although it is somewhat amusing that the questions asked have been the wrong questions. 1 have had to go to a considerable amount of trouble to answer the questions which the honourable senator’s informant has been trying to pose. If Opposition senators wish to ask me questions, let them follow the proper procedures and ask them. I have shown that I will quickly supply an answer.

It must feel good to attempt to suborn customs officers. How proud people must be when they succeed in getting customs officers to forswear their legal commitment to keep confidential information confidential. I leave the Australian public to make its assessment of politicians who obtain or seek to obtain information in this way, leaving the officers in a position where, if detected, they could be subjected to appropriate legal penalties. What has come from these attempts to suborn officers? What embarrassment has it caused for the Government? All the answers I have given have indicated that the Opposition is attacking a department which daily is demonstrating its efficiency very effectively.

Let me illustrate. 1 have here certain material which is a prohibited import. It is one of a great number of unsolicited individual copies which have been seized by the Department during the past few weeks. I can describe it only as shocking, and for that reason will not table it in this Parliament. However. I freely hand it to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy), on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, and the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party (Senator Gair) and will make it available to other honourable senators. Each of them not only will he disgusted but will spontaneously join with me in praising the efficiency of this great Department but for whose efforts this material would be virtually flooding into this country. That shows what my departmental officers are doing to prevent this type of stuff entering this country. I must ask the honourable senators to examine this material without displaying it to all around them. 1 suggest that one glance will be sufficient to convince the honourable senators that they need to keep such material well hidden. I ask that they handle the material and show it to their colleagues with considerable discretion. lt is appropriate now that 1 mention the Mayo case. The Mayo case has happened. Who can deny it? The Department acted in good faith but was proved wron«. Apologies have been made by me and by others to Miss Mayo for the inconvenience caused. That is as far as we can go. We are sorry. I wish to emphasise that this incident in no way weakens my resolve that my Department should act on every occasion on which the importation of prohibited material - whether pornographic material or narcotic and/ or other drugs - is suspected. In common with law enforcement bodies throughout the world, my Department must act on information, and it will continue to do so.

I do not have to remind Senator Murphy of the degrading sort of material that must be stopped from entering this country. I have already given him a small example of the sort of thing we are up against. If, having examined this material, he still thinks that the Department should not take every step to prevent its importation, I suggest that his values are somewhat adrift. The ravages caused by drug addiction in any society are well known to every honourable senator. It is to prevent, these ravages that my Department will act ruthlessly to prevent the importation of narcotic and other drugs of dependence.

The motion refers specifically to the growth of drug abuses and illegal trafficking in Australia. Today we have heard some amazing statements by Senator McClelland. It would be better for the honourable senator to recount to the Senate the effects of the operations of the Department of Customs and Excise in this field. Honourable senators know that scarcely a week goes by without a significant seizure of prohibited imports by the Department’s Narcotics Bureau. Honourable senators will have read the opinions of experts that for some time now it has not been possible to purchase heroin in Sydney. The fact that heroin must be imported in itself speaks for the activities of the Department. I can assure honourable senators that the officers of the Narcotics Bureau are continually on the job. They do not claim to stop all imports. This would be impossible, as has been demonstrated in larger countries where narcotics bureaus employ thousands of officers.

What else has the Government done in this area? The Senate has been advised that consultations are at present proceeding with State governments to increase cooperation and collaboration between the Department of Customs and Excise and

State police forces. Indeed, the ComptrollerGeneral of Customs has offered to exchange departmental officers with officers of State drug bureaus so that the maximum use may be made of our resources in this field. The Department is effectively playing its part, as honourable senators and the Australian people know, in smashing this abuse of drugs. I do not wish to dwell on the questions 1 have been asked which, by innuendo, suggest that other Ministers have used their influence to obtain decisions from my Department. 1 give the lie to such innuendoes. No Minister has ever attempted to do such a thing, any more than has happened in respect of representations i receive at least once a week from individual members of the Opposition concerning particular matters being dealt with by my Department. I am happy to look at any such matters when asked to do so by senators or members of another place but no query has been raised by honourable senators opposite about such representations.

During .1968 new procedures were introduced to expedite the clearance of cargo from wharves. This was done because a detailed examination revealed that customs officers stationed on wharves were nol fully engaged. The Department decided that by centralising their activities the numbers of staff could be reduced. The staff numbers were reduced substantially, to the advantage of taxpayers. The new system enables work to be carried out more efficiently and makes it possible to introduce immediate procedures to cope with container imports of goods. As with any change, there were initial1 problems in the changeover. These have now been overcome.

Senator McClelland also referred to a terrific bank-up of cargo. There has been no such bank-up. Importers now have their documentation cleared by the Department in less than half the time taken 2 years ago. In some cases importers can go immediately to the wharves and take delivery of their goods. There is less cargo on the wharves awaiting clearance than ever before. Goods do not leave the wharves without payment of duty, other than: in exceptional cases. Ever since Federation some importers have endeavoured to avoid the payment of customs duty. In some cases they have been successful. The new system makes evasion more difficult and where it may occur it will enable the Department to ascertain this fact more readily. The punitive action taken against importers has taught them that it does not pay to attempt to evade duty.

In brief, results so far have proved that the new procedures will contribute significantly to the movement of cargo and the protection of Commonwealth revenues. They will facilitate the clearance of containers which it is expected will form a substantial! part of imported cargo in the future. The new procedures have resulted in substantial cost savings in terms of staff. I inform honourable senators that if the Commonwealth desires to check scrupulously every imported item entering this country - last year imports totalled about 3 1 million tons - it will require a Department of Customs and Excise three times its present size. I also inform the Senate that if it is desired to examine 100% of the baggage of visitors to Australia to ensure that contraband is not smuggled it will require a four-fold increase in the relevant section of the Department. I have no doubt that if the Commissioner of Taxation wished to check every line of every income tax return he would have to increase his staff many times. We have to be realistic. I say emphatically to the Senate that customs officers miss very little. I need not tell honourable senators that our Department or Customs and Excise, as is the case with such departments throughout the world, is faced with the problem of importers seeking to avoid payment of the duties prescribed by this Parliament. In some cases and for a time these people may succeed, but the new methods have demonstrated that eventually they will be caught.

Senator McClelland discussed an incident in which the Department detected that duty had not been paid on a quantity of whisky. I say for the benefit of honourable senators that duty is not charged on the losses incurred in the breaking down and bottling of spirits. In the particular case referred to, the company had assumed that it was also entitled to be given a further notional dutyfree allowance to cover possible losses, because of breakages and so on. The new method of commodity control revealed that about seventy cases of whisky were held by the particular company against future estimated losses and that the practice had existed over a number of years. I might add that the whisky was not returned to the company as alleged by the honourable senator and has remained forfeit to the Crown. This is another example of how the new system of control has been used to tighten administrative controls with subsequent benefit to the revenue.

We also were told of an incident in which the Department, under the authority of section 214 of the Customs Act, seized documents from an importer. I mention that the power under section 214 is that which brought about such a successful result in the Australian-Japanese conspiracy last year. This power is vital to the operation of the Department. It enables the Department to ensure that the duties imposed by this Parliament and the protection afforded to industry by this Parliament are effective. In the case referred to by the honourable senator there were sufficient grounds for doubt whether the goods imported went beyond those for which the by-law had been granted. Does the honourable senator think that the Department should ignore the possible amounts of duty involved? Does the Senate think that the Department should ignore the possibility that misrepresentations have been made? I can assure the Senate that I have examined the incident and have found that the Department was entirely justified in making its inquiries. I can further assure the Senate that there was not a misuse of power. It was an accurate use of the power that is conferred under the Customs Act. In this case the Department was satisfied that there had been no breach of the Customs Act. However, I can assure honourable senators that there were reasonable doubts.

Senator McClelland employed histrionics in talking about the morale of the Department of Customs and Excise. I wish he would visit sections of the Department iri Canberra, Sydney, other capital cities and the lonely outports. He would see for himself that the morale of departmental officers is particularly high. I do not deny that these vicious and unwarranted attacks have upset this band of dedicated men, but despite that fact I can assure honourable senators that they are performing their duties with dedication arid pride.

I referred earlier to the Opposition’s activities in suborning customs officers. I have said that the people of Australia will make their own assessment of these tactics. 1 accept that in very large organisations such as my Department there is a small number of discontented officers who, for one reason or another, are not happy. But as usual, these represent a very small minority. What does this all add up to? The Opposition has tried to denigrate the Department because of the Hoffmann affair. The Department has been thoroughly vindicated in all the actions it took. The Opposition has tried to criticise the Department because the Department has detected major frauds, conspiracies and the evasion of duty. The Department should be commended. Senator McClelland has criticised the Department because it has introduced new methods to improve its efficiency and to reduce the cost to taxpayers of the services it gives. From what I have told you, Mr President, Senator McClelland’s comment is the most ridiculous that I have heard in this Senate.

We are discussing a large, complex Department which is prepared to meet the challenge of modern times; a Department which is preparing itself for the 1970s - the age of computer and container; a Department which is streamlining its activities and attaining more efficient control and more effective control of its responsibilities. And, Mr President, it is successful. Nearly all overseas countries in this part of the world are asking my Department to train their officers because the efficiency of our methods has been demonstrated to them. The flow of commerce today demands that operations must be streamlined. Any delay to trade is costly and must be avoided, but evasions must be detected.

During the debate, I have formed the impression that, if the Department had not done these things, if the Department had not introduced new methods to detect frauds, if the Department had not prevented the evasion of duty or protection on goods imported from Japan and other countries and had not perfected a system to detect the dumping of cars, this debate would never have taken place. What a scathing indictment of the Opposition this is. lt finds itself in the position of criticising progress and of criticising efficiency. I have been Minister for Customs and Excise for just over 12 months. 1 continue to be greatly impressed with the efficiency of this Department.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMuIlin) - Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– Mr President, one gathers from the discussion today and from the multitude of questions that have been asked over the last few weeks the importance of the Department of Customs and Excise, the difficult duties that are. performed by its officers and the amount involved in either losses or gains to the Commonwealth depending on whether those officers perform their duties thoroughly. When one recognises the possibility - and as the money involved is big, it is a big possibility - of some evasion of customs duty, one can understand the importance of a strong Department, and particularly a strong Minister to administer that Department. The Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) rose in the Senate today and said that he had nothing further to say on the Hoffmann affair. He said that the Australian Labor Party had been discredited on the Hoffmann affair. He wiped his hands so casually of the Hoffmann affair when all the questions concerning this matter have not yet been answered. In these circumstances, we must look into the matter.

As you know, Mr President, I was the originator of these discussions. I originally brought the matter up to establish the unauthorised functions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. I think that it is accepted throughout Australia today that this Government did have security agents in embassies. In these debates, we spoke of the preferential treatment given to Mr Hoffmann. A number of questions were asked about this treatment. Senator Kennelly in all good faith asked the Minister for Customs and Excise some questions, seeking some clarity on those matters. He asked the Minister whether he could explain the treatment of Mr Hoffmann. But at no time did we get answers from the Minister for Customs and Excise to our questions unless those questions were put on notice.

On the very first night that I raised this issue. I was challenged to explain how what I had alleged could be proved. I said that

Senator Scott had the answers as to whether the accusations against the Department of Customs and Excise and the attitude of that Department to the treatment of Mr Hoffmann were correct. Senator Scott could give the answers. But he came into the room, conferred with his chief, and walked out of the room. Never, since then, has Senator Scott been permitted to answer a question without reference to anyone else. It is true thar we received answers to our questions the day after they were asked. We do not know whether they were Senator Scott’s answers or someone else’s answers. The only occasions when he has answered our questions without asking us to put them on notice, ha»’e been when the Minister has been dealing with contradictions in the statements that he has given to us. Today the Minister has told us of the confidence that he feels in his Department. But we have seen also today the incapability of the Minister to present his arguments other than by reading a prepared speech in defiance of Standing Orders and in defiance of a ruling by an Acting Deputy President on that question. The Minister defied this ruling by transferring the copy of his speech from his hand to his desk for the purpose of reading that speech.

The Department of Customs and Excise deals with goods worth millions of dollars. Opportunities exist for duty evasion, malpractices and corruption in this Department which is controlled by a Minister who is not capable of answering the questions that have been put to him about his own Department over the past few weeks. When we ask today for an inquiry into this matter, our request is calmly wiped off by the Minister who says that the matter is finished and that he will take it no further. Let us look at the treatment that was given to Gerard Hoffmann. The Minister, in all kindness, gave Mr Hoffmann an interview. He told us that the only letter that he had from Mr Hoffmann was received on 11th November 1968. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) asked the Minister a question on Tuesday, 4th March 1969. It appears at page 208 of Hansard. Senator Murphy was questioning the Minister as to whether ASIO had exercised any influence in this question-

Senator McClelland:

– The honourable senator had better tell the Minister to listen to this.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– He would not understand i: he did listen. It would have to be referred. Senator Murphy in his question said: 1 wish to ask a question of the Minister for Customs and Excise. At the time Mr Hoffmann tendered his resignation was the Minister aware of the allegations - regardless of their truth - being made by Mrs Hoffmann?

As the Senate knows, the allegations were that Mrs Hoffmann had been of assistance to ASIO. The Minister answered:

I was unaware of any allegations being made by anybody at all.

Yet, the Minister has said that he received a letter from Mr Hoffmann on 1 1 th November 1968 which contained the very allegations about which Senator Murphy asked whether the Minister had any knowledge. Here is a Minister who, knowing that an important officer of his Department was being charged, did not make an inquiry as to what the charge was. He knows nothing more about it until after the officer is dismissed. He knows nothing about the matter until he receives a letter from the person whose dismissal is recommended.

Mr Hoffmann’s account of it, according to his wife’s statement, is that an individual from a Labor Party office rang up as to an appointment and the advice given was to write in and make an appointment to find out whether the Minister would see Mr Hoffmann. Mrs Hoffmann said:

This was done. Gerard himself handed the letter to Senator Scott’s secretary, Mr Bruce Alexander, on Monday, November 1 1.

The whole of the evidence that was placed before the Public Service Board was detailed. Mr Hoffmann stated in his letter:

On September 27 I was informed that the chief officer had recommended my dismissal to the Public Service Board.

He continued further on:

I would respectfully request that you should read this transcript of evidence, to enable you to inform yourself on this matter.

He wanted the Minister to consider his complaint as to whether or not he had had a fair trial before the Public Service Board. Some accusations were made that false evidence was given. This was an appeal to the Minister to give consideration to that question.

Mr Hoffmann details how the police inter rogated him and sought a statement from him. He says that the police refused to accept his first statement because it was not the statement that they wanted. Dealing with his second staler.-.: nt, Mr Hoffmann states:

My second statement written in . . . pain and confusion . . . was accepted because it was along the lines the police wanted.

Let us consider all the allegations that are made in this letter that was sent to the Minister. Mr Hoffmann states: It was on this occasion the situation of my wife and children was used as a lever.

This situation was used as a lever by the police to get further information. He continues in his letter:

I understand also that senior officers of your Department, and of the Department of Trade and Industry, were shocked at the dismissal decision. 1 was told by the Crown Prosecutor at the conclusion of my hearing that because of my outstanding record I would certainly not be dismissed, and during evidence he also stated that the Crown knew there was no gain for me of any kind in my action, and that no criminal proceedings were even contemplated against me.

The article also stated:

In addition, Mr Carmody knows that 1 was approached by a foreign embassy to provide them with confidential customs information, and that my immediate reporting of this incident led to my wife being used as an ASIO agent within that embassy and my employment as courier and contact with the ASIO.

The Minister stated that he did not know of these charges, but they were contained in the letter to him. The article continued:

None of the circumstances of my outstanding service with customs, of my physical disability, of the tremendous strain I was under at that time of my error, nor of the additional hazardous tasks my wife and I undertook for the Government, was apparently taken into account in determining an appropriate punishment for this one error in 17 years.

I realise that the decision to dismiss me is virtually impossible of revocation, but earnestly entreat you to explore the possibility of allowing me to resign from the service, so that I may seek other employment with some dignity.

There is the impasse. Unless the Minister permitted the resignation it would have been virtually impossible to revoke the dismissal. The article continued:

I would deem it a privilege if you could grant me an interview on this matter, to enable you to make your own appraisal of me and to obtain my answers to any questions you might have.

Two days after Senator Scott had read the submissions (on Wednesday, November 11) the

Assistant Controller-General of Customs (Mr Walsh) telephoned my office. He asked Gerard to come to the Department of Customs and Excise urgently te see him.

When Gerard got there Mr Walsh said that, as a result of the letter to Senator Scott, Gerard would be permitted to resign.

His resignation was typed out while Gerard waited. He signed it and the resignation took effect from that day- -4.S1 p.m., November 14 1968.

That was a passionate appeal to the Minister by a person who claimed loyal service for a period of 17 years. He made various allegations about his so-called trial. The Minister referred the matter without comment, in answer to questions in this place the Minister suggested that the Public Service Board dealt with the matter. The individual concerned realised that the resignation was practically impossible of acceptance without the approval of the Minister. Without seeing the individual, Mr Walsh of the Department said that the Department would permit him to resign. A resignation was typed out for Mr Hoffmann to sign. The Senate was told a cock-and-bull story about this matter. How can we deal with this Department and how can we check on its activities when we have incompetence at the very top of the Department? It is impossible to carry on the duties of the Department in the present circumstances. It seems that the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) is desirous of appointing his Ministers on the basis of popularity. At least in this Department there should be a strong, active and capable Minister so that customs and excise work can be carried out as it should be. lt has been reported - and it is reported very fully in Hoffmann’s own statements - that much of the trouble arose not out of Hoffmann’s action but out of the publicity given to the Department of Customs and Excise, which resulted in certain statements being made by Mr A. T. Carmody, Comptroller-General of Customs, at a Customs social gathering on Friday, 20th September 1968. His statements led to an article appearing in the Sydney ‘Daily Mirror’ about rackets in imports. Again the article was written by Eric Walsh. I think Senator McClelland today proved that we are only now discovering the rackets in imports. The article stated:

The Commonwealth Police have uncovered a large-scale importing racket which they believe has been operated by some members of the Departments of Trade and Customs in Canberra. Police investigations have found falsifications of Customs By-laws-

Senator Wright:

– What is the honourable senator reading from?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The ‘Daily Mirror’ of 11th October 1968. The article continued:

Investigations have extended through the Department. Police believe that several senior public servants may be involved.

A study of the various articles on this subject reveals reference to interrogation by police. The Senate still does not have a report of what the police investigations disclosed. The Senate is entitled to it and must get it. The Opposition will put some questions on the notice paper to ascertain what the police investigations discovered. We know that as a result of the investigations one man was dismissed. What is the link between that man and the Department of Trade and Industry? That is the information we want. Three men were involved. One resigned before he was charged, one was fined $4 and the other was dismissed from the Service, after 17 years, with great financial loss. Now we are at the stage where we can get no information.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMuIIin) - Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– Once again the Wednesday broadcast time of the Senate is taken up with a discussion of a motion of urgency which has been moved by the Opposition. On this occasion the alleged urgency is the necessity for a public inquiry into the administration of the Department of Customs and Excise. The claim of urgency is specious. We might say that no claim could be more specious but for the fact that we have had similar instances of Labor Party urgency motions in the past. The claim is specious because over the last 4 or 5 weeks we have been told by the Press - doubtless informed by Labor Party senators - that this matter was likely to arise at any time. How can it be urgent if that is the length of time it has been current? It is a specious claim because the information which it is thought that a public inquiry would reveal has already been given to the Senate in response to more than fifty questions about the adminis tration of the Department which were asked by Opposition senators since the commencement of the sittings this year, lt is a specious claim because it seeks to screen what the Labor Party wants to have hidden. What started out initially in February of this year as an attempt to denigrate the Security Service has backfired and rebounded on the Opposition. Today’s effort by an Opposition which has been discredited is a last and exhausted whimper, a despairing endeavour to get some political mileage out of an issue which was started with great eclat but nevertheless has failed to produce what it was expected to produce.

In these circumstances I think it is relevant very briefly to cast our minds back to what happened in February. This afternoon Senator Cavanagh conceded that initially he raised the matter of Mr Hoffmann because he was concerned to bring out an aspect of the operations of the Security Service. I think we should never forget that on that particular issue their allegations were proved to be unfounded. The allegations were that the Security Service had intervened in the administration of the Public Service Board and that the Security Service had acted improperly. Both allegations were established to be false. Out of this, in an attempt to retrieve its position, the Opposition has tried to make capital out of the administration of the Department of Customs and Excise. If the Opposition has listened to Senator Scott, it will have seen that that effort has been shown to be without justification. Instead of there being, as Senator Cavanagh said, evasions, malpractices and corruption, there has been disclosed an efficient department, modernising its methods, streamlining the way in which it exercises its. checks and controls and producing results designed to guarantee that the revenue is protected. The Department has a record of which Senator Scott and the Ministers who preceded him may legitimately be proud. Far from the welfare of this country being protected or helped by what the Opposition has said, I think the motion merely brings discredit upon members of the Opposition when they attempt to suggest that the Department is not carrying out its activities properly.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m. “senator GREENWOOD- lt is the choice of trie Opposition that tonight once again the Senate is considering aspects of what has become known as the Hoffmann affair. We on this side of the chamber are quite prepared to meet anything which the Opposition should seek to assert with regard to the Hoffmann case because not. only have the facts been revealed, tested and scrutinised, but those facts will stand any further questioning or scrutiny. The result is that what the Minister has done and what the Public Service Board has done are matters which, beyond any question, were matters done in all honesty and openly. ] think it is fair to say that out of the matters which were connected with Mr Hoffmann’s dismissal and/or resignation, as Senator McClelland put it, from the Department, one thing which does arise for consideration in the future is whether the procedures of the Public Service Board, whereby a person who is under notice of dismissal may nevertheless lender his resignation and have that resignation accepted, is a course which one ought to be able to pursue.

Whether or nol that course should be pursued relates to the procedures of the Public Service Board; it is not a matter within the scope, activities or discretion of the Minister for Customs and Excise or anybody within his Department. If that was to be the point upon which the Opposition was making its attack, one would have considered it more appropriate that the attack be directed not to the Department or the Minister but rather to the Public Service Board. My belief is that the reason why this matter has been brought forward is, as I said before the suspension of the sitting, that the Opposition desires to retrieve, if it can. some political advantage on an issue in which it had hoped to take advantage but in respect of which it had failed. lt should not be forgotten that this matter arose initially in the Senate as one upon which the Opposition sought to attack the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. When that attack failed the Minister’s conduct was challenged, lt was suggested that he had’ intervened improperly to secure a man’s resignation when he was under notice of dismissal. That allegation was proved to be totally false and, when it was so proved, the attack was then made on the Minister’s veracity. No evidence whatever has been brought forward, and no evidence is capable of being brought forward, to suggest that the Minister has in any way acted improperly.

After that issue was shown to be one upon which the Opposition could not gain any advantage there was an attack upon the Minister’s Department. These attacks have developed over a period of 5 or 6 weeks. Judging by the questions which were asked it appears that the Opposition was seeking to gain some advantage for itself just by raising allegations and hoping that there might be something in them but having no belief as to whether or not there was any basis for them. Honourable senators opposite were trusting that they would get some newspaper publicity from the matter. They did not care what the answer was. It was suggested that the Department had been cutting down on overtime and the implication to be drawn from the question w.is clearly that thereby the Department was doing less than it should be doing with regard to the drug traffic. The Minister was able to say - no-one has challenged what he said - that there had been no culling down on overtime and no direction to cut down on overtime. Then it was suggested that there was a shortage of staff to meet the drug traffic and in that way the Minister was culpable. But. as the Minister said - again this has not been challenged - the staff in the prevention and detection branches has been doubled over the last 3 years. The latest equipment has been made available, there has been additional training on the best methods of detection and there has been increasing cooperation between the Commonwealth and the States to meet the challenge of what is regarded as an Australia-wide problem.

There is the further suggestion that in some way evasions of customs duty were linked with the Hoffmann affair. The Minister has denied that and no evidence has been brought forward to suggest that the contrary is the case. It was suggested also that members of Parliament had intervened in order to prevent customs officers from doing their duty. This was denied and the suggestion was said to be a complete fabrication. No evidence was brought forward by the Opposition to sustain any one of what 1 think are properly described as wild and irresponsible allegations.

Senator Kennelly:

– Do not put up Aunt Sallies and knock them over again.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– The honour.abe senator suggests that these arc Aunt Sallies. T can assure him that everything I have said has been taken from questions asked in this place. What 1 have said is accurate and I challenge anybody to show that it is not. In what Senator McClelland has said today there is the substantive accusation that in some way the Minister has failed because evasions of customs duty had been detected. I think it is unreasonable to regard that as a matter of complaint. If evasions are being discovered it is an indication that the processes of detection are working. It is a world-wide recognised fact that people will seek to evade their obligations to customs in any and every country. If we can show in Australia that evasions are being detected, that shows that our procedures are effective. I think it is a matter for commendation rather than for criticism that we are able to point to incidents in which there have been evasions.

One important matter arising from the Hoffmann affair which has not had sufficient ventilation relates to the source where members of the Opposition secured information on which they were able to base allegations which in some cases were fair and were based on material that they had but in other instances were totally unfair because they were more extensive than anything in the material they had. I have instanced in the past that there were two people to whom a document was given by Mr Hoffmann or Mrs Hoffmann. One was Mr Cullen, who was secretary to Mr Whitlam, and the other was a Mr King, who was the President of the Australian Capital Territory Branch of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association. These documents circulated among some members of the Opposition and references were made to this fact from time to time. Where did this material come from? Mr Hoffmann, in a letter which he wrote to Senator Scott on 19th March this year, said:

Mr King thus had copies of all documents relating to my case, given to him, as a public servant and a representative of the public service union, in the strictest confidence to be used only in helping my case.

At no time was he given authority to show, or disclose the contents of, any documents 1 had given him to any person other than union officials involved in the tribunal which beard my case.

Mr King was made clearly aware that the documents were given to him in confidence in his capacity as President of the ACT Branch of the ACOA, and he was well aware that some of the matters fringed on security and was therefore highly confidential.

Mr King agreed with us that any information about ASIO could never be disclosed, and staled that the other material provided would only be used in the normal manner of union representations in matters of this kind.

Mr King was the only person to whom any documents were given.

I repeat thai at no time did 1 give him any authority to disclose, or allow to be published, any of the information I had given to him.

Mr Cullen, when asked about these documents which had been given to him by Mr Hoffmann, stated publicly that he took no copies of the documents. 1 accept this because he made his denial publicly. I raised in this chamber approximately a month ago what appeared to me to be the real point - that either Mr King or Mr Cullen had disclosed these documents. Mr King has made no such denial. He said that the documents are now in a safe deposit box. One might ask why that should be so because they are Mr Hoffmann’s documents. Secondly, he said that any use that he made of them was what Mr Hoffmann intended. Why did Mr King have to say that? What use did he make of them? I suggest it is relevant that he has not denied the use. I want to go further, Mr President, and ask these questions in the hope that someone will give me the information.

Senator Georges:

– Are you in the dark?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– 1 have information and these statements are made on information. Did Mr King sell these documents? Did he bargain with persons in order to have a higher price and was it in fact Mr Maxwell Newton who purchased them? What I further want to know is: What happened to the money which Mr King received? Did he use it? Did Mr King use the money for his own purposes? Did he give it to his union? Did he, because I was told he was once a member of the Australian Labor Party, give it to the ALP?

THE PRESIDENT- Order! The honourable senators time has expired.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

- Mr President, the Democratic Labor Party will not support this motion which is, in effect, a motion of no confidence in the Department of Customs and Excise, the officers of the Department of Customs and Excise and the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott). lt is our unanimous opinion that it is deplorable that this motion should ever have been moved. It merely provides an opportunity to rehash a series of allegations, many of them of the wildest character, which have been canvassed in the Press of Australia and in this Parliament for several weeks. We had hoped - and 1 have no doubt that those Australians who are listening to this debate must also have hoped - that we would have reached the stage when we could get on with the urgent business of the country. The people of Australia, when they listen to Parliament, want to hear it discussing important matters such as international affairs, the defence and security of the country, reforms in social services, the rights of Aboriginals, people on fixed incomes and the position in regard to the means test, reforms in health and reforms in education. They do not want to listen to the broadcast - as they are compelled to listen tonight - and hear the Senate merely washing dirty linen.

This matter has been raised here week after week. If the Opposition felt that it was its duty to move a vote of no confidence in the Department and the Minister why did it not do so three or four weeks ago? Why has this matter been allowed to drag on over 3 weeks? We have had a recess of 2 weeks and now, suddenly, this matter is revived. I am forced to the conclusion that the reason is that the Opposition did not have the evidence. I regret to say that I think that in the 2 weeks recess there has been an attempt by members of the Opposition to suborn officers of the Department of Customs and Excise and induce them to reveal information they are not entitled to reveal. There has been an attempt to make officers of the Department act as pimps and informers upon their brother officers. There has been an attempt to get these people to give information to the Opposition at the risk of their jobs. I think an attitude such as that in any political party is disgraceful.

We have heard a lot of allegations. T suppose the Department of Customs and Excise is not alone in that at times it has people working in it who are not worthy of their trust. But we have had people in the police forces who are not worthy of their trust. Do we then say that we have no confidence in the police forces? Certainly not. Members of Parliament have been guilty of corruption. Do we then say that Parliament is such a body that we can have no confidence in it? Certainly not. One of the twelve apostles fell by the wayside. lt is amazing to mc that because a number of individuals in this Department - a small minority in a department where temptations are greater than in many other spheres - may have fallen by the wayside, an attempt is made to suggest that the organisation to which they belong is riddled with corruption and inefficiency.

What is the matter of importance now under discussion? lt says that the ordinary officers of the Department of Customs and Excise, most of whom are as good Australians as anybody in this chamber, are the sort of people who recklessly and carelessly break into people’s homes, people who take money corruptly, people who evade their duty, people whose morale generally is poor and people who are not carrying out their duties to stop the growth of drug abuse and illegal drug trafficking in Australia. Those are the wildest possible allegations and their wildness is equalled only by the wildness of the attempt which is made to produce all sorts of statements to bolster them up.

When listening to those statements I felt ashamed to think that on so little basis an attack should be made upon a great department, one which is doing such a splendid job for Australia, and a Minister whose only fault, so far as I can see, is that in the brief period he has held this position he has discovered the people who are doing the wrong thing and is proceeding to eliminate them. I would have thought that when for some time, apparently, there was corruption in regard to the importation of cars and other imports, and the Minister look office and shortly afterwards was able to take action to get rid of the people concerned, expose those who have been guilty and take action on behalf of the

Commonwealth to reimburse the Commonwealth for what it has lost, people would have got up and congratulated him. I would have thought they would have said that he was doing the job for which he was put in that office to do. Instead, when the Minister finds out that in a minority of cases this is going on and then proceeds to deal with them, we have the remarkable situation that the Opposition says that it has no confidence in him. 1 would have no confidence in the Minister if he was not discovering that on occasions these things were happening and if he was not taking action as he has, to get rid of those concerned.

I have seen officers of the Department of Customs and Excise in action and I admire them. They have a very difficult job to do when making examinations and searches. It is not very pleasant for anybody to have to examine, question and search other people. They have to work long hours. When I have been travelling I have seen them in. action on the wharves on nights in climates which were by no means pleasant for that kind of thing. I have seen them dealing with the most difficult of cases. I have seem them preserving their courtesy and good manners when some of the passengers they have to deal with have been of a very trying character indeed.

In regard to the drug traffic, I have seen the extent to which the officers go in order to ascertain the people who are involved and to eliminate drug trafficking in Australia. When I came back to an Australian port from my trip abroad there were reports that attempts had been made to introduce drugs into this country. While the passengers were ashore at one port the Customs officers searched the cabins and the rest of the ship. If the passengers were absent they searched the cabins in the presence of a steward. They searched my cabin. They took the most drastic action. They even unscrewed the mirrors. When we heard about this some of the passengers were upset. They said: ‘We do not like this’. Some of them said to me: ‘What do you think about it?’ I said: ‘I entirely agree with what they have done. The drug traffic is such a terrible thing. Knowing as we do now that to a large degree the drug traffic between the United States and Asia has been stopped and that an attempt is being made to route the drugs through Australia, 1 think every good Australian citizen should be prepared to back the Department in the action that it takes, no matter how drastic that action is’. That was my attitude. I had no objection at all to the search and I do not think any good citizen should have any objection to measures taken to stop the drug traffic, no matter how drastic they are.

I suppose it is possible to pick out one particular instance and attack people. I thought of this only the other day when I read a review of a book dealing with the Australia First Movement in the Second World War. 1 have no desire to dwell on it. lt has nothing to do with this except to show that even the best of governments - I believe the Curtin Government was the best of governments - can have servants who err on occasions. As a distinguished critic said on that occasion:

I have always felt that the first Curtin Government was very much at fault in not intervening soon enough to ensure a fair hearing for those arrested and interned, and for not appointing a Royal Commsision to clear the matter up as quickly as possible: but that, in a way, was the least serious of the misfortunes of those arrested who were neither fools nor stooges of the Japanese.

They were arrested as disloyal persons. In regard to the big issue the distinguished critic said that it was a shocking thing that the Curtin Government pleaded the statute of limitations to avoid its responsibility tb those people. The distinguished critic who said those things is Mr Arthur Caldwell. I merely want to ask this question of the Opposition: Why attack the Department of Customs and Excise when there is only one particular item to which you are able to direct your attention?

May I say in conclusion that this is a motion of want of confidence in the Minister. I am not so much concerned for him because he is here and can defend himself. But it is also a motion of want of confidence in officers of the Department of Customs and Excise who are entitled to have their characters cleared. I hope therefore that there will be a vote on this motion so that their characters can be cleared. My Party does not agree to the use of the gag on normal occasions but in this case 1 appeal to the Opposition to co-operate with the

Government to have a vote. If the Opposition is determined not to have a vote and clear the character of these men, then we will consider our position.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– This debate started with a great fanfare of trumpets. For days the Press has been filled with statements by the Opposition and forecasts of what the Opposition intended to disclose in this debate. I listened to Senator McClelland. He reminded me somewhat of a crazy mixed up kid. He did not know what he was talking about. He obviously relied for his information on informers. We have had the spectacle in the Parliament of the Opposition expressing its revulsion of pimps and informers. Well, it is quite obvious who the pimps are in this case. They are members of the Opposition going through the hotels of Circular Quay trying to obtain information from disgruntled officers of the Department of Customs and Excise. They are the informers and those who supply information for them can be described- Senator McManus used the word and 1 repeat it - as nothing more than pimps.

The whole case against the Department and the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) has been based upon loose, reckless and unsubstantiated allegations. For my part I am appalled at the indications before us that there has been an attempt - one can only believe a successful attempt - to suborn officers of the Department of Customs and Excise.

Senator Cohen:

– That is not so.

Senator SIM:

– You get up and deny it. It is of no use sitting with an air of righteousness and shaking your head. Get up and deny it.

Senator Murphy:

– I rise to order, Mr President. The honourable senator has made a reflection in general and, by his remark just then to Senator Cohen, has directed it to an honourable senator. He said: ‘You deny it’, thus indicating that the reflection was made upon a member of the Senate. I ask that, pursuant to the Standing Orders which provide that no such reflection may be made upon members, you require him to withdraw and that you direct that remarks such as suborning people be not attributed to members of this Senate. While I am raising this point of order let me point out that although a senator was excluded from the chamber some little time ago for using the word ‘pimp’ you have permitted Senator Sim to use it freely this evening. I ask that you apply the rules now in the way in which they were applied previously, particularly as the honourable senator has now made clear that he is directing his reflections towards members in this chamber.

Senator SIM:

– If it upsets members of the Opposition I withdraw the word ‘pimp’ but remind them that they have used it pretty recklessly in this place.

Senator Cohen:

– And the word ‘suborn’.

Senator SIM:

– You are touchy too, are you?

Senator Cohen:

– Mr President, 1 ask that the word ‘suborn’, which is a dastardly word, be withdrawn.

Senator Wright:

– On the point of order, this afternoon Senator McClelland, on the motion of the Senate, tabled two documents which were not public documents but confidential documents and which must have been procured from the Department by illegal means. If that is not a basis upon which any member in free and open parliamentary debate can attribute to the Party for which Senator McClelland led action of the nature of subornation, I do not know what will become of freedom of speech. It shows the sensitivity of the Opposition to truth, lt is not a point of order that the-

Senator O’Byrne:

– A point of order, Mr President. I direct your attention to the fact that reflections are being made on senators by Senator Wright to the effect that they have gone into a department and obtained documents illegally. That . is outside the Standing Orders and I ask you to prevail on Senator Wright to desist from making imputations of our having obtained documents from the Department illegally.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I must hear Senator Wright’s point of order.

Senator Wright:

– I have had the documents examined and am very concerned to know their origin. The first argument I would put to the Senate is that the honourable senator out of whose possession they were produced to the Senate has an obvious obligation to explain them. Therefore so long as. T am a member of this place with a right to any degree of freedom of speech. 1 will advance the argument that that senator has not conformed to the required standards of public conduct in using those documents so illegally in his possession. The next point 1 want to make on the point of order is that when the Labor Party, in the free interchange of debate in support of this motion in the graphic language we have just heard from Senator McManus, questions the integrity of all officers of the Department of Customs and Excise, how can members of the Labor Party flinch from the refutation that is based upon the fact that they are in subornation?

Senator Murphy:

– On a point of order, in any speech made to the Senate, whether on a point or order or not, a senator, even if he is a Minister, is required to be relevant. If Senator Wright is to speak to a point of order 1 ask that you require him to speak to it and not to make a speech on the substantive matter or anything relevant to it.

Senator Wright:

– Mr President-

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Wright, are you still speaking to the point of order?

Senator Wright:

– Yes. In an attempt to reach the understanding of Senator Murphy let me point out that when we in this chamber arc considering whether terms are offensive to us we consider the context and the atmosphere in which the objection is taken. Those who accuse a public department of offensive conduct ought to stand up to the charge that the method they have used to make the accusation is one of subornation. It is the very gravamen of the answer to that charge that we throw it back in their faces and say that they have used confidential documents illegally and by means of subornation.

Senator Murphy:

– I rise to order on what the Minister is saying. Surely there must be some regularity here, ls the Minister for the second time to be allowed to divert into a speech on the subject matter? ls he to be allowed to enter into the basis of this debate under the guise of arguing a point of order? That is exactly what he is doing. Mr President, I ask that you control the Minister and require him to speak to the point of order, if there is one, and not to enter into the argument on this matter. He is irrelevant. He is perverting the point of order procedure in order to make a speech.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I do not see very much difference between your argument and the other one.

Senator Wright:

– I have nothing further to add.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Sim, you have withdrawn the word ‘pimp’.

Senator SIM:

– I have withdrawn it from my speech.

Senator Marriott:

– I rise to speak to the point of order, lt appears to me that the Leader of the Opposition, backed by junior counsel, has asked for a withdrawal1 of the word ‘suborn’.

Senator Cohen:

– What is the point of order?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I shall find out. I am not going to have two or three senators standing up at the one time.

Senator Marriott:

– The point of order is that the Labor Party, through its leader, and later through its deputy, asked Senator Sim to withdraw the word ‘suborn’, it being said that it is offensive to the Labor Party. I believe that there is no possible way in which the particular word can bc classified under any standing order as being offensive. But if, in making use of that word, it is alleged-

Senator Cavanagh:

– With respect, is there a point of order in view of the fact that a point of order was raised by way of objection to a word, and the word to which objection has been taken has been withdrawn?

Senator Marriott:

– We are debating the point of order. You should learn a little bit about parliamentary procedures.

The PRESIDENT:

– The word that I understood that Senator Sim used was the word ‘pimp’. That has been withdrawn. Senator Cohen takes objection to the use of the word ‘suborn’. 1 would say that if it were directly aimed at any members of the Opposition-

Senator Cohen:

– But it was.

The PRESIDENT:

– Then 1 would feel that probably that would be offensive. So, Senator Sim, I suggest that if the Opposition feels the word has been aimed directly at it, and as you have withdrawn the other word, you might withdraw the word ‘suborn’ as well.

Senator SIM:

– In deference to your ruling. 1 withdraw it since it offends the sensitivity of the Opposition, which used these words to make reckless allegations against us.

Senator Cohen:

– 1 rise to order. If an expression has to be withdrawn, I suggest with respect that it should be withdrawn without qualification.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Sim has withdrawn it.

Senator SIM:

– Senator McClelland based his allegations against the Department on a number of questions which he asked the Minister. It is quite obvious that the information he was given was wrong. It was supplied by some junior officer who did not know the facts. I had hoped to deal in detail with many of the allegations, but time does not permit that. Therefore I shall refer to only one. Senator McClelland accused the Department of having seized seventy cartons of whisky and of having then returned them to the company. This is completely incorrect, as the Minister has said. Quite obviously Senator McClelland’s informant did not know the facts. But this is the type of allegation we have had levelled against the Government and the Minister.

Let us examine the terms of the motion. It refers to:

The necessity for a public inquiry into and report upon the operation and administration of the Department of Customs and Excise under the Minister for Customs, Senator the Hon. M. F. Scott, and in particular the facts and circumstances in and in connection with:

Now I refer to paragraph (c), which reads:

The evasion of duties and excise on a grand scale, including the evasion of $1.9m of duty payable on cigarettes and cigars.

This is another example of the Opposition, in its reckless disregard for facts, not doing its homework and ignoring what are the facts.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That is what the Minister told us.

Senator SIM:

– I will deal with you in a minute if I have the chance. I have before me a very short statement in the Auditor-

General’s record for 1967-68. It appears on page 55. In it the Auditor-General reports that the Department of Customs and Excise investigated the records of a number of firms associated with the importation of cigars and cigarettes and found that duty had been short paid on these importations during the period from 1961 to 1967. In that period, Senator Scott was not Minister for Customs and Excise.

Senator Hendrickson:

– W;ho was?

Senator SIM:

– Keep quiet. I will come to you, too. Senator Scott was not then Minister for Customs and Excise and had no responsibility for the administration of the Department. If the members of the Opposition had been interested in facts they would have noted that in Hansard of 26th September 1968, Senator Laucke is reported at page 1039 as having quoted this part of the Auditor-General’s report, and Senator Scott is reported as having replied to him. It is quite obvious, therefore, that the members of the Opposition are not concerned with facts. They are concerned merely with making reckless, unsubstantiated charges against the Department of Customs and Excise. Senator Scott had no responsibility for what happened between the years 1961 and 1967.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– I have enjoyed the debate. I have enjoyed it because, for the first time since his elevation, we saw the real Senator Wright, the Senator Wright whom we all knew, the Senator Wright who was continually fighting in the corner against his colleagues. Eventually they decided the best thing to do to quieten him was to put him in the game. Ever since that time he has been like a sucking dove.

Senator Cormack:

– I rise to order. The honourable senator is making a personal reflection against a Minister sitting on the front bench. I suggest he should not proceed on those lines and that he should withdraw.

The PRESIDENT:

– I would not say there is a point of order, but I must admit that it was a strange opening for Senator Kennelly to make. I am not going to say (here is a point of order, but I can assure you, Senator Kennelly, that if you persist in that vein there will be a point of order.

Senator KENNELLY:

– With great respect, we always let the future look after itself. 1 am not going to read my speech, whether I hold the notes near my chest or whether 1 put them on the desk. The first thing that interested me was a remark made by my colleague on the other side from my own State. He started off by saying that the claim that was submitted by the leader in the debate for the Opposition (Senator McClelland) was a specious one. Then he got onto the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and said that all the allegations made against that organisation were unfounded.

Senator Sim:

– Hear, hear!

Senator KENNELLY:

– I would expect one with the honourable senator’s mentality to say “Hear, hear’. What are the facts? It has been admitted that Mrs Hoffmann was employed in the Japanese Embassy.

Senator Sim:

– By whom?

Senator KENNELLY:

– By the people for whom she worked. The said Mrs Hoffmann has stated that she brought out from that office certain papers.

Senator Marriott:

– What has that to do with the motion?

Senator KENNELLY:

– I am only answering what Senator Greenwood said in this debate. He said that the allegations were unfounded. If the allegations are unfounded, as he stated, how did it come to pass that the lady in question herself admitted that she took certain documents from the Japanese Embassy and gave them to officers of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation?

Senator Greenwood:

– That was never an allegation that you made.

Senator KENNELLY:

– It was.

Senator Greenwood:

– That is the way you twist your case.

Senator KENNELLY:

– No. The honourable senator is the legal person. Who is he to talk about twisting? The facts are-

Senator Wright:

– Mr President, I raise a point of order quietly, calmly and in words used by Senator Cohen just recently and supported by Senator Murphy. Surely what Senator Kennelly is saying is wholly irrelevant to a motion dealing with the Department of Customs and Excise. Any reference to ASIO in relation to Hoffmann has nothing whatever to do with the Department of Customs and Excise and is completely irrelevant.

The PRESIDENT:

– I find it extremely difficult to decide what is relevant and what is irrelevant. If one were to try to take a lead from many of the debates in this chamber, one would find it impossible to arrive at a conclusion. There is no substance in the point of order.

Senator KENNELLY:

– As far as I am concerned, what 1 have just mentioned is the kernel of the Hoffmann affair. I believe in the security of this nation, and I stand second to no-one in my claim. I do not intend to stand here or anywhere else and see people abuse their office, as, in my opinion, has been done in this case. Senator Greenwood said that the allegations were unfounded, but the lady herself admitted them. Certainly she said: ‘I received no money for it. 1 certainly would not, by any manner of means, accept money. 1 would do nothing to hurt my country’. But she admitted acting under instructions from-

Senator Buttfield:

– This is a red herring.

Senator KENNELLY:

– This is the fact. It is true, and honourable senators opposite do not like it. This is what came out of this case.

Senator Young:

– Get back to the Department of Customs and Excise.

Senator KENNELLY:

– When honourable senators opposite do not like it they squeal. Now let me deal with the person in regard to whom I said in a debate some weeks ago: ‘I admit- that to err is human but to forgive is divine’. I am referring to Mr Hoffmann.

Senator Cavanagh:

– And to Senator Wright.

Senator KENNELLY:

– And to Senator Wright too, for that matter. The most remarkable statement that I heard about Mr Hoffmann was that he was dismissed and then he was allowed to resign. I understand that he is only the third person to receive such treatment in the whole of the long history of the Commonwealth Public Service. Then Senator Scott, with that huge, sympathetic heart that he displays, helped to find Mr Hoffmann a job. Are honourable senators opposite going to tell me that. I should believe that? Are they going to tell the people of this country that here is a person who, unfortunately, made a mistake - a mistake sufficiently large for him to be dismissed from the Service - and who then was allowed to resign before the actual hour of his dismissal? That is the statement that is made. Then the Minister, feeling sorry for the person of: whose action his Department thought so badly that it wanted to dismiss him, went out of his way to find him another position.

Senator Greenwood:

– That is not what the Minister said.

Senator KENNELLY:

– The fact is that the Minister stated that he found or helped to get Mr Hoffmann a job. I say that this is a remarkable occurrence.

Senator Rae:

– When did the Minister say that? .

Senator KENNELLY:

– I am .-.rating that that is what the Minister said in this chamber. He said that Mr Hoffman came to see him–

Senator Maunsell:

– When?

Senator Cavanagh:

– On 26th November.’

Senator KENNELLY:

- Senator Cavanagh has all the dates. He will give them to you. Then the Department helped to get Mr Hoffmann a job.

Senator Greenwood:

– Oh!

Senator KENNELLY:

– Who is the head of the Department? Does the Minister run it or is he a rubber stamp? 1 believe that he was shown to be that this afternoon. It is true that I did something I do not usually do, namely, stop a person who cannot make a speech from reading one. I thought that in respect of an incident such as this he should stand up and defend his Department. 1 believe that there is every room for an investigation so that papers and people can be called for. If we are not at the bottom of the matter, as. some honourable senators opposite have said, then give us she opportunity to get to the bottom of it, if it is wrong.

Somebody mentioned the names of Cullen and King. He exonerates Mr Cullen from handing the letter around, but he does not exonerate Mr King. All I say to him is that if he will repeat outside what he said in this chamber, when it will not be under privilege, he will find out how right or how wrong he is about Mr King. I do not know the position. I did not see any letter. But I am certain that one person did not have it - and that is Cullen - because I asked him whether he had it and he said no. I have known him for long enough to know that he would say what ‘ were the facts as far as I am concerned:

Senator Little:

– You said that he would tell the facts as far as you were concerned.

Senator KENNELLY:

– 1 meant that he would have told them to me when I asked him. We heard what Senator McManus had to say. His was one of those nice, righteous speeches about which no-one can say a word at any time. Frank McManus spoke in his old style of 20 or 30 years ago in referring to the defence of this nation. I’ knew him then. He said how good it was to care for those people who are in need. He spoke as though we of the Opposition are afraid at any time to enter into ‘ debates on those questions. He referred to the Australia First movement. Senator McManus knows what happened during the term of office of the Curtin Labor Government. “He was not then, as he was later to become, the Secretary of the Party. The late Mr McNamara was then Secretary, but Senator McManus was a very valued member of the Party. He did not at any time then speak along the lines on which he has spoken tonight. He knows as well as 1 know that at thai time the security of this country rested with the Defence Department of the day. He knows that we were at war, and while’ we were at war certain things may have been done by people in the interests of this nation. There was then no opposition to those actions. So I discard his comments made tonight at a time when things have changed.

Senator Gair:

– What did Mr Calwell say about it?

Senator KENNELLY:

– You know Arthur as well as I do. Let us be honest about it. We both know. that if it suited

Arthur at one time to say something and then something else at another time, he would change it.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senators time has expired.

Senator CORMACK:
Victoria

- Mr President, you have called upon me to speak in this debate. In the years that 1 have spent in the Senate I have never risen to my feet on your call with more reluctance than I do in the circumstances of tonight. What was assumed to be a debate of a serious nature has been turned by the Opposition into a circus. It has been turned into a circus because of the character and quality of the clowns operating in the circus to divert the attention of the people viewing or listening to the circus.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I rise to a point of order. Senator Cormack has referred to senators as clowns. 1 believe that is highly disorderly. L ask you,- Sir, to request him to desist from referring to senators as clowns.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Cormack, you will perhaps choose your words a little more carefully.

Senator CORMACK:

– 1 used the term in the plural. Perhaps 1 should have applied it in the singular. Supposedly the integrity of the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) is under attack, and secondly the integrity of his Department. We are involved at this stage with a problem that must beset every Minister of the Crown, whether drawn from the present Government or drawn’ on a subsequent occasion from members of the present Opposition. The problem is the extent to which the authority, responsibility and jurisdiction of a Minister extend inside the administration of his department. It has been made perfectly clear hi this context by the AttorneyGeneral in another place that there are defined limits of responsibility that accrue to a Minister of State in the administration of the Department of Customs and Excise. In respect of the Hoffmann case, the responsibility of the Minister does not extend to dealing with Mr Hoffmann. The responsibility lies with the Permanent Head of the Department, and the Minister can in no circumstances fairly be attacked on the basis of the conduct he displayed in relation to the Hoffmann case.

Another problem is involved, and that is the extent to which a Minister’s responsibility extends down the line inside his department. That is what is involved here. The case is quite clear. Here is a department of state which historically - not only in the Australian context but also in the context of every advanced nation - always finds itself in difficulties because the front ranks of customs and excise officers of any nation - whether France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom or the United States of America - are exposed to the greatest of temptations by the most cunning and devious people who wish to avoid the payment of customs and excise duties that are levied. It is inevitable that some weak sisters are involved in this administration.

I want to repeat now in the Senate that our distinguished Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) - I call him distinguished - was Minister for Customs and Excise as the predecessor of Senator Scott. When in charge of this Department Senator Anderson instituted administrative reforms by bringing in Mr Carmody, a distinguished public servant, as Comptroller-General to try to straighten out the administration of the Department in the modern context of aircraft, container ships and so on. It is the administration in its proper role by the Comptroller-General that has begun to uncover areas of maladministration - I put it no higher or lower than that - which constitutes the ground upon which Senator Scott is being attacked. He must defend not only himself and the Government but also the public servant who was brought to the Department to streamline procedures and to create the circumstances in which the Department should not be laid under the menace of attacks such as have been made by various senators.

I wish first of all to defend the integrity of public administration. Secondly I wish to defend the integrity of the present Minister for Customs and Excise and his predecessor. Thirdly, I am in the position of defending the integrity of the Comptroller-General of Customs. I do so. What disturbs and distresses me about this, and has repeatedly distressed me, is that no basic evidence has been adduced by Senator McClelland to support his motion and. to indicate in any possible way that the administration of the Department of Customs and Excise has broken down. Senator McClelland made all sorts of allusive comments to indicate that there is vast corruption inside the Department of Customs. He made the most extraordinary statement I have ever heard in this Parliament when he said - I quote from memory but I think it is near enough to the point - that any honourable senator who visits the pubs around Circular Quay on pay day will get all the evidence he requires as to the maladministration of the Department of Customs and Excise.

I live my own life. If 1 want to hear some of the greatest bull it is possible to hear, 1 will hear it around the beer bars of any pub, whether at Circular Quay or Gunn’s Gully in Queensland. But this seems to be the area on which Senator McClelland relies for his evidence. He said that. He invited honourable senators to visit the beer halls around Circular Quay in order to hear the evidence on which he has rested his bitter attack upon a Minister and the integrity of the Department of Customs and Excise. 1 consider this to be one of my most revolting experiences in this Parliament. That is why 1 said to you, Sir, when you drew me to my feet, that I have never stood in my place in the Senate with more reluctance than on this occasion.

Amongst all the other forms of evidence that were displayed for the edification of honourable senators was the fact that seventy people bad been found in the Department of Customs and Excise who were recreant to their duty. This was brought forward as though it was an indication, for example, that the Australian Department of Customs and Excise is riddled with corruption. The honourable senator might just as well have taken another statistical source of information and said that 500 men had been on orderly room charges in the Australian Regular Army, in the Royal Australian Air Force or in the Royal Australian Navy and that this fact indicates that there is an area of corruption inside the three Armed Services, according to that statistical evidence. The facts are that in any group of people there are men and women - men in this context - who breach the integrity of the service in which they are employed. lt surprises me that there were not far more then seventy men who were found in misdemeanour inside the Department of Customs and Excise. I think that it is a healthy sign that at least the administrative competence of the Comptroller-General has been exerted to discover the men who become a disgrace to the service in which they are employed.

I turn to the terms of the matter of urgency which we are discussing on this important occasion. We are dealing with the subject by suggestion, lt is no more than a suggestion. The suggestion is that the Department of Customs and Excise as a Department of State has been involved in massive evasions of duties of customs and excise. In fact, the honourable senator asks that as a matter of urgency the Parliament should examine:

  1. the evasion of duties and excise on a grand scale, including the evasion of $1.9m of duty payable on cigarettes and cigars;

Mr President, this is the most extraordinary charge that I have ever heard levelled, lt is not a question of the Opposition getting up and praising the Comptroller-General of Customs and Excise who was placed in his office to apply modern administrative methods in that Department. The accusation is made against the Comptroller-General who is authorised to take this action, that he has discovered this evasion.

Senator Prowse:

– lt is his job.

Senator CORMACK:

– Yes. Yet, an attack has been launched on an unfortunate Minister sitting on the front bench because under his consulship the ComptrollerGeneral has discovered these evasions of duty and excise, and he has been condemned for it. This is nonsense.

I come to the question of morale which is dealt with in paragraph (d) of the matter of urgency:

Poor morale within the Department;

The morale mentioned by the honourable senator who introduced this matter is that morale demonstrated in beer talk in the pubs around Circular Quay. That is where he takes his soundings on the question of morale. Like Senator McManus, I know many men of the Department of Customs and Excise. I have seen them. I have been in contact with them as a traveller returning to Australia. I have had their thumbs run through my bag and a phial of pills taken out. 1 have been asked: ‘Senator Cormack, what is in this?’ I remember saying to the last fellow who did this: ‘Young man, you will grow up like me and have gout, and you will be swallowing these pills’. The point is that they are doing their job. This is no reason for anyone to condemn these men who have, I. believe, high morale. I believe that the morale of the officers of the Department of Customs and Excise in Australia is a morale that should be supported and sustained by this Parliament, lt should not be condemned, attacked, weakened and vilified by the Opposition. I agree with Senator McManus that it is a morale for which our approval in this Parliament should be evoked so that we can indicate that we approve of the intelligence that they bring to bear to their job.

We have been talking about narcotics, the growth of drug abuse and illegal trafficking of drugs in Australia. I do nol believe that there are more assiduous men in any department of customs and excise in the world than cur Australian customs officers who go through ship after ship and through aircraft after aircraft in order to inhibit this dastardly suborning influence of hard narcotic drugs in Australia. But not one word of praise for these men has come from honourable senator; sitting opposite. Not one word of praise came from the honourable senator who sponsored this discussion. It is all condemnation. Honourable members opposite are under the illusion that when they condemn the Department of Customs and Excise and its officers, investigators and so on, they have a device, inspired by malice, to be used against the present Minister for Customs and Excise. I think that it is a disgraceful episode. It is induced by nothing except malice. Normally I would support the Minister for Customs and Excise on the basis that it is malice. But I defend him not only on the basis that it is malice. It is my duty to defend an honourable man whom I have known for 20 years in this Parliament, lt is my duty also - and I do so and I make no apology for doing so - to defend the integrity of this great Department of State. Therefore, I hope that Senator McManus will press for the issue to come to a vote and that when it comes to the vote this Senate will reject this motion and uphold the integrity of the men who have served so loyally this great service of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

- Mr President, for a senator who has never risen to his feet with more reluctance, Senator Cormack has given the Senate a fair example of a supercilious, brash and egotistical reluctance. He has evaded the issue completely. I remind him that the issue we are debating is the necessity for a public inquiry to report upon the operation and administration of the Department of Customs and Excise. What has the Government to fear from an inquiry into this matter? We have been bringing matters forward for the last 2 months that could quite well be the subject of an inquiry. We insist that the demand for this inquiry is something to which the Senate should give effect tonight.

What are the matters that are involved? First, there is the dismissal or resignation of Gerard Charles Hoffmann. Whether the Department of Trade and Industry or the Department of Customs and Excise condoned the theft of documents from an embassy, it is a disgrace to Australia that this should happen. Whatever department allowed this to go on and still condones it. brings Australia into disgrace. It is not a matter of whether the woman concerned helped the Department of Customs and Excise to raise a little revenue. At what cost to Australia’s integrity and honour was this revenue raised? Money should not be able to buy this sort of thing.

Secondly, we have asked for an inquiry into the entry by customs officers into private homes, including that of Miss Daphne Mayo. This is a state of affairs that could be tolerated in countries under dictators, but it should be stamped out with every vigour that is possible in Australia. The Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) rises in his place and says: ‘I apologise’. This is like somebody who is short changed in a shop. He says to the shopkeeper: ‘You have not given me the right money’. The shopkeeper replies: ‘Oh, I am sorry’. What redress has that person? What redress has Miss Daphne Mayo against people, whether they have warrants or not, who knock on her door late at night, indeed, near midnight? It is disgusting that a situation such as this should arise in Australia.

The third matter that we raise is the evasion of duties and excise. We would like to know, for instance, about the Argyle stores down at The Rocks in Sydney. What about the owners of this store in which the cigarettes and cigars were found. We should have an inquiry to ascertain who is the proprietor there and whether he has any relationship to any members of the Cabinet. What was the background of the storage of the goods on which duty was evaded? The next matter that we raise is the question of morale. We refer to the poor morale within the Department. We have only to see the efforts of the Minister today and to note the growth of drug abuse. At the present time, there is ferment in the New South Wales police force and the New South Wales Parliament over drug running in which a Sydney Chinese restaurant owner, Mr Ng Biu Kuen, alleges police are involved. This is an international drug running operation. Last year, several New South Wales police officers were extradited . to the United States to face drug running charges. The Department of Customs and Excise is not taking the action that it should in these matters. All these charges that are being made on a very high level are being covered up at the political level. This is hampering the authorities concerned in looking properly into these matters.

Another disturbing aspect concerning drugs and the Department of Customs and Excise is this: Last year, a senior Sydney journalist in the course of an inquiry into organised crime received information that a drug ring planned to land a $250,000 shipment of hard drugs, including heroin, in the north west of Australia. But were inquiries ever carried out concerning these allegations? No fear! The Department has overlooked this. This is a reflection on the efficiency of the Department that the Minister has tried lo justify in the debate today.

There arc many other matters that I would like to raise tonight, but I think the Government has a lot for which to answer. The matters that we have brought forward have been substantiated inasmuch as the Minister not only has not been able to give the correct answers to us in the Senate but over a period of 2 months we have had to drag every little bit of evidence from him. He has evaded the issue so often that we think that only a public inquiry and a report into the operations and administration of the Department will satisfy the Senate and the people of Australia. In supporting the motion that has been moved by Senator McClelland, I must congratulate him for the effort that he has put into chasing down this inefficiency that has existed in the Department for a considerable time. I believe he has done a great service to the people of Australia.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– Whilst for some part of the debate I may not have been in the chamber, I have been accessible to the chamber and I heard most of the debate. As Leader of the Government in the Senate I stand four square in support of the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) in relation to the assault that has been made upon him and his Department. I reject the motion that has been moved by Senator McClelland. It’ is well to remember that since Parliament commenced this session we have been occupied for an extraordinarily disproportionate amount of time with what has been - for want of a better expression - referred to as the Hoffmann affair. In my judgment the circumstances of the resignation of Mr Hoffmann, an officer of the Department of Customs and Excise, were used quite clearly and quite blatantly as a vehicle for an attempted assault upon the Australian Security Service. After a series of lengthy debate in which the Opposition used the forms of the House, after a barrage of apparently interminable questions directed to the Minister for Customs and Excise and after the Government had accepted the challenge on every occasion, we reached the point where the Opposition came to the conclusion that it could no longer sustain its attack upon the Australian Security Service, on the one hand - which was the prime objective of the attack - and upon the Department of Customs and Excise and the Minister for Customs and Excise on the other. Now, using the forms of the House, we have this motion moved by Senator McClelland. I very much regret that he has moved it. I hope that tonight, when this debate terminates - and it is due to terminate at 9.41 p.m. - we will have had all that is necessary to dispose of the matter.

I want to make a couple of very brief references to some of the five points contained in the motion. The first point deals with the resignation and/or dismissal of Gerard Charles Hoffmann. I do not think I need canvass this any further because I am sure that the people of Australia, as does the Senate, know all the circumstances in relation to it and are heartily sick of the nonsense that has gone on in regard to it. An attempt was made to force the Minister for Customs and Excise into a situation by what was intended to be no less than crossexamination. We had situations where 15 or 16 questions were fired at him at one question time. He was obliged to ask that they be put on notice.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Why could not the Minister have answered them?

Senator ANDERSON:

– The honourable senator has had his say. He should have the courtesy to listen to me, if he has a courtesy. The Department is a revenuegathering department which gathers something of the order of $ 1,400m a year for the Commonwealth. It has a staff of 4.250-odd and it has approximately fortyfour offices or establishments in the Commonwealth. Wherever there is a point of entry there is a customs establishment. The Department deals with a coastline of approximately 12,400 miles. It has a Minister. We have the Gilbertian situation where an attempt is made to pressurise him to give answers without notice in relation to many matters concerning his Department - for which he has been Minister for some 13 or 14 months. The situation was completely unreal. Very properly, when the tactics of the Opposition became apparent, he asked that the questions be put on notice so that he could obtain answers from his Department.

There cannot be any doubt that the administration of the Department of Customs and Excise and the ministerial responsibility of the Minister, Senator Scott, have been carried out with dignity, efficiency and capability. The officers of the Department of Customs and Excise are honourable Australian citizens, public servants doing a good job for the Common wealth. lt is a poor show when, in a huge department of some 4,000 people, attacks are made. In every department - and one could take departments with a staff onequarter of that of the Department of Customs - there will always be circumstances in which an officer does something contrary to Public Service regulations. All the irregularities have been dredged up. There has been a conscious effort to seek them out, gather them together and present them as an assault upon the Department. I suggest that those tactics do not become the Opposition and do not become the mover of the motion.

Senator Georges:

– Do we go home?

Senator ANDERSON:

– No. The situation is that we have to understand human nature. In a huge department somebody will come to work late. I suppose even some senators come to work late. Some person might have a drink during office hours. I suppose even we in the Senate do that. There could be a whole multiplicity of minor things. But if honourable senators opposite get them all; gather them up, put them in one basket and present them, what are they trying to do? They are trying to present something to destroy a department which is doing a magnificent job for the Commonwealth. That is why I say that the Senate should get rid of the nonsense that is contained in the motion.

I want to talk about some other points contained in the motion. It refers to the poor morale within the Department, ls it any wonder? If a department which takes pride in the work it does, which has high and responsible officers ‘ and young junior officers coming on who look forward to a career in a worthwhile Commonwealth department and if it becomes subjected to this kind of nonsense - concentrated doses of this nonsense - will that help the morale of the department? What would it do to any department? The motion is a calculated effort to destroy a department. All over the world the Australian Department of Customs and Excise is regarded as an outstanding department. Other countries seek to send their officers to Australia to get an understanding of the methods that are employed. That includes countries of Asia such as Japan. I want to make the point also that in my time as Minister for Customs and Excise new systems were introduced. One new system, which was known as commodity control, came in during the time that Senator Henty was the Minister. Indeed, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts said that we were tardy because we had not introduced the new measures with more speed and alacrity. With the advent of these new techniques, which were all calculated to make for more speed and provide better facility for people wanting to bring goods through customs and better facility for trade and commerce for the people of Australia, came new problems. I suppose it would be true to say that it will be some time before we get the complete rewards of commodity control. Senator McManus appealed to the Opposition to facilitate a vote on this matter.

Senator Murphy:

– We will do that.

Senator ANDERSON:

– The Leader of the Opposition has now interceded to say that the Opposition will do that. I thank him for that indication. I understand -that Senator Murphy will follow me in the debate. lt will be necessary that a motion That the question be now put’ be proposed. Senator Murphy has indicated that he will do that and I accept his statement. I feel that we should have a vote on this so that we may be able to get back to a situation in which we can carry out the responsible business of the Senate. We have many matters on the business paper to deal with and if we can dispose of this matter 1 suggest that the business of the Senate will proceed far better than it has while we have been arguing about these unfortunate matters.

I have complete confidence in the Minister for Customs and Excise. He has done a magnificent job in the short time that he has been the Minister. He has a very fine Department with very fine senior and junior members. The best way in which we can help the morale of the Department and thereby help the Commonwealth is to stop these attacks upon him and his Department. If there is a valid cause in some particular case which needs examination it would be fair enough to raise it with him; but let us stop this attempt, by the device of gathering in all these normal domestic matters and affairs that happen in any de partment and of putting them into a concentrated form, to create an atmosphere of inefficiency and incompetence. For those reasons I thank Senator Murphy for his indication that he will facilitate, as 1 would wish to do, a vote on this motion.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– It is good to see the Leader of the Government (Senator Anderson) rise and at least fight for what he considers to be the interests of the Department of Customs and Excise. At least it is better to see that than to experience the present Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) sitting in his place, not prepared to stand up when allegations are being made against his Department. On 26th February he was frightened to stand. No wonder there is poor morale in the Department. There is poor morale in the Department, and there was in December of last year. As Senator McClelland has indicated, the poor morale among high officers and other officers in the Department was discussed at that time by the association which represented these men. Do not try to evade this issue by blaming us; these matters were brought up by the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association which said that something must be done about it. The Minister is responsible for this situation. What nonsense it is to blame the Opposition in this place.

How can we expect good morale in a department which has a Minister who, as an objective defence, comes into this chamber, as he did today, waving an envelope containing pornographic material, a copy of which he sends to Senator Gair and another copy of which he sends to me? Whether they were the same I do not know. What the devil has that to do with his maladministration and with the poor state of affairs in his Department? He comes into this chamber and says that there is nothing in the Hoffmann affair, that it is all over, that he has been vindicated by what has been published in the Sunday Telegraph’. He asks what we are complaining about.

Today we heard the Minister say a number of significant things. Day after day we have heard him say: ‘Why blame the man? Why be hard on him when he has made only one mistake?’ He described it as a mistake. But today he came into this place and said that an officer who deliberately makes a decision that he knows to be wrong must be dismissed. Yet day after day he was refusing to accede to what the Opposition was putting - that this was a deliberate thing and was wrong. The Minister knew it to be wrong. Yet, for some peculiar reason, this man Hoffmann was given special treatment. On the subject of special treatment, we know front what the Minister has admitted today that on 11th November he received a letter from Mr Hoffmann. We know that on 13th November he sent that letter back to the Department. We know from what has been published about that letter in the Sunday Telegraph’, which the Minister said vindicated him, that all the allegations were in that letter, not only about Mr Hoffmann’s mistreatment by the police but also about his acting as a courier for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and about his wife abstracting commercial documents from the Japanese Embassy, lt was all in that letter and the Minister had it.

Senator Greenwood:

– They were not all in that letter and the honourable senator knows it.

Senator MURPHY:

– They were in the letter. The Minister accepted that and said what Mrs Hoffmann had said. Honourable senators heard him being asked today whether he had been correctly reported. Every honourable senator knows that he said he had been correctly reported and that the reports vindicated him. But what did be say on 4th March in reply to a question from me? We know that he said that Mr Hoffmann had tendered his resignation on 14th November. So after the letter had been received from Mr Hoffmann and after it had been sent back to the Department, steps were set in train to call him in to have him submit his resignation. For what reason? Obviously it was for the reasons set out in the letter. The Minister has said this. I addressed a question to the Minister in these terms: 1 wish to ask a question of the Minister for Customs and Excise. At the time Mr Hoffmann tendered his resignation-

We know that that was on 14th November- was the Minister aware of the allegations, regardless of their truth, being made by Mrs Hoffmann?

Senator Scott replied: 1 was unaware of any allegations being made by anyone at all.

Was not that a false statement? lt was false then and it is false now. Tt was a plain lie and the Minister knows it. Everybody here knows that that was a false statement which was made by the Minister. Yet the Minister says that he is satisfied and is vindicated. How could one expect the officers of a department to have confidence in a Minister who did that? How could anyone expect us to believe what the Minister said here in reply to questions? We have reached the point where the only way that we can get the truth is by a public inquiry where people can give their evidence in public so that we can ascertain the truth.

We know now, in plain terms, that it was not until 20th November that there was a formal acceptance of Mr Hoffmann’s resignation. We are aware that the acceptance of a resignation has to be communicated to the employer before it is effective. So it was 20th November or after that the resignation could take effect. Yet 5 days before, the processes had been completed and Mr Hoffmann was dismissed, 5 days before he was permitted to resign. At the beginning, when the Minister thought that he could get away with it, he tried to say that there had been no dismissal, that dismissal was the last word that would have come into it. We have heard some truths and we have heard some untruths about the dismissal or resignation of Mr Hoffmann.

Turning to another matter, Government supporters have said: ‘Why worry about cigarettes and tobacco? After all, this is only a small matter and the Minister has satisfactorily dealt with it. Let us forget all about it’. But what about the answer that was given today by the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) on behalf of the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Bowen)? He said that the papers in connection with this cigarettes and tobacco matter were related to investigations which on 10th September 1968 had not been completed. The additional papers were forwarded in mid-November and an officer had been working on them continuously. He said that as a large number of offences might be involved it is likely to be some time before the examination of all the documents relating to the Investigation has been concluded and a decision made as to what proceedings could or should be taken. I’ll say it will be a long time. That was back in July and the investigations were not completed in September. The matter will drag on. Unless there is pressure in the Senate the investigations will never be completed and the whole thing will be smothered up.

We know that this matter started off from the Hoffmann affair. That is true. There is no doubt at al! about that. The articles written in ‘Incentive’ and the ‘Mirror were read by hundreds of thousands of people - even millions - throughout Australia and they were disturbed about them. But who was the man who did nol read those articles? One man . came into the Senate and said: M have not heard anything about this. Not until I came here to Parliament in March did I hear anything. This is the first I heard about them.’ That man sils opposite and rs in charge of the very Department, the Minister himself. The Minister himself said: ‘I have not heard of it. I have not read articles and 1 do not know anything about this.’ If that does not convict him of incompetency, if that does not show that we should have a public inquiry, whether by a Senate committee or by some other body, then what does? Either he is not telling the truth to the Senate - cither his Department is keeping the matters from him - or he is the greatest incompetent who has ever held the post of Minister for Customs and Excise. Honourable senators can make their choice of those alternatives.

Mr Deputy President, there are other matters - serious matters - involved in this. The jackals who are interjecting need not be unduly concerned because there are a few minutes left. I would like to refer to some statements which show that there has been a growth of drug abuse and illegal trafficking in Australia, if the Department of Customs and Excise is to be believed. In a ministerial statement on 20th February Senator Scott spoke about some seizures of drugs. He said that the frequency of these seizures by Customs officers and police was positive evidence of the growth of drug abuse and illegal trafficking. There were other statements by the Minister which recognise that his Department apparently is failing to cope with this increase in drug traffic and in illegal trafficking. One might say: ‘Nevertheless, even though on other matters the Minister is not frank, he is efficient. Although the drug traffic is increasing he is doing everything he can. Nothing will be allowed to pass his attention and he will jump in.”

Why was there no explanation by the former Minister for Customs and Excise, the present Leader of the Government in the Senate, after Senator O’Byrne referred to the information given to the present Minister .for Customs and Excise about attempts to bring heroin into Australia? I suppose the former Minister must have been astounded and that is why he was silent about this matter. He must have been astounded to learn that the present Minister for Customs and Excise had been informed, as Senator O’Byrne said, that last year a senior Sydney journalist, in the course of an inquiry into organised crime, received information that the drug ring planned to land a $250,000 shipment of hard drugs, including heroin, in the remote north-west of Australia. This information was given to the Department, including the name of a woman who was believed to be the major drug smuggling organiser in Perth. Her address was given to the Department as well as the approximate time when the shipment would be picked up. Details were also given of the finance raising activities of a group of criminals operating in Melbourne who organised the distribution of these drugs. What was done about this information? Were the inquiries ever carried out? Is the Department as efficient in this area as the Minister leads us to believe? 1 believe the inquiries were not. carried out and that nothing was done. There is very good reason to believe this and this is one of the reasons why there should be an inquiry into the increased drug traffic in Australia. Whatever one might believe about the Minister’s credibility, this matter is of utmost importance lo Australia. It is clear that, whatever the reason, the Department is not coping with the increase in the illegal traffic in drugs.

Mr Deputy President, there is every reason why this inquiry should be set up. The Democratic Labor Party no doubt will follow its usual course and side with the Government. The Democratic Labor Party talks about matters of public interest but it dumped the public on the move to form a committee to deal with natural disasters, on the proposed inquiry into education and in respect of the increase in sales tax. No doubt the Democratic Labor Party will again dump the public and side with the Government, as it is bound to do for various reasons too well known to us.I therefore move:

That the question be now put.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till tomorrow at 10 a.m.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin)

AYES: 26

NOES: 32

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 861

PUBLIC SERVICE ARBITRATION BILL 1969

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 March (vide page 524), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– The principal Bill in the group of five with which we are now dealing seeks to amend the Public Service Arbitration Act. With the Ministers concurrence we will deal with the associated Bills at the same time because they make consequential amendments in relation to the Government’s proposal to appoint deputy public service arbitrators. When introducing the Bill the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) pointed out that its main purpose is to augment the number of people who can assist the Public Service Arbitrator in discharging the great amount of industrial work which has come his way in recent years following the growth of Commonwealth departments and the number of classifications in and the influence of the Public Service. As he pointed out, in recent years officers of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission have been assisting the Arbitrator in the discharge of his functions. Messrs O’Reilly and Wilson have been performing this work for some years.

Let me say at the outset that the Opposition is mindful of the fact that it is necessary to appoint additional officers and that in the future there will be no limitation on the number of deputy arbitrators who may be appointed. So the intention of the legislation is good. However we object to the limitations imposed upon the deputy arbitrator in that before he can make a determination he must have the concurrence of the Arbitrator. I shall refer to that aspect later.

As the Minister has referred to the history of the Public Service it might be interesting if I make one or two points about it. The Minister pointed out that the first piece of legislation to give the Public Service the right to apply to the Commonwealth court was introduced in 1911 by the late Billy Hughes during the reign of the Fisher Labor Government… One of the reasons for the legislation was the acceptance for the first time of the fact that employees of the Commonwealth Public Service should have the same right as people outside the Service to approach the Commonwealth court for a determination of their wages and conditions. The debates of the day are interesting to read because many people argued in the Parliament at the time that the public servant should be subservient to the relevant Minister and the Parliament, but it was also argued that the situation could develop in which an authority might prescribe industrial conditions and wages which the Parliament could not observe. But the Labor Party pressed on with the legislation and 1 think it is appropriate to put on record its approach. I refer to the Fisher Government.

Gerald Caiden in- 1966 published a work called ‘The Commonwealth Bureaucracy’ which has become something of a textbook on the Public Service. In it he traced the history of developments in the Public Service and mentioned that the Labor Party at the lime gave these reasons for allowing the Public Service to approach the court:

  1. The Labor Party held that no group of employees should be dependent on the absolute discretion of their employers as unresolved conflicts could erupt into strikes, physical violence and police intervention. Public employees should be entitled to the same rights as other employees and their conditions of employment should be subject to the same principles and practices.

The second reason is of a somewhat mechanical nature so 1 will pass over it. The author went on:

  1. Governments had an obligation to maintain public services at all times. They should provide machinery to prevent, employee grievances reaching the stage where strikes occurred. Arbitration would provide an outlet for staff grievances, act as a restraint on officialdom and encourage both official and staff sides to act responsibly.

There were associated reasons which at the time were good reasons. I might observe here that unfortunately in recent years we have had the situation in which, to a large extent, the Public Service Arbitrator has not fulfilled the obligations placed upon him for a number of reasons which can be averted by the kind of amendment which the Opposition will propose at a later stage.

The Minister, in his second reading speech, went on to note the changes that took place in 1920 when the government of the day decided to appoint the first Public Service Arbitrator. In 1952 the Act was amended to provide for appeals to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, as it was then known. One reason which has been advanced for the necessity for deputy arbitrators is the great growth in the departments of the Commonwealth, the large number of classifications and the fact that today we have a Public Service of about a quarter of a million employees which is about 6% of the Australian work force.

There have been great changes in official classifications. In the old days the public servant was a public servant, a white collar worker. He was a public servant in the sense that he was not a highly .specialised officer. Today with the numerous departments in the Public Service we have a large number of specialists - psychologists, auditors, architects, people associated with the various Service departments, technical men in the Postmaster-General’s Department, officers employed on telecommunications work and at Woomera, and a whole host of people outside Australia who are covered by Public Service standards and awards. We can understand that there has to be some general trend towards uniformity on wage levels or some basis of evaluation for wage making. We cannot see why there should be this demand for the uniformity to which the Minister has referred. One of the main reasons given for not giving the deputy arbitrator the right to determine what he thinks is a just remuneration is that there must be a general trend towards uniformity. Let us examine the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. In that Department is a large staff of technical people of great skill. Some of their skills cannot be quickly or immediately identified with those of people outside. If all the classifications of the Public Service could be identified with counterparts in outside industry there might be some ground for arguing that there ought to be general uniformity with what we used to call the parent awards in outside industry.

Recent annual reports of the Public Service Board stress the need for the evaluation of particular classifications, and I cannot see why a deputy arbitrator would not have the same competence as an arbitrator or a Commonwealth conciliation commissioner. Indeed, I would suggest that he would be the logical person to investigate claims. He would know all the details involved in the dispute.. He would be an experienced man, or he should be, because, normally, a man would not be promoted to such a position unless he was qualified by experience to hold it. In fact, a deputy arbitrator might be the only person in a particular department qualified to hold that position whereas an arbitrator could be replaced, because of promotion or death, by a person who might not be experienced. It would seem to us that the main weakness of this legislation is that it does not provide the sort of strength that ought to be provided in connection with these new classifications.

I want to make one other point. We know from what we read in the Press and from other sources that many public servants are not satisfied with the type of consideration they are getting from the Arbitrator. They are certainly not satisfied with the length of time it takes to have their claims determined. Over recent years there have been many occasions upon which trade unions have taken strong action to have their classification claims determined more speedily. At the present time a dispute is developing because of dissatisfaction on the part of members of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association. This body is organising meetings of its members in various government departments with a view to seeking a speedy determination of salary rates. Their application has been proceeding for over 12 months now. There is no question in my mind that it is pretty well accepted that public servants generally are not getting the same rates of remuneration as are being paid to their counterparts in outside industry. Here let me repeat a statement by Gerald Caiden on page 359 of his book The Commonwealth Bureauracy’ in which he says:

Officers in the highest salary ranges probably receive less than their market value (and on retirement are eagerly sought as consultants, directors and advisers) while officers in the lowest salary ranges do not enjoy the over-award payments, etc., of unskilled and semi-skilled employees outside, so that only officers in the middle salary ranges can be said to enjoy strictly comparable remuneration. According to a survey conducted in October 1965 by the Bureau of Census and Statistics, private employees received 25% of their income from overtime and over-award payments and it was claimed that they received more than public employees in comparable jobs, with numerous local variations from the average.

There has been some criticism of the reports submitted by the Public Service Board, but in recent years the Board’s reports have been fairly illuminating in that they have proposed the adoption of modern industrial concepts which have not been incorporated in this legislation. Let me mention one’ or two things that I have noticed in the Board’s reports over recent years. In its report for 1966-67, when referring lo a chart with respect of the number of determinations it had made, the Board said this:

The chart illustrates the Board’s continuing emphasis on conciliation and negotiation with staff associations as distinct from arbitration or the fixation of pay rates unilaterally by administrative action. The Board believes that its emphasis on full negotiations with staff associations is appropriate and desirable in the circumstances of the Commonwealth Service, even though it involves more work for the staff associations and for the Board itself.

It also said:

In determining rates of pay for each employment group, the Board therefore pays due regard to the information available to it on rates paid by other employers in the market for comparable work.

The Board then goes on to ‘state a number of reasons for adopting this practice. Its approach is a good one because it seems to me to justify evaluating a deputy arbitrator as an officer who can completely fill the role of an arbitrator and who should not be required first to inquire into what a dispute is about or what a wage claim is about only to find that, should his calculation differ from what the arbitrator thinks it should be he may be required to hand in his brief. Under this legislation, in circumstances such as that the arbitrator, if he did not agree with the opinion of the deputy arbitrator, could say to him: ‘That is the end of your mission. I am going to start a new hearing.’ This would mean that a completely new case would have to be made out. Anybody can see that this is a very bad procedure.

Senator Wright:

– That would not be the procedure that is envisaged at all.

Senator BISHOP:

– I think it is. The Government has provided for such a procedure under the legislation. The Government claims that it is necessary to provide for this particular procedure, and, when speaking in another place, the Minister concerned admitted that this could happen. A deputy arbitrator could arrive at a decision after going into a claim in minute detail, and, whether the Minister likes it or not, if the arbitrator did not agree with the deputy arbitrator’s finding he could scrap the determination and embark upon a fresh hearing of the matter himself. Many unions are complaining now that it takes them 2 years and more to prosecute a claim and to obtain a determination. Under this legislation, after proceeding for 2 years before a deputy arbitrator they can be faced with another 2 years prosecuting a fresh claim before the arbitrator. That is very bad practice. One of the things that most people learn in negotiations having to do with industrial arbitration - I have had more than a little experience in this field - is that if YOU want to settle a dispute or a wage claim reasonably quickly you must be able to formulate your claim intelligently and you must be able to take it to someone who can arbitrate and arrive at a decision. If you have a dispute in a factory you have to be able to go to the person who can make the final decision. It is no use going to anyone occupying a lower position. If you take a dispute to a foreman when you should take it to the works manager, this could lead to many hours of procrastination and frustration which in turn could lead to an aggravation of the dispute. That is not good industrial philosophy. .In this instance, the Government has not done all that it might, have done. At first it apparently anticipated that some penal provisions might be applied to the Public Service, but it has retreated from that approach. However, it has not gone to the extent to which it should have gone in applying arbitration procedures that will give satisfaction.

The reports of the Public Service Board contain a good deal of modern arbitration philosophy. They point out that in trying to simplify the classifications system of the Public Service the Board has done a lot of work in the evaluation of classifications. In recent years it has reduced the number of classifications of psychologist from about 200 to about 4 groups. A similar reduction has been achieved in the field of architects. A general review has been made of pay rates and classifications. This makes it easier to compare Public Service pay scales with those of outside people. Despite that, something which has happened before is stilt happening. Many top public servants are leaving the Service because of their outstanding capabilities. Nobody in the Public Service wants to be in a position in which he is dissatisfied with the mechanical processes of arbitration.

But what the Government fails to appreciate is that, having embarked upon the provision of better arbitration facilities, it should do what it did in the amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. These arbitrators will be equivalent to commissioners. They should be able to go their merry way and determine disputes. They should not have the Public Service Arbitrator oyer their heads. Although he may be a new Arbitrator he will be able to say to them: ‘I do not care what you are trying to do here; we will start this case anew’.

Some of the other provisions of the Bill are consequential. One of them is an improvement in that it provides for retrospective payment. Over the years it has been customary for all Public Service determinations to lie on the table Of the Parliament for 30 days before they become operative. In future the Arbitrator and the deputy arbitrators will be able to provide for an operating date. However, that power may be limited to some extent by the restrictions on the powers of the deputy arbitrators.

The Government has received representations from the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the High Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations. We take the view that those were the representations which should have been given the greatest weight. The Opposition’s Industrial Committee has been told that representations along the lines of my suggestions were made to the Government and the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Bury). The Government was urged to give the deputy arbitrators the powers which I have suggested they should have and which they would have under the amendment that we propose to move. I’ cannot understand why the Government, having embarked upon a policy of what might be called enlightened industrial reform, does not do all it can to bring about the improvements requested by the Public Service organisations.

I have been requested to say that the unions appreciate that common sense has prevailed in relation to the intention to provide for the exercise of penal powers against public servants. I merely say that experience teaches us that the exercise qf penal powers against any group of industrial workers does not finally pay. All it does is build up a great defensive organisation of workers.

The Public Service Board stated in its annual report of 1966-67 that negotiation and conciliation is the course that it is trying to follow. I am aware of the complexities of arbitration in the Public Service, having regard to the numerous departments and the growth of departments. In the old days most public servants were white collar and administrative personnel. Now there is a great number of technical experts and professional people who could do better outside the Public Service. If we want to keep such people and if we want to maintain an accomplished and efficient Public Service, we have to provide an arbitration machine which can work quickly and by which the application of the principles of justice will be apparent to the people who put case* to the arbitrators.

The real failure in this legislation is in the fact that people who want to solve a dispute will be aware immediately that they may bc wasting their representations on an officer who cannot solve the problem and who. at some stage of the negotiations, may bc forced to leave the field so that it can be taken over by the Public Service Arbitrator himself, who is not a specialist in the field and who has not heard all the detailed argument. Consequently, at the Committee stage we intend to move certain amendments. 1. leave my submission at that. I will deal with the amendments when they come before the Committee.

Senator GREENWOOD (Victoria; 1.10.5] - I rise to support the principles of this Bill and to say a few words in support of what I conceive to be considerations of value which are contained within it. The Bill is designed lo provide a more efficient procedure for the determination of wage and conditions of employment claims which are made within the Commonwealth Public Service. Specifically, the Bill provides for the appointment of deputy arbitrators who will work with the existing Public Service Arbitrator. Although the provision in the Bill is of such a character that any number of deputy arbitrators may be appointed, the Government proposes to appoint only two in the immediate future. This provision will enable a more speedy determination of those matters that come before the Public Service Board. As Senator Bishop has indicated, the Bill also provides for determinations to come into force more speedily than the principal Act permits. There are also consequential provisions. I imagine that the most significant of them is the one that requires that there shall be a consistency between the decisions of the Public Service Arbitrator and of the deputy arbitrators whom the Bill contemplates being appointed. ft is relevant to note that the Public Service Arbitrator sits in the way an appellate body sits on decisions of a tribunal from which one party desires to appeal. Strictly, he is not an appellate body; but within the framework of the Public Service Arbitration Act the Public Service Arbitrator is entitled to hear those matters that are submitted to him. Then the Act lays down that certain statutory procedures shall be followed. In those procedures the emphasis is placed initially on conciliation, but finally there is the power in the Arbitrator. This power, of course, is the one that will be reposed in the deputy arbitrators, lt is the power to make such determinations on any particular issues submitted to him as are considered appropriate.

Increasing use has been made of the Public Service Arbitrator in matters that have arisen in the Public Service, as a result of a variety of classifications and a multiplicity of claims which have been made in the past and which one must suppose will be made to an increasing degree in the future as a result of the recent decisions of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to allow work value determinations. Senator Wright said in his second reading speech:

Today, more than a quarter of a million employees, or a little over 6% of the total number of wage and salary earners in Australia, come within the jurisdiction of the Public Service Arbitrator.

So it is proper to say that the Public Service Board is the employer of more than a quarter of a million people. Within the range of employment are not only the traditional clerical1 employee, who for many years constituted the typical public servant, but also persons employed in various technical categories in numerous government departments. Tn these circumstances it is very important that there be confidence in the system of arbitration which applies singularly to the Public Service employment situation just as the ordinary conciliation and arbitration provisions apply outside it.

I was interested to peruse the latest report of the Public Service Board and to note the way the Board views the relationships that exist between it and the Arbitrator. At page 20 the report indicates that although the number of arbitration cases in which the Board was a respondent is small in comparison with those instances in which agreement has been reached, the role of arbitration must be important because of the principles set out by the decisions, lt is also a means of resolving matters without total recourse to the arbitration process. The Board’s report states:

Where basic differences of judgment or principle exist between the parties resolution of these differences by arbitration is frequently of major importance. Furthermore, the need for evenhanded and consistent treatment of staff in accordance with properly established principles of pay fixation has been generally accepted by all the parties concerned as the foundation of pay fixation in the Service, and there has grown up through the decisions of the arbitral authorities a considerable body of principles generally accepted as providing a basis for pay fixation and for negotiations on pay matters. lt is natural that that general approach will be continued and it is desirable that it should be, with the new system which will come into operation of a series of deputy arbitrators having statutory force for all decisions they make. This of course recognises that prior to this amendment there had been grounds for the de facto situation in which persons who exercised powers now to be exercised by deputy arbitrators had been appointed as assistants. lt is useful when examining the Board’s report to note the number of matters concerning pay and conditions of employment which were resolved in the year 1967-68 by the assistance contemplated by the Public Service Act and Public Service Arbitration Act. In that year forty-eight pay decisions were made by the Public Service Board. Twelve determinations with regard to pay were made by the Public Service Arbitrator and 136 consent determinations were made by the Arbitrator. I think the figures are testimony to the efficiency of the procedures provided by the Public Service Arbitration Act. Undoubtedly there will be occasions when particular stresses will make these procedures less effective than they normally are, but the record is impressive. The year’s record shows a large number of consent arrangements. A perusal of the Board’s reports for previous years indicates that the number of consent determinations increases yearly. That in itself is the best testimony of the value of the procedure. One might also suppose that because the consent arrangements are imposed under a process in which the Arbitrator largely figures the burden of the work which is imposed is increasing.

My remarks have been directly relevant to the Bill. 1 think it is also relevant to the purpose of the Bill and the function of the Arbitrator to draw attention to two particular matters. The first is the current situation of Public Service regulations. It is tremendously important for public servants who are concerned about their pay and changes in emoluments and classifications and variations which may occur from time to time to have access to a determination which can inform them of their rights. lt is equally important -for representatives of employees to be able to have access to determinations.

Because of a situation which came to my attention last year 1 asked the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Bowen) whether circumstances as represented to me were true. I was assured that they were. The Public Service regulations were last consolidated in the early part of 1962. From that time until the end of .1.968 ninety-four statutory regulations were made amending various Public Service regulations. My accounting for this year indicates that already a further six statutory rules amending regulations have been made. No convenient means is available whereby the effect of the amendments on the existing consolidation can be ascertained.

I made an inquiry myself of the officers of the Senate and found that there was one copy of the consolidation, lt is a precious copy which is not allowed out of the office. Inquiries made for me by the Senate officers indicated that no other similar document is readily available. I respectfully suggest to the people who have the carriage of these matters that it is an unsatisfactory position in a field where, as it were, an employer of about 250,000 people has the terms and conditions of employment laid down by regulations but the regulations which so clearly determine rights and conditions are not available to the people who may want them. I was given an assurance by the Attorney-General that the work of again consolidating the regulations is under way. That is of some comfort, but there is no assurance as to when it will be completed, lt is an important matter which applies in some degree the determining of whether the process of fixing wages and conditions of employment will work satisfactorily.

The other matter to which I wish to refer concerns the availability of the procedure of the Public Service Arbitrator and the necessity for it to be recognised, not only by those concerned in employment but also by those who, as a matter of public interest, are affected by strikes and stoppages by sections of the Public Service. I indicated that there is a record of consent arrangements which is commendable. However, in 1967-68 there was a substantial stoppage which occurred, I think, because certain persons were concerned rather to assert an industrial situation than to utilise the procedures available to find a solution of the matter. Ultimately these procedures were utilised as they should have been utilised initially and a satisfactory result was arrived at.

I am referring lo the stoppage called by the executive of the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union in January 1968. The stoppage arose because a claim by the Union in respect of motor drivers employed by the Post Office for an increase in wages had been rejected by the Public Service Board. Although further conferences were in the process of being arranged by representatives of the Board and the Union, the drivers concerned went out on strike. The executive of the Union - 1 do not know whether it was because it was powerless to do otherwise or because it sympathised with the plight of the workers and generally agreed with them - took no action to avoid the stoppage which thereafter occurred.

A claim had been lodged by the Union in August 1967 and the Board’s decision had been made early in December 1967. The stoppage occurred on 11th January 1968 and was resumed after the Australian Council of Trade Unions had intervened on 22nd January 1968. At all times, of course, the Board reiterated its view that there was no justification for an increase. The terms of settlement, which were can vassed in this chamber not so long ago because of further problems that arose out of them, indicated that what was to occur was that work was to be resumed, no victimisation was to take place and that the Public Service Board, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the relevant Government departments were to confer and - this is the significant point, I think - that in their conferences and in their discussions regard would be had to the provisions of the Public Service Arbitration Act. It was quite clear that, at all times, there was an avenue available to the Union to utilise the procedures of Public Service arbitration.

Senator Mulvihill:

– But there was a deadlock until the ACTU came in.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I would be grateful if further elaboration could be given by Senator Mulvihill. As I understand the position, the strike certainly was resolved by the ACTU coming into the matter and by discussions occurring between the ACTU and the Ministers of the Government departments concerned. But at the time when the stoppage occurred there was, instead of the stoppage being the only course available to the Union, an opportunity which had not been availed of. This was the opportunity of taking the matter to the Public Service Arbitrator. The ultimate result was that, after the Board had investigated again the claim by the motor drivers in February of 1968 and again stated that there was no justification for an increase, the decision was accepted by the Union and an appeal immediately instituted to the Public Service Arbitrator. Within some 2 months, a decision was handed down by the Arbitrator. That decision granted an increase of some $2 a week.

At the time, and at various stages in tha course of these proceedings, the claim was made by the Union that this was a triumph for direct action. 1 would have thought that it is a record which clearly indicates that the success that ultimately attended the claim came about because the procedures which the Act permits were utilised. Whilst it may appear to be going over ground which more conveniently might be forgotten - after all, what does it matter to bring these things up - I think that it is useful to point to instances such as this to illustrate that, first, there are provisions available whereby an ultimate decision can be made by a person other than the one who first rejects a particular claim; and, secondly, that it was an instance in which the proVisions of this Act were sufficiently comprehensive to overcome a problem which, it had been thought, could better be overcome by direct action - a thought which in the event did not succeed. I have pleasure in supporting the broad principle of this Bill. It is a simple Bill which, as I said, provides for the appointment of Deputy Arbitrators to facilitate the working of the arbitration procedures in the Public Service and consequential provisions which go with it. I support the measure.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I wish to indicate that the members of the Australian Democratic Labor Party support this measure. The occasion causes one to pause and to think about the system of aribtration in general as it applies in this country and the lack of realisation that some people have of its actual beginnings, the circumstances in which we began our systems of arbitration and conciliation and the circumstances in which we apply them today.

Many people express disappointment that there is dissatisfaction with our systems of conciliation and arbitration. They forget that the beginnings of the whole system took place in an age when the circumstances of people who lived by their capacity to obtain employment were entirely different from the circumstances of people in similar situations today. It is not to be wondered that the system of arbitration and conciliation is under challenge today and indeed is under great pressure because, in the beginning, it was not designed for the conditions which exist in a modern community. It was not designed by people who bad never known the circumstances of possible unemployment which would be probably the circumstances of far more than 50% of the total work force of this nation today.

In relation to the industry to which 1 once belonged, I can recall the veterans of the trade union when I was active in it boasting of the period when they downed tools and inarched to the arbitration court. Their purpose was to prove that they were e union organisation and that they had the numbers to justify registration in that court of conciliation and arbitration so that the benefits of the court could be available to the members of that union who worked in the Australian boot and shoe industry. They were prepared to make great sacrifices as they were employed in an industry that lacked industrial punch in that day. Whenever they went on’ strike, they were not able to get a job somewhere else and they did not have the prospect of employment in a weeks time. They knew that, if they took industrial action, it probably would be 6 months before the community really felt the repercussions of the fact that they had downed tools and refused to produce footwear. Everybody could put a patch on a hole in a shoe as a hole appeared and nobody was very much worse off. It was the man on strike who invariably was starved back to work, lt was from those circumstances, and not from the circumstances that we have in industry today, that conciliation and arbitration sprang up.

As one who understands a little about this matter, I find it ‘ as source of some wonder that the system itself has survived in the circumstances in which one can see much less need for it today that once there was. I do not say that there is no need for this system at all. I believe that there is a very great need for it. I am encouraged that it is surviving. But I do believe that system must be amended and that it must meet the challenge of the changing circumstances of today and go along with them if it is still to serve bur community in the manner in which it served it in the past. I am one of those who believe that it has served our community tremendously in the past, just as our great trade union organisations have done, particularly the one’ mentioned here tonight, the Australian Council of Trade Unions.

It is a matter of great regret that most of the criticism that is ‘ levelled at the ACTU comes, not from people who do not belong to it, not from people, outside it or not from employers but from people within the ACTU who owe to it their loyalty in return for what this great national organisation of trade unions has been able to achieve, particularly in solving many of the difficult disputes that sometimes deteriorated because some people did not realise the situation into which they were gradually running themselves. Indeed, sometimes, I believe that the ACTU is called upon to solve not so much a dispute that apparently exists between an employer and his employees as a problem that has arisen between a union itself, as represented by its committees and executive, and its members. I am not going to suggest who is out of step with whom in that context because it is not relevant to the proposition that is before us tonight.

The need for this Bill arises because inadequate provision has been made for a service that has grown tremendously. This is a service that came to conciliation and arbitration later than others. This is readily understood. There was hot quite the same need for (his service from the aspects of both labour and employer in the Public Service. In the past when employment was a very chancy thing indeed to a great number of people in private industry, the Public Service was the Mecca of all where a person could at least get security, ohe of the greatest things that was desired by working people in the past. Security today is almost an accepted fact for those who are efficient and who are prepared to work. If they do not have security in their present job they can walk out, go somewhere else and get absolute security in another job. They are entitled to security. They always were entitled to it, but they did not always get it. Because of the security in the Public Service there was not quite the same agitation in the Public Service. Certainly there was not quite the same need to fight as there was against private employers who were not all baddies and beasts who were trying to crush the workers into the dust. The employers had their own problems of competition between each other. In some sets of economic circumstances the competition became so fierce that, indeed, before the employers destroyed the workers they destroyed one another. There were many instances of that in an economy that was laissez-faire and ‘take as you please’. We have learned many of the lessons that were necessary if we were to avoid these problems.

The number of public servants has increased greatly and it has been necessary to give the Public Service Arbitrator two assistants. The Bill regularises the situation and gives the assistants some permanency of appointment - at least 7 years, the same as that of the Arbitrator. The Bill does not necessarily make them additional arbitrators. I suppose, if there were a need for two additional arbitrators and if they were to be given complete powers in their own right, it would have been a simple matter to introduce into Parliament a Bill to appoint two such arbitrators and not describe them as Deputy Arbitrators, as they are described in this Bill. There, may be reasons why it is desirable for them to have absolute powers, but there may be other reasons why such a situation would create some deficiencies. If they were to be arbitrators in their own right I should have imagined that the Bill, when it was introduced, would have so described them and they would have been given the complete powers of an arbitrator. That would have been that. Therefore, no amendment would have been necessary. The proposal is a step forward, even if it is not as far forward as some would like. The present situation is to be regularised by the appointment of the Deputy Arbitrators.

We must ask whether or not they should act in concurrence and more or less under the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. I understand from Senator Bishop that the ACTU has made some representations regarding this matter. I am not aware whether they are serious representations which the ACTU is prepared to carry to any lengths. I only know that we have been put in a very sensitive situation regarding this piece of legislation; but nobody has thought it important enough to ask our Party whether the Deputy Arbitrators should have the powers of the Arbitrator or to ascertain our views on the difference between Deputy Arbitrators and the Arbitrator. 1 should have imagined that the matter was such a tremendously serious one that such representations would have been made in the interests of the people concerned. I am not in a position to say what is the wisest course in this matter. I only know that the Bill is a step forward. For that reason we are prepared to support it.

I can see difficulties that could arise whether the Deputy Arbitrators are given absolute powers in their own right or whether they have to seek the concurrence of the Arbitrator. If they have to seek the concurrence of the Arbitrator, at least the Public Service will get some pattern of consistency. 1 am not one of those who subscribe to the philosophy that the Arbitrator would dominate all decisions. From what 1 have seen of tribunals of this character, that is not how they function. The Deputy Arbitrators would hear all the evidence necessary and I believe that the Arbitrator, having confidence in his deputies, as would be necessary, would be greatly influenced by their opinions. But he may have some overall responsibility to ensure the measure of consistency that is necessary for the proper functioning of the whole of the Public Service.

From my experience in industrial work I suppose I could give no better example of the dangers of inconsistency in relation to people who perform similar functions than to point to the wages and salaries paid to trade union officials who - other than members of Parliament who have become their own arbitrators - are among the very few people in our community today whose wages and salaries are not fixed by an arbitrator who stands between them and their employers. Their employers are the committees, the executives and the members of the unions that they represent. In a career of some length in the trade union movement, it has been my experience to note that very often wealthy and powerful unions covering a variety of industries where there were obviously greater responsibilities and difficulties for the. trade union officials involved were paying lower salaries to those officials than similar unions that had fewer funds and indeed were simplified to the extent that they had one specific and precise industry to cover. This came about because the actual arbitrators of salaries were a variety of union committees and executives. There was no consistency at all. I still consider that, having regard to the skills involved, trade union officials in general are the most poorly paid of all the people who have to earn a living - and a trade union official has to earn a living.

I can envisage the tremendous dangers involved in having a variety of arbitrators fixing salaries, as is the case with the various union committees and executives that fix the salaries of their own union officials. Some take as a guideline the rate or salary paid for employment in the industry with which they are associated, but others take something else which has no relevance at all to the duties of the trade union official concerned. Trade union officials are a longsuffering breed of humanity. They seem to have a dash of something more than a mere interest in the job itself and what it pays. I do not think the same comment would be true of public servants if a variety of arbitrators fixed a different range of salaries for almost identical types of work. I see a great danger if inconsistency were lo develop along those lines in the Public Service. The consistency which results from decisions by Deputy Arbitrators having lo receive the concurrence of the Arbitrator to my mind has some advantages.

I can see, from a trade union point of view, that there could be some disadvantages under specific circumstances. 1 could not imagine a Deputy Arbitrator considering a case in which comparable decisions had not been made by the Arbitrator. In the Public Service it would be difficult for him to enter a field in which there was not already a decision made by the Arbitrator that had at least some relevance to the matter. I could not imagine that he would fix a rate that, was far below a rate fixed by the Arbitrator. I could well imagine that it would be hoped by trade union officials that he might be a little more generous. From a trade union official’s point of view, this could become a very acceptable lever with which to lift other people to a similar standard. I should think that, if trade unions were thinking along the lines that inconsistency would be desirable for this reason, they would be very shortsighted indeed. In my view the difficulties that could arise from such inconsistency would very soon be overshadowed by the advantages in industrial bargaining that could flow from a situation such as that proposed in this legislation. As the system developed I believe that the Arbitrator and his deputies would become familiar with the views that were held by others on the various industrial problems that arose and that their interpretations of the evidence placed before them would not differ very greatly. I suggest that where there were differences of opinion there would be discussions between them and that the differences would be settled on that level. I feel that that would be in the interests of everybody and would probably achieve better results than we could have where inconsistencies could develop.

In an industry such as the Public Service, where there is so much duplication of almost exact types of work in different departments, the benefit of consistency in arbitra] decisions would far outweigh any of the advantages that can bc foreseen in any other system where inconsistencies could develop. In that situation a case may have more appeal to one arbitrator than to another who may be dealing with some other aspect of the Public Service. For the reasons which I have stated we support this legislation. We feel that it is timely. We believe that the whole of the arbitration structure of this country should be constantly under review because the circumstances of employment are changing. They have changed tremendously since the innovation of a system of conciliation and arbitration and we must expect that they will continue to change if we are to improve the standards of the whole of the community. I hope that it is the ambition of the Parliament to continue to improve the standards of the people of this country.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I enter this debate briefly and do so only because of its significance. I agree with Senator Greenwood that the Bill is being debated in a much more tranquil atmosphere than we experienced on a previous occasion when he had cause to refer to some aspects of the then current postal dispute. Senator Bishop has indicated the Opposition’s attitude to this measure. I am prompted also by an article by Mr Gleghorn, dealing with the role of the trade unions, which appeared in this morning’s edition of the ‘Australian Financial Review’. I think we all welcome any way in which we can increase the rapidity with which claims by unions for wage adjustments are determined. As parliamentarians we are particularly aware of how often on a Friday evening at about 4 o’clock a Commonwealth public servant, through special efforts, is able to clarify some position relating to a social service or migration matter so that he may help some person. Obviously that public servant can be expected to feel, after giving extra effort, that the processes of arbitration should work more quickly for him in the year 1969 than they did 1 0 years ago.

Employees from all sorts of industrial gradings have become aware from looking at their television screens that today the whole accent is on speed and streamlining procedures. Employees in undertakings which are regarded as luxury industries find that when it is necessary for the Government to apply the economic screws their industries are regarded as being of not much consequence. We find today that there is a steady gravitation of people from craft and industrial unions to such callings as car salesmen and kindred positions. I honestly believe that the cost of services of this type is out of al] proportion to their value. People may ask what skill is involved for a mail driver with the Postmaster-General’s Department who has to pick up mail and thread his way through the traffic of a big capital city; but the plain fact of the matter is that, when he begins to show his impatience, the society must realise that he, as well as the railway shunter and others, has a place in the community.

Often when we have raised a matter on the adjournment debate in this place the appropriate Minister has said that he will not give a decision immediately but will consider it for 6 months, after which time we might get a favourable decision. But the situation is different when it is a bread and butter issue, when a man has to leave his bed at 6 o’clock in the morning to perform a particular task. It may be that he has a monotonous and repetitive job which is necessary to the nation but which is irksome. A delay in determining a wages matter may present difficulties for him. I think we all would agree that in our community we have people like Mr Albert Monk who have given their time and on occasions have risked their health to front up to conferences which they could have avoided. The necessity for these conferences is just one of the problems we face. J may have misunderstood Senator Greenwood, but I gained the impression from him during our cross talk about the role of the Austalian Council of Trade Unions that sometimes proposals are met with a flat no by that organisation and sometimes it insists upon reasonable solutions being proposed.

In some of the major disputes during the last 1 2 months - I have in mind particularly the locomotive enginemen’s case - there is no getting away from the fact that behind the scenes the Slate governments did not play a very positive role until the ACTU intervened. It is useless to suggest that the cost of achieving a settlement to a dispute would be as great as the amount that would be gained from successfully resolving the issue. The honourable senator would be fooling himself if he were to think there was not a reasonable chance of there being some worthwhile gain. Senator Greenwood mentioned another problem with which we are confronted very often. I would point out. particularly for his benefit, that neither the ACTU nor every trade union secretary accepts that every dispute is justified. There was recently the case involving baggage porters employed by Trans-Australia Airlines at Kingsford-Smith airport. On that occasion their own union indicated very clearly that it would not give backing to the employees in their dispute.

In a vast number of cases we cannot, escape the fact that just as directors of big companies have to earn their salaries by delivering the goods with their judgment, trade union secretaries also have to deliver the goods as they go about the workshop floor collecting union dues. Senator Bishop and others will be well aware of this. Some union secretaries are recompensed with a percentage of the amount they collect in union dues whereas some other unions do not apply that system, but all union members expect the union secretary to earn his pay. Many union members expect the union secretary to give a 101% effort in presenting their claims. It is significant that this legislation, which was introduced in this place by the Minister for Works (Senator Wright), comes before us in an industrially tranquil period. . We have seen recently clashes of . strength,- such as those in the postal industry and among other groups. In this push button age obviously these people would not be satisfied with the role of arbitrators because of their experience with them.

Without digressing too much, honourable senators will be aware of other industrial problems that have developed in the last month or two. They are the product of a new society and have to be grappled with. My colleague Senator Bishop told us in his usual lucid style of. certain ways in which the proposals contained in the legislation could be improved. When I look back, not only on the short time that I have been in this place but also over the whole period during which 1 have been interested in the deliberations of the Commonwealth Parliament as they affect the industrial field, for 15 years or so I have been surprised that some of the proposals advanced by the Opposition have been met with diffidence by the Government but later have been accepted after some of the industrial complications have been cushioned. In a free society nobody can expect to find streamlined settlements for every dispute. I could show the Senate records over the last 5 years showing that in the United States of America and in Great Britain disputes have extended for much longer than they have in Australia. In fact there were one or two in industries in the United States of America that went on for 6 and 8 months. There may be an argument as to who was the ultimate victor. lt amazes me to hear people make intemperate statements sometimes when’ disputes go for a week or more. I remember an occasion about which Senator Branson placed a question on the notice paper. It involved a case in which people were using inflated figures. 1 am not referring to the Minister but he will remember the dispute at Mount lsa. Obviously lessons were learned by all the parties involved in it. However, somebody said that that dispute was costing the Australian community and Queensland $Xm. lt was a pretty high figure, as Senator Branson knows. If the honourable senator did get an answer as to the cost of that dispute, 1 am sure that the figure was not that used by sonic of the Press pundits It was considerably less. It would be very debatable whether an accurate figure could be ascertained. After all, the resilience of a country is like that of a human being. A person can be battered physically but give him a couple of months on good food and rest and he will come up again. That applies to a nation.

I am not saying that we of the Opposition suggest irresponsibility by every party involved in industrial matters. Take the recent Port Hedland dispute which involved the Waterside Workers Federation. Unfortunately we do get that frontier type of approach in some areas and it is wrong. All I want to say in conclusion is that the Opposition considers that this legislation is a vindication of the advocacy of people like Senator Bishop, the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb), and persons in other places who have argued along these lines. Let us hope that this legislation will bridge some of the misunderstandings and conflicts about which Senator Greenwood spoke on a memorable occasion some time ago.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– in reply - I shall be brief in my reply to the second reading debate. In the first place I wish to say that I do not mean to enter into debate on provisions which are nol in the Bill. I pass by any reference made to them by Senator Bishop. In the second place I reserve to the Committee stage anything I wish to submit with regard to the proposed amendments. The third is a matter of general observation that I will deal with briefly out of deference to the argument - which was of very great interest - that came from various quarters of the chamber.

References were made to the value of arbitration and to the character of industrial disputes. It is obviously wise for us all to remember the character of. an industrial dispute, but in respect of this Bill we are. dealing with a section of employees who are Crown employees. They are the servants of the Government. In this respect the Government has a paramount duty to carry on the’ services for the public. In this regard special considerations apply to the Public Service which do not apply on all fours to disputants in private industry.

In the case of private industry, the only power that this Parliament has is to erect an arbitral tribunal to solve disputes between employer and employees. However, in relation to public servants, this Parliament has direct power to fix wages and conditions and give, if it thought fit, no resort to any arbitrator. But the Parliament, as long ago as 1902, established a Public Service Commission which guaranteed the public servant immunity from any political prejudice or preference on the part of a government of the day. The Parliament followed this up, as Senator Bishop said, by voluntarily conferring on the Public Service, in 1911, the advantages of arbitration. That system of enabling the Public Service to invoke the judgment of an arbitrator in a dispute as to a person’s service in the Public Service has continued.

The advantage of this can be indicated by reference to the determinations made by the Public Service Arbitrator. In 1960-61 there were 8 arbitrated determinations and 15 consent determinations. In 1966-67 there were 18 arbitrated determinations and 116 consent determinations. In 1967-68 there were 9 arbitrated determinations and 132 consent determinations. These figures are a fair indication of the increasing availa-. bil it y of arbitration and the increasing advantage that is derived from the system. lt would be to forget our responsibility to suggest that we. as a Parliament saddled with the final’ responsibility of carrying on government and the services of the government, should completely relegate to another department of the Public Service - an arbitrator - final power to determine conditions and terms of service. It is in this field that no. responsible person in this Parliament or in this Government can relinquish the final responsibility to ensure, that Public Service Arbitrator’s determinations are subject to any legislation of this Parliament. Therefore it is quite imperative to recognise that we have within the Public Service a system of arbitration which is just from the point of view of the employee but which has regard to the responsibility of the Public Service. It is in this regard that debate will be chiefly directed to the amendments that Senator Bishop has indicated he will move and which I do not intend to discuss at this stage.

I am grateful to members of the Senate who have referred to these features of arbitration. However tedious it may seem to some, I venture the view that in this day and age industrial relations are one of the paramount social problems, lt is a problem which, as I have indicated, needs a special address. It is in that spirit that the Government has put forward this legislation so that there shall be no ground for complaint that there are too few arbitrators to whom the various sections of the P:,b.k Service can address themselves. The purpose of the Bill, as is recognised on all sides, is to enable us to appoint a sufficient number of deputy arbitrators to deal with any disputes that are referred lo the tribunal. I abstain from making any reference to the proposed amendments, indicating that I shall deal with them in Committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 7 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 8.

After section 12 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: - “ 1.2a. - (1.) The Arbitrator may refer to a Deputy Arbitrator a claim, application or matter submitted to the Arbitrator under the last preceding section. “ (2.) Subject to the next succeeding sub-section, a Deputy Arbitrator to whom a claim, application or matter has been so referred shah hear and determine that claim, application or matter in the manner provided by this Act for the hearing and determination of claims, applications or matters by the Arbitrator. “ (3.) Before determining a claim, application or matter referred to him under this section, a Deputy Arbitrator shall consult with the Arbitrator as to the determination that he proposes to make and, if the Arbitrator does not concur with the proposed determination, the Arbitrator shall withdraw the reference and shall, after such further hearing (if any) as he thinks necessary, himself determine the claim, application or matter.”.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

Remainder of Bill - by leave - taken as a whole.

Consideration interrupted.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood:
VICTORIA

– Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the Chair and report to the Senate. (The Temporary Chairman having reported accordingly)

page 874

ADJOURNMENT

Beach Erosion

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) - In conformity with the sessional1 order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, 1 formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I will not delay the Senate unduly but I want to refer to the subject of beach erosion which I discussed in the chamber on 21st August 1968 when, amongst other things, I made submissions to the Minister for Works (Senator Wright). I now repeat those submissions to the Minister in his dual capacity as Minister for Works and Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities. He will recall that on that occasion 1 submitted a comprehensive memo that I had received from United States Senator Edward Kennedy of the State of Massachusetts in the United States of America relating to the activities of the United States Army Coastal Engineering Research Board which deals with beach erosion. Senator Wright will recall that I said that he would find this document very illuminating. He replied:

I will certainly peruse the document. The task of adding to my knowledge is never complete.

That is a sound sentiment. (Quorum formed). The point 1 was making was that in my previous submission I had contended that there had been serious beach erosion on various sections of the New South Wales north coast. Senator McClelland also will recall that during the debate on the Estimates and on subsequent occasions he raised the subject of beach erosion in the Sydney metropolitan area and that we contended that the Commonwealth should take much stronger and more responsible action.

Senator McClelland:

– And Botany Bay too.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– That is right. Since then I have had correspondence from Councillor Gordon Ritchie, a prominent member of the Shoalhaven Shire Council. The Council’s problem is somewhat unique. [Quorum formed.] The point seems to be that whilst the Government feeds money to the States for flood mitigation, and whilst the Shoalhaven Shire Council is prepared to take strong action to combat certain pollution in the Shoalhaven River, the New South Wales Minister for Public Works contends that this work is not, in the strict sense, flood mitigation work. Because I believe that Senator Wright always examines any submission made to him, and to compress my submissions on this occasion I shall, with the concurrence of honourable senators, incorporate in Hansard the following extract from the Nowra ‘Leader’:

DANGEROUS SITUATION

The problem from the Greenwell Point area is one of probable loss of property and a potential loss of life.

Mr J. Carter of Greenwell Point illustrated on the map, how since 1963 the course of the Shoalhaven River has changed and with the erosion taking place, a section of Greenwell Point is exposed to danger.

The crux of the discussion revealed that there are two problems, the one at Shoalhaven Heads and the other at Greenwell Point.

In the case of the Heads there is a distinct possibility of the place becoming a back water, and a large tourist potential will be lost.

With the closure of the Heads, there is practically no fishing, and this alone would account for the loss of many tourists, and a loss of trade to local business places.

Certain flooding is likely, but not on the scale that Greenwell Point could expect.

With the concurrence of honourable senators 1 incorporate also in Hansard the following report submitted to the Works Committee of the Shoalhaven Shire which confirms the remarks of Mr Davis Hughes, Minister for Public Works in New South Wales:

REPORT OF THE SHIRE CLERK

Submitted to the Works Committee Meeting held 24th February 1969

Chairman and Councillors,

River Bank Erosion - Greenwell Point. File 156/1/16. The following letter has been received from the Hon. Davis Hughes, Minister for Public Works, through Hon. J. G. Beale:

I refer again to your personal representations on behalf of a number of your constituents living in Adelaide Street, Greenwell Point, concerning the erosion of a strip of waterfront land fronting their properties.

I am advised that erosion is occuring along a public reserve which constitutes a threat to the properties of your constituents should this erosion continue. This is not an uncommon situation along the coast.

As previously advised I have no funds at my disposal which may be used for the protection of private property from erosion. With regard to the reserve, which is the responsibility of Council,I am in the same position concerning funds.

I have looked into the possibility that the erosion may constitute a threat to works for which my Department is responsible or that some other special circumstances may exist. I am assured that there is no threat to Departmental works and that there are no special circumstances setting tin’s case apart from others.

As you can see I have given this matter most careful consideration but find thatI am unable to offer any financial assistance.’

Durras North Area - Effect of Conditions on Tourist Trade. File 154/15/452. Attached to this Report is a photo copy of a letter received from Mr H. W. Gevers of Durras North.

T. KNOWLES, Shire Clerk

I sum up the position in this way: The Shoalhaven River area, and particularly Greenwell Point at whichI am aiming my remarks, has a strong tourist potential. In view of that fact and of the industrial expansion in the adjacent areaI believe that the Commonwealth would be justified in moving in, if only for a feasibility study, to find out what has happened to the funds that the Commonwealth has given New South Wales and whether the rigid definition of flood mitigation which is observed by the New South Wales Government is allowing the desolation complained of to occur in the river.

I hasten to assure the Senate that I have the history of the river since 1822 but I will not go back that far. I will leave my submissions to Senator Wright confident that he will peruse them. In view of the fact that I, and Senator McClelland, have been vindicated in relation to the increased ravages of beach and river erosion since 21st August 1968, I am sure that he will look again at the matter and evaluate it against the Kennedy document that I gave him in August. I leave it at that.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I have listened to Senator Mulvihill andI shall examine what he has had to say and what he has incorporated in Hansard with a view to seeing whether the problem to which he has referred has any relevance to Federal responsibility.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.9 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 16 April 1969, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1969/19690416_senate_26_s40/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant