Senate
12 June 1970

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1970

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) took the Chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2369

SOCIAL SERVICES

Petition

Senator FITZGERALD presented from 298 citizens of New South Wales a petition showing that, due to higher living costs, persons on social service pensions are finding it extremely difficult to live in even the most frugal way. The petitioners therefore call upon the Commonwealth Government to increase the base pension rate to 30% of average weekly male earnings, plus supplementary assistance in accordance with ACTU policy and by so doing give a reasonably moderate pension. The average weekly earnings for adult male unit wage and salary earner means the figures issued from time to time by the Commonwealth Statistician and published quarterly.

The petitioners pray that the Senate will take immediate steps to bring about the wishes expressed in the petition so that citizens receiving the social service pensions may live their lives in dignity.

Petition received and read.

page 2369

NOTICE OF MOTION

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

-I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for investigation and report: The construction of national standards laboratories at Bradfield Park, Sydney, New South Wales.

page 2369

QUESTION

DRIED VINE FRUITS INDUSTRY

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Does the Minister consider that the dried vine fruits stabilisation scheme which operated from 1964 to 1968 was administered in accordance with the legislation which was passed by the Commonwealth Parliament? Does the Minister also consider that the established business practices of packing sheds could supersede the legislation which was passed by the Parliament in 1964? Was this one of the main reasons why the dried vine fruit growers rejected the recent stabilisation plan for the industry?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

– As far as I am aware, the dried vine fruits stabilisation scheme was administered in the correct manner. I do not have the detailed knowledge necessary to answer the rest of the question, but I do know that a section of the industry is seeking a single marketing system. This is not popular with the Dried Vine Fruits Association. When a vote was taken on this matter the required majority was not obtained and so the Minister did not proceed with a renewal of the stabilisation scheme.I will seek further detailed information and let the honourable senator have it at a later date.

page 2369

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Has the Minister for Air seen reports in today’s Press of alleged ill-treatment of airmen at some centres? Can the Minister give any further information to the Senate on the matter?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I saw Press reports of alleged ill-treatment as early as last night in a late edition of an evening newspaper. I would like to take the opportunity to state the facts as I know them. The honourable member for Banks in another place approached me last week to see whetherI could arrange for him to visit an airman named Piper, a member of the Royal Australian Air Force who is serving a sentence of 28 days at Holsworthy. I arranged for the visit and I understand that the honourable member subsequently visited an airman at Holsworthy over the weekend. I was again approached by the honourable member for Banks early this week. He claimed that Piper had been wrongly imprisoned and that his Commanding Officer did not have legal authority to sentence an airman to detention at Holsworthy.

It was also claimed that when the boy was apprehended in Papua and New Guinea he had been promised that he would not be sentenced to detention at Holsworthy. I investigated these claims and assured the honourable member that the Commanding Officer had acted within his powers. It was pointed out to the honourable member that it was true that when Piper was apprehended the resident RAAF officer had informed him that in his opinion - I emphasise ‘opinion’ - the lad would not be sentenced to Holsworthy. Quite obviously the resident RAAF officer had no power to anticipate a decision which could have been made either by a court martial or the airman’s Commanding Officer. J told the honourable member at the time that 1 would investigate any other allegations that he wished to make about this case if he would supply me with dates and facts.

As to the newspaper articles, the facts are these: The RAAF member was apprehended in Papua and New Guinea after being absent without leave for 46 days. He had had 2 earlier convictions and his Commanding Officer, in accordance with Air Force orders, offered the member a trial by court martial or punishment by the Commanding Officer. The lad elected to take punishment by the Commanding Officer and admitted that he had been absent without leave for the period in question. He was ordered 28 days detention at Holsworthy, which is within the legal authority of the Commanding Officer. lt has been claimed that a discharge application was torn up in the airman’s face. My Department has informed me that there is a record of only 1 application for discharge lodged by the airman, which he subsequently withdrew voluntarily after correspondence with his father. As to illtreatment, either in the RAAF or at Holsworthy, I have no evidence of it. I suspect that if the honourable member for Banks, who apparently gave the information to the Press, was interested in the boy’s welfare rather than in seeking publicity for himself, he would have availed himself of my offer to investigate further any other claims he wished to make about the lad, provided that he supplied me with details of the events he wished to have investigated. That offer still stands.

page 2370

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Air. The Minister suggests that the honourable member for Banks was seeking publicity for himself, but is it not a fact that what the honourable member for Banks did was to raise a matter in the House of Representatives where he was perfectly entitled to raise it? Is it not a fact that the young lad referred to gave himself up, that the apprehension referred to was when he gave himself up and that the Commanding Officer had told him that he thought he would not be sent to Holsworthy if he gave himself up? Is the Minister aware that the lad was involved in an accident in which he was hit on the head and that subsequently he went through another experience calculated to cause mental disturbance? Has the Minister any objection to the young man being examined medically by some outside person, the examination to be paid for by the family of the young man?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The

Leader of the Opposition has asked me questions about this matter, but he does not know anything about the case. He has not studied and he has not heard any of the evidence. I shall answer part of the question by saying that the boy is at present under medical examination. If the honourable senator wants him to have an independent examination then I shall call for a doctor’s report. 1 shall study it and then T shall make a decision.

page 2370

QUESTION

UNIFORM BUILDING CODE

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister Cor Works. In view of the recently published booklet for a uniform code of standards throughout Australia for the home building industry, for which I congratulate the Minister and the Department of Housing, when can we expect for the entire construction industry the complementary uniform code of standards which 1 understand his Department has been preparing for some time?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The honourable senator refers to work being carried out to make uniform the building regulations throughout Australia. For this purpose a committee was established in 1964 at the instance of the present Prime Minister when he was Minister for Works. 1 have indicated to the Senate in recent months that the work of that committee is assessed to be about 50% completed and the whole of that work might reasonably be expected to be completed during .1971. Great delay is being experienced in the translation of the result of the code produced into active regulations in operation as law by various instrumentalities of the States. The matter is under immediate reference to the States at present for the purpose of getting up to date information on what has been done in the translation of our code into building regulations in the States. I expect that information to be assembled within the next month and then a decision will be made as to whether any step can be taken by us to accelerate the finalisalion of the matter.

page 2371

QUESTION

THE SENATE

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA · ALP (A-C); DLP from 1957

– Has the Leader of the Government noted the outburst of Sir Henry Bolte calling for the abolition of the Senate? As this is Australian Labor Party policy and not Liberal Party policy, does this herald one more of the strange and unpredictable alliances which have been a feature of Victorian politics? Has the Government any intention of joining with the Australian Labor Party to carry out Sir Henry’s suggestion?

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

– In dealing with the last part of the question first I would say definitely not. 1 saw the report, lt is true that Sir Henry has just been returned as the Premier of Victoria after a very significant victory.

Senator Georges:

– What?

Senator Hendrickson:

– With the help of the DLP.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order.

Senator ANDERSON:

– 1 will answer the question again. I said that I do not subscribe to the view expressed in the last part of the honourable senator’s question and 1 believe, as does the Government, that the Senate has a very valuable part to play in our democratic processes and, indeed, in our method of government. Sir Henry Bolte has just been returned as Premier of Victoria after a very significant victory. There seems to be some difficulty in digesting that on the other side. Perhaps Sir Henry has been so involved in his State’s affairs that he has not thoroughly read the report of the Senate Committee which touched off his outburst. I accept, and 1 am sure that the Senate and the people of Australia will accept, that what the Senate Committee’s report contained will in fact, when it is thoroughly examined, be of great help to all the States.

page 2371

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– I wish to direct a question to you, Mr Deputy President. The matter I am raising with you has been given some added urgency by the Senate’s decision of yesterday to add to the role of this chamber by the proposed widening of the committee system. 1 hope Sir Henry Bolte is listening to me. Will you, Mt Deputy President, make a statement to the Senate on the progress of plans for an additional wing to the parliamentary building indicating the extent of the proposed works as follows: (I) What rooms both for senators and committee work are proposed?

  1. What are the dimensions of those rooms and what appointments will they contain?
  2. Will the new wing provide for permanent committee rooms, which would be a most desirable feature? (4) When will the new wing be available for use? (5) If possible, can you give to the Senate an indication of the possible cost?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- 1 cannot give the honourable senator any information but I will have investigations made and report back to the Senate as early as possible.

page 2371

QUESTION

WORKERS COMPENSATION

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. By way of preface I refer to efforts made by the Department of Labour and National Service, in conjunction with the Department of Immigration, to induce the New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australian Governments to improve their State compensation Acts to include coverage for overseas dependants of migrants in receipt of State workers’ compensation Act payments. My question is: Since I am in possession of information from both the Queensland and New South Wales Trades and Labour Councils which discloses that the former Government has taken action but the latter has not, can the Minister advise me what action has been taken to expedite action in New South Wales, particularly as the New South Trades and Labour Council advises that coverage is given to Italian migrants but not to Dutch migrants or migrants of other nationalities? Will the Minister press the New South Wales Government to correct this position or can the Commonwealth negotiate reciprocal agreements with the Dutch, Yugoslav or other governments whose nationals are outside the ambit of the New South Wales Act?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– When the honourable senator asked me a similar question on 6th May I was able to inform him, on the advice of my colleague the Minister for Labour and National Service, that a decision had been taken by the Queensland Government to bring in legislation to make available to dependants overseas of migrants their workers” compensation benefits. I told the honourable senator that the matter was then the subject of consultation between the Department of Labour and National Service and its counterpart in New South Wales. I think it disadvantages the cause if I am asked to suggest to my colleague that he press his counterpart Minister in the Stale who has responsibility and who has the normal processes to observe. I assure the honourable senator that the Federal Minister for Labour and National Service and his Department are in consultation with the New South Wales Department and the matter is receiving continuous attention.

page 2372

QUESTION

SENATE VACANCY

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

- Mr Deputy President, my question is directed to you. Will you lay on the table of the Senate any correspondence passing between the President of the Senate or yourself and the Governor of New South Wales relating to the filling of the vacancy currently existing in this Senate in the representation of the State of New South Wales?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I will investigate the matter and endeavour to do this.

page 2372

QUESTION

NEWSPAPER REPORT

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he has seen a heading in this morning’s Melbourne Sun* which states:

Senate is a farce, scrap it: Bolle.

If he has seen the report, has he taken notice of this statement by Sir Henry Bolte with respect to Senate select committees:

They come out with profound recommendations that have been fed to them by State authorities. They know only whatwe tellthem.

Does the Minister believe that witnesses from the State of Victoria who come before Senate select committees to give evidence on oath are instructed by the Victorian Government not to disclose the whole truth?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

-I do not accept that. My experience has been - and 1 am sure it is the experience of every other honourable senator who has sat on a Senate select committee - that witnesses are very helpful. 1 have never had any experience of a witness not being helpful and not trying to give all the information sought from him. I frankly do not understand that report. I think perhaps I should answer only the direct question which the honourable senator puts. I do not believethat witnesses before any select committee do other than their best in response to questions put to them.

page 2372

QUESTION

POLLUTION OF THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Air whether he will confirm that the Royal Australian Air Force is taking part in joint British-Australian scientific investigations of the effect of jet aircraft pollution of the upper atmosphere? Is it possible that the vapour left behind by high flying aircraft could produce a light but permanent high altitude cloud cover which, it is suggested, can affect heat absorption and emission by the atmosphere, raising temperatures on earth and drastically altering world weather patterns? As this is such a serious matter will this investigation be integrated with and contributed to by civilian companies and public authorities which are daily adding to this pollution?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The honourable senator indicated his interest in this matter and I obtained the following information: The Royal Australian Air Force Academy andthe University College of London are combining on joint investigations of infra-red astronomy and stratospheric atmospheric pollution. It is considered that important meteorological effects may occur due to exhaust gases from supersonic transports contaminating the stratosphere. Particular attention is being directed to the study of such effects because any contamination of the stratosphere is very long lived and difficult to remove. The investigation is in the early stages and so far no approach has been made to civilian companies or public authorities for assistance. The research activities of the RAAF Academy are not necessarily approved by the RAAF but are pure research studies undertaken by the academic staff of the Academy as part of the affiliation arrangements with the University of Melbourne.

page 2373

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– 1 direct a question to the Minister for Air which is pursuant to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition concerning the case of Aircraftsman Glenn Allan Piper. This matter was raised with the Minister by the honourable member for Banks in another place. In view of the fact that Aircraftsman Piper is at present in the Ingleburn Military Hospital and that he is only 18i years of age and has already suffered the anguish of the experiences he has had, does not the Minister consider that on the grounds of humanity the most sensible course for the Royal Australian Air Force to take would be to give a medical discharge to Aircraftsman Piper from the Air Force?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– Aircraftsman Piper has stated openly to the Military Police thai he will do everything in his power to get a discharge from the Royal Australian Air Force. At present he is receiving the best of medical attention. I see no reason at this stage for going any further than I have.

page 2373

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Senator MURPHY:

– This time will the Minister for Air answer whether it is true that Aircraftsman Piper was apprehended when he gave himself up?

Senator Webster:

– After 45 days.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes, he gave himself up after he had been absent without leave, ls that a fact or not? Will the Minister tell us whether the boy was hit on the head in an accident? Will he tell us what he has done to investigate these serious charges of ill-treatment.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I take a point of order. The leader of the Opposition should use the terminology that is normally used in the Senate. He should ask: Will the Minister inform the Senate,’ not inform us’. The rules should be observed.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Order! There is no substance in the point of order. Senator Murphy, have you finished your question?

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– Aircraftsman Piper was missing for 46 days, during which period he spent nearly ail of his time under the roof of bis parents” home in Port Moresby. During his absence his father approached the resident Royal Australian Air Force officer at Port Moresby and put certain questions to him about the treatment that the boy would receive if he gave himself up. During the course of discussions the resident officer said thai in his opinion, if the boy gave himself up - and I repeat ‘if - he believed that the boy would not be sent to Holsworthy. As 1 said in my original answer, this officer had no jurisdiction to give such a promise. My inquiries reveal no evidence of ill-treatment.

page 2373

QUESTION

CONTAINER SHIPPING

Senator WHEELDON:

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport seen reports of a statement by Sir Andrew Crichton, Chairman of Overseas Containers Ltd. that in the opinion of his company it will bc necessary to raise freight rates on container shipping handling United Kingdom-Australia-New Zealand trade and that as a result of this statement producer organisations in New Zealand are at present involved in negotiations with shipping companies outside the Conference and with non-British shipping companies? As the problems which will affect the New Zealand producers are in principle the same as those which will affect the Australian producers if the freight rales are increased, is the Government making any parallel investigations to those which are at present being undertaken by the New Zealand producer authorities?

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– 1 have not seen the statement referred to, although yesterday a question was asked about a rather similar statement and I referred it to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. The statement deals with the general proposition thai, in the view of the Conference lines and of the chairman of the company to which reference has been made, there will bc an increase in freight rates from Australia and New Zealand. I cannot answer specifically on that, but I should say that that has. yet to be seen. 1 know very well, from what I have heard, that New Zealand has been negotiating outside the Conference lines in order to establish what it believes could be more favourable rates. 1 am sure that the

Department of Shipping and Transport is in close touch with the New Zealand people concerned. 1 shall refer all the matters in this question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport and ask him for a reply.

page 2374

QUESTION

THE SENATE

Senator MURPHY:

– My question is directed to you, Mr Deputy President. Will you advise the Senate now or as soon as may be convenient whether it is consistent with the Standing Orders, particularly standing order 418, and the practices of the Senate for a Minister to describe as publicity seeking’ the action of a member of the House of Representatives in raising a matter in that House in conformity with the forms and procedures of that House?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT -I will look into that question and make a report to the Senate as early as possible.

page 2374

QUESTION

RELIEF AID TO PERU

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate seen a statement by the National Appeals Director of Austcare that an emergency appeal has been launched to assist the 200,000 victims of the earthquakes in Peru and his reference to the miseries and privations with the Peruvian winter at its height? As immediate donations to buy blankets, tents and food are being asked for, will the Government give urgent consideration to the making of a Commonwealth contribution to the Austcare appeal?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I saw that Press report. In response to the honourable senator’s question let me say that I also note that the Minister for External Affairs indicated in another place that some attention was being given to a review of the amount made available by the Commonwealth in relation to this tragedy. I do not think I should go beyond making that comment at this point of time.

page 2374

QUESTION

FREQUENCY MODULATION BROADCASTING

(Question No. 17)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

What is the estimated cost of the Australian Broadcasting Commission providing FM broadcasting throughout Australia.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

As the honourable senator will be aware, I announced on 7th May 1970, that there will be an inquiry by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board into frequency modulation broadcasting. From the terms of reference of the inquiry which 1 provided in my later statement of 14th May, it will be noted that the economic aspects of the matter will be encompassed by the inquiry. The inquiry will, therefore, cover the matter mentioned in the honourable senator’s question and, in these circumstances, it is not appropriate for me to provide estimates of costs at this stage. I have already indicated that I will, in due course, make the report of the Board available to honourable members and the public.

page 2374

QUESTION

ROYAL TOUR COST

(Question No. 298)

Senator DITTMER:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What was the cost to the Commonwealth of Australia of the recent Royal tour.
  2. What were the services involved for which no costs can be accurately determined.
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

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

  1. and (2) An appropriation of $350,000 was included in the Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1969- 70 - Division 430/3/12. An additional appropriation of$20,000 was included in the Appropriation Act (No. 3) 1969-70. The principal costs to be met from these appropriations are for motor transport, non-departmental staff engaged in connection with the visit, hospitality, communications, printing of programmes and provision of temporary stands. All costs have not yet been brought into account and it is anticipated that there will be some carry over to 1970-71.

The costs of flights by R.A.A.F. aircraft of No. 34 Squadron in connection with the Royal Visit will be included in payments to the Department of Air by the Prime Minister’s Department from the appropriation for Division 432.

In accordance with past practice, the salaries and incidental costs of departmental staff who provided assistance, e.g. the staff of the Ceremonial and Hospitality Branch of my Department, the Service personnel who provided guards of honour and Service bands, are met from normal departmental appropriations.

page 2374

QUESTION

BROADCASTIN

(Question No. 335)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Has the Postmaster-General seen a report that the Canadian Radio and Television Authority is proposing that 30 per cent of music broadcast by Canadian AM radio stations be Canadian in origin.
  2. What was the average percentage of time, during the month of March, that Australian metropolitan commercial broadcasting stations devoted to the playing of recordings made by Australian artists.
  3. What was the average percentage of lime, during the month of March, that Australian country commercial broadcasting stations devoted to the playing of recordings made by Australian artists.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) The statistics maintained by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in this matter do not provide figures of the character sought by the honourable senator or information of the nature concerned for each month of the year. The Board does obtain from each station at the time of its application for renewal of licence, information on the amount of time devoted in a sample week to the broadcasting of recordings of Australian artists. Based on this information obtained from all stations, the average playing time of gramophone recordings of Australian artists on commercial broadcasting stations during the year July 1969 to June 1970 was -

Metropolitan Stations - 7.5 per cent of total programmes. (Approximately 12.3 per cent of all music broadcast).

Country Stations - 6.7 per cent of total programmes. (Approximately 12.5 per cent of all music broadcast).

page 2375

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

(Question No. 406)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Is it intended to establish another commercial radio station in Canberra in the near future; if so, when is it expected that applications for the licence will be called.
  2. In view of the Government’s decision to ask the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to inquire into the feasibility of the introduction of

F.M. broadcasting in Australia, when is it likely that the Board will be able to hear applications for the new commercial station in Canberra.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the Honourable Senator’s question:

  1. and (2) Under the provisions of the the Broadcasting and Television Act licenses for commercial broadcasting stations may be granted only after a public invitation for applications has been issued by the Postmaster-General. No such invitation has been issued in respect of Canberra and there is no immediate proposal for the issue of an invitation. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board keeps the question of development of the broadcasting services under continuous review and should it be decided to authorise any additional commercial broadcasting station in Canberra adequate publicity would be given to the invitation for applications.

page 2375

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

(Question No. 413)

Senator DEVITT:

asked the Minister rep resentingthe Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. Is the payment of a war pension, being a monetary compensation for loss of physical or mental capacity due to war service, correctly classified as income under the Social Services Act, so as to reduce the level of service pension an ex-serviceman can receive.
  2. In view of the fact that interest on savings, returns on investments and rents received from property are regarded as income, why should not an ex-serviceman having a disability occasioned by war service, have his monetary compensation also discounted, particularly when war pensions are, in any case, quite inadequate in very many instances.
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

  1. and (2) There is no provision in the Social Services Act under which war pension could be excluded from income for the purposes of assessing the rate of pension payable under that Act.

page 2375

QUESTION

UNITED NATIONS

(Question No. 414)

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

In view of a recent statement by the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations, advocating the establishment of a permanent United Nations police force to enforce orders of the International Court of Justice and generally to enable the United Nations to become more effective as a peace keeping and law enforcing body does the Australian Government support the general principle of the establishment of such a police force and, if so, will Australia contribute personnel to such a force.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Externa] Affairs has furnished the following reply:

Under Article 43 of the United Nations Charter members undertake to make armed forces and other facilities available to the Security

Council in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements. No members have however yet entered into the special agreements provided for under this article. Until the important military nations are prepared to do this, it seems unlikely that it would be possible to implement the Secretary-General’s reported suggestion for an international police force’.

Peace keeping forces are however being provided on a voluntary basis. Australia has a good record of participation in them, both in the provision of manpower and financial contributions. Since 1964 we have provided a police contingent to serve with the United Nations Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP). Currently we have observers also with the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation (UNTSO) in the Middle East and with the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP).

page 2376

QUESTION

SHIPPING

(Question No. 418)

Senator CANT:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the marine inquiry into the sinking of the ‘Sedco Helen’ has been adjourned sine die.
  2. Was this inquiry conducted in camera? If so, why.
  3. When is the inquiry likely to be resumed.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. 17 June 1970, in Melbourne.

page 2376

QUESTION

TAXATION

(Question No. 311)

Senator PROWSE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What is the estimated cost, for the years 1967-68 and 1968-69, of taxation concessions for primary producers relating to (a) special depreciation at 20 per cent per annum, (b) capital improvements, and (c) investment allowance.
  2. What proportion of these concessions are in relation to producers whose income is derived, by 60 per cent or more, from other than farm production.
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

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

  1. The estimated income tax revenue forgone in 1967-68 and 1968-69 as a result of these income tax concessions for taxable individual primary producers is as follows:
  1. There are no statistics available to enable estimates to be made of the proportion of these amounts that were allowed to primary producers of whose incomes 60% or more is derived other than from farm production. However, statistics are available of the amounts, identified as having been allowed as deductions under sections 75 and 76 of the Income Tax Assessment Act in respect of capital expenditure on land used for primary production, allowed to taxpayers subject to provisional tax whose main source of business income was other than primary production. The statistics indicate that about 8.2% and 11.5% of the above amounts of revenue forgone in 1967-68 and 1968-69 respectively was in respect of taxable individuals subject to provisional tax whose main source of personal extertion income (other than salaries or wages) was other than primary production.

It should be noted that the above percentages do not take into account deductions allowed to individuals whose main source of total income was other than farm income but whose main source of business income was primary production. This means, for example, that a taxpayer who is primarily an investor deriving a large income from dividends and interest, but who has a farm from which only a small percentage of his total income is derived, would be classified as a primary producer and would not be included in these percentages.

page 2376

QUESTION

TAXATION

(Question No. 383)

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Further to a previous question, answered on 12th May 1970, could the Treasurer give some details of the problems which he says could exist in establishing a new rule of taxation law, possibly based on the length of time property is held.
  2. Does the Treasurer consider that the anomalies created would be greater than those which arise by having the decisions made by a taxation officer.
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senators question:

  1. Overseas experience indicates that the adoption of a fixed time limit for the purpose of separating taxable from non-taxable gains could have quite serious drawbacks.

If Australia were simply to adopt an arbitrary time limit as the yardstick for determining which profitable transactions would or would not be taxed, the results in certain situations would be regarded by some persons as anomalous or inequitable. For example, a person could become liable for tax simply because unforeseen circumstances - perhaps financial difficulties - had forced him to sell recently acquired shares or other property. Under the existing law he would be taxed only if he had bought the property intending to re-sell it at a profit.

By contrast, persons belter able to afford to pay tax on their profitable transactions would be the more likely to avoid it. They could achieve this by retaining their assets - which might well have been acquired for speculative reasons - until the arbitrary time limit had expired, before taking any profits. On the other hand, speculators would be prone to lake their losses within the set period wherever possible, thus preserving deductibility.

Many speculative transactions take a considerable time to mature. An example is speculative lami sub-division and sale which normally requires more than 12 months - a period that has been suggested in some quarters as a basis for separating taxable from non-taxable transactions. If that period were to bc adopted, transactions of this kind, which are at present taxable, would escape tux to the detriment of the revenue.

  1. The present law has operated satisfactorily for many years and the intention of the legislation is quite unambiguous, in effect, the only gains taxed are those which arise from selling an asset thai was bought with the purpose of resale al a profit. Capital profits, on the other hand’, do nol attract income lax. There is nothing anomalous in this. The Commissioner of Taxation has already announced that his senior officers will not split hairs i’n dealing with any borderline cases.

page 2377

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. .1HK)

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

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

  1. What is the period between refits for type 12 destroyers.
  2. What were the rales covering HMAS Derwent’s last refit.
  3. ls it a fact that HMAS Derwent is now in South East Asian waters and overdue, by some months, for refit.
  4. ls it a fact that operational efficiency has been seriously affected on this vessel because of deterioration of equipment. (JJ Are any other units al present overdue for refit.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP; NCP from May 1975

-BROCKM AN- -The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The interval between the starts of successive refits for HMA ships is normally cither one year, two years or three years depending on the age and class of ship. This may be varied from time to time to suit operational requirements or the availability of dockyard capacity.

    1. HMAS Derwent was refitted from 16th October 1967 to 29lh March 1968, and was also docked and given dockyard assistance wilh maintenance from 2Sth April to 1 3th June 1969.
    2. HMAS Derwent is in South East Asian waters and is scheduled to refit in July 1970.
    3. HMAS Derwent has experienced little more than normal maintenance problems, none of which can be attributed to deterioration of equipment. Her operational efficiency has not been impaired from this cause.
    4. No units are overdue for refit.

page 2377

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

(Question No. 3.90)

Senator LACEY:
TASMANIA

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

  1. ls it a fact that a claimant before an cm klement appeals tribunal is limited to lay representation in support of his claim.
  2. ls it a fact thai qualified lawyers and qualified medical pratitioners judge the merit?, of claims before entitlement tribunals and assessment tribunals, but claimants are not permitted legal representation.
  3. Could there not be many cases in which the absence of such representation could be damaging and prejudicial lo claimants’ interests.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The

Minister for Repatriation has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. The only limitation on representation at Tribunal hearings is that imposed by Section 72 (3) of the Repatriation Act, which prohibits representation by legal practitioners.
  2. The Chairman of a War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal must be a barrister or a solicitor, and the other two members must be ex-servicemen who have served on war service. The Chairman of a War Pensions Assessment Appeal Tribunal must be a barrister or a solicitor and an ex-serviceman who has served on war service, and the other two must be medical practitioners. Neither an appellant nor the Repatriation Commission may be represented by a legal practitioner al a Tribunal hearing.
  3. 1 believe that the interests of appellants are met by the present arrangements under a system which requires the determining authorities namely the Repatriation Boards, the Repatriation Commission and the Entitlement and Assessment Appeal Tribunals to determine claims and appeals according io substantial justice and the merits of the case and not be bound by technicalities or legal forms’, lt may be of interest to the honourable senator lo know that ex-servicemeu’s organisations have not, in general, favoured legal representation before Tribunals.

page 2378

QUESTION

FOOT ROT VACCINE

(Question No. 393)

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

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

Do the Commonwealth Scrum Laboratories intendto produce and market a recently announced vaccine to control foot-rot in sheep, if so, when will supplies be available.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

I assume the foot-rot vaccine to which the honourable senator refers is the one recently developed by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation called for public tenders for commercial development of the vaccine and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories submitted an application.

The matter is still under consideration.

page 2378

QUESTION

HEALTH

(Question No. 395)

Senator LITTLE:

asked the Minister rep resenting the Minister for Health, upon notice:

In view of a reported criticism of the use of multi-dose hypodermic syringes by the Geelong Hospital Pathologist, Dr Vernon Pleuckhahn, following two deaths after injections of Hong Kong flu vaccine in 1969, have the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories taken any action to pack such vaccines in single dose disposable syringes.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

All matters relating to vaccination procedures, particularly mass immunisation campaigns, of which the question of the use of single dose vials and disposable syringes is but one aspect, are currently under consideration by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Any recommendations that come from that body will be carefully considered in relation to future policy, by all authorities who are concerned in these matters, including the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories.

page 2378

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 397)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister rep resenting the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. How many Naval architects are employed by the Navy.
  2. What role do they play in the design of new tonnage for the Royal Australian Navy.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. There are 52 civilians and 2 engineerconstructor officers of Naval Architect Class 1 and above in the Department of the Navy. Approximately half this number are employed on the design of new ships and support craft for the Royal Australian Navy.
  2. The work of Naval Architects engaged on new ship design covers feasibility studies of new projects, the initial design concept, the optimisation of the ship as a total system, and the detailed design of the hull itself. These tasks involve the co-ordination of the efforts of the other engineering branches (Mechanical, electrical and weapons) and where appropriate private Design Consultants.

page 2378

QUESTION

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION

(Question No. 407)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

Has the Australian Broadcasting Control Board made any requests to licensees of commercial broadcasting and television stations, in accordance with Section 99 (4) of the Broadcasting and Television Act; if so, to which station or stations have the requests been made, and for what purpose.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

Yes, the Board has made many such requests to stations. It would not be possible to provide details of particular requests with regard to stations concerned without great difficulties in view of the long period involved and the large number of requests which would have been made. The Board makes these requests for two principal purposes; first the investigation of whether programmes have contravened the standards determined by the Board under Section 99 and secondly in connection with the investigation of complaints about particular programmes. The two matters are closely related. It is to be appreciated that Section 99 (4) of the Act is a provision that has to be frequently used by the Board in connection with its responsibilities in regard to programmes.

page 2378

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 410)

Senator WRIEDT:

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

  1. What is the mileage allowance paid to ratings for use of private vehicles when travelling to and from a leave destination.
  2. What rates of allowance are paid to civilian instructors travelling to or from naval establishments.
  3. What taxation rebate entitlements are allowed in each case.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP; NCP from May 1975

-BROCKMAN- The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. (i) A sailor who is permitted to use his own motor vehicle when travelling on leave may be paid mileage allowance in accordance with the following table, subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 2 -

In addition, when approval is given for a passengerto be carried, passenger allowance at the rate of1 cent per mile (irrespective of the number of passengers carried) is payable.

  1. The total amount payable when a member travels on leave is normally limitedto the amount which would have been paid by the Department had the member and his passengers travelled by the normal means of conveyance. However, when a Service removal is effected in conjunction with the leave, the maximum amount payable is increased to lake account of the cost which would have been incurred had the vehicle been freighted to the new locality.

  2. HMAS Cerberus (Crib Point, Victoria) and HMAS Creswell (Jervis Bay, Australian Capital Territory) have been determined as Isolated Establishments’ for the purpose of payment of transport allowance under the Public Service Regulations. Civilian personnel at these establishments who use their private carsto travel from their residence to place of employment are paid mileage allowance at similar rates to those contained in the table at 1 (i) above, subject tothe following limitations -

    1. in respect of HMAS Cerberus a maximum mileage of 37 miles per day;
    2. in respect of HMAS Creswell a maximum mileage of 24 miles per day;
    3. an amount of $2.00 representing normal travelling costs, to be deducted from the total mileage allowance payable per week.
    1. For taxation purposes group certificates issued to naval and civilian personnel do not record as income the amounts paid for mileage allowance. The declaration of such payments as income for taxation are the individual’s responsibility. The extent to which the Commissioner of Taxation accepts any claim by an individual as an allowable deduction is not known in my Department.

page 2379

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 411)

Senator WRIEDT:

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

  1. Is it a fact that houses for serving personnel at HMAS Cerberus have been purchased, or are leased, at West Heidelberg; if so, are they 40 miles fromthe base?
  2. Can homes be made available closer to the base, to reduce travelling time; if not. why not?
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. No.
  2. Not applicable.

page 2379

QUESTION

ST MARGARET’S REHABILITATION CENTRE

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 3rd June 1970, Senator Drury asked:

Canthe Minister for Works inform the Senate whether work has commenced on extensionsto the physiotherapy section of St Margaret’s Rehabilitation Centre at Felixstowe in South Australia? If so, what stage has the work reached? Canthe Minister give an estimated date of completion?

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

Work has not commenced on the extensions to the physiotherapy section of St Margaret’s Rehabilitation Centre.

Tenders for the work closed’ on 9th June 1970 and. on the assumption that a tender will be accepted during this month, the estimated date of completion is April 1971.

page 2379

QUESTION

F111 AIRCRAFT

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– On 13th May Senator Bishop asked for the costs of visits to the United States of America by specialist teams which were investigating the F111 aircraft. He also asked whether these costs were included in the statement by the Minister for Defence. The following answer has been provided to the honourable senator’s question:

Since 1963 funds totalling approximately $59,500 have been approved in respect of visits to the United States by specialist teams in connection with the F111 aircraft. These costs were not included in the charges announced by the Minister for Defence.

page 2380

TARIFF BOARD

Reports on Items

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I present the following report by the Tariff Board:

Alginic acid and its derivatives.

This report is an interim report under the Board’s inquiry on plastic products, etc.

Pursuant to statute I present also the Special Advisory Authority report on:

Artificial Christmas trees.

page 2380

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL 1970

Assent reported.

page 2380

THE SENATE

Ministerial Statement

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

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

-I wish to indicate to the Senate that it is anticipated that we will adjourn this afternoon and return next week. I am sure it is apparent to us all, and it has been so indicated to me by the Leaders of the Parties, that it is not possible for us to conclude the business that we have on the business paper and is anticipated by message. I therefore expect that we will lift this afternoon and return next Tuesday. It will be necessary for messages to go to the other place in connection with the National Health Bill and the Bills relating to civil aviation. I would wish that action to be taken before we rise this afternoon. The reasonable expectation is that we will adjourn at about 4 o’clock this afternoon, as is indicated on the business paper. I therefore move:

That the Senate at its rising adjourn until Tuesday next at 3 p.m.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2380

QUESTION

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE REPORT

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– On behalf of the Public Accounts Committee I present the One Hundred and Nineteenth

Report of the Committee. Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT - There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator WEBSTER:

– This report relates to the Australian Dairy Produce Board, the Canberra Community Hospital, the National Library of Australia and the Superannuation Board, in respect of matters arising from the Supplementary Report of the Auditor-General for 1968-69.

Our inquiry into the Australian Dairy Produce Board arose from the failure of the Board to complete its financial statements in time for their inclusion in the Auditor-General’s Supplementary Report. The evidence shows that the main cause of this failure related to an amount of $97,743 which the Board decided late in 1968-69 to charge against the Dairying Industry Stabilization Fund to cover administration costs incurred in that year in earning income from its South East Asian projects. Your Committee believes that the Board should have given attention to this matter when income from those projects began to appear in 1967-68. We also believe that the Department of Primary Industry should have sought a legal opinion in June 1969 on the question of whether ministerial approval was required to give effect to the Board’s decision. This would have obviated the need for such an opinion to be sought much later by the Auditor-General’s office. However, your Committee would commend the Dairy Produce Board for consulting with the Public Service Board regarding the use of electronic data processing equipment in an effort to improve the speed of its account preparation and to improve management.

In the case of the Canberra Community Hospital we noted that sundry debtors for patient fees had increased from about $425,000 in May, 1968 to more than $531,600 in June 1969. The evidence shows that this increase had arisen mainly from fee increases that occurred during the year and an increase in the number of in-patients. Moreover, a new procedure introduced in June, 1968 for benefit assignment or payment of account on discharge from the hospital resulted in an increase in the number of accounts referred to the hospital funds in 1968-69. Arising from the evidence your Committee believes that the hospital must maintain a continuing surveillance of its outstanding debs and its methods of debt recovery. We also believe that Commonwealth departments should settle promptly all hospital accounts with which they are concerned.

Our inquiry into the National Library of Australia related to the stocktaking of the Library’s assets, which stocktaking has been of a composite nature in recent years. On the evidence, your Committee believes that, in the past, there has been a need for the introduction of an appropriate stocktaking programme. Following a pilot study made by the Library in 1969 and the subsequent creation by the Public Service Board Of thirteen new positions on the Library’s staff establishment we trust that a suitable stocktaking programme can be implemented without delay.

While the late presentation of financial statements by the Superannuation Board was occasioned by audit queries that arose when draft statements were submitted for audit, your Committee is particularly concerned by the problems confronting the Board in the preparation of those statements. The evidence shows that since 1966 the Board has issued circulars to Departments and authorities concerning the prompt payment of contributions and delays and errors that have occurred in the submission of fortnightly returns. In spite of this, about 30 departments and authorities submitted returns for 1968-69 subsequent to 30th June and 9 were still outstanding as at 31st July. Also, during that year the Board found it necessary to investigate 224 returns from 68 departments and authorities that failed to reconcile. Your Committee would make it clear that this situation reflects on the administrative performances of the departments and authorities concerned. I commend the report to honourable senators.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 2381

CENSORSHIP

Ministerial Statement

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · New South Wales · LP

– by leave - I make this statement on censorship on behalf of the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp). Whenever the first personal pronoun is used in the statement the reference is to the Minister for Customs and Excise. With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate the statement in Hansard.

Public Interest and Social Change

In the past few months the subject of Australian censorship of both films and literature has been widely discussed in newspapers and magazines and on radio and television. There have been numerous meetings on censorship at universities and other places; there have been cases of picketing of theatres by an organised movement against censorship. It has become clear that the Australian public now has a livelier interest in the subject than at any previous time.

Because the community is so clearly indicating its wish to be more concerned with the principles and systems of Australian censorship I decided that I should make a statement to the House on the present censorship position and on the Government’s attitude to a controversial and sometimes emotional matter.

I should like to remind honourable members that Australian censorship laws are administered under regulations made by the Parliament. The responsibility does not lie merely with the Minister of the day, or with the public servants charged with the task of interpreting and applying the regulations. The responsibility stems from the Parliament which, in a social matter of this kind must, from time to time, carefully examine the legislation and its application in the light of current community needs; and I remind the House that the regulations have stood on the statute book, in virtually the same form, since federation.

I am reliably informed that this is the first major statement on censorship to be made in this chamber since 1938, although there have been very occasional statements made in the Senate. It would be trite for me to observe and to enlarge on the observation that we have seen great social changes in the past 32 years. It would be unneccessary, and probably tedious, to give the House in this statement a detailed history of social and cultural attitudes and their shifts during this period. Suffice to say that the rate of change has quickened as the years have gone by, stimulated by a variety of events and factors. We are now conscious of an almost daily change.

Many deplore the bewildering pace of social development as we enter the seventies; some deplore that there is any development at all. Be that as it may, we must face reality and we must examine censorship and, indeed, all social and cultural matters affecting the community at large, against conditions and attitudes as they are, at the particular time.

Philosophy of Censorship

The concept of censorship is abhorrent to all men and women who believe in the basic freedoms. As a philosophy censorship is evil and to be condemned. Yet all communities, from the most primitive to the most advanced, have had, and still have, taboos which are scrupulously observed for one reason or the other. Within every community there is a body of opinion which accepts - indeed, seeks - some protection from the onslaught of unacceptable practices and material which is the concomitant of total freedom. Censorship, in some form or other, to a greater or lesser degree, becomes a necessary evil. Because of this, I firmly believe that the process of censorship should be open to public scrutiny and that its workings should not be hidden from view. I believe that we should have the courage to let the public into our councils for in the matter of censorship our councils concern the public.

In the Tenure of Kings and Magistrates’ Milton wrote: ‘None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but licence.’ I ask which of us who dearly cherishes freedom would welcome complete licence in the community? There is in each of us our own censor, a censor of behaviour, attitudes and morals. Even in countries well-known for so-called permissiveness, some material is stringently censored.

John Stuart Mill in ‘Liberty’ wrote: “The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection’. If a community believes that the untrammelled circulation of certain material is objectionable to itself as a community, then it has the right, through a democratically established government, to protect itself. Mill wrote further: “The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited: he must not make him self a nuisance to other people.’ It may be argued that the private actions of the individual are of no concern to others; but if those actions, or the material or equipment which accompanies them, are morally outrageous to the community at large then it is reasonable to say that the individual is making a nuisance of himself.

Censorship for Whom, and of What?

It is important to establish for whom censorship is applied. Is it for people who demand it? Or is it for others on behalf of whom people demand it? Obviously people who object to certain words, sights or behaviour can censor the offending acts by avoiding them. No-one is forced to hear, or see or do anything he does not wish to do. However, many such people, responsible members of a community, approve of censorship for other people, especially for the young.

It is equally important to establish what is to be censored. I think we should all recoil at the suggestion of censorship of facts - political censorship or censorship of knowledge has no place in democratic society at peace. Two broad matters of human experience are traditionally subject to censorship - sexual behaviour and violence. In earlier years the criterion was whether or not the depiction of scenes of such matters ‘was likely to encourage depravity’. Although these words are still embodied in our laws, the criteria applied now are those of ‘community standards’. In other words what level of sexual behaviour, bodily exposure or violence is the community prepared to tolerate in its books, or films, or on its television screens?

Mr Speaker, I call for a balanced judgment to be made by the community in assessing what is or is not offensive to it. There does seem to be an obsession with sexual matters today. Let me explain that. If an explicit love-making scene is left in a movie, hundreds of letters are written by outraged parents to the Minister for Customs and Excise or to the Film Censorship Board. I do not quarrel with their right to do that but I ask, is it consistent to object obsessively to love-making scenes and to allow evils such as hate, greed, envy, calumny and violence to be depicted in minute detail with not a pen raised in anger?

Community Standards

I revert to community standards: What is obscene to the community? A thoughtful book published last year in the United States of America - ‘Obscenity and Public Morality’ - suggests that the essence of obscenity lies in making public that which is private, in trading on intimate physical processes and acts or on physical-emotional states, thereby degrading the human dimension of life to a sub-human or merely physical level. The book goes further: It says that televised scenes of the suffering of wounded soldiers, or televised interviews which seek to exploit the reaction of victims of emotional crises for public titillation are obscenities as gross as any sexual display.

Such scenes are not regarded per se as obscene - only when shown out of context. I recall the case of a book entitled Fabric of Terror’ which was a factual account of atrocities committed by African against African. This book was initially prohibited in Australia because it contained photographs of the most revolting treatment of human beings. Mutilation, castration and other savagery were vividly pictured. On appeal to me as the Minister, the book was released because it seemed to me that within the context of the book the pictures could not be classed as obscene. I regard the censoring of facts as the most damaging potential of censorship control. Overwhelming reasons are needed for it to be justified.

Community standards are most difficult to define. In fact, one may ask whether community standards’ exist at all. Are they representative of the standards of the entire adult population or are they a broad assessment of what people believe to be right? Let me quote a case of film censorship to illustrate my point. In a film entitled The Killing of Sister George’ there was originally an explicit lesbian love scene which ran for about 5 minutes. In Australia - as in Britain and in New Zealand - some 3 minutes were censored. Had we been able to restrict showings of that film to over-21 audiences, there would, I believe, still have been an overwhelming vote to censor those 3 minutes of film. Yet I have to ask, is that a correct assessment of community standards? As far as films are concerned, who should establish the standards - those who regard motion pictures as an art form, those who regard them as entertainment, or those who have other interests in the medium? Could we reasonably suggest that those who have no interest in films at all - non-movie-goers - should have no say in the establishment of standards? These are questions which must be answered if the community standards test is to mean anything. I should like to hear the views of members on this specific point.

I believe that community standards can be understood and defined only if there is continuing public discussion of censorship and only if a broad and representative section of the adult population makes its views known.

Effect of Sex and Violence in Films and Publications

An argument frequently offered against censorship is that sex and violence in films and books and in other forms of communication, artistic or otherwise, have no effect on people. Until recently there has been little evidence proffered to link crime, social misdemeanours or deviations with exposure to pornography, violence and so on. There have been suspicions of a link and a general idea that pornography and excessive violence are not good influences; but no strong scientific or analytical evidence has been forthcoming.

The findings of the Eisenhower Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence are significant. Referring to violence in television programmes, the Commission states that it is resonable to conclude that a constant diet of violence has an adverse effect on the human character and attitudes. Television violence is a contributing factor to violence in society. The Commission recommended that television stations reduce the amount of violence portrayed in their programmes and advocated more research by television networks in programme planning.

Two of the Commission’s recommendations have a universal relevance and I commend them to the Australian public. Those recommendations are, first, that parents should make every effort to supervise the children’s television and to assert basic responsibility for the moral development of their children; and second, that parents should encourage greater public expression of both their disapproval of objectionable programmes and support for those they like. Parents must not opt out of this fundamental responsibility with the wish that governments will assume it for them.

Degree of Government Responsibility

Some of the Commission’s recommendations may well support the anti-censorship argument - that is, the matter is one for personal responsibility. Nevertheless we have to realise that individuals are members of a political state, which can be defined as a natural society, freely established by individuals for their common good under the direction of a governing authority.- The English philosopher John Locke wrote: The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals; it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each with the whole people that all be governed by certain laws for the common good.’

In a democracy then, the elected government is vested with authority to make laws and to impose obligations for the common good and public welfare. On the other hand, the government has an obligation to protect the general community from both the abuse of power and the selfish desires of minority groups within the community.

However, the first question which arises in political philosophy concerning government, is: What is the proper degree of control or regulation of the lives of the people by a government? This question arises because while men possess the natural need to live in an organised society for mutual protection, advancement and welfare they are also individuals and seek personal property and demand what they refer to as natural or civil rights..

Consequently, the harmony which the common good’ principle suggests is never achieved. Instead, every democratic society is confronted by continual conflicts of interests between individuals, organisations, pressure groups and the. State. It is such conflicts which the government has to try to resolve in the light, of its obligation: to the community as a whole.

Honourable1 members will realise that because of these conflicts’, together with uncritical1’ acceptance of censorship by many; it fs exceedingly difficult to- establish’ community standards.

The Roth Report

Some idea of the difficulties can be gained by studying the Roth v United States case of 1957 which established that works of real value to society shall not be censored as obscenity, that a book shall not be judged by the impact of a few passages on a special class of persons, and that the standards of judgment shall be those of our time. The common law rule to emerge from the Roth case was, basically: ‘whether to the average person applying contemporary standards the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest.’

The Law in Britain and the United States of America

In Britain, the Obscene Publications Act 1959 refers to ‘persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, use or hear the matter’ and not to the average’ person. The British law is concerned With material ‘which is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt’; the United States law is, conversely, concerned with material which appeals to prurient interest’ of the ‘average person’. The legislation of other countries is different again.

Censorship in Australia

It has been said that Australia is censoring more and more. If the rate of censorship is examined against the’ degree of permissiveness in modern films and publications it will be found that Australia is censoring less and less. However, community standards are broadening at a slower rate than the rate of permissiveness, not only in content but in themes attempted. The gap between the 2 grows wider. It should be noted that in the case of literature censorship the courts are the final arbiter. In only one case brought before the courts has a Customs decision on literature censorhip been reversed.

A great deal has been done in recent times to keep the censorship system up to date and to ensure that not only the wishes of the community are satisfied but also that art forms in Australia are not unnecessarily inhibited. Action has been taken to encourage all interested authorities to think and act- along broadly similar lines.

I list some of the steps which have been taken:

A National Literature Board’ of Review was’ established just over’ T years’ ago and a’h’ agreement reached between Commonwealth and States on uniform literature censorship. The membership of the Board is broadly based so that the views of a wide variety of community interests are represented. The cyclical review of prohibited books by the Board has resulted in a number of releases; this process is continuing and the period between reviews is decreasing.

Concessions have been made to Film Festival authorities to restrict to a minimum the censorship of festival films on the basis that festival audiences will be adults who attend because of their interest in the art of the film; these concessions are open to argument because it may appear that special privileges are being granted to a small section of the community.

Examples of censored film have been shown to members of Parliament, representatives of mass media and church representatives.

The regulation prescribing any censorship for Australian films to be exported has been withdrawn.

A simplified and open system has been devised to enable members of Parliament to examine prohibited literature.

Discussions have been held on the introduction of an ‘X’ or ‘R’ certificate. I have been particularly concerned by the absence of a restricted classification for films - the X’ or ‘R’ certificate. By this means films can be examined for censorship for adult audiences. For restricted classification to be effective, State legislation is -necessary to ensure that your people under the specified age are not admitted to theatres at which restricted films are showing. This in turn calls for co-operation on the part of the exhibitors and I am in the process of inviting State Ministers to discuss this problem again. J am encouraged by their willingness to meet and talk.

A full-scale revision of the film censorship regulations is under way, with special regard to the appeal system. A number of the provisions in the existing regulations is considered to be out of tune with conditions of today.

The criteria emphasis has been shifted from ‘the tendency to deprave and corrupt’ to the community standards, which is the tacit involvement of the community.

I am about to authorise the regular release of titles of feature films rejected and the length and nature of cuts made in feature films. The information will be released monthly by means of a bulletin issued by the Chief Film Censor. The first of these bulletins will cover the month of May and will be issued during the coming week.

The Future

Mr Speaker, I mentioned earlier that every democratic society is confronted from time to time by conflicts of interests; it is my duty to bring to the notice of this House that a conflict of interest exists in Australia today on the question of censorship.

This conflict may never be completely resolved but the Government believes that we must at least try to maintain open and thoughtful debate and to involve all parties concerned - the public, Parliament, and the Government. This is why I have made this full statement.

I believe that: Censorship though undesirable, is necessary; censorship should be open to public scrutiny; the amount of censorship should be as little as possible, within the limits set by community standards; in the ultimate, all members of the community, especially parents, have the prime responsibility in censorship; the community simply cannot sit back and expect the Government to protect it.

To keep Australian censorship laws in step with the sociological development of the nation and to administer them in a sensible and modern fashion presents daunting problems. Neither the Minister nor the Boards and officials involved in this onerous task can be confident of achieving these objectives unless information and opinions are obtained from the community at large.

We must all recognise, however, that in the end, because of the subjective nature of this matter, the solution will be a compromise drawn from the mass of varying and conflicting opinion held by the individual members of the community. It is, in the end, their responsibility.

page 2385

WATER POLLUTION

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– by leave - I cannot allow the occasion to go by, in view of the remarks of Sir Henry Bolte, the Premier of Victoria, on the operations of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution, without drawing the attention of honourable senators to the fact that Victorian water pollution problems and particularly the problem of sewage disposal were considered by the Committee. At one stage sewage was to be disposed of in Port Phillip Bay and subsequently it was to be diverted into Bass Strait. I draw the attention of the Victorian Premier and honourable senators to page 189 of the report of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution which states in item 5:

The Commonwealth should consider the practicability of making special loans or emergency grants to industry and to local government for works and research.

I understand that the cost of this emergency work in Victoria over 3 years will be $29m. This recommendation was to the credit of every member of the Committee, not one of whom happened to come from Victoria. I am indebted to assistance from my colleague, Senator Poyser, who is an urban specialist on these problems. The Committee considered the matter and was unanimous on the principle of Commonwealth assistance. Undoubtedly at the next Australian Loan Council meeting or Premiers Conference there will be a request for money for the project to which I have referred. 1 am sure that Sir Henry Bolte will not be backward in quoting this report in order to obtain money from the Commonwealth. I shall say no more. I think it is quite obvious that Sir Henry’s remarks were unfair to the Committee. We did not look at problems on a State level but rather on a national level. The recommendation at page 189 will be an effective instrument for Victoria as it will be also for my own State of New South Wales, in obtaining economic justice with regard to its sewerage problem.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– by leave - I wish to make a short statement in reference to what Sir Henry Bolte said concerning the Senate. I rise because his remarks have received some publicity in this chamber this morning. In the circumstances in which Sir Henry Bolte is reported to have made the statement his remarks must be regarded as a natural reaction to an exasperating situation. The context in which those remarks were made, according to the reports which I have received, was not solely or primarily on an issue of the report from the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution. I quote the report in this morning’s ‘Age’. It reads:

Sir Henry condemned the Senate on 2 issues - The Senate’s intended refusal to help the Commonwealth ‘implement the collective wish of the States and collect State receipt duties.’

There was a further comment which states:

Senate Select Committees ‘always see the tram after it hits them.’

I feel it is appropriate, after there has been comment from members of the Opposition drawing attention to Sir Henry Bolte’s remarks about Senate committees, to say that it is understandable that they would wish to ignore the other aspect to which Sir Henry Bolte referred.

Senator Murphy:

– I rise to order. There is some reference by the honourable senator to members of the Opposition which is intended to reflect upon those members. I would ask that that not be done. It is regrettable that the honourable senator has already spoken in general terms and has not referred to any person. I would ask that he not reflect upon members of the Opposition in general terms or at all.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I rose to say that Sir Henry’s remarks were initiated because of the intended refusal of the Opposition parties to deny to the States what they have requested the Commonwealth to do and what the Commonwealth has indicated it will do. When a period of some 7 months has elapsed in which people in Victoria have been paying moneys to the State Government in the belief that legislation which has been declared invalid will be validated by this Parliament and the Opposition parties have not done anything to disabuse the minds of those people it is appropriate-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull)- Order! I do not think that the honourable senator should develop this argument on the receipts tax.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I naturally must adhere to your ruling, Mr Deputy President, but I would say that as far as I am aware it is not a matter that is on the notice paper of this Senate. It is a matter upon which Sir Henry Bolte made a statement and it is a matter in respect of which

I sought the leave of the Senate, which was granted, to make a statement. I only desire to say that Sir Henry Bolte’s remarks were provoked as much, and I would have thought more, by what the Opposition intends to do in the circumstances of the receipts duty-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT - The honourable senator must not refer to that legislation. It is on the notice paper of the other House and he must not refer to it.

page 2387

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL 1970

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it has agreed to amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 made by the Senate and disagreed to amendments 3 and 8 as indicated by the annexed Schedule and for the reasons shown therein and has disagreed to amendment 10, 1 1 and 12 but in place thereof has made the amendments as indicated by the said Schedule.

page 2387

SCHEDULE OF THE AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE SENATE

No. 1 - Page 2, clause 4, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: “4. Section 3 of the Principal Act is amended -

Part II.- National Health Services (Sections 7-11).’ and inserting in their stead the words -

Part II.- National Health Services (Section 9-11).’; and

Division 3. - Insured Patients in Approved Hospitals (Sections 46-52).

Division 4. - Uninsured Patients and Pensioners in Approved Hospitals (Sections 53-55).’ and inserting in their stead the words -

Division 3. - Certain Insured Patients in Approved Hospitals (Sections 46-52).

Division 4. - Certain Uninsured Patients, and Pensioners, in Approved Hospitals (Sections 53-55).

Division 4a. - Patients treated without Charge in Approved Hospitals (Sections 55a-55b).’.”.

No. 2- Page 8, clause 16, line 32, after “amended”, insert “-(a)”.

No. 3 - Page 9, clause 16, at end of clause add the following paragraph: “(c) by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section: - (6.) There shall be a right of appeal on the determination of the Minister under the last preceding sub-section by a contributor to the jurisdiction which determined or would have otherwise heard his claim for compensation or damage.’.”.

No. 4 - Page 9, clause 19, lines 37 and 38, subsection (4.) of proposed section 29a, leave out “during the Minister’s pleasure”, insert “for a period of three years but he shall be removable by the Minister in any case of misconduct or incapacity”.

No. 5 - Page 10, clause 19, lines 7 and 8, subsection (3.) of proposed section 29b, leave out “during the Minister’s pleasure”, insert “for a period of three years but he shall be removable by the Minister in any case of misconduct or incapacity”.

No. 6- Page 11, clause 19, line 12, sub-section (4.) of proposed section 29d, after “Act,”, insert “in accordance with the said recommendation,”.

No. 7 - Page 12, after clause 19, insert the following new clause: “19a. Section 32 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end of sub-section (1.) the words and the conditions of the agreement shall be reviewed at least once every two years’.”.

No. 8 - Page 12, after clause 19, insert the following new clause: “19b. After section 35 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: -

No. 9- Page 17, after clause 23, insert the following new clause: “23a. Section 69 of the Principal Act is amended -

No. 10- Page 18, clause 25, leave out the clause, insert the following new clause: “25. Section 73 of the Principal Act is amended -

No. 11- Page 19, clause 27, after paragraph (g) of sub-section (2.) of proposed new section 76a, insert the following paragraphs: “(ga) details of how the reserve funds have been invested; (gb) details of direct or indirect interest in shareholdings held by directors of the fund in organisations in which the fund’s reserves have been invested; and”.

No. 12- Page 31, after clause 46, insert the following new clause: “46a. Section 101 of the Principal Act is amended -

page 2388

SCHEDULE OF THE AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE SENATE TO WHICH THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAS DISAGREED

No. 3 - Page 9, clause 16, at end of clause adds the following paragraph: “(c) by adding at the end thereof the following: sub-section: (6.) There shall be a right of appeal onthe determination of the Minister under the last preceding sub-section by a contributor to the jurisdiction which determined or would have otherwise heard his claim for compensation or damage.’.”.

Season of the House of Representatives for disagreeing to Amendment No. 3 of the Senate

The amendment provides for an appeal against a determination of the Minister under sub-section (5.) of section 21 of the Principal Act.

The appeal is expressed to be either to the jurisdiction which determined the claim or, if the claim’ was not- determined by a court, to the jurisdiction’ which would have otherwise heard the claim. In a case where the claim has been determined by a court, the appeal would be inoperative because the power of the Minister to make a determination’ is limited to cases where mere has been a settlement of a claim by the parties. In a case where: there has been such a settlement, it is not clear to what court the appeal may be taken. The appeal’ is, therefore, unsatisfactory.

In any case, the nature of the Minister’s power is such that the expense and delay of an appeal is not warranted.

No. 8 - Page 12, after clause 19, insert the following new clause: “19b. After section 35 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: -

Reason of the House of Representatives for disagreeing to Amendment No. 8 of the Senate

The amendment provides for an appeal against the disallowance by the Minister of a claim by a medical practitioner in respect of services rendered to pensioners under the Pensioner Medical Service. In disallowing a claim the Minister acts in accordance with the report of a Committee of Inquiry constituted by medical practitioners. In making the report the Committee considers whether the number of services given were appropriate having regard to generally accepted medical standards of treatment. The basis of its investigation is, therefore, medical and ‘not legal. An appeal to a court from the determination of the Minister is, therefore, inappropriate.

page 2389

SCHEDULE OF THE AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE SENATE DISAGREED TO BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BUT, IN PLACE THEREOF, ALTERNATIVE AMENDMENTS MADE

No. 10 - Page 18, clause 25, leave out the clause, insert the following new clause: “25. Section 73 of the Principal Act is amended -

Amendment disagreed to, but, in place thereof, the following sub-clause added to clause 25 of the Bill:- “(2.) Section seventy-three of the Principal Act is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following sub-sections: - (7.) Where the Minister grants an application for registration of an organisation, he shall, within one month after he has so granted the application, publish in the Gazette a notification to that effect setting out -

No. 11 - Page 19, clause 27, after paragraph (g) of sub-section (2.) of proposed new section 76a, insert the following paragraphs: “(ga) details of how the reserve fund has been invested; (gb) details of direct or indirect interest in shareholdings held by directors of the fund in organisations in which the fund’s reserves have been invested; and”.

Amendment disagreed to, but, in place thereof, the following paragraph inserted after paragraph (g) of sub-section (2.) of the proposed new section 76a: - “(ga) details of how the reserves of the fund have been invested; and”.

No. 12 - Page 31, after clause 46, insert the following new clause: “46a. Section 101 of the Principal Act is amended -

Amendment disagreed to, but, in place thereof, the following new clause inserted after clause 46 of the Bill:- “46a. Section 101 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting after sub-section (2b.) the following sub-section: - (2c.) The names and qualifications of persons appointed to be members of the Committee shall be published in the Gazette.’.”.

Motion (by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) proposed:

That the message be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole forthwith.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I suggest that the consideration should not proceed until honourable senators have had a chance to have a look at the matter. I am not worrying about procedure at the moment as to whether it is the Committee that adjourns it or the Senate. As I understand it there are some complicated proposals contained in the message. There are counter proposals, amendments and so forth and we just have not had a chance to look at them.

Out of courtesy to the House of Representatives, as well as having due regard to our own consideration of the matters, it is necessary for us to take some time to consider these proposals. We are just wasting time if we enter upon a detailed discussion of what has come from the House of Representatives with the object of immediately voting on the matter. I suggest that either now or after we go into Committee the matter be stood down until a convenient time. I understand the Government is eager to complete this matter today and we are quite willing to facilitate the completion of it but we would like an opportunity to give proper consideration and study to the proposals. I would suggest at least an hour, or preferably until 2 o’clock this afternoon. If we could stand it over until then any statements that needed to be made could be shortened and we could deal with the matter fairly rapidly.

Senator Gair:

– You have more time to consider it than we had to consider the amendments when they were brought here.

Senator MURPHY:

– That may be. In any case, I have made my suggestion that we should have a reasonable look at these proposals. I suggest standing the matter down until 2 o’clock or, if that will cause difficulties, until 12.30. We would like to make some study of the matter and we think that anything less than I have suggested would be hardly satisfactory.

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

– I must admit that I find this a little embarrassing. We are dealing with a reply to amendments which were the creation of this Senate and which were in fact moved by the Opposition.

Senator Murphy:

– I am referring to the counter-proposals. I understand there are some counter-amendments.

Senator ANDERSON:

– They are within the framework of the amendments.

Senator Murphy:

– The Minister has had a chance to look at them. I have not.

Senator ANDERSON:

– I have had about as much chance as the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) has, and I did not have the advantage of being associated with the preparation of the amendments, which are what brought the counter-proposals into existence. The Leader of the Opposition cannot have it both ways. I always try to be co-operative and concede that there may be a minimum amount of time necessary in which to look at this matter. I would be prepared to allow 1 hour, but I could not go beyond that. If I did we would be completely embarrassed later in the afternoon and I cannot allow that to happen for anybody’s sake.

Senator MURPHY (New South WalesLeader of the Opposition) fi 1.3] - by leave - Either we deal with some other business and have an opportunity to study the counter-amendments outside or, if it is insisted upon, we will have to carry out our consideration, study and understanding of the matter in the Committee itself. If this is what the Government wants let it be done. I thought that what I was saying was reasonable. If the Government is not prepared to accede to that then let the matter proceed and we will deal with it in Committee.

Senator Anderson:

– I suggest that it be stood down for 1 hour. If that is not acceptable to the Leader of the Opposition we had better proceed.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
Minister for Housing · Queensland · LP

(11.4] -I completely support what the Leader of the House (Senator Anderson) has said. We should either delay it for 1 hour or proceed now. I think we should continue. I repeat my motion:

That the message be taken into consideration by the Committee of the Whole forthwith.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

In Committee

Consideration of message.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
Minister for Housing · Queensland · LP

[11.7] - I move:

That the Committee does not insist on amendments Nos 3 and 8 to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.

The reasons provided by the other place for the rejection of these 2 amendments have been circulated to honourable senators. As the aspects involved in the amendments have been debated thoroughly by the Senate, I do not propose to add at this point of time to what I have said already.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:
VICTORIA

– Is it the wish of the Committee that amendments Nos 3 and 8 be taken together?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– No.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– That being the case, the amendments will be considered separately.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– To obey the wish of the Committee, I move:

That the Committee does not insist on amendment No. 3 to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.

Again I say that the reasons for this have been circulated already. I shall not add any further comment at this stage.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Opposition presses its original amendment to clause 16 of the Bill. Our original amendment was:

At end of clause add the following paragraphs:

by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section: (6.) There shall be a right of appeal on the determination of the Minister under the last preceding sub-section by a contributor to the jurisdiction which determined or would have otherwise heard his claim for compensation or damage.’

Section 21 of the Act, which clause 16 amends relates to Commonwealth benefit not payable where a contributor is entitled to compensation or damages. The House of Representatives says in the reason given for not accepting the amendment that it refers to sub-section (5.) of section 21. That sub-section reads:

For the purposes of this section, the Minister may determine that the whole or a specified part of a payment in settlement of a claim for compensation or damages shall be regarded as being in respect of medical expenses incurred by a contributor.

The Minister suggests in this regard: the power of the Minister to make a determination is limited to cases where there has been a settlement of a claim by the parties. In a case where there has been such a settlement, it is not clear to what court the appeal may be taken.

First of all, we pointed out in our amendment that the court that would exercise jurisdiction in respect of the appeal would be the one ‘which determined or would have otherwise heard his claim for compensation or damage’. In other words, we were suggesting that the court of appeal would be the court which normally would have heard the claim for damages but for the settlement of the action.

The Minister says that this form of appeal is unsatisfactory. We contest the validity of that statement and say that if there has been a settlement of such a matter and subsequent to that settlement the Minister determines the amount that shall be regarded as being in respect of medical expenses and there is dissatisfaction with the Minister’s determination, there should be a right of appeal and that the appeal should lie to the court which in the normal course, but for the settlement, would have heard the matter. Then the Government suggests that the nature of the power given to the Minister is such that the expense and delay of an appeal is not warranted. We contest that statement. We say that under the Act there is an appeal in respect of medical determinations or medical matters. For example provision has been made for an appeal from a medical committee of inquiry when the Minister has had occasion to reprimand a medical practitioner or to revoke the approval of a medical practitioner to practise under the pensioner medical service.

In this instance we believe that, despite the claim of the Minister that the expense and delay of an appeal is not warranted, a matter of principle and elementary justice is involved here and that any person is entitled to appeal against an arbitrary decision of a Minister when that Minister has a discretionary power vested in him. Therefore, because we regard it as an important matter on behalf of those who have claims in respect of compensation or damages we believe that the amendment that was moved by the Opposition in the first instance should be maintained.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I think that the Committee of the Senate ought to understand what is really at stake here. As I understand it, we have a provision here in the enactment relating to the situation when a person gets money from the Commonwealth pursuant to this enactment and he has a claim for compensation or damages against someone else and there is a settlement of that claim. That may take place in a number of ways. It may be a settlement outside the court or it may be a settlement which is registered in the court so that, as is very often done, the court actually will enter a verdict and judgment in the court itself. In a sense the settlement is really a determination by the court.

Then the Minister is given power to say that so much of this citizen’s money that he has received toy way of this settlement will be taken away from him. He will be able to determine that the whole or a specified part of payment in settlement of a claim for compensation for damages shall be regarded as being in respect of medical expenses incurred by a contributor. If he does that the person is liable to pay that money because it is recoverable as a debt due to the Commonwealth. It is a very serious power to impose in a Minister of the Commonwealth, for him to decide that whatever moneys have been paid to a person are in respect of medical expenses that are covered by this claim and attributable to that injury. As the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) who is sitting beside the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) would know, very often complicated questions arise as to whether some medical expense in which a person has involved himself is due to the injury or due to some aggravation of it or due to some pre-existing condition. All sorts of complications arise as to whether the medical expenses are properly attributable.

Let us take the example of a person who is receiving treatment for a bad back; some injury has occurred to him in a car accident. The suggestion is made that he was suffering from scoliosis which is a degenerative condition. There may be a real contest as to whether the person’s condition was really the result of that accident or whether it was really the result of a pre-existing condition and that it would have developed anyway and had no casual relation to the accident. The person may have received moneys pursuant to this Act, there may have been some settlement of his claim regarding the car accident. Then the Minister is given this great power to say whether the whole or a specified part of those moneys is recoverable by the Commonwealth. He will decide, and not a tribunal. Why should that citizen not have the right to go back to the tribunal that dealt with the matter by way of recording the judgment and verdict and receive a proper hearing of the matter to determine as between the citizen and the Minister where the rights are? If the matter was decided outside the court, let the person go to a court of competent jurisdiction.

As for the suggestion that it is not clear to what court the appeal may be taken, it would be well known from the amount of the claim to which court the appeal should be taken, whether it be the district court or the supreme court. I think that is a captious suggestion. He can take his appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction. I see that Senator Greenwood, who may be interested in this matter, is in the chamber. This matter should not be brushed aside as being of no account because it is a very serious matter. I do not know whether Senator Greenwood was here when I expounded how I see it. Section 21 of the Act deals with cases where a person gets money for medical expenses pursuant to the Act. Then he is involved in some claim which may be settled outside the court or which may be settled inside the court. Technically there may be some determination by the court entering judgment and verdict, whatever it may be in the various States. Sub-sections (4.) and (5.) of section 21 give a very serious power to the Minister to determine whether the whole or a part df the moneys are recoverable by the Commonwealth. In effect he may say that so much of that citizen’s money has to be paid to the Commonwealth. It would not otherwise be paid by a person who was involved in a legal claim.

What is proposed by the amendment, which the Minister asked the Committee not to press, is that if the person disagrees with the Minister he is entitled to appeal to the court that dealt with the matter, if there was a judgment or verdict entered pursuant to a settlement, or if there was not, to appeal to the appropriate court, that is, to a court of competent jurisdiction. That is how the amendment should be read. Why in justice should not that provision remain in the Bill? It cannot be said that the amendment will involve the Commonwealth in some millions of dollars which it otherwise would not be involved in. This seems to me to be a matter of sheer elementary justice. A citizen ought to be entitled to have an adjudication on the Minister’s decision if he disagrees with it. I should like the Minister to answer whether what I am putting is an incorrect statement of what the amendment is aimed at and in what way it is not workable.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) 111.221 - I can only repeat what I said previously, that the amendment provides for an appeal against a determination of the Minister under sub-section (5.) of section 21 of the principal Act. The appeal is expressed to be either to the jurisdiction which determined the claim or, if the claim was not determined by a court, to the jurisdiction -which would otherwise have heard the claim. In a case where the claim has been determined by a court, the appeal would be inoperative because the power of the Minister to make a determination is limited to cases where there has been a settlement of a claim by the parties. In a case where there has been such a settlement, it is not clear to what court the appeal may be taken. The appeal is therefore unsatisfactory. In any .case, the nature of the Minister’s power is such that the expense and delay of an appeal are not warranted. 1 again endorse the motion that I moved earlier, that the Committee does not insist on the amendment.

Senator MURPHY (New South Wales - Leader of the Opposition) fi 1.23] - Are we not going to get any answers to these questions? What is the answer to the suggestion 1 am making that the words determined or would otherwise have heard’ in our amendment are referable to cases where there is a settlement which is carried into effect by what is in form a determination by the court? There is a settlement which is carried into effect by a judgment and verdict. It is true that there are 2 kinds of settlements - one outside the court and the other inside the court. In effect, the court is formally determining the matter, but in reality there has been a settlement. The Department and the Minister would not accept that there had been no settlement just because the court had informally determined the matter.

It is clear that this is a power in respect of a settlement which was carried into effect by a formal determination made by the court. So, with respect, the amendment seems to be properly directed to both situations- one where there had been a format determination by the court as a result of a settlement and the other where there had been no actual determination, but there had been a settlement outside the court in the form, perhaps, of a release of some kind. How can it be said then in any case that the nature of the Minister’s power is such that the expense and delay of an appeal are not warranted? A citizen could say: “The Minister is taking money in a way with which I do not agree.’ In fact, he could say: ‘The Minister says that the moneys received for medical expenses pursuant to the Act were referable to all of the matters covered by my claim. I dispute that. I say that the amount which I have recovered has nothing to do with my claim.’ I cannot imagine a more serious interference with a citizen’s financial rights than for the Minister to be able to say, in his discretion, that so much of the money which a citizen has received as a result of a claim ought to be repaid into this fund. A citizen may say: ‘I disagree, Mr Minister, and I am prepared to prove that you are wrong. All 1 want to do is to get the matter into a court of competent jurisdiction and I will show you that you are wrong’. The Government’s answer is that the expense and delay of an appeal are not warranted because the Minister has discretion. The Government believes that the right of appeal is not warranted although a citizen may want to go into a court of competent jurisdiction to dispute the basis of what the Minister has said and in order to retain moneys which he has received in a claim.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– This is not a matter on which we need to generate a difference of opinion. It is quite obvious if one looks at the whole of section 21 of the principal Act, and the amendment which has been moved, that there is a matter for consideration arising out of what is suggested in the amendment. The specific amendment which was passed by the Senate provides that there shall be a right of appeal on the determination of the Minister to the jurisdiction which determined or would have otherwise heard his claim for compensation or damage. I appreciate that there is ambiguity and that a different view is possible, but the view taken by the Department in relation to sub-section (5.) of section 21 of the principal Act is that the recovery of benefit is available only in the case of a settlement of the claim by act of the parties as distinct from a judgment of the court. On that basis the amendment is wholly misconceived. I concede that another basis is arguable, but if we are to deal with this matter in a proper way I believe that we should regard it as a matter for subsequent consideration because the amendment was passed by the Senate on an interpretation of the original subsection (5.) which was wholly misconceived if it is proper to consider the word ‘settlement’ in that subsection as having reference only to a case where the matter has been settled by an act of the parties.

Senator MURPHY (New South WalesLeader of the Opposition) ti 1.281- The serious aspect of what has been put forward is that if this provision is to be restricted to cases where there has been no formal determination by a court it would mean that the Department would be giving away its right where there has been in reality a settlement and judgment has been entered in a court. The amendment was properly directed towards settlement without a formal determination by a court, and settlement which is brought into effect by a determination of a court, as is common.

When one reads sub-section (5.) and proposed new sub-section (6.) of section 21 of the principal Act one will see that the amendment was directed towards protecting the rights in entirety of the Department and providing a proper form of appeal for citizens.

It seems to me to be an extraordinary proposition to say that this provision refers only to matters where the settlement is by way of an act of the parties which is not carried into effect by a determination of a court. The Minister for Works (Senator Wright) has said that there is some ambiguity in the matter. The Opposition submits that the amendment would make the position perfectly clear and that it is a just amendment which preserves the right of the Commonwealth, the Department and the Minister as well as the right of an ordinary citizen to have access to a court of law when a determination is made affecting his financial rights. I cannot understand how the Government can perceive that it is proper to deny a citizen the right of appeal to a court of justice when such a determination is made.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I shall be brief in my remarks. This amendment commanded my support when it last came before the Senate. Since then I have had discussions with the Minister concerning the matter. I think that there are very real and practical problems in regard to the nature of the right of appeal which is provided. I fully share the concern which Senator Murphy has expressed - I have already expressed it - that where there is a decision by a Minister on a claim of this nature there ought to be redress available if a person feels aggrieved. It does not always have to be by way of an appeal. Sometimes it can be achieved by the publication by the Minister of his reasons.

In the light of what has been put to me and my further reflections on this matter, I feel that there are aspects of this amendment which would not really give a citizen the rights which Senator Murphy claims it would. For instance, when a claim is settled and there is no reference to what the medical expenses are, it would be very difficult to say at that point of time that there was a right of appeal to anybody from anybody. In some cases settlement would have occurred before a matter reached the door of a court and in other cases it would have occurred before the action had actually commenced. I do not think that this amendment would provide the right of appeal in those cases. Senator Murphy would probably concede that point.

Senator Murphy:

– The appeal is from the Minister’s decision.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– It is from the Minister’s decision but it is to the jurisdiction which determined or would have otherwise heard the claim for compensation or damage. If jurisdiction had not been invoked - if a writ had not been issued - I fail to see how a court could really take cognisance of a so-called appeal from the Minister’s determination. I think that this is a practical problem. As I see it, it is a very compelling reason. When there is an actual settlement in court or a judgment on which the Minister has to make a determination as to the medical expenses the amendment purports to give a right of appeal. But what sort of right of appeal is it? Is it an appeal whereby the court to which an appellant goes has to substitute its discretion for the Minister’s discretion or is the sort of appeal where the court has to decide whether it was reasonable for the Minister to have reached this decision? These are practical problems. It appears to me, on reflection and taking into consideration the matters which have been put to me, that the amendment does not really achieve the objective which I thought originally that it would achieve. I hope and I believe that this is an area which should be looked at in any subsequent review of the legislation. In those circumstances, particularly in view of the fact that I have been told that there are not a great number of occasions on which this matter would occur, I am prepared to support the motion.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I stand by the remarks I made when this matter was last before the Senate. I support the remarks of Senator Murphy. Frankly, I am amazed at the Government’s decision in relation to this matter. When the original amendment came before this chamber the Opposition sought an amendment to sub-section (3.) of section 21 of the principal Act, which relates to the discretionary power of the DirectorGeneral to authorise the provisional payment of an amount of the Commonwealth benefit pending the determination of the action for compensation or damage or pending the settlement of the claim. The Committee asked that the discretionary power be taken away from the Director-General and that he be made to authorise provisional payment of an amount of Commonwealth benefit. The right of a citizen to obtain the normal Commonwealth benefit to which he would be entitled was pressed by the Senate and agreed to by the Government.

In this situation the Minister will have discretionary power to determine whether the whole or a specified part of the payment in settlement of a claim for compensation or damage shall be regarded as being in respect of medical expenses. No matter what Senator Greenwood has said, the citizen who is aggrieved in no circumstances whatever will have a right of appeal if this provision is enacted. We believe that there should be no difficulty whatever about it. A claim could be settled before the action gets to court. It could be settled during a trial before a judge and the terms of settlement might not even be disclosed. The Minister under this provision then has discretionary power to determine the amount involved in the settlement relating to medical and hospital expenses. Once he has so determined, a citizen has no right of appeal whatever. We think this is a monstrous situation and we believe that our original amendment should be pressed.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– Senator Greenwood has suggested that he cannot see how the matter would really work. Is not this the answer: If a Minister makes a decision with which a citizen disagrees, the citizen will appeal against that decision. The issue really to be determined would be as to what part of the payment by way of settlement would be regarded as relating to medical expenses incurred by the contributor. Presumably, on a rational reading it would also relate to medical expenses incurred by a contributor in relation to the subject matter of the compensation or damages claim. A person may be incurring medical expenses which are unrelated to the incident which brought about the claim for compensation or damages. 1 direct the attention of honourable senators to subclause 5 of clause 21. lt is expressed in very general terms. He can actually claim so much as shall be regarded as being in respect of medical expenses incurred by a contributor. I would think that that would have to be read to mean incurred by a contributor as a result of the basis of the claim in respect of injuries to the person which gave rise to the claim. Otherwise it would be a monstrous provision. If that were so, the court hearing the appeal would determine the question of what was properly attributable to those medical expenses. Why should not the court <do that anyway? It would be doing it if a case went to court. That is exactly what it would do in a case which had not been settled outside the court. The court would be determining medical expenses attributable to the particular claim. So it is no different from what would normally be done by the court. There are no more problems in relation to the use of the word ‘appeal’ here than there are in regard to the other parts of the enactment where the word is used. Whatever the solution to those questions would be, the same solution would apply here.

Senator Greenwood:

– But you well know that the question of how much represents medical expenses is often a jury decision, with no break-up. You are trying to get a court to do something it does not ordinarily do. It is left to a jury.

Senator MURPHY:

– ^Whether it is left to a judge or to a jury, if the occasion arises a break-up has to be made. There are plenty of proceedings in the various courts where determinations are made in respect of specific matters. A determination as to how much is related to medical expenses is a simple enough issue to be determined by a court of law. In this provision we are discussing, the citizen’s money is taken away from him. He may say: ‘No, I contest the validity of that.’ Why should he not be able to go to a court of competent jurisdiction and have an adjudication of the claim? I do not think there is any escape from that proposition.

The Commonwealth is simply putting itself in the position where it is able to make a determination with no right of appeal by a citizen. I am quite amazed that the

Government is not advancing a proposition. It purports to uphold certain liberal theories as to the rights of a citizen in the community. Honourable senators opposite will not support this but I think there is a very serious departure from the principles they claim to support. I cannot see how any honourable senator opposite can contend that it is consistent with the rule of law in our community to do other than give a right of appeal to a citizen when the power is given to a Minister to make such a determination.

Senator Greenwood:

– Another point might be, conceding all you have said, that what you are suggesting by Way of remedy is impracticable. That is my view.

Senator MURPHY:

– We have put forward the proposal. It appears to us to be practicable to go to a court that commonly deals with these matters and would have dealt with the matter had it not been settled. It has been claimed that the expense and delay of an appeal are not warranted. If that is true in this case, there is no reason why it should not be suggested across the whole field of citizens’ rights, in all sorts of matters: Let a CommonWealth Minister make a determination and there Will be no appeal because the expense and delay do not warrant it.

When a citizen is contesting the validity of what is done against him - validity in the sense of fairness and correctness - certain principles must be applied. I was pleased to hear Senator Greenwood’s statement as to the principles to be applied. The Government is constantly pursuing the same course. Government supporters may think that this can be brushed aside as a little matter. It is not. It is another instance of this type of action by a Liberal’ Government. It knows what it is doing. It has been brought to the attention of the Government but it is deliberately breaking the rule of law. Honourable senators opposite are repudiating the principles they claim to stand for. There is a constant succession of this attitude in matter after matter. You justify it by saying that the measure must be pushed through, that it has to be dealt with today. Had there been any problem about the nature of the appeal it could have been remedied in half an hour by the Parliamentary Draftsman and another form of appeal inserted. But this has to be pushed through, and you will rue the day because you are participating in the tearing down of the principles you claim to espouse. Each day this is happening, measure by measure.

Question put:

That the Committee does not insist on amendment No. 3 to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 24

NOES: 22

Majority . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment No. 8

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
Minister for Housing · Queensland · LP

[11.48] - I move:

That the Committee does not insist on amendment No. 8 to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.

The reasons for this have been circulated and so at this point I do not wish to add to what has been said already.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Opposition presses the original amendment which is moved successfully in the original Committee proceedings in this place. The insertion of a new section 36 would provide for an appeal against a disallowance by the Minister, as a result of a report of a committee of inquiry, of a claim by a medical practitioner. This provision relates to section 34 which provides in sub-section (1.) that the Minister has a discretion to disallow, in whole or in part, a claim by a medical practitioner in respect of services performed by him under the pensioner medical service. The reasons circulated by the Minister state:

In disallowing a claim the Minister acts in accordance with the report of a committee of inquiry constituted by medical practitioners.In making the report the committee considers whether the number of services given were appropriate having regard to generally accepted medical standards of treatment. The basis of its investigation is, therefore, medical and not legal.

We press this amendment because section 35, as distinct from section 34, relates to the discretionary power of the Minister to terminate an agreement between the Department of Health and the medical practitioner as a result of a report by a medical committee of inquiry. After investigation of the report the Minister has a discretionary power to reprimand the medical practitioner or immediately to terminate the agreement entered into between the medical practitioner and the Department. But in section 35 where the Minister has such a discretionary power there is provision for an appeal after a report by a medical committee of inquiry. Section 37 of the Act also provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court of the State or Territory in which the doctor resides. Sub-section (4.) of section 37 provides that on an appeal the Supreme Court shall have regard to the evidence before the committee of inquiry and the report of the committee. We suggest that the committee of inquiry would be a medical body and in conducting- its proceedings would inquire into the matter on a medical rather than legal basis.

We have an anomalous situation when a decision under section 35 is appealable but no appeal is provided for in section 34. During the course of the debate in Committee originally we suggested that an appeal should lie to the Supreme Court of the State or Territory in which the medical practitioner resides. During that debate we amended our proposal to provide for an appeal to the Supreme Court, the District Court or County Court, the Court of Petty Sessions or other court of competent jurisdiction of the State or Territory. We say simply that if there is provision for an appeal under section 35, which provides the Minister with a discretionary power to reprimand a medical practitioner ‘ or immediately to terminate any agreement that has been entered into with him, there should be a right of appeal under section 34 also as that section provides that the Minister may disallow in whole or in part a claim by a medical practitioner in respect of services performed under -the pensioner medical service. We say the argument, put forward by the Minister now that the basis of., the investigation is medical and not -legal does not stand up to investigation when we see that the committee of inquiry that would report to the Minister under section 35 would be conducting its considerations on a medical and not legal basis and therefore we: say that the same situation applies in section 34 as does in section 35. We believe it is important for an appeal to lie to a medical practitioner who may be dissatisfied with the nature of the inquiry and the ultimate determination of the Minister and the Opposition therefore presses the amendment.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) [11.56] - I only confirm what has already been said. The amendment, provides for an appeal against the disallowance by the Minister of a, claim by a medical practitioner in respect of services rendered to pensioners under the pensioner medical service. In disallowing a claim the Minister acts in accordance with the report of a committee of inquiry constituted by medical practitioners. In making the report the committee considers whether the number of services given was appropriate having regard to generally accepted medical standards of treatment. The basis of its investigation is, therefore, medical and not legal. An appeal to a court from the determination of the Minister is, therefore, inappropriate.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– The Committee should realise that this is a very serious matter for a medical practitioner where there is a disallowance of his claims by the report of a committee of inquiry. For any practitioner at all this is a decision which, in the eyes of his fellow practitioners, would certainly reflect upon him.

No practitioner could regard such a decision otherwise than as a very important ohe affecting his standing and reputation in the medical profession! The proposal by the Opposition and the decision of the: Senate previously was that because of the importance of this to the ‘ practitioner he should have a right of appeal, if he choosesto invoke it, to an appropriate court. Sometimes, the matter may be extremely serious,, notwithstanding the amount involved or because of the amount involved. There isan appeal allowable to the Supreme Court or to. the County or District Court or, in a less important matter, to a Court of Petty Sessions. If a person were to appeal to an appropriate court he could be dealt with by that court properly in regard to the costs of the matter.- But where the professional standing, of the practitioner is at stake we feel that there should be an appeal. Now; the appeal provides that the court, if satisfied that the me’dical practitioner has in respect of the medical services specified in the report of the committee been guilty of failure to discharge conscientiously his .obligations under the agreement with the Director-General, shall dismiss the appeal but otherwise it will allow the appeal and set aside the . decision. That kind of decision can appropriately be made, by a court, and indeed it is recognised in the legislation as -it will stand whether or not this amendment is carried because section 37 provides for an investigation of that nature.

How can h be properly said that an appeal to a court from a determination of the Minister is inappropriate when one has regard to that? The courts are constantly determining questions of this nature and of a similar nature - questions of fact, questions of standards - and this is the kind of task that can be undertaken by the courts. There are appeals to courts from refusals of licences and from various other determinations which might be made. It is unnecessary for us to worry about the characterisation of this at the moment. They are given by way of a Federal jurisdiction to the appropriate courts. A few moments ago we had a provision which concerned the rule of law in its application to the citizen. The Government was, in my view, departing from the rule of law in that regard. Now we have the rule of law coming under consideration in relation to the medical practitioner, that is, his rights in a most important regard and a decision being made against him by a committee of inquiry which would seriously affect his reputation and standing amongst his fellows.

We have put forward a proposal for an appeal to an appropriate court, which might be a major or a minor court, and the Government takes the view that the medical practitioner is to be denied his right of appeal. It seems to me again that this is a departure from the application of the rule of law and again this Government and the members of the Government are abandoning the principles which they profess to espouse. We find this happening in the legislation which has come before this chamber. We have endeavoured over recent years to correct some of the grosser departures but we seem to be involved in a tremendous flood of it. lt is almost beyond individual senators and members to keep check on the departures which do occur. Here was a reasonable proposal made by the Senate to protect the medical practitioner if he wanted to appeal and to have an adjudication by a court of law. He was subject to the payment of costs if he failed. Why should the man have to bear a stain on his professional reputation if he is willing to have a court of law decide the issue as to whether what he did was a conscientious discharge of his obligations? If the Government determines not to press this amendment I think this is a course which1 again is not consonant with justice. This’ can be left in the Bill without any damage to it. It is not increasing the cost of the scheme. What it is doing is extending justice to those persons upon whom the working of the scheme depends, that is, the medical practitioners. I would suggest to the Senate with respect that it ought to say that this amendment be left in. I would ask that the Senate reject the motion moved by the Minister.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

(] 2.4] - All 1 want to say is that the subject matter here is whether or not a medical practitioner should have been paid fees and allowances in respect of his services. The Minister may disallow his claim only in accordance with the report of a committee of inquiry constituted by ‘his fellow practitioners. I would think that their expertise and their knowledge of professional practices and the circumstances would constitute a far more effective tribunal to give justice in the assessment of fees than a court. It is to be noticed that when an occasion arises to terminate the medical practitioners’ agreement and it is a purely legal question the right of appeal- is given under section 37. I think therefore that practically the whole of the Leader of the Opposition’s submission is unfounded:

Senator Gair:

– :Has a doctor an appeal to anybody against any disciplinary action taken by the Australian Medical Association?

Senator WRIGHT:

– Yes, to the court.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I point out to the Committee that even though this may be an appeal .from a medical tribunal and as the Government thinks it is not appropriate to allow a legal appeal from a medical tribunal, under section 34(1.) provision is made for the disallowance of the claim in whole or in part. It may be that the disallowance will be for the whole. It may be that the doctor may recognise that he has exceeded in some part by giving too many services and part of his claim may be disallowable but he may not agree that the whole of his claim should be disallowed. Surely this gets a little further away from a medical determination. There should be some body to which the medical practitioner can go to obtain redress from what might be termed an excessive disallowance of his claim. The Australian Labor Party seeks to give the medical practitioner an opportunity to obtain justice in these circumstances. I do not think we should let these things go through without giving the medical practitioner an opportunity to obtain justice. We should all take the opportunity to obtain ‘ justice in our society. If we are going to deny justice to the medical profession in circumstances which may be oppressive, then we are not carrying out the duties which we should carry out in this place; that is, the protection of the citizen’s rights.

Question put:

That the Committee does not insist on amendment No. 8 to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 24

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) [12.13] - I propose to move that the Committee does not insist on amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 to which the House of Representatives has disagreed and agrees to the amendments made by the House in place thereof. I would like consideration, firstly, of the 3 amendments being taken together.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Is it the wish of the Committee that the 3 amendments be taken together?

Opposition Senators - No

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– They will be considered separately.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I move:

That the Committee does not insist on amend ment No. 10 to which the House of Representatives has disagreed and agrees to the amendment made by the House in place thereof.

In connection with the motion I have just read, this amendment is directed to section 73 of the principal Act which concerns the act of registration of medical and hospital benefits organisations. It provides, firstly, for the Minister to grant registration subject to such terms and conditions as he thinks fit, or refuse registration after considering a report of the registration committee set up under section 70; secondly, for the Minister to revoke or vary the terms and conditions of registration; and thirdly, for a register of organisations to be maintained and not be open for inspection except by a person authorised by the Minister.

The original amendment was directed to 3 different aspects of this section - firstly, to provide for the registration or the refusal of registration to be by regulation; secondly, to provide for the register of hospital and medical benefits organisations to be open for public inspection; and, thirdly, in line with the first point, to provide for variation of the terms and conditions of registration to be by regulation. In accepting that amendment, the Committee had in mind that the machinery connected with the registration of organisations should include provision for parliamentary and public scrutiny of the Minister’s action. The registration of organisations should be viewed as a normal administrative process and therefore legislative processes are not appropriate. However, the Government has no reason not to make the Minister’s actions in regard to the registration of organisations open to public scrutiny. It is thought that the use of regulations, as proposed by the Committee, is inappropriate and in lieu thereof the Minister for Health in another place moved a further amendment which is now before the Committee. This alternative amendment proposes that provision be made for notification in the Commonwealth Gazette’ of:

  1. the new registration of organisations together with the terms and conditions the Minister imposes on them;
  2. the refusals to register organisations; and
  3. the variations that are made to the terms and conditions applicable to organisations.

I think that such a provision will meet, more appropriately, the objectives sought by the original amendment moved by the Committee and I therefore request honourable senators to accept the alternative amendment.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Opposition appreciates that the Government has come some of the way towards providing the public with details of registration of medical and hospital benefits funds by way of publication of certain information in the Commonwealth ‘Gazette’. Notwithstanding this situation, the Opposition still adheres to the original amendment it moved successfully in the Committee stage when the matter was last before the Committee. Section 73, to which the amendment is directed, relates to the registration of medical and hospital benefits funds according to an action taken by the Minister. He may, after considering the report of a committee, grant or refuse an application or impose such terms and conditions, if any, as he thinks fit so far as the granting of the registration is concerned. Our original amendment, as it was framed, would have proposed that the Minister do certain things in connection with registration and that they be done by way of regulation. Once they were done by regulation, the registration would have been open to parliamentary disallowance. We press that aspect of the amendment, as we press the aspect included in sub-section (b) of our amendment where we suggest that the register shall be open for public inspection rather than the provision now in sub-section (4.) of the Act, namely:

A register shall not be open for inspection except by a person authorised in writing by the Minister.

Sub-section (2.) of section 73 provides that 2 registers shall be kept - one, the register of medical benefits organisations; and, the other, the register of hospital benefits organisations. It now appears that, when an organisation is registered, the registration of that organisation will appear in the Commonwealth ‘Gazette’. We suggest that it would be much simpler for members of the public and for interested senators to have a register available so that they can ascertain details of the terms and conditions of registration of each organisation rather than have to read the Commonwealth Gazette’ from time to time to ascertain whether and on what conditions certain organisations were given registration or were refused registration. We believe that the administrative matters involved would not be considerable. Our amendment would ensure that the public would always be able to obtain full and open information on all aspects of the funds. We believe that our original amendment was more in the interests of the Australian people than is the present modified proposal by the Government. Therefore, we press our original amendment.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– Senator McClelland has well said that the Government has come a certain way towards meeting the Committee’s wishes in that it has at least gone to the extent of saying that when an application is granted or refused the details will be published in the Commonwealth ‘Gazette’. It has refused to agree to the Committee’s proposal that the grant or refusal ought to be by regulation and that the terms and conditions under which the grant is made ought to be prescribed by regulation so that each House would have a chance of disallowing the terms or conditions of the grant. We would have control over the matter to that extent. We think that the regulation aspect should be pressed. We do not see the matter as a simple administrative act. It goes beyond that, especially where terms and conditions are involved. In any event, very large organisations are involved. Certain large or’ganisations are exempted by regulation from the provisions of the Trade Practices Act. To register or not to register organisations of this character is more than a simple act of administration.

Briefly, that is the argument in favour of having regulations. The Government says that that is inappropriate. However, it concedes that there should be publicity about such administrative acts. What troubles me - and I would like an answer on this because it is a little hard to follow - is this: What has been done? I seek the assistance of the Minister because I want to know. If it is conceded that publicity should be given and that the names, etc., should be published in the ‘Gazette’, what happens about the register? We had a proposal that the register - the document with the names of the organisations - would be open to public inspection. People could see which organisations were registered and which were not. Is such a proposal contained somewhere in this material which has been distributed to us suddenly? I have not had a chance to digest this. Is the register open to- interested citizens or, if they want to ascertain what organisations are registered, do they have to. fossick through many editions of the Commonwealth ‘Gazette’ to ascertain which are and which are. not? Can they see a collection of this information in the register? Could 1 have an answer on that? ls a person allowed an open sesame look at the register or does he have to look through the .’Gazette’ to ascertain for himself what he wants to know?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
Minister for Housing · Queensland · LP

[12.23] - The register of organisations contains, in respect of medical and hospital benefits organisations separately: Firstly, the name of the registered organisation; secondly, the States in respect of which they are approved to operate; and thirdly, the terms and conditions of registration. The amendment proposes that ali those details be published in the Commonwealth ‘Gazette’ in future.

Senator MURPHY:
‘Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– That is not quite what I asked. Could the Minister please answer my question about the register? I understand that the Government concedes that the names, etc., should be public and that they are to be published in the Commonwealth ‘Gazette’. The Gazette’ is published periodically. Things get tucked away in it. If someone wanted to know about these organisations and was prepared to make a search, which might take a week, the information would be available in the ‘Gazette’ anyway. Why should not the collection of that information in the register be open for public inspection? It was a simple enough proposition that we have included in the Bill. If the Government concedes the point on publicity, will the concession go to the point to which we agreed in inserting the new sub-section (4.), which states that a register shall be open for public inspection?

Am I right in assuming that whenever something is put in the ‘Gazette’ it will go in the public register? It seems from what the Minister read out to me that what goes in the ‘Gazette’, or some part of it, will go in the public register. If that is so, as a matter of logic does it not seem that the register should be open for public inspection so that a citizen does not have to become a subscriber to the ‘Gazette’ and search through all the issues of it if he is interested in this question? In other words, is there any reason why the register should not be open for public inspection? Firstly, I would like to know that. Secondly, can the Minister tell me and other members of the Committee whether the register will be required to be open for public inspection under the amendment proposed by the Government? Those are simple questions.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) [12.26] - I draw the honourable senator’s attention to sub-section (4.) of section 73, which reads:

  1. register shall not be open for .inspection except by a person authorised in writing by the Minister.
Senator Murphy:

– Then the answer is that it will not be open for public inspection.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I ask the honourable senator to let me continue. I have a couple of other points to bring forward. That answers the first point he raised. I draw his attention to the first 2 matters which, as I said earlier, the register of organisations contains in respect of medical and hospital benefits organisations. The first is the names of the registered organisations and the second is the States in respect of which they are approved to operate. Those matters will be published in the ‘Gazette’ annually in January. The third matter to which I referred earlier - the terms and conditions of registration - will be in the register. But the first 2 matters will be published in the ‘Gazette’ annually in January.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– It was a simple question that I asked. I asked whether there was any reason why the register should not be open for public inspection if, in fact, the information that will go into it will be published in the Gazette’. A person could spend all his time going through issues of the ‘Gazette’. Is there any reason that the Minister can advance why that register should not be open for public inspection?

Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

– This was the decision that was made after all consideration was- given to the matter. This is the policy.

Senator MURPHY:

– Is that the best reason that can be given? I understand that the information is to be made public; it is to be published in the ‘Gazette’. That involves a person in searching through the Gazette’ rather than going to where he should be able to find what he is looking for; that is, in the public register.

Mr Temporary Chairman, I ask that the propositions in the motion now before the Committee be put separately. My object is to have before the Committee a proposition that paragraph (b) of proposed new clause 25 be put separately so that it may be insisted upon. It reads:

  1. by omitting sub-section ‘ (4.) and inserting in its stead the following sub-section: (4.) A register shall be open for public inspection’.

I ask that this be done because that paragraph involves considerations separate from those involved in the other propositions contained in the motion before the Committee. Let me give my reason for asking that this be done. Although the Committee may accede to the Government’s wish in regard to proceeding by regulation, I ask that it take the view that, in all common sense and having heard what has been said by the Minister, it should insist upon the provision that a register be open for public inspection because no reason whatever, which could be acceptable, has been advanced asto why we should not do so. It seems to me to be irresistible that this proposition ought to be agreed to. I ask that, whatever else is done about this matter, the Committee say that a register should be open for public inspection. We should not have to have this cumbrous imposition upon people concerned to know about these matters.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) [12.29] - I completely contradict the point made by Senator Murphy when he talks about this being a cumbersome method. The register is kept in Canberra, whereas the ‘Gazette’ is available and is a public document. People have to go and see the register where it is kept. It is much less difficult to look in the ‘Gazette’. I believe that the decision that has been made by the Government is the best one.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– If there is a public register in Canberra, is it not possible to have copies elsewhere? There is not that much information’ in the public register. People could either ring up or write in order to find out information. It is very easy, wherever it is kept, for people to have access to it.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I must say that I also believe that there is a considerable degree of inconsistency between the amendment the Government has proposedin responsetothe Senate’s amendment and the maintenance of the qualified secrecy of the register which is contained in the existing Act. I hope that this matter will be looked at. However, I wonder, whether the point Senator Murphy has been stressing has quite thestrength that he thinks it has, apart from emphasising the inconsistency, in the light of the fact that details are published and are required to bepublished from time to time in theGazette’.

A further fact, as has been stated by the Minister, is that the details of the register will be published once each year in the Gazette’. I sense that, when it is stated that sort of information will be made available, there is an inconsistency in maintaining the qualified secrecy under the Act in that* a person can look at the register only with the Minister’s consent. It “seems to me that this is a matter which might receive consideration by the Minister on the basis of whether inthose circumstances there is any good reason for keeping the existing subsection (4.) in preferenceto the sub-section that was suggested in the Senate’s amendment. I share with Senator Murphy a sense of inquiry as to the reason why it should be in the proposed form, in the light of all. the other publicity which is, I think very reasonably, being given by the Government.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) [12.32] - I come back to the point that the Gazette’ is a public document and that publishing the information in it meets the very point about which everybody is concerned. It is a public document and it will have the information in it.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I believe that I have elicited the answer. It is the only answer that occurs to me. But, if it is the answer, I am not very happy about it. If those who are interested in this matter will apply themselves to it, I suggest that we are overlooking the fact that the provisions that are being put forward by the Government relate to grants or refusals which are in futuro - that is, from now on. Oh the other hand, what we are asking is that the register be open for public inspection, and it seems to me that if our proposal were carried anyone would be able to see the names, the facts of registration and any terms and conditions. But what will be protected if the Government’s amendment is carried is those facts about the existing registered organisations.

That is the only distinction that I believe one can see if one looks at this as a matter of cold logic and . leaves aside the administrative difficulties. The Government’s proposal is designed to keep secret these facts about existing organisations. Why should not whatever is contained in the public register about the existing organisations be seen? The Government is proposing to let people see only what happens from how on. Is it intended to publish in the ‘Gazette’ this information about all existing registered organisations, or is it intended not to publish that information?

Senator Wright:

-It is intended that all existing registered organisations will have to undergo re-registration in each State now.

Senator Greenwood:

– That will be published in the ‘Gazette’.

Senator Wright:

– Yes.

Senator MURPHY:

– If that is so we come back to the question: In sheer logic, why is not this register made open to public inspection? If the Minister says that all the names of the organisations are to be included, then why cannot an interested person inspect the public register? I therefore make this request: Because it is the traditional right of a person who sees different propositions in a single proposal, with distinct questions arising, to ask that the questions be decided separately, I would ask, Mr Temporary Chairman, that in your discretion you should decide that paragraph (b) of proposed new clause 25 be dealt with separately from the; other paragraphs. I do not ask that the other paragraphs in clause 25 should be dealt with separately. There is a difference between what is proposed inthe Government’s amendment and’ . the Senate’s amendment. This is the situation that arises.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– This matter comes within my discretion. I propose to divide the question into 3 parts. The first is that all of the Senate amendment No. 10, excluding paragraph (b) of proposed new clause 25, be not insisted upon; the second is that paragraph (b) of proposed new clause 25 be not insisted on; and the third relates to the alternative amendment.

Question put:

That all of the Senate amendment No 10, excluding paragraph (b) of proposed new clause 25, be not insisted upon.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 25

NOES: 23

Majority . . 2

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the paragraph (b) of proposed new clause 25 be not insisted on.

The Committee divided; (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) [12.49]- 1 move:

That the Senate does not insist on amendment No. 11 to which the House of Representatives has disagreed, and agrees to the amendment made by the House of Representatives in place thereof.

The original amendment which was made in this chamber would have added 2 additional items of information to the 7 items of information already included in the proposed new section 76a - set out in clause 27 of the Bill - that insurance organisations will be required to furnish to the DirectorGeneral and which the Director-General will subsequently include in a report to be tabled in the Parliament. The 2 new items of information which honourable senators sought to be added to sub-section (2.) were details of how the reserve fund has been invested and details of direct or indirect interest in shareholdings held by directors of a fund in organisations in which the fund’s reserves have been invested. As the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) said in the other place on 14 th May, it is relevant to keep in mind the various types of organisations which are registered under the National Health Act. The Minister said:

Numerically the main group of organisation* are those registered under State law as friendly societies. A second important group includes the larger organisations registered under State law as guaranteed companies. Other State law exists, such as legislation applicable to co-operative societies, charities and benefit associations, which applies to organisations which are not friendly societies or guaranteed companies.

The Minister went on to say that it follows that the majority of organisations, and certainly the larger ones, are to a greater or lesser extent subject to dual control under the National Health Act and the appropriate State legislation. It is also relevant to point out that provision has been made in the draft section for the Minister to require organisations to submit additional information and for the Director-General to include such information in the report. This provides for the flexibility which is so necessary and means that all the information which subsequently proves to be desirable to have included in the report will be included. Because of this provision it has not been necessary to provide for an exhaustive list in the Bill at this time.

It is agreed that the first amendment which has been proposed relating to the investment of reserves would add to the value of the report which will be tabled in the Parliament. For this reason the Government is willing to accept the amendment. However, while it is the Government’s intention to exert close supervision over the activities of registered organisations, the second amendment goes further than can be reasonably tolerated in our society. It is a serious and unwarranted intrusion into the private affairs of the directors of the funds. These directors are public-spirited men who are working for a large part in a voluntary capacity. These men give up a great deal of their time to the organisations. It would be inequitable to have their affairs published annually in the report on the activities of the organisation. I cannot state too strongly the Government’s opposition to, and rejection of, the proposal that details of direct or indirect interest in shareholdings held by directors of a fund in organisations in which the fund’s reserve have been invested be published.

Senator MCCLELLAND (New South Wales; [12.52] - Notwithstanding the remarks which have just been made by the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin), the Opposition presses its original amendment. It will be recalled that when clause 27 was first before the Senate the Opposition moved an amendment that there be included in the annual report of the Director-General not only the matters which were set out in proposed new section 76a of the principal Act but also the names of all shareholders in the fund and the equity held by each in the fund and the names of ail directors of the fund. The provision for inclusion of details as to how the reserve fund has been invested has been agreed to by the Government. The Opposition also sought details of direct or indirect interest in shareholdings held by directors of a fund in organisations in which the fund’s reserves have been invested. This provision is the one which is not acceptable to the Government. The Opposition also sought originally a provision that there should be included such other information as the Parliament requires to be included.

The first provision which the Opposition sought - the names of all shareholders in a fund and so forth - and the last provision, which relates to such other information as the Parliament requires to be included, were not accepted by the Senate in the Committee stages. The details set out in amendment No. 1 1 were successfully submitted to the Senate. In other words, in addition to the matters already enumerated in proposed new section 76a, the DirectorGeneral should also include in his report details of how the reserve fund has been invested and details of direct or indirect interest in shareholdings held by directors in a fund in organisations in which the fund’s reserves have been invested.

The Minister has said that if this proposed amendment were agreed to there would be a serious intrusion into the private affairs of public spirited men. But we point out that the funds are holding millions of dollars contributed by ordinary Australian citizens who, in order to get an adequate Commonwealth benefit, must become contributors to those funds. The power of investment of those moneys contributed by the public lies in the hands of the directors of the funds. They have very large sums of public money at their disposal for investment purposes. We suggest that there is evidence - if noi direct, certainly indirect - of people with these large sums at their disposal obtaining for themselves directorships of compan;.s in the hope that some of the money from the medical and hospital benefits funds may be invested in those companies.

If there is nothing wrong in regard to the investments I cannot see why this information should not be made available in annual reports to the Minister and to the Australian Parliament. We believe it is important in the public interest to ensure that everything is fair and above board when the money contributed by ordinary people is being handled in this way. Millions of dollars are being held in reserve by the funds and this money is available to the directors of those funds for investment apparently in any way they choose. We say that it is in the interests of the Australian people that the details of direct or indirect interests in shareholdings of directors of the funds in organisations in which the funds have invested should be made available.

As 1 understood the Minister, she said that to a greater or lesser extent the majority of organisations are subject to dual control and come under appropriate State legislation. I suggest that that is all the more reason why the funds which are registered under Commonwealth legislation - and the directors of which are subject to Commonwealth legislation, and are handling millions of dollars of public moneys - should be made to account for their investments. Therefore the Opposition presses its amendment.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– The Minister has described as a serious and unwarranted intrusion into the activities of the directors who are involved the amendment which was made by the Senate. Why is it? The amendment does not seek to have details supplied of the financial interests of the directors of organisations other than of their financial interests in organisations in which the funds’ reserves have been invested. Surely it is a fair enough proposition that if a man seeks to become a director of one of these organisations he should understand that his investments ought not to be in organisations in which that fund is investing; or if he chooses to do that, that oughtto be a matter which can be included in a report. It is not even said that he will be stopped from making such investments. There is no suggestion that he will be asked about his private activities unrelated to the fund. But it is a very serious position if millions of dollars held by funds in reserves could be channelled into a particular company and a person who is a shareholder in that company - perhaps in a minor way - could see to it that the financial power of the fund is brought into that same company in such a way that it might be used to see that he is permitted to be a director in the fund, or something of that nature.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2 p.m.

Senator MURPHY:

– The House of Representatives acceded to the amendment by the Senate to require that details of how the reserve funds of the organisations have been invested should be shown, but did not accede to the amendment by the Senate seeking to have disclosed details of direct or indirect interest in shareholdings held by directors in organisations in which fund reserves have been invested. For the reasons that have been put by Senator McClelland and me in part, 1 say that this is not an unwarranted intrusion into the activities of the directors. The purpose of this provision is to prevent happeningin these virtually public bodies what happens in more private bodies where an organisation with a great accumulation of funds can invest in other companies, and directors who may hold shares or have interests in other companies are able to benefit in respect of those other companies. They are able to benefit by having the value of their investments increased.

If there is investment by some other organisation in a second company, the people responsible arc often able to get directorships because of the direction of funds over which they have control into other organisations of which they are members. By these processes, one often sees 1 person having 10, 20 or 30 directorships. One finds that, in the case of very large organisations, such as some of the big insurance companies, it is noticeable that those who control the management of the funds are often directors of many other companies. The general view which has been held and which is commonly stated in financial publications as being commonplace is that directors will use, rightly or wrongly - sometimes it may be rightly and perhaps sometimes wrongly - their power to direct funds in order to benefit themselves. This may be in relation to a benefit contemplated by their organisation, but it may not be. Therefore, sometimes this may be done properly, while sometimes there is an opportunity for it to be done improperly.

What we propose in this provision is not that these people be prevented from holding shares in organisations in which the fund of which they are a director invests but merely that, if they choose to do so, that information is to be supplied and may be included in the report. This procedure is intended to protect persons interested in the funds. The step is not unwarranted; the reason why the Senate passed the amendment earlier is that it is warranted. It means that these people must disclose their interest in companies or other organisations in which they cause hospital or medical benefit fund moneys to be invested. If they do not cause money to be invested in that way, they do not have to make a disclosure, and there is no problem. No-one is asking about their private affairs that are unconnected with the investment of funds in the organisations of which they are director. This provision is warranted. I believe the Senate hadgood reason for requiring that such a disclosure should be made and put into the report.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 23

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 1

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) [2.12] - I move:

The 2 amendments included in the Senate amendment No. 12 are directed to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. They would require, firstly, the gazettal of the names and qualifications of persons appointed to the Committee and secondly, the tabling of the report of the Committee setting om the reasons for recommendations made in all cases where it recommends that a drug or medical preparation should not be made a pharmaceutical benefit. These amendments are directed to section 101 of the principal Act which authorises, firstly, the establishment of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and provides that a drug or medicinal preparation cannot be added to the pharmaceutical benefits list unless recommended by the Committee. The Government will accept the first amendment but is unable to accept the second amendment.

The assessment of comparative clinical efficacy of particular drugs, which is an important function of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, is a matter of judgment and there may often be divergent views even among the experts in the field. A prime example when differing views have been expressed on the mode of treatment that should be used for a relatively common condition is in the case of the management of asthma. An obligation to give, and to have published, the reasons for recommendations would add considerably to the burdens associated with being a member of the Committee and would, I am convinced, lead to difficulties in getting suitable people to accept membership.

I am sure that if the recommendations of the Committee were tabled in Parliament, it would intensify public controversy between medical practitioners or other experts on the merits and demerits of certain drugs and apart from anything else, this could well cause concern and loss of confidence lo patients undergoing a particular course of treatment. Avenues are already open in professional journals for doctors and other experts to express their views on the non-inclusion of a drug in the pharmaceutical benefits list and it is by this means that opinions should be aired. Honourable senators will see that divulgence of the reasons of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee’s recommendations would have important disadvantages and therefore the Government cannot accept the second amendment for the tabling in Parliament of the recommendations of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Opposition is pleased to note that the Government is prepared to accept the first portion of the amendment that was proposed to section 101 relating to publication in the Commonwealth Gazette’ of the names and qualifications of persons appointed as members of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. lt is interesting to note that the Government has accepted this portion of the amendment. We were told in the course of the original Committee discussion that if the names of these persons were to be made public, enormous pressures would be put on them by pharmaceutical companies, Drug houses, medical practitioners and all the rest, and there might be some difficulty in getting qualified persons to serve as members of the Committee. Apparently that reasoning has now been discarded so far as the first portion of the amendment is concerned and it is now relied upon as a defence for not agreeing to the second portion of the proposed amendment which incidentally was not proposed by the Labor movement. It was proposed by Senator Turnbull, and having regard to the arguments then propounded by him we decided to support him.

We are pleased that the objection to our original proposal that the names and qualifications of members of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee be published in the ‘Gazette’ is no longer considered by the Government tobe a valid defence as to why these names should be kept top secret. Nonetheless, the second portion of the amendment although not proposed by us was supported by us originally, and we still believe that the publication of this information would be of benefit to the public generally. For this reason we intend to press for the amendments as they were proposed originally by the Senate. Nevertheless we are delighted to know that the Government at long last has seen fit to decide that the names and qualifications of members of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee can now be made public and published in the Commonwealth ‘Gazette’.

Question put:

That the Committee does not insist on amendment No. 12 to which the House of Representatives has disagreed and agree with the amendment made by the House in place thereof.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 24

NOES: 22

Majority . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Resolutions reported; report adopted.

page 2409

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

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

– I move:

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– Mr Deputy President, I mention for the benefit of those who apparently are unaware of it that there was once a very important committee of this Parliament called the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Papers and Government Publications. 1 served on that Committee together with, I think, Senator DameIvy Wedgwood, Senator Marriott and Senator Toohey. It operated through most of the life of 2 Parliaments and undertook the tremendous task of investigating the problem of parliamentary papers and Government publications, a task which was put in the hands of the Committee by unanimous resolutions of both Houses. A motion was moved in the other House by the Treasurer of that time, in whose Department the responsibility for the printing, publication and distribution of Government publications is vested. This Committee was appointed because members in both Houses had become completely frustrated at their inability to find their way through the jungle of parliamentary papers and government publications, and that frustration extended ‘ to persons outside this community. Notwithstanding the efforts over years to get the Public Service to attend to this problem, for some reason it was utterly incapable of finding reasonable methods of seeing to it that there was a sensible system of publication and distribution of public documents.

This Committee investigated the matter at great length and made what I think was generally agreed to be a magnificent report, which has been well received all over the world as a model for an investigation of this kind. Today’s report of the Standing Orders Committee is carrying into effect one of the recommendations of that committee, which is that there should be a body in the Parliament which should look at this question of publications. I said once before in this place that the report of the Committee was accepted in toto by the Government. There was, I think, only one matter which was dealt with by the Committee informally after the report had been presented, and that was as to the size of the paper; otherwise, as i understand it, every single recommendation was accepted by the Government. However, it is tragic to think that many of those recommendations are not being implemented, although 1 understand they were announced to be government policy, and it is regrettable to think that in 1970 we still do not have many of the publications which we should have. We still do not have the 1968 and 1969 bound volumes of the Commonwealth Acts. We are behind with the publications to which Senator Milliner has referred, and it is still almost as hard as ever for ordinary members of the public to get access to public documents. The position has improved to some extent but not as much as it should have. 1 hope that continuing efforts will be made not only by this Committee but also by the Government to see to it that what are now Government policies - not merely the recommendations of the Committee but the Government’s policies - are carried out. Once the Government has announced policies on matters, one would think that the administration would see to it that they are carried out. 1 hope the Publications Committee can attend to this portion of that task.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2410

CIVIL AVIATION (CARRIERS’ LIABILITY) BILL 1970

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 11 June (vide page 2342).

The Bill.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I have already foreshadowed a number of amendments which have been circulated to honourable members. 1 now move:

After clause 5 insert the following new clause: - “ 5a. Section 29 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (I.) the words ‘, and not otherwise,’ “.

After clause 6 insert the following new clauses: - “ 6a. Section 32 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section: - (3.) The preceding provisions of this section apply in relation to liability of a carrier (including liability in respect of baggage) under a law (including the common law) other than this Part arising out of carriage of a passengerto which this Part applies in like manner as they apply in relationto liability in accordance with this Part.’.”. “ 6b. Section 33 of the Principal Act is repealed. “ 6c. Section 35 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (2.).”.

Omit clause 7 and insert the following clause: - “ 7. Sections 36 and 37 of the Principal Act are repealed and the following section inserted in their stead: -

– (1.) Subject to this section, nothing in t his Part shall be deemed -

to exclude any liability of a carrier, or a servant or agent of a carrier, under law (including the common law) other than this Part; or

to limit the amount recoverable in an action in respect of any such liability. (2.) in an action against a carrier under this Part in respect of the death of, or injury to, a passenger, or the destruction or loss of. or injury to, any baggage, there shall be deducted from any damages awarded any amount payable by the carrier (or a servant or agent of the carrier) under a judgment or settlement in respect of liability otherwise than under this Part in respect of that death, injury, loss or destruction. (3.) In an action against a carrier, or a servant or agent of a carrier, otherwise than under this Part in respect of the death of, or injury to, a passenger or the destruction or loss of, or injury to, any baggage, there shall be deducted from any damages, compensation or other amount awarded any amount payable by the carrier under a judgment or settlement in respect of the liability of the carrier under this Part in respect of that death, injury, loss or destruction.’.”.

The Senate argued the proposed amendments during the debate on the second reading of the Bill, so at this stage I shall merely remind honourable senators of what we propose. The amendments are designed to carry into effect in the Bill the removal of the prohibition on claims at common law or under statute, that is, ordinary claimsto damages where one can prove negligence. This would remove the barrier which is being placed on citizens who fly in aircraft and to which they would not be subject if they were injured while passengers in a motor car. That briefly is what we propose, but there are in addition various consequential measures. We feel that the restriction which is placed on the rights of a citizen in favour of the airlines should not exist and that in addition to the limited liability provided in the Bill, even in the absence of proof of negligence, there should be an additional but not cumulative liability on an airline to pay the full amount of damages to an injured person or his dependants upon proof of negligence.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I think I am correct in assuming that Senator Murphy considers that all the amendments can be dealt with by the principal argument which he raised and need not be dealt with individually or separately.

Senator Murphy:

– That is so. I have run through them and I do not want to argue the detail.

Senator COTTON:

– Like Senator Murphy, I am conscious of the fact that there are other things to do. I think the honourable senator is correct when he says that the broad principle is established and that the whole thing stands or falls on that argument. In replying briefly to the honourable senator one must ask oneself what the proposed amendments could achieve. Taking them as a whole, as he has suggested, they make the domestic airlines and charter operators subject to common law liability for damages as well as the automatic liability for proven damage up to a limited amount under the present legislation. This is quite clearly a fundamental change in the legislation. It is a radical departure from worldwide practice in aviation, which has tended to get away from the situation where the plaintiff has to prove negligence on the part of the carrier and to replace, not supplement, this common law arrangement with a suggestion of automatic liability.

Senator Murphy proposes that passengers should have the best of both worlds. He believes that carriers should be liable for damages to the maximum extent, that is, without limit if negligence is proven, and up to the limit specified in the legislation if otherwise. But the legislation is designed to balance the rights of carriers and passengers. It does this by removing the need to establish negligence by the carrier, thereby saving the plaintiff lengthy, costly and often unpleasant legal action, and it benefits the carrier only to the extent of limiting his liability in those cases where damages exceed the specified limit. It is on this basis of a quid pro quo that carriers’ liability has been dealt with in international aviation since 1929 when the Warsaw Convention was made. No fundamental change was made in the system in 1955 when the Hague Protocol was made, and in all recent discussions overseas there have been no suggestions of abandoning the substance of the Warsaw principles. It is also on this basis that Australian State governments have accepted and adopted Commonwealth legislation. They have shown no dissatisfaction with the present law as it affects intrastate flights, and it would be inappropriate for this Government to change its legislation in the way proposed without discussing it with the State governments, even if it considered the changes desirable and I would have very great reservations about that. In the circumstances and after careful consideration the Government feels that it must reject all the proposed amendments.

Question put:

That the proposed new clauses and amendment (Senator Murphy’s motion) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator C. L. Laucke)

AYES: 22

NOES: 24

Majority .. ..2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2412

LOAN BILL 1970

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. lt was estimated in the 1969-70 Budget that the Commonwealth would have a deficit amounting to $30m in the current financial year. At the time the Budget was introduced, it seemed probable that the amounts available from loan raisings in Australia and overseas and other financing transactions, which had amounted to $512m in 1968-69, would be more than sufficient to finance this estimated deficit.

In statement No. 4 attached to the Budget Speech, it was explained that prospects for raising loans overseas seemed poorer than in 1968-69 and that prospects for net loan proceeds in Australia were affected by the fact that redemptions would probably be substantially greater than in 1968-69. At the same time, it was pointed out that it was not possible to estimate in advance with any degree of assurance net loan proceeds or the change in the Treasury note issue, as this would be affected by developments during the course of the year. In the event, it is now clear that net loan raisings overseas will be a great deal less than last year and that, as a result of the high level of redemptions so too will be net loan proceeds in Australia. In addition, largely as a result of monetary conditions, it seems likely that there will be a substantial decline in the Treasury note issue.

Although, on present indications, it appears that the deficit will be close to the Budget estimate, there is a possibility that the amount available from loan raisings and other financing transactions will not be sufficient to finance the deficit. The purpose of this Bill, which is in the nature of a precautionary measure, is to obtain authority to borrow from the Reserve

Bank the amount required to complete the financing of the deficit in 1969-70, if this proves to be necessary, and to expend the the proceeds of the borrowing for defence purposes.

The amount to be borrowed from the Reserve Bank is, of course, a residual. It is the net result of all receipts, expenditures, borrowings and redemptions under other legislation approved by Parliament. Even at this late stage of the financial year, therefore, with large amounts of revenue still to be collected and expenditures still to be incurred and with fluctuations still possible in the volume of Treasury notes on issue, it is not possible to forecast with precision the amount which it may be necessary to borrow from the Reserve Bank to complete the financing of the deficit. Consequently, this Bill follows the practice introduced in 1968 under which no specific upper limit is set to the amount which might be borrowed under the legislation. Instead the Bill seeks authority to borrow such sums as the Treasurer considers to be the likely maximum amount necessary to complete the financing of the deficit.

The borrowings for which authority is now sought will be made for defence purposes, and the proceeds of the borrowings will be applied to finance expenditure from the Loan Fund on defence services. The Bill is essentially a machinery measure to enable the Government to carry out policies approved under the various acts authorising expenditure, the raising of revenue and financing transactions. In itself, the Bill docs not authorise expenditures which have not already been authorised by Parliament. It provides for expenditure on defence services, which has already been authorised by Parliament in the Appropriation Acts, to be charged to the Loan Fund instead of to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Provision for charging part of our defence expenditure to the Loan Fund has been made in previous years when the net amount available from loan proceeds and other financing transactions has not been adequate to finance the deficit. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

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

page 2413

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 June (vide page 1982), on motion by Senator Cotton: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– This is a Bill to amend the Australian National Airlines Act by deleting a section of the Act which provides for a limitation upon what would otherwise be the ordinary right of citizens to sue the Australian national airline which is in fact Trans-Australia Airlines. The section in question is section 66, which states: (1.) In an action brought against the Commission to recover damages or compensation in respect of personal injury or death (including proceedings for the recovery of contribution from the Commission brought by a tort-feasor who is liable in respect of the same injury or death) the plaintiff is not entitled to recover an amount exceeding Fifteen thousand dollars. (2.) This section does not apply in relation to the liability of the Commission by virtue of the Civil Aviation (Damage by Aircraft) Act 1958 or the Civil Aviation (.Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959.

This section in the Act means that a citizen who is injured by a TAA vehicle is limited to recovering SI 5,000. If he is knocked down by somebody else, for example by the driver of an Ansett Airlines of Australia truck, he may get unlimited damages for the injury he has suffered. This is the kind of unjust limitation which has crept into the law over the years. It was common in the Stale instrumentalities; transport undertakings had these dreadful limitations in their favour. My understanding is that this limitation has been removed in New South Wales. The limitations were static for many years. For a long time a limitation of £2,000 was imposed. In New South Wales if a person was unfortunate enough to be injured by the gross negligence or what you will of the Commissioner for Railways or his servants or agents he could not recover more than £2,000 whatever damage he had suffered. If a property owner had his wheat field destroyed, his homestead burnt down, his sheep destroyed and hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage done ali he could recover from the Commissioner for Railways was £2,000. That kind of limitation was common in the protective legislation surrounding those types of instrumentalities. My understanding is that this arose out of the protective limitations which were put around private railways in Great Britain and other places. When some powerful interests, be they private or public, can implement legislation which protects them against the citizen in the pursuance of his ordinary rights they do it. For the most part we have removed these special protections where private corporations are concerned.

Residual special protections exist for some government undertakings. I think this is an evil which should be removed from the law. It is good to see that the Government has come here and said: ‘Here is section 66. Let us take it out. It is wrong and unjust to the citizen who might happen to be injured in his person or property’. It might be a widow with dependants who would be subject to these unjust limitations. I commend the Government for doing this. I do not see any notice of action provision in this legislation. Some of those notices exist in the transport undertakings of the States and notoriously have been used in a vicious manner against citizens over the years. I know of one in the last decade. The High Court commented on the unjust way in which a provision was being used against a citizen in New South Wales. I think it was the famous case of Scoles v. the Commissioner for Transport. In summary the High Court said that if the case ware to be decided according to the merits and any approach of honest dealing the decision would be against the Commissioner, but because of the protective provision it had to be decided in favour of the Commissioner. That was a vicious use of the notice of action provisions in that case. Section 66 provides a complete bar to recovering more than a certain amount of money. It would be good to see that section go. I see this is not a general Bill to amend this legislation but may I mention several other matters which could be dealt with in the legislation?

Senator Cotton:

– If you mention something I will note it.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes. Section 65 provides for a medical examination of persons injured in an accident. This provides a very special provision in relation to this Commission which does not exist under the general law. 1 think it is capable of operating unfairly against citizens. Because of the time I will not go into it in any detail but I draw it to the attention of the Government. I suggest it would be quite fair for the Commission to be brought back to the position of the ordinary defendant and not put in a very special position. At the least I suggest that the provision should not be as strong as it is against the citizen, lt ought to be made much more elastic than it is. It seems to me it is capable of having quite an unfair result. I have read the section carefully. I know what can be said in its favour. Nevertheless I suggest it ought to be examined.

I have not been able to study the rest of the legislation in detail. We have operated under such pressure that those who read the record or those who hear the debates may not think it acceptable that the legislature should rush through its affairs as we are doing. But that is the way we are doing it. I do not think this state of affairs should continue. I think what the Senate did last night will prevent that from continuing. Section 9 provides for payment for high officers of the Commission. I draw the attention of the Government to that. 1 do not propose to move an amendment. I appreciate that to be consistent it ought to be done. But having drawn the Government’s attention to it, and as this legislation is coming up for examination we will see whether the Government proposes to act on these matters. We hope that it will. If not, a course might have to be adopted of pressing for these various things. I commend the Government for what it is doing. The legislation is limited to that simple removal of section 66. It is the removal of a clear injustice. The Australian Labor Party supports the Bill with enthusiasm.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– As Senator Murphy said, this Bill depends upon the main Bill which has been passed by the Senate. It is quite proper to observe as I did in my second reading speech that the Australian National Airlines Commission, the operator of Trans-Australia Airlines, has no right to be in a more favourable position than anybody else. Conversely, no passenger or member of the Australian public should be in any less favourable position regarding the affairs of TAA when he is involved with that company. This is what the Bill seeks to do. It follows the same principle as adopted in the Commonwealth Railways Act. I am grateful to Senator Murphy for his complimentary remarks about the Government’s action.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– The purpose of the Bill is to repeal one section of the Act. In view of the limited nature of the Bill, there is no scope for its consideration by the Committee. I say that because sometimes it is not realised that when a Bill is not dealt with in Committee it is advisably so because of the nature of the legislation or because of-

Senator Anderson:

– Its short title.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes, because of its short title or sometimes the Bill before the Committee may have been discussed appropriately in the second reading debate. This is such a case.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2414

AIR ACCIDENTS (COMMONWEALTH LIABILITY) BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 June (vide page 1 982), on motion by Sena:or Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– This Bill is aimed at implementing certain amendments consequential upon the amendments to the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Bill. It seeks to raise certain limits of liability and to keep the maximum liability of the Commonwealth and of its authorities in line with the new limits proposed in the principal Bill. The Senate has decided already that those limits should apply in relation to the principal Bill. As a matter of consistency, I suppose the Commonwealth provisions ought to be brought in line with those in the commercial sphere. Therefore, we will not oppose the Bill. For a number of reasons, I do not propose to move an amendment to the Bill. Because of the technical nature of the Bill. I do not think it is necessary to discuss the reasons why I shall not move an amendment. I prefer to let the Bill go to the Senate on the basis on which the other Bills went.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– in reply - lt is true, as Senator Murphy said, that this Bill is dependent upon the principle established by the principal Bill, agreed to by the Senate and confirmed by the ready passage of the second Bill. This Bill puts the Commonwealth and its authorities in the same position as other operators. I will be referring the report of the debate on these Bills to the Department of Civil Aviation for its use in domestic considerations and also in international conferences. 1 thank the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2415

STATES GRANTS (SPECIAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1970

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

Third Reading

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

page 2415

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION BILL 1970

Bill received from the House of Repre.senatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second dme. The purpose of this Bill is to increase the monetary benefits provided by the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act 1930-1969. Before explaining the provisions of the Bill, I think I should inform honourable senators that this is the second Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Bill 1970 that has been introduced into the Parliament this year. The Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Bill 1970 that was introduced by the Treasurer (Mr Bury) on 19th March last in the House of Representives, following the introduction there of the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill 1970, dealt with other matters as well as monetary benefits and was withdrawn to make way for this Bill. 1 should mention also that when introducing the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill 1970 the Treasurer said that the Government’s mind was not closed so far as that Bill was concerned and that suggestions for amendment would be considered on their merits during its passage. The Government already has under consideration at this time a number of suggestions from the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations and also expects to receive suggestions from other sources such as the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Because consideration of the various suggestions will preclude the passage of the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill before the end of the current session, this Bill has been introduced with a view to its being passed this session so that payment of compensation at the increased rates already announced by the Treasurer can be commenced at an early date.

In the case of the death of a Commonwealth employee the Act at present provides a basic lump sum benefit of $10,000 for the dependants of the deceased employee. Under the Bill this benefit is increased to $12,000, a figure considered by the Government to be reasonable and equitable by comparison with the amounts provided under the workers’ compensation legislation of the States. The Act, in common with the legislation of the majority of the States, contains a special reduction provision applicable in some death cases when, before his death, the employee had received a lump sum payment. Under this provision, if such a payment exceeds the total of weekly payments which would have been paid but for the payment of the lump sum, then the basic lump sum death benefit is reduced by the amount of the excess, subject to a prescribed minimum payment. The minimum payment figure, currently $1,650, is seldom applicable, but it is increased to $2,000 by the Bill.

In death cases the Act also provides for payment of $2.50 for each dependent child under 16 years of age of a deceased employee, subject to a minimum payment of $200. Under the Bill the weekly payment will be increased to $2.80 and the minimum payment to$280. The Bill provides for the weekly payment in incapacity cases to be increased from $28.15 to$31.80 for an adult employee without dependants and the weekly supplements of $6.80 and $2.50 for a dependent wife and each dependent child under 16 years of age to be increased to$7.70 and $2.80 respectively. The weekly payment for an employee who is a minor and has no dependants is increased from $21.10 to $23.85, thus maintaining the existing 75% relationship with the rate payable to an adult employee without dependants.

The present maximum lump sum benefit for the more serious specified injuries is increased by the Bill from $10,000 to $12,000. The benefits for the less serious specified injuries will automatically increase in the same proportion. The maximum amount of compensation that may be paid in respect of any one accident to an employee who is not totally and permanently incapacitated is also increased from $10,000 to $12,000 in line with the increases in the basic lump sum death benefit and the maximum payment for a specified injury. I commend the Bill to honourable senators and express the hope that it will be given a speedy passage.

Debate (on motion by Senator Mulvihill) adjourned.

page 2416

LOAN (DEFENCE) BILL 1970

Bill received from the House of

Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill seeks parliamentary approval to borrowings by the Commonwealth of up to$US100m for the purchase of general defence equipment in the United States. Under the Loan (Defence) Act 1966, the Commonwealth arranged borrowings of $US450m to assist in the purchase of defence equipment in the United States. Those borrowings were almost completely committed by orders placed up to last December, and the Government wishes to make provision under the present Bill for further borrowings to finance orders placed from the beginning of this year for additional purchases of defence equipment in the United States. The loans arranged under the 1966 Act were all with the Export-Import Bank of the United States. They were used for the purchase of general defence equipment and for some payments on the F111 aircraft.

The Loan (Defence) Act 1968 provided for the borrowing by the Commonwealth of a further $US75m to assist in financing the purchase of F111 aircraft. No drawings have yet been made against that loan and the borrowings to be made under the new proposed Act will therefore not be used to finance any payments on the F111 aircraft. It is expected that the Export-Import Bank of the United States will provide the loan funds to be raised under this legislation. We are at present negotiating with the Bank for this purpose, and the Bill has been drafted to provide authority for the Commonwealth to accept the usual provisions of Export-Import Bank loan agreements. Since the borrowing is for defence purposes the approval of the Loan Council is not required. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Devitt) adjourned.

page 2416

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL 1970

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill amends the Seamen’s Compensation Act to provide for increases in various rates and amounts of workers’ compensation payable to seamen and their dependants. The payment of compensation to seamen covered by the Bill is made by shipowners and not by the Commonwealth.

Compensation for seamen serving in intrastate ships, to whom the Bill does not apply, is paid under State Workers’ Compensation Acts. The increases are similar to those proposed for Commonwealth employees under the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Bill. It is customary and desirable that the monetary rates of compensation determined by Commonwealth legislation under the two compensation Acts which the Commonwealth administers should, as far as possible, be kept uniform and that changes in those rates should be effected simultaneously.

The amendments envisaged by this Bill include an increase in the weekly rate of compensation for a seaman from $28.15 to $31.80 and increases in weekly rates from $6.80 to $7.70 for a seaman’s wife and from $2.50 to $2.80 for each of a seaman’s children. The increase for seamen who are minors is from$21.10 to $23.85. The basic lump sum death benefit. to which other lump sum benefits for various injuries are related is being increased from $10,000 to $12,000 and the minimum total payment for a dependent child rises from $200 to $280. I commend the Bill for the favourable consideration of honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Mulvihill) adjourned.

page 2417

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL 1970

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

-I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate in Hansard the second reading speech. It is as follows: The Customs Tariff Bill now before the Senate proposes amendments to the Customs Tariff 1966-1969. The tariff changes arise out of the adoption by the Government of recommendations made in reports by the Tariff Board and the Special Advisory Authority. There are 14 schedules to the Bill and the dates from which the changes operated through the tabling of Tariff Proposals in another place are, in respect of, the First Schedule, 9th June 1969; the Second Schedule, 1st July 1969; the Third Schedule, 14th July 1969; the Fourth Schedule, 1st August 1969; the Fifth Schedule. 19 September 1969; the Sixth Schedule. 3rd October 1969; the Seventh Schedule, 13th October 1969; the Eighth Schedule, 20th October 1969; the Ninth Schedule, 7th November 1969; the Tenth Schedule, 30th December 1969: the Eleventh Schedule. 1st January 1970; the Twelfth Schedule, 9th February 1970; the Thirteenth Schedule, 7th April 1970; the Fourteenth Schedule, 9th April 1970.

In outlining the changes provided in the Schedules to the Bill any rates of duty 1 mention should be understood to relate to the general tariff. The preferential tariff rates are usually about 10% lower having regard to international commitments. The new and old rates of duty are set out in some detail in the summary of tariff alterations which is currently being circulated for the information of honourable senators. The changes in the First Schedule to the Bill relate to Tariff Board recommendations concerning: Floor and wall coverings: gloves and mi:tens; and secateurs.

In the report on floor and wall coverings the Tariff Board recommended a duty of 35%, ad valorem, be imposed on linoleum, printed paper fell base floorings, cork flooring and rubber underlay material. For vinyl, plastic and sheet rubber floorings the Board recommended a rate of 45% , ad valorem. This represents an increase of 10%, ad valorem, for plastic tiles and sheet rubber forms while for printed paper felt base flooring the increase is 7½% ad valorem. The duties on linoleum and tiles of cork remain unchanged. In its report on leather gloves and mittens the Tariff Board recommended that tariff protection at a level of 30%, ad valorem, be restricted to industrial gloves and golf gloves. For other leather gloves non-protective duties are recommended. This means an increase in duty on industrial gloves and golf gloves, no change in duty on dress gloves, while duty is decreased on other gloves, such as baseball gloves or policemen’s gauntlets. Turning now to the report on secateurs, the Board proposed that protection on secateurs of the anvil-type be imposed at a level of 25%, ad valorem. The Board proposed no change in the non-protective duties previously applying to o.her types of secateurs, for example, those with two cutting blades.

The Second Schedule incorporates changes agreed to by the Australian and New Zealand Governments for the addition of new commodities to Schedule A of the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The Third Schedule implements the recommendation of the Special Advisory Authority in his report entitled ‘Cherries, Preserved by Sugar - Drained Glace or Crystallised’. Arising from the report a temporary addition duty of 6c per lb is imposed on these types of cherries. This Schedule also deals with changes stemming from the Tariff Board’s report on electric circuit breakers and switch units. The Tariff Board recommended a duty of 45%, ad valorem, on apparatus rated for use on nominal system voltages up to 200 kilovolts The change in the level of duty on these goods varies according to their rating. For circuit breakers or switch units operating over 200 kilovolts the Tariff Board recommended no change to the existing level of duty.

In the Fourth Schedule duty is removed from urea imported for use as a fertiliser. Previously free admission has been given through the by-law system. The Fifth Schedule implements the report of the Tariff Board on gang slitting machines. The Tariff Board recommended tariff protection at 30%, ad valorem. This represents a decrease of 10%, ad valorem, for machines designed to slit mild steel sheet thinner than 12 gauge (BG) (that is to say slightly less than one-tenth of an inch in thickness) and not exceeding 40 inches in width. For other machines, currently subject to a nonprotective rate of duty, the new rate represents an increase in the level of duty. The Fifth Schedule also makes changes following completion of international negotiations, in relation to previously tabled Tariff Board reports. Those reports relate to wooden articles and to cutlery, forks, spoons, etc. Also included in this Schedule are some additions to concessions for hand-made traditional products of cottage industries of developing countries.

The Sixth Schedule implements a report by the Special Advisory Authority on metal - working machine tools. The Special Advisory Authority recommended additional temporary duties on certain general purpose lathes and grinding machines having free on board prices below certain specified amounts. Tariff Changes in the Seventh Schedule arise from reports by the Tariff Board on: Almonds; compressed gas cylinders; flexible metal tubing, piping and transmission shafts; taximeters; and time switches and movements and parts therefor.

The Tariff Board recommended a rate of 15%, ad valorem, on almonds whether in the shell as kernels or processed. This represents an increase in duty on most imports, particularly on processed and packaged almonds, which, in the main, were sufficiently highly priced such that no duty was payable under the previous rate of $0.55 per lb, less 75% of the free on board price. On compressed gas cylinders the Tariff Board recommended a rate of 35%, ad valorem, for seamless cylinders. Also the Board recommended that welded cylinders exceeding 350 lb water capacity and cryogenic containers be subject to a duty of 40%, ad valorem. Cryogenic containers are cylinders used for the transportation of very cold fluids and liquified gases, such as liquified oxygen or nitrogen. For cylinders having a capacity not exceeding 50 gallons and designed for the storage and transport of gas these new rates represent an increase in the level of duty from 121%, ad valorem. On welded cylinders having a water capacity up to 350 lb the Board recommended no change to the existing rate of 121%, ad valorem.

Turning now to the report on flexible metal tubing, the Board recommended a rate of 71%, ad valorem, apply to al! goods under reference. This represents a reduction from 55%, ad valorem, plus 5% primage for tubing or piping wholly or essentially of spirally wound wire. On taximeters the Board recommended no change in the present ad valorem duty of 35% but recommended removal of the alternative fixed rate of §30 each, currently imposed, if higher. In its recommendations relating to time switches and movements the Board proposed that duly on time-of-day synchronous motor time switches, movements and parts be increased from 30% to 35%, ad valorem. The Board also recommended the duty on time switches controlled by electric master clocks be reduced from 45% to 71%, ad valorem. Other time switches, movements and parts remain dutiable at 71%, ad valorem.

The Eighth Schedule deals with changes arising from Tariff Board Reports on: Belts, belting and woven cotton fabrics over 15 oz per square yard; drawing, measuring and calculating instruments: and syringes, injection or puncture needles, etc. Arising from the report on belts, belting, etc., the duty on metal reinforced rubber belting is reduced from 35% to 30% ad valorem, while on textile reinforced rubber belting the reduction is from 45% to 35%, ad valorem. On textile conveyor belting impregnated or coated with artificial plastic material, duty is reduced from 45% to 40%, ad valorem. On other types of textile conveyor belting duty is increased from 371% to 40%. ad valorem.

Turning next to the report on drawing, measuring and calculating instruments, the Board recommended an increase in duty on drafting machines from 30% to 40%, ad valorem. A reduction was recommended for steel measuring tapes less than 15 feet in length from 35% to 271%, ad valorem. The Board proposed a uniform duty of 35%, ad valorem, for other drawing, measuring and calculating instruments. On syringes, injection or puncture needles, etc. the Tariff Board proposed duty on syringes of artificial plastic material be reduced from 35% to 30%, ad valorem, while on other syringes the Board recommended the rate remain unchanged at 71%, ad valorem. On injection and puncture needles, whether or not imported with syringes, the board recommended slightly higher rates of duty at 421%, ad valorem, to apply until 31st December 1972. After that date the duty will be reduced to the industry rate of 30%, ad valorem.

The Ninth Schedule to the Bill implements a report by the Tariff Board on chlorine and sodium hydroxide. The Board recommended a duty of 55%, ad valorem, apply to sodium hydroxide, or, caustic soda, representing an increase of 30%, ad valorem, above the existing 25% duty. The Tenth Schedule gives effect to a report by the Special Advisory Authority on vegetable oils. Temporary additional duties on a sliding scale basis were recommended to apply to peanut oil, soya bean oil, rape seed oil, linseed oil, sunflower seed oil, safflower seed oil, cotton seed oil and maize oil. An additional temporary duty of 15%. ad valorem, was proposed on epoxidised vegetable oils.

Tariff changes in the Eleventh Schedule include further additions to Schedule A of the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Also in this Schedule additions are made to the range of products eligible for concessional admission under the preferential tariff quota scheme for goods from developing countries. The Twelfth Schedule implements the Special Advisory Authority’s report on curtain hooks of base metal. An additional temporary duty of 25%, ad valorem, will apply to those goods. The Thirteenth Schedule to the Bil! makes changes consequent upon the Government’s adoption of the Tariff Board report on man-made fibres and yarn, lyre cord and tyre cord fabric.

Except in respect of high tenacity continuous viscose yarns the Board recommended a rate of 71%, ad valorem, for sewing yarn. This maintains the present rate for this type of yarn. The Board has likewise recommended in respect of unfinished yarn imported for use in the production of sewing yarn. On high tenacity viscose yarn the Board recommended a duty of 30%, ad valorem. This is much the same as the present rate. In respect of other continuous yarn the Board recommended that acetate based yarn be dutiable at 20%, ad valorem, and that viscose yarn be dutiable at 71%, ad valorem. This represents, in respect of acetate yarn, a reduction from 221%, ad valorem, no change on viscose yarn, while for tri-acetate yarn it means an increase from 71%. ad valorem. On the remaining continuous filament yarn the Board recommended a basic rate of duty of 20%, ad valorem. However, the Board recommended an additional sliding-scale duty to the basic 20% rate for nylon yarn. The additional duty, which will apply up to 30th June 1971, is equal to the amount by which the free on board price of the yarn is less than a floor price which varies according to the denier count of the yarn.

I turn next to uncarded and carded fibres, such as tow, staple fibre and waste. These fibres provide a basis for the production of man-made fibre yarns. The Board recommended that a duty of 10%, ad valorem, be imposed on nylon tow and staple fibre but that polyester tow and staple fibre should be free of duty. These changes represent a substantial reduction in the level of duties on these goods. The Board proposed that waste fibres should remain free of duty. In respect of tops of man-made fibre the Board has recommended a duty of 20%, ad valorem. This rate represents an increase from 74%, ad valorem, for casein or cellulose based tops and a reduction from 50% , ad valorem, on other types, such as nylon or polyester tops.

In its recommendations relating to discontinuous yarn the Board proposed a rate of 20%, ad valorem, for yarn up to count 60. This is a reduction from 40%, ad valorem, on acrylic yarn and an increase from 7i%, ad valorem, on nylon yarn, polyester yarn and viscose and acetate yarn of counts 35 to 60. For yarns of counts finer than count 60, the Board recommended a duty of 7i%, ad valorem. The Board recommended that gimped yarn should remain dutiable at the rates that would apply if the goods were not gimped.

I now turn to the Board’s report on tyre cord and tyre cord fabric. The Board recommended rates of duty equal to those currently applying to other types of cords and cordage. That is, for cotton tyre cord a duty of 40%, ad valorem, is provided while for man-made fibre tyre cord the rates proposed will be 50%, ad valorem, up to 31st December this year, and thereafter 40%, ad valorem. These are the rates applying to other type of cordage. The Board further recommended the duty on tyre cord of glass fibre remain unchanged at 40%, ad valorem.

In relation to tyre cord fabric the Board proposed a duty of 50%, ad valorem, on viscose tyre cord fabric. This represents little change in the previous duty level. However, on nylon and on cotton tyre cord fabric the Board recommended a duty of 20%, ad valorem, and this represents a reduction in the present levels of duty. The Board further recommended the present duty of 40% , ad valorem, on glass fibre tyre cord fabric be maintained. In respect of rubberised tyre cord fabrics, known in the trade as dipped fabrics, the Board recommended that the level of duty should be the same as if the fabric were not dipped or rubberised.

The last Schedule in the Bill relates to changes to impose conditional duties on certain petroleum products that become payable only under certain conditions. These conditional duties are an extension of those accepted by the Parliament in September 1965, following a Tariff Board report on crude oil production in Australia. The conditional duties are necessary to ensure the Government’s policy that crude oil produced in Australia will be assured of a market in Australia. In line with this policy, each company processing crude oil or marketing petroleum products in Australia is required to absorb a share of the crude oil produced in Australia, in total, up to the capacity of the local market.

The conditional duties will become operative only in the event that a company marketing or refining petroleum products in Australia does not accept its responsibility to purchase a share of crude oil produced in Australia. That company will then be required to pay these duties on its imports of petroleum products. The Government is firmly convinced that it is of the utmost importance to actively encourage the search for, and the production of, indigenous crude oil. The Government believes that, to encourage the search for indigenous crudes, it is essential that explorers be assured of an established market within Australia at a worthwhile price. This market should only be limited by Australian refinery capacity. These tariff changes are a necessary step towards that objective.

The Fourteenth Schedule also makes changes arising from the Tariff Board report on gelatine and animal glues. The Board found that a small reduction in the duty of edible gelatine was warranted. It recommended a rate of 35%, ad valorem, or if higher, 15c per lb. On animal glues and technical grades of gelatine the Board recommended that the duty remain, for practical purposes, at the present level. There are also included in the Bill some tariff changes that are essentially of an administrative nature only. These maintain or restore duties as recommended by the Tariff Board and approved by the Government, at the time of the changeover to tariff based on the Brussels Nomenclature.

There is, however, a small group of administrative amendments which I feel I should bring to the attention of honourable senators. Item 19 of the Second Schedule is being amended by omitting the requirement that concessional entry may only be considered for goods for specified purposes or classes of users. The effect of the amendment is to delete the requirement that unless goods are for an ‘essential’ purpose they are not eligible for by-law entry. Thus, purchasers of any imported goods will not now have to pay a price inflated by a protective duty when there is no Australian production to protect. The changes will mean that protection accorded to Australian industry by the Customs Tariff will not, in any way, be abrogated. Consideration for the concessional admission under by-law of imported goods will continue to be decided on the criterion of whether suitably equivalent goods are reasonably available from Australian production.

I would remind honourable senators that, in the administration of by-laws, ‘suitably equivalent’ does not mean identical; rather, it means broadly comparable or capable of being used for a similar purpose. It follows, therefore, that in regard to certain classes or types of goods where Australian industry can satisfy normal requirements with a range of similar goods or adequate alternatives, concessional admission under by-law would not be accorded to the imported goods. An amendment to item 20 of the Second Schedule is consequent on the proposed change to item 19. As formerly, all goods for admission duty free under item 20 must firstly be eligible for item 19 admission, in that suitably equivalent goods be not reasonably available from Australian production. Item 20 still requires that suitably equivalent goods also be not available from United Kingdom production. Item 21 of the Second Schedule is being omitted as it is now redundant. I commend the Bill.

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

page 2421

SNOWY MOUNTAINS ENGINEERING CORPORATION BILL 1970

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate in Hansard the second reading speech, lt is as follows:

Last year, the Government took a number of detailed decisions on the powers and functions of the proposed Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. This Corporation was to be set up to carry out on a continuing basis the engineering consulting services which the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Authority had been providing for some years. I now have pleasure in submitting to the Senate a Bill to give effect to these decisions. Construction of the Snowy Mountains scheme will be completed in 4 years time. As there may be some danger of our taking the scheme for granted, I propose to spend a little time in drawing the attention of the Senate to the great effort which has been entailed in reaching this situation and the benefits flowing therefrom.

Less than a year ago the Jindabyne pumping station was officially opened and this completed the work of diverting the Upper Snowy waters to the west of the Great Dividing Range. The huge Murray power stations were completed several months ago and are now producing electricity from these diverted waters. We have now spent over S700m on the scheme and some Si 00m will be required to complete it and the last and largest of all the projects, namely the Talbingo Dam, its power station and all its appurtenant works. It has taken 20 years to reach this stage in the project. In the initial years, expenditure on the scheme was small but this Parliament gave its full financial support and as a result expenditure reached major proportions. Since 1965 annual expenditure has never been less than $30m a year. In fact it has generally exceeded S40m, and in 1960 reached $56.5m. By any yard-stick this is sustained massive support on an unprecedented scale.

The result in physical terms has been the construction of a scheme which both in concept and execution has received world acclaim. The power stations have supplied valuable peak load power to the New South Wales and Victorian systems to the benefit of the industries and domestic consumers of those States. The electricity has been provided at costs which are low for a peak load scheme. In the last financial year the charge for power was $14 per kilowatt and for energy lc per kilowatt hour. The facility with which the hydro stations can be brought; on or off line together with the interconnection provided between the New South Wales and Victoria systems has enabled those states to make considerable savings in the quantity of reserve plant they would otherwise have had to maintain.

Apart from electricity the scheme has by the diversion and regulation of the headwaters of the streams in the Snowy Mountains area provided valuable additional water for irrigation in the arid western plains. No charge is made by the Snowy scheme for this water. In the Mumimbidgee Valley the additional supplies will enable the virtual doubling of the area under irrigation. In the Murray Valley thousands of acres of additional land are being irrigated and existing irrigation schemes now have more water and are worked more intensively. The scheme has provided greater security of supplies of water to the Mumimbidgee and Murray irrigation areas. This was demonstrated dramatically during the recent record drought when the scheme was called upon to make special additional irrigation releases. The releases made towards the end of 1968 irrigation season when the Hume and Burrinjuck reservoirs were empty were of critical importance in saving irrigated crops and sustaining production.

None of these physical results - which I have necessarily indicated so briefly - have come about by accident or by the adoption of ad hoc measures. They have arisen first from the massive financial support I mentioned earlier and secondly the scientific manner in which the project has been tackled. The scheme is unique in Australia’s history both in its size and in its 25-year construction time. This required the setting up of highly expert groups in the form of investigation, design, scientific services and contract supervision staff. No other project in Australia has been, or is likely to be, big enough to support the cost of the specialist staffs which the Snowy scheme needed.

These staffs have more than paid their way in effecting major savings in the cost of the works. In recent years they have been in a position to provide similar valuable services towards the problems of major engineering projects in Australia and overseas. Fees from such services already amount to $3m a year. It is this most important component of the Snowy which we propose to retain. The specialist staffs will form the basis of the engineering consulting Corporation.

Some sections of the community would have liked us to retain the whole of the Snowy organisation intact to undertake major water development measures throughout Australia in much the same way as it has tackled the Snowy scheme. The truth is however that there is no other scheme in Australia of the same size and homogeneity as the Snowy. The Snowy has been geared to spend, annually, sums equivalent to the total expended by all States on rural water development measures. While the States’ total might with good reason be increased, there is no case for the Snowy to move into this field so as to push the States out. The Snowy can however provide valuable services in investigation and design work to the States which they have not geared themselves to undertake. Additional technical assistance will also be available to supervise major contracts on non-repetitive jobs which form difficult peaks in State works programmes.

On the other hand we are conscious of the growing importance of the services of local private engineering consulting organisations. Il is not the Government’s intention to set up an organisation which will compete directly in all fields with Australian engineering consultants. We consider that most of the jobs the Snowy will undertake will be those which up to now have been done by foreign consultants or will be in fields nol adequately served at present by Australian consultants.

There is a further and very important field, namely overseas work. Already the Snowy has established a favourable reputation in South-East Asia in the planning and construction of works and the training of local personnel in the operation and maintenance of works equipment. For the most part these activities have been financed by aid funds provided by Australia. In addition, the Snowy is registered with the relevant United Nations agencies and the Asian Development Bank for consultancy work.

As a result of the status it has already attained, I have no doubt that it will continue to attract a considerable volume of work overseas. We can look forward therefore to the Snowy not only acting as an implementer of some aspects of our foreign policy but also as a saver and an earner of foreign exchange. Foreign exchange earnings flow not only from consultancy fees but often from consultants specifying goods and equipment available from their own countries. These activities will not only benefit the Snowy and Australian industry generally, they will also benefit Australian private consultants. For example, the Snowy recently undertook the investigation, design and construction of the Sandakan/ Ranau Road in Sabah. It has sub-let the work on the design and construction of 7 bridges on the road to an Australian engineering consultant. This policy will continue and will enable Australian consultants who are to some extent unknown overseas to increase in status and become established in new areas.

To give effect to the policy considerations I have outlined, the Bill provides that the Snowy may carry out a broad range of consultative activities in Australia and its Territories in a number of engineering fields. Within these fields it will not be permitted lo act as a constructing authority in its own right as it has in the Snowy area. It will investigate and design engineering works and supervise or give advice on contracts entered into by its clients. The principal engineering fields in which it will operate may be broadly described as those relating to the development of water and power resources and for underground works.

Apart from work for the Commonwealth it is expected that the Snowy will continue to do a lot of work for the State governments and their instrumentalities. It is expected also that it will continue to work for private organisations such as the large mining companies: in work for private organisations however it will only be able to act when commissioned by private consultants. As a result of an amendment to the Bill effected in another place, this provision will not apply to work for private organisations performed in the Corporation’s laboratories. There is some doubt that the Commonwealth can effectively empower the Snowy to do work in the States and accordingly State governments have been invited to introduce matching legislation to that of the Commonwealth’s. It would be contrary to the public interest to stop the Snowy’s current activities in the States until State parliaments have passed enabling legislation. Such work will accordingly be allowed to continue to completion. The Minister for National Development will also authorise the Snowy undertaking new work in the States conditional upon the relevant Premiers giving an undertaking to introduce matching legislation as soon as possible.

So far as overseas work is concerned, the Snowy will be authorised to work in a somewhat wider field. It will be able to act as a constructing authority and supervise construction of projects in the fullest sense of this term. The categories of projects it may undertake will be those in which it will engage in Australia, plus works of a type previously undertaken by the Snowy and such additional types which the Minister for National Development considers to be appropriate to its specific skills. We would also expect the Snowy to continue to use and collaborate with Australian consultants in appropriate circumstances.

It will be necessary for the Snowy to obtain the approval of the Minister for National Development before undertaking any job. In this connection he will have available the advice of a consultative committee, which is to be formed. The committee will advise him on whether it would be appropriate or not for the Snowy to accept particular commissions. For works within Australia, the committee will comprise 4 persons, 2 of whom will be appointed from private engineering sources: for work outside Australia a further 2 persons will be added.

The Corporation will be similar in form to the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority in that it will be headed by a corporation sole with 2 statutorily appointed assistants, that is, a director and two assistant directors. By amendment in another place the Bill now provides that the salary and annual allowances of the director and assistant directors will be as provided by Parliament except that until 1st January 1971, they will be as prescribed. All other allowances will be as prescribed. The Corporation will operate as a commercial organisation, will pay Commonwealth income tax and be expected to make a reasonable return on its capital.

Detailed provisions of the Bill deal with the appointment of staff, the preservation of rights of staff taken over from the Authority and machinery for the transitional problems of the new organisation. The terms and conditions of employment of Corporation officers will be determined by the Corporation subject to the approval of the Public Service Board. The Minister for National Development shall have power to determine the total number of staff.

So much for the framework of the present measure. I should however explain that with the setting up of the Corporation there will be three organisations acting in the Snowy area. First, there will be the Authority, which still has some 4 years of major work ahead to complete the scheme. After its completion, certain continuing functions need to be carried out in accordance with the terms of the Snowy Mountains Agreement but they will be handled by a small number of officers. Secondly, there will be the body which is the subject of this Bill, namely the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. As far ahead as we can see it will be centred in Cooma to enable full use to be made of existing specialist facilities. Finally, there will be the Snowy Mountains Council which is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the completed works of the Snowy Mountains scheme. This organisation was set up under the Snowy Mountains Agreement and has been functioning for some 10 years. The Government plans to provide it with funds and staff on a more selfcontained and formal basis than exists at present, and in due course this will be the subject of a separate Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

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

page 2424

WOOL INDUSTRY BILL 1970

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · Western Australia · CP

– I move:

With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate in Hansard the second reading speech. It is as follows:

The principal object of this Bill is to amend the Wool Industry Act 1962-67 so as to give effect to new arrangements for the financing of wool research and promotion. The proposed arrangements envisage that the Government will provide a greater share of the funds needed for these activities, as foreshadowed by the Treasurer in the Budget speech last August. In addition, other amendments are proposed which are designed mainly to widen the borrowing powers of the Australian Wool Board in order that the Wool Board can rebuild and renovate the wool stores which are at present placed under its control and to construct and equip integrated wool selling complexes, if this is required by the industry. I think it can be said that this Bill has a twofold purpose. There is no need to labour the point that the wool industry is today facing great difficulties. Wool prices are now at their lowest point in more than 20 years, while costs over the same period have risen very considerably. To quote a frequently used but true expression the Australian wool industry is caught in a severe cost-price squeeze.

In saying this, however, let no one think that our great wool industry is on the road to extinction. On the contrary I firmly believe that with sound planning, the application of modern business techniques and management, combined with the resilience that woolgrowers have displayed over the years, the present problems can be tackled, and I believe, surmounted. 1 have used the term our great wool industry and I have used it deliberately. The wool industry is, and will continue to be for many years to come, our biggest single industry. Even at the current extremely low level of wool prices wool still contributes around onequarter of our total export income. This has been only possible because of the remarkable increase in wool production which has been achieved in spite of the plague of droughts which in recent years appear to have reasserted themselves as an inescapable part of the Australian scene. Woolgrowers are to be commended for this great achievement.

We should never forget that the great prosperity enjoyed by the bulk of Australians has been due in a large measure to the contributions made to the economy as a whole by the wool industry. No one could possibly assert that the development of our economy achieved to date would have been attained without wool providing much of the wherewithal for the imports of essential materials and equipment. Similarly, there is no doubt in my mind that, despite the spectacular growth in our mineral industries, wool’s continued contribution to our export earnings is indispensable for our continued development and wellbeing. As well as its continuing prominent role in Australia’s export trade, wool growing is an essential component of the rural sector of the economy. Thousands of people rely on the industry either directly or indirectly for their livelihood. Large tracts of inland Australia would be totally unproductive without the woolgrowing industry - -the only activity of economic importance for which these areas are suitable.

The Government fully recognises the significance of the woolgrowing industry not only as an export income earner but also as a vital factor in the economy of the rural areas. For this reason the Government wishes to help the industry in its present difficulties, by relieving it of the greater part of the cost of financing wool research and promotion - 2 activities which are of great importance in maintaining wool’s position as the leading apparel fibre in the face of ever-increasing competition from synthetic fibres. This assistance is the first of the 2 purposes of this Bill which I mentioned earlier. The second purpose is to help the industry to help itself in the longer term by cutting some of its heavy cost items. An area where substantial savings can be achieved is in the handling of wool. Studies conducted by the Australian Wool Board show that very significant cost reductions are possible in the handling and processing of wool for sale by the establishment, on a national scale, of integrated wool selling complexes. For legal reasons these complexes are referred to in the Bill as ‘wool selling centres’.

I think it can be said that all sections of the wool trade agree that the establishment of well laid out wool complexes incorporating modern mechanised handling equipment for common use by wool selling brokers for the speedy movement of wool into store, within store and out of store to the ship can introduce great efficiency into the wool selling and handling procedure. Further, such complexes could also provide a vehicle for the early introduction of other beneficial innovations such as the pre-sale sampling and testing of wool, that is, objective measurement, and the streamlining of bulk-classing operations. For a number of reasons the quickest way of making wool selling complexes a reality could be for the Australian Wool Board to undertake the task of constructing and equipping them. If the Wool Board is put in a position to borrow for the purpose of carrying out this task this may overcome some of the financial obstacles which are militating against the early establishment of such complexes. I would like to stress, however, that the Wool Board will only take on this role if the wool trade, including the selling brokers, wishes the Board to do so.

I now turn to the main provisions of the Bill. Provision is made in the Bill for increasing the Government’s contribution for wool research and promotion from the present level of SI 4m a year to an average of S27m during the 3-year period commencing on 1st July 1970. At the same time the levy paid by woolgrowers under the Wool Tax Acts (Nos 1 to 5) 1964 will be reduced, by regulation, from 2% to 1% of the gross proceeds from the sale of shorn wool. On present prices this will mean a saving to woolgrowers of about $1.20 per bale. I should mention that due to the overlapping of rostered wool auction sales into July of this year, it has proved necessary to set the commencing date for the reduction in the levy at 1st August 1970. Tn keeping with its greatly increased contribution for wool research and promotion, a number of changes are proposed to give the Government a greater say in the administration of these activities and these are provided for in the Bill.

In the first instance, the annual apportionment of the money contributed by woolgrowers and the Commonwealth Government for wool research and promotion will be determined by the Minister for Primary Industry after consultation with the Australian Wool Industry Conference. At present the apportionment of the money is made by the Minister on the recommen ation of the Conference. Secondly, the Bill provides for some changes in the manner of selecting the Chairman and some of the members of the Australian Wool Board, lt is proposed that in future the Chairman of the Wool Board will be appointed by the Minister for Primary Industry after consultation with the Board itself. At present the Chairman of the Board is appointed by the Minister on the nomination of the Board. The Bill also provides for the Chairman of the Board to have a deliberative vote as well as a casting vote. Currently the Chairman has only a casting vote. It is furthermore proposed that the 3 members with special qualifications on the Board will in future be appointed by the Minister for Primary Industry after consultation with the Wool Industry Conference. At present these members are appointed by the Minister from a panel of names submitted by the Conference. 1 While the Australian Wool Board with its expertise and experience will continue to be responsible for the promotion programme, the measures which I have just outlined will provide greater safeguards for the public interest in the funds involved without disturbing the special relationship which exists between the Wool Board and the International Wool Secretariat on the matter of promotion. Thirdly, it is proposed to amend the arrangements for the control of wool research funds. The Bill provides for the deletion of the stipulation in the Act that the Minister for Primary Industry can approve the expenditure of money from the Wool Research Trust Fund only on the recommendation of the Australian Wool Board. Insofar as the allocations for individual recipients of grants from the Fund for scientific and economic research are concerned, the Wool Board will retain the power to recommend grants for recipients other than the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. These other recipients include mainly State Departments of Agriculture and universities. Grants from the Fund to the CSIRO will in future be made by the Minister for Primary Industry after consultation with the Minister for Education and Science. The Minister for Primary Industry will himself determine the grants to be made to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics.

Nevertheless the Wool Board will still retain a meaningful role in regard to the research programmes of the CSIRO and the BAE. In relation to these two bodies it will be a function of the Board to advise the Minister for Primary Industry on the general scope of their research programmes in relation to the wool industry’s problems.

In doing this the Board will be expected to advise on the emphasis to be placed on the various aspects of the programmes and to make an assessment of the potential benefits of the programmes, taking into account problems of immediate significance as well as those which will have an important bearing on the future prosperity of the industry, lt will not, however, be the function of the Wool Board, as at present, to recommend allocations from the Fund for the CSIRO and the BAE, nor will the Board be concerned with the management of funds allocated to these two bodies. To enable the Wool Board to make a full assessment of the CSIRO wool production and wool textile research programmes, the Board will be provided with the respective programme budgets along with the reports on the work carried out in the previous year. The form of these reports will be agreed upon between the CSIRO and the Wool Board, but the Minister for Primary Industry may also ask for special reports from the CSIRO on any particular matter.

For the wool production research programme this will cover the avenues of application as well as the areas of research. Further, in order to permit the Wool Board to examine the CSIRO sheep and wool research programme in total, information will be provided to the Board concerning the CSIRO research programme financed from other sources which is clearly related to industry problems. In addition, provision will be made for the Board and any committee which it may establish to visit appropriate wool production and wool textile research laboratories of the CSIRO from time to time. As far as the capital items required by the CSIRO for wool production and textile research to be financed from the Fund are concerned, the Minister for Primary Industry will refer these to the Board for advice where appropriate. In regard to the BAE it too will provide to the Wool Board all relevant information so that the Board can advise on its economic research programme. It is proposed that the CSIRO and the BAE will have freedom in the management of their research programmes within their respective allocations from the Fund. It will be incumbent, however, on these two bodies to take due note of any views which are conveyed by the Wool Board. The Australian Wool Board in dealing with the research proposals of the State Departments of Agriculture will be obliged to consult with these Departments at least once a year on their programmes.

In view of the changed role of the Australian Wool Board in relation to wool research it is no longer necessary for the Board to maintain its present 2 statutory research advisory committees, namely, the Wool Production Research Advisory Committee and the Wool Textile Research Advisory Committee. Accordingly the Bill provides for their abolition. However, the amending legislation has been drafted in such a way as to enable the Board to appoint research committees to assist it in its work if necessary. Opportunity has also been taken to provide in the Bill for the abolition of the provision in the Act for a statutory Wool Marketing Committee. This has been recommended by the Wool Board and endorsed by the Wool Industry Conference. Provision was originally made for this Committee to assist the Wool Board in its marketing investigation work. However, it has now been found that it is no longer necessary to have a statutory committee of this nature. The establishment of the Wool Marketing Corporation will relieve the Board of a good deal of its marketing investigation work. However, the amending legislation will still enable the Wool Board to appoint ad hoc marketing committees should this prove necessary.

Finally I turn to the provisions of the Bill intended to widen the borrowing powers of the Wool Board to permit the Board to borrow money for the rebuilding and renovation of its existing wool stores and for the possible establishment of integrated wool selling centres, as well as to pledge its assets for such borrowings. The Wool Board has under its control some 280 wool stores which are a legacy of the wool purchasing arrangement between Australia and the United Kingdom which operated during the last World War. These stores are vested in the Wool Board under the Wool Industry Act which obliges the Board to maintain the stores in a satisfactory condition and the stores may be reacquired by the Government in the event of a national emergency.

The majority of the stores are about 30 years old. Accelerated deterioration of the buildings and rising maintenance costs have placed the Board in a position where, to fulfil its obligations under the Act in respect of the stores, substantial expenditure is essential. A thorough study by the Board indicates that restoration of these buildings to their original condition ‘is no longer an economic proposition. Accordingly the Wool Board would like to undertake a major reconstruction programme over the five years 1970-71 to 1974-75. The programme calls for the rebuilding of a substantial number of stores in line with modern building standards and practices and the complete renovation of others. A study commissioned by the Board shows that the proposed programme is a sound commercial proposition and the additional income derived by way of rental from the stores will augment the moneys available for wool promotion and thus benefit woolgrowers generally. Funds of the order required for the stores reconstruction programme are not available from the Board’s present sources of income. As the Wool Industry Act now stands the Board can only borrow for temporary shortfalls in wool promotion funds and for the activities of the Australian Wool Testing Authority. Hence the provision in the Bill to enable the Board to borrow also for the purpose of reconstructing its wool stores.

As I mentioned earlier, one of the areas offering woolgrowers considerable potential for cost savings is the handling of wool and in this respect the construction of integrated wool selling complexes holds considerable promise. To facilitate early establishment of such complexes, the Bill contains explicit provisions to empower the Wool Board to borrow money for the financing and/ or the construction and equipping of the complexes. The provision will enable the Board either to construct and equip wool complexes which it would then lease to selling brokers and other interests, or alternatively the Board would make the finance available for a commercial developer to undertake this task. What role the Wool Board may play in this regard is, however, a matter which will be decided by the industry. In relation to the proposed borrowing powers for the reconstruction of the existing wool stores and for the establishment of integrated wool selling complexes, any borrowings under this power will require the approval of the Minister for Primary Industry with the concurrent of the Treasurer. Opportunity has also been taken to bring the existing borrowing powers of the Board in relation to the Australian Wool Testing Authority into line with those for wool stores and complexes. The amendments which are proposed under this Bill come at a time when the woolgrowing industry is facing difficult times. The whole situation of the industry is being studied as a matter of urgency by the Government and in this regard the Government will be assisted by the findings of the special Advisory Committee of the Australian Wool Board. Meanwhile the increased Government contribution for wool research and promotion will bring some relief to woolgrowers and will also ensure that these activities, essential to the maintenance of the competitive position of wool, will continue undiminished. Finally the provision which can open the way for cutting handling and selling costs by the establishment of integrated wool selling complexes provides the industry with a new means to help itself. I commend the Bill.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I rise to ask why the Bills are tumbling through this chamber at this rate. The Opposition has indicated that it is ready to facilitate the consideration of these Bills. Some days ago we agreed on a programme for the simple dispatch of the business of the Senate. I understand that this is the last day of sitting of the House of Representatives - perhaps these may be the last few hours of the sitting. Why have these Bills been held up for so long and why are they now coming into this chamber as though they are going through a sausage machine? We have agreed to adopt the course of incorporating in Hansard the second reading speeches on these Bills, even though the proceedings of the Senate are being broadcast. We are doing everything that is reasonable - in fact even unreasonable - to facilitate the passage of the business. But at the same time I cannot understand why these Bills have been held up in the other House until this time. Obviously it is not the fault of that House; it is the fault of the Government which has been conducting the business there.

The Bills have been lying in the other place for weeks and weeks. I cannot understand why they were not dealt with. Some t Were dealt with in the last few days but it seems that they have just lain around in the House of Representatives. It seems as though there has been a deliberate policy of withholding these measures so that they will not be able to be properly debated in this chamber, except under some kind of sanction under which the House of Representatives will rise for the winter recess and then Government senators will have a gun held at their heads, as no doubt will the senators in the minority party in this chamber. They will be told: ‘If you do not pass these Bills you will hold up the legislation and somebody will lose a benefit.’ This kind of attitude is adopted, no matter what the measure is.

This is a technique of which I do not approve at all. Why should we get to the last ditch and then have measures tumbling through? It is an addition to the ordinary trick of holding up legislation until the last few hours of a session. That is one trick of which everybody is aware. The other trick is to wait until one House is at the point of rising for a recess and then push the legislation into the other House and say: If you amend anything you will stop the legislation going through. So however minded you might feel to amend the legislation, do not do it or else you will deprive someone of a benefit; you will prevent someone from receiving a benefit from 1st July. Therefore, you should pass it.’ We will find that pressure will be put upon us, especially upon Government senators, not to amend these Bills in a worthwhile manner. They have been held up until the House of Representatives is about to rise for the recess. The Senate is to sit next week.

Senator Young:

– They were held up because you bad urgency motions in the other place and all the other tommy rot, and you know it. Hours and hours were wasted.

Senator MURPHY:

– I think that we have been extremely co-operative in the last few days. We exhibited our co-operation this afternoon in taking shortcuts that have been unprecedented until recently, f think this is not a proper way in which the affairs ought to be conducted. I am not blaming the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson). Obviously he is not responsible for it. But at the same time this is not a proper way to present legislation to the Senate. This same problem has occurred in the United States of America. It is met by an insistence that both Houses rise at the same time. So there is an orderly disposal of business in the United States. Over the years there has been a resolution as to the time - it is virtually to the minute - at which both Houses will rise. Therefore, the kind of conduct that we are witnessing today in the Senate is not indulged in in the United States.

If this is the way in which legislation is to be introduced, if the Government is to wait until the dying hours of the session of the House of Representatives, then bring the legislation in here under the sanction that we pass it without amendment or it will not bc passed and it cannot operate and somebody will be deprived of a benefit, those who are in the Government will have to find ways - and I think there are ways - in which to deal with the situation. I do not blame the Leader of the Government for the present situation but whether it has been brought about by accident or deliberately it is not very satisfactory. We operate under a bi-cameral system of Government. Therefore, the Senate is as much entitled to seek amendments as is the other place. If honourable senators reflect on the matter for a moment I think they will agree with me that it is not right that legislation should be dealt with in this manner.

I ask the Leader of the Government: Is it the intention of the Government to pressure the Senate into accepting, without amendment, the bundle of Bills which has just been brought over from the other place? I would like to know whether the present situation has been brought about by design or has it happened by accident. If the other place rises the Senate will be placed in the position of being unable to amend legislation or to request legislation to be amended without denying to sections of the community the benefits which would accrue as a result of the implementation of that legislation or obstructing the administration of the Government. The 2 Houses of the legislature should not work in this way. It seems to me that this is an anomaly which should be rectified. 1 am not dealing with this matter on a personal basis. All I am saying is that it seems to me to be wrong that we should have such a situation at present. I would like the Leader of the Government to inform me why we have the present situation. Is it by design or by accident? What does the Government intend to do in the next few hours?

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

– The first thing I want to say to the Senate in response to the remarks by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) is that no sanctions will apply, as he has suggested. The Senate has decided to sit next week because it believes that it needs more time to consider the messages which have come and will be coming from the other place. The messages with which we were dealing prior to the Leader of the Opposition’s remarks were in relation to Bills which were passed in the other place as late as, in some cases, 3.30 a.m. today. All the Ministers in this chamber are doing is putting these Bills on notice so that a member of the Opposition will seek the adjournment of the debate. A person who is not familiar with the procedures of the Senate could infer from what the Leader of the Opposition has said that these Bills are being passed forthwith without debate, but this is not the situation.

Senator Murphy:

– I did not suggest that.

Senator ANDERSON:

– But one could infer from what the Leader of the Opposition has said that this is what is happening. The Senate will be resuming next Tuesday and it will sit until it has completed all its business.

Senator Murphy:

– When is the House of Representatives getting up?

Senator ANDERSON:

– The Senate has never been inhibited by the position in the other place. If, in its wisdom, the Senate decides to forward an amendment or a request for an amendment to the other place it can do so. Let us examine the simple issue which is involved. No matter when the other place rises there will be some Bills with which it will be dealing on the last day, unless it is debating a matter of urgency. The fact of the matter is that there will always be Bills which will be introduced into the Senate early and there will always be Bills which will be introduced late in the session.

Senator Wilkinson:

– Not this many.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Please do not interrupt. This session is probably one of the longest autumn sessions in the history of the Parliament. The Senate has no control over the Bills which come to it from the other place. Regardless of whether legislation comes before the Senate early in the session or late in the session it is deal 1 with properly: It is an historical fact that the other place has had protracted debates on urgency matters, the printing of papers and so on. The Opposition in the other place has exercised its right to raise matters of public importance. All these matters are part of the parliamentary procedure, but they can lead to a delay in the message coming across to the Senate from the other place. The Senate has decided against sitting late into the night. It follows automatically that it does not sit the same number of hours as the other place. I do not approve of sitting late into the night and as the other place has been sitting until 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning over a period of time it is inevitable that there will be a banking up in the number of Bills, coming into this place.

Senator Murphy:

– We are not holding them up.

Senator ANDERSON:

- Senator Murphy would imply by his interjection that the matter will solve itself automatically, but it does not work that way and he knows it as well as the rest of us. Legislation has to be dealt with in the other place and then the Senate has to receive a message before it can deal with the legislation.

Senator Young:

– Is it correct that something like 20 Bills were introduced in the other place during the first fortnight of this session?

Senator ANDERSON:

– Yes, it is true. In fact, I think Senator Murphy said at one time that he was pleased to see that the Senate had some Bills to deal with early in the session, lt is laughable to suggest that the Government is rushing Bills into the Senate at the last moment because it knows that when dealing with them next week the Senate will not exert its full conviction because of a fear that the Senate’s amendments or requests for amendments will not be considered by the other place until it re-assembles and that delays in the legislation will be caused. If a member of the Opposition or any other honourable senator wishes to amend a Bill and he has the numbers to do so he is free to act. I hope that honourable members opposite do not have the numbers, but the fact is that if they choose to operate the numbers game they can do so. It is a part of our parliamentary system that the Senate can move an amendment or request an amendment and the other place will have to give regard to coming back to deal with it. I think Senator Murphy’s complaint is a little more innocent than it sounds.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– I shall set honourable senators an example by being very brief in my remarks. I first entered the Senate in 1956. At the end of the first session there was a debate of exactly the same character as this one. The same situation has been occurring for something like 14 years, but it should not be permitted. It should be possible for reasonably practical representatives of the Government and the Opposition to get together during a session and make arrangements which will ensure that Bills will be dealt with in a sensible way without unnecessary delay. I believe that if the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson), the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) and the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party (Senator Gair) got together at regular intervals they could make arrangements to streamline the operations of this chamber.

The Leader of the Government, in loyalty to his own people, said that it was laughable to suggest that some Ministers like to pour Bills into the Senate at the last minute to discourage too much discussion and trouble. Nobody will ever convince me that there are not Ministers who do that as a regular thing. Nobody will ever convince me that we do not have shoals of legislation pushed on us at the last minute in the belief that it will be passed without much discussion. If the Democratic Labor Party thinks that any piece of legislation which is considered next week should be amended, my colleagues and I will certainly provide our votes to support such an amendment.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I enter into this debate only because I believe that some legislation is deliberately delayed. I invite the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) to the fate of the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Bill. The Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives in March and into the Senate on 10th June but it has not yet been dealt with here. The

Opposition wishes to move some amendments to the Bill. However, it is unlikely that these amendments will be accepted as the members of the other place will have gone home by the time the Senate gets around to considering the Bill I can visualise what will happen if we are successful and the amendments that we propose are carried. The legislation will be held over until August. Yet the rural industries are relying on this Parliament so that they may know what to do. The States are waiting to act in respect of the imposition of quotas. The wool growers are anxious to know whether they will be able to buy wheat at a lower rate for sheep feed. That is why I object to this practice. I am not speaking on the same matter as Senator Murphy has spoken, although I agree that 13 measures should not have come into the Senate today. 1 am speaking of other matters.

The Queensland Grant (Bundaberg Irrigation Works) Bill that was in the other House might well be held over. We have amendments to move to that legislation. We wish to propose amendments to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill. That has been in the other place for a long time. We will be proposing amendments to the Wool industry Bill that the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) has just introduced. These are all important measures. My quarrel with the Government is that although some of these measures were introduced into the House of Representatives more than 3 months ago they have not yet been dealt with by the Senate. I say that that result has been sought deliberately by Ministers and public servants who do not want inquiries made into their legislation.

It is all very well for the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) to say that we are not inhibited. We are inhibited psychologically once the members leave the other place. I respect the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I know that he does not inhibit us. Nevertheless, once the members of the House of Representatives leave here a psychological effect is felt by honourable senators that we should be out of this place, too. It is true that on one occasion we brought the other House back, but I doubt that the measures we are to consider are of sufficient importance for us to do that again. The result would simply be that the measures would be stood over. The Opposition would then be accused of holding up legislation that affects the community.

We came here on 3rd March. On Sth May, 8 weeks after the Parliament was opened, we had 9 matters on our business paper, 3 of which were ministerial statements. Is that a proper way to run this place? That is all I want to know. Surely some order can be put into this sort of business. I appreciate what the Leader of the Government in the Senate has said. We must wait for the Bills to come over and inevitably there will be a lag. But there does not have to be the sort of lag which results in 13 measures coming into the Senate at once, as has happened today. I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2431

LOAN (WAR SERVICE LAND SETTLEMENT) BILL 1970

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · Western Australia · CP

– I move:

This Bill provides for the raising of loan moneys amounting to $4,500,000 for war service land settlement in the Stales of Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania during the 1969-70 financial year. As honourable senators are aware the Commonwealth is responsible for the provision of the whole of the capital moneys required for the scheme in those three States. It is anticipated the money will be made available in the following approximate amounts: Western Australia Sl.900,000; South Australia $1,946,000; Tasmania $654,000.

As has been stated in previous years when similar Bills were introduced to Parliament, the bulk of this money is required to make advances to settlers for annual working expenses and for purchase of stock and replacement plant. Most settlers under the war service land settlement scheme started with little or no capital of their own. Adverse seasonal conditions have, from time to time, affected income in diverse areas where settlement has taken place. Also some have experienced, and are still experiencing, a cost/price squeeze. It will be appreciated that all these factors have militated against a proportion of settlers, particularly those on the later allotments, being able to accumulate sufficient financial reserves to enable them to carry on without further borrowing. For such settlers access to the credit arrangements of the scheme is an advantage, particularly in the concessional rate of interest applying to advances. Expenditure on development is mainly on continuing work on block drainage for irrigated horticultural holdings in the Upper Murray region of South Australia and on the irrigation headworks, including channels and pipelines, which supply water to settlers on holdings at Loxton in South Australia. A small sum is also required for some reconstruction work to bring a few of the later developed farms to the planned level of productivity. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

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

page 2432

STATES RECEIPTS DUTIES (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1970

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard. It reads: This Bill should be read in conjunction with the States Receipts Duty (No. 1) Bill .1970, the States Receipts Duty (No. 2) Bill 1970, the States Receipts Duty (No. 3) Bill 1970 and the States Grants (Receipts Duty) Bill 1970 which I shall be introducing shortly. The purpose of the group of 5 Bills is to provide the legislative framework for the imposition by the Commonwealth, at the request of the States and for their benefit, of a duty on business receipts so as to achieve the general result that the States do not lose revenue as a consequence of the High Court decisions invalidating the receipts duty legislation of the States in its application to certain types of receipts. The Commonwealth has long accepted that, when the States are faced with large abnormal budgetary difficulties through circumstances beyond their control, it may be necessary for the Commonwealth to consider special measures of assistance. Accordingly, when the High Court decision in the Hamersley case cast doubts on the constitutional validity of the receipts duty legislation of the States in its application to certain types of receipts, the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) indicated last September that the Commonwealth would see that the States did not lose revenue in 1969-70 in the event that this doubt was confirmed.

At a special Premiers’ Conference held on 18th November 1969 to consider the position, the Premiers said that the States had expected to receive a total of about $70m in 1969-70 from their receipts duties. About $40m of this revenue was estimated to come from duty on the proceeds of sale of goods - the area that was considered most likely to be held invalid. The Premiers estimated that, if the States’ receipts duties were discontinued altogether, the loss of revenue to the States in 1969-70 would be up to $50m. It was recognised that, if there were a substantial revenue loss and no replacement tax were introduced, the inflationary effects on the economy would be severe. The outcome of the Conference was a request by the Premiers, to which the Commonwealth agreed, that in the event of the receipts duty of the States being found invalid in some or all respects, the Commonwealth should introduce legislation, with operation retrospectively to 18th November 1969, to impose a like tax for the benefit of the States.

At a further Premiers Conference held on 26th February 1970 following the High Court decisions given on the previous day, the Premiers requested, and the Commonwealth agreed, that the Commonwealth legislation should have continuing operation beyond 30th June 1970. It was also agreed that the Commonwealth legislation should apply only to business receipts, which are the receipts in respect of which the great bulk of the invalid area of the existing receipts duty legislation of the States falls.

The 5 Bills give effect to the arrangements 1 have outlined. The legislation is being introduced at the request of the States and for their benefit, with the proceeds of duty collections under the legislation being payable to the States as section 96 grants.

Before proceeding to outline the contents of the legislation, I feel I must strongly emphasise the importance, particularly in view of existing demand pressures in the economy, of ensuring that there is not at this stage any substantial loss in budgeted revenue collections such as would occur if the Commonwealth did not legislate on the basis requested by the States. In this connection I might mention that the Premiers have indicated that, in the absence of Commonwealth legislation to impose receipts duty where it is in the nature of an excise, the States would be unlikely to be able to impose receipts duty where it is not in the nature of an excise. In these circumstances, it would clearly be dangerously irresponsible to allow a retrospective reduction in tax revenues at the rate of some $70m per annum. The legislation will, in accordance with the arrangements I have outlined, have retrospective application to 18th November 1969. However, provision is made for an exemption from liability to duty under Commonwealth law if State duty - whether or not validly imposed - has been paid, or within a specified time is paid, under State law in respect of receipts during a transitional period from 18th November 1969 until a date to be proclaimed under the Commonwealth legislation. Receipts specifically exempted under the provisions of existing States Acts - or to which these Acts do not. validly or invalidly. extend - will also not be liable to duty under the Commonwealth legislation during the transitional period.

The effect of this in the case of Queensland warrants special mention. The rate of duty under the Commonwealth legislation will be lc in $10, or 0.1%. This is the rate applying under the State legislation at present in operation in all States other than Queensland. In Queensland, the rate at present in operation is 2c in $100, or 0.02%). A practical effect of the provision 1 have referred to is that, for receipts in Queensland during the transitional period, there will be no liability for duty under the Commonwealth law if duty is paid to Queensland at the lower rate or if the receipt is under $20 and for that reason not subject to Queensland duty. From the end of the transitional period the combined effect of the Commonwealth legislation and legislation already passed by the Queensland Parliament will be that the rate on receipts dutiable under either law will be the same as in other States - that is, lc in $10.

The Commonwealth’s approach to the legislation before the Senate has been that, as it is being introduced at the request of the States and for their benefit, with the Commonwealth acting in a sense as agent for the States for the purpose, it has been essentially for the States collectively to state what detailed provisions should be included in the Commonwealth legislation within the framework of the agreed arrangements. Accordingly, the detailed provisions have been agreed collectively with the State governments. This has necessitated a large amount of give and take as between the various States because the Commonwealth legislation must of course apply uniformly in all States and there are innumerable differences in the detailed provisions of the existing legislation of each of the States. To a large degree it has been a matter of achieving an amalgam, acceptable to the States collectively, of the varying provisions of the existing State legislation. After the Commonwealth legislation comes into effect the States will continue to impose receipts duty on those receipts that remain validly taxable under their own legislation and to the extent that they are not subject to duty under the Commonwealth legislation. Queensland is so far the only State to have taken legislative action for its receipts duty to conform to this pattern. The other States intend to do so when they can. Until they do, they will take the administrative steps necessary to ensure that no double duty arises after the date when the Commonwealth legislation comes into effect. I understand that State governments that have not already made this clear will be making announcements on this point.

The numerous differences - many of detail but some of substance - between the provisions of existing legislation of the individual States have made it unavoidable that the provisions of the Commonwealth legislation do not in all respects coincide with those of any of the States. Within the practical limits, however, the endeavour of the Commonwealth and the States has been, so far as taxpayers are concerned, to restore as nearly as possible the position that would have applied if receipts duty had continued to be imposed wholly under State legislation. This has been the aim both as to liability for duty and to arrangements for its payment. While the Commonwealth Commissioner of Taxation will be responsible for the general administration of the Commonwealth legislation, the day-to-day administration will continue to be carried out by Stale officers in conjunction with their administration of the State legislation. Duty under the Commonwealth legislation will be payable only through the lodgment of periodical returns, and not through the stamping of receipts. The returns, accompanied by payments of duty, will be lodged with State officers who, for the purposes of the Commonwealth legislation, will be appointed as collectors of receipts duties for their respective States. In practice, the return period for each taxpayer will generally be the period applicable for purposes of State law. For a business that has not been lodging State returns, the return period will be 1 month or such other period as is determined on a basis appropriate to the particular case.

Where a taxpayer, during a return period, receives money that is subject to duty under Commonwealth law and also receives money that is subject to duty under State law, or - and I would expect there to be few cases of this - receives money part of which is subject to Commonwealth duty and part of which is subject to State duty the taxpayer will be able to furnish the appropriate collector or receipts duties the one return showing separately the amounts subject to duty under Commonwealth and State laws. Payment of the one amount in satisfaction of the total liability to the duty under the two laws will be accepted.

As I have already indicated, the application of the Commonwealth legislation will be limited to the taxation of what 1 have broadly referred to as business receipts. Subject to specified exemptions, duty will be payable under Commonwealth law in respect of money received, or deemed to be received, in Australia by a person in the course of carrying on a business in a State. Carrying on a business will, for the purpose of the legislation, have its ordinary general meaning and will include engagement in a trade or profession, but not as an employee. All money received - or deemed by the legislation to be received - by a company residing, or carrying on a business, in a State, will be regarded as being received in the course of carrying on business. This rule will also apply to partnerships, although there will be no liability to duty on amounts received by a partner from a partnership in his capacity of partner, nor by a partnership from a partner in that capacity.

A company is denned by the legislation to include incorporated and unincorporated bodies, but exemptions are provided for the receipts of a wide range of organisations such as unlicensed clubs, charitable institutions, prescribed marketing authorities and prescribed public authorities. Provision is also made for rebates of duty where the duty has been paid on moneys received but subsequently repaid. This may occur, for example, where repayments are made of money that has been paid as a tender deposit or for goods that are later returned to the seller.

The legislation contains special provisions^ relating te principals and agents, including solicitors and their clients. The broad purpose of these provisions is to ensure that the interposition of an agent in arrangements for payment of money by one person to another does not cause any greater liability to arise than would accrue if the payments were made directly. As is the case under the receipts duty legislation of the majority of the States, the primary liability for duty will fall on the agent rather than the principal. There are, however, likely to be cases where it will be more convenient to the parties for the principal, and not the agent, to pay duty on amounts received by the agent on behalf of the principal. Provision is made in the legislation for the principal to arrange that, subject to administrative approval, the primary liability for the duty may be transferred to him in these cases.

Under the Commonwealth legislation duty will be imposed on money received in Australia in the course of carrying an a business in a State, and the amount of section 96 grants payable to each State will be the amount of duty collected in respect of money received in that State. However, one arrangement included at the request of the States is that, where goods or services are supplied in one State but payment for them is received in another State or in an internal or external Territory or overseas, the receipts are to be included in a return lodged, and duty is to be payable, in the State in which the goods or services are supplied. Goods will be regarded as being supplied at the place where the property in them passes. One effect of these provisions is that, while duty is not being imposed in the Territories, avoidance of duty by arrangements designed to take advantage of that fact should substantially be prevented.

A person will be regarded as having received money irrespective of whether the receipt is in the form of cash, or of cheques, other bills of exchange or promissory notes. However, a transaction that is merely an equal exchange of money for money - for example, the cashing of a cheque or the exchange of notes for coins - will not be treated as a receipt of money by either party. Payments by a person into his current or savings bank account and withdrawals by him from such an account are also exempt.

There are circumstances in which a person will be regarded as having received money for the purposes of the legislation, although in a strict sense he may not have done so. A deposit by a person to the bank account of another person, or a debit of an amount against a person’s bank account transferred to the credit of another person, will be treated as a receipt of money by the other person. So too will the receipt by a creditor of a consideration other than money in the settlement of a debt or part of a debt. Money will also be deemed to have been received by a creditor where his debtor does not pay him in cash but instead, with his authority, credits him with the amount of the debt or part of it.

In common with other Commonwealth taxing legislation, the legislation provides the machinery for a taxpayer dissatisfied with his liability as determined under the legislation to object against the liability assessed. If the objection is not allowed, the taxpayer may request a hearing by a Taxation Board of Review and may appeal to the High Court from a decision of such a board as to any question of law involved. The legislation is so drafted that a person who wishes to dispute liability in this way may request the commissioner to issue an assessment of duty so that he may have the matter with which he is dissatisfied considered by an independent tribunal.

The enforcement provisions in the Bill are modelled on comparable provisions in other Commonwealth taxation laws. 1 have, in this introductory speech, explained the general background to and framework of the Commonwealth legislation, and in addition have attempted to indicate in brief and broad terms and main technical provisions embodied in the legislation. However, particularly in view of the complex nature of the legislation, I am having circulated to members an explanatory memorandum setting out more detailed information on technical and procedural matters. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.

page 2435

STATES RECEIPTS DUTY BILL (No. 1) 1970

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

With the concurrence of honourable senators, I incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard. It reads: Under section 55 of the Constitution, duties of customs, duties of excise and other duties are required to be imposed by separate laws. The purpose of the States Receipts Duty Bill (No. I) is to impose, for the benefit of the States, duty on certain receipts of money, to the extent that it is a duty of excise, at the rate of 0.1% of the money received. I explained the background and effect of the Bill, and the other Bills with which it is associated, in my second reading speech when introducing the States Receipts Duties (Administration) Bill 1970. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.

page 2436

REPRESENTATION OF NEW SOUTH WALES

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - This morning at question time Senator Greenwood requested me to table correspondence relating to the vacancy in the representation of the State of New South Wales which happened because of the death of Senator McKellar. In response to his request, I now table a copy of the correspondence.

page 2436

STATES RECEIPTS DUTY BILL (No. 2) 1970

Bill1 received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard. It reads: The purpose of this Bill is to impose, for the benefit of the States, duty on certain receipts of money, to the extent that it may be a duty of customs, at the rate of 0.1% of the money received. I explained the background and effect of the Bill, and the other Bills with which it is associated, in my second reading speech when introducing the States Receipts Duties (Administration) Bill 1970. I commend the Bill1 to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.

page 2436

STATES RECEIPTS DUTY BILL (No. 3) 1970

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard. It reads: The purpose of this Bill is to impose, for the benefit of the States, duty on certain receipts of money, to the extent that it is not a duty of excise or a duty of customs, at the rate of 0.1% of the money received. I explained the background and effect of the Bill, and the other Bills with which it is associated, in my second reading speech when introducing the States Receipts Duties (Administration) Bill 1970. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.

page 2436

STATES GRANTS (RECEIPTS DUTY) BILL 1970

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

With the concurrence of honourable senators, I incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard. It reads: The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the making of section 96 grants to the States of the amounts of receipts duties collected under the States Receipts Duties (Administration) Bill 1970, the States Receipts Duty Bill (No.

  1. 1970, the States Receipts Duty Bill (No.
  2. 1970 and the States Receipts Duty Bill (No. 3) 1970. I explained the general effect of all 5 Bills, taken together, in my second reading speech when introducing the States Receipts Duties (Administration) Bill 1970. There is not much more to be said in explanation of the Bill now before the Senate. The amounts to be paid as section 96 grants to each State will be the amounts of duty paid to the collector of receipts duties for that State in accordance with the provisions of the administration Bill. Payment of the grants to the States will be made at convenient regular intervals as agreed between the Commonwealth and the States. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 3.56 p.m. until Tuesday next at 3 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 12 June 1970, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1970/19700612_senate_27_s44/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant