Senate
31 October 1972

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 2225

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of this Government’s long involvement with the Saigon regime in Vietnam, will it exert all its influence on President Thieu to persuade him to co-operate with the United States of America in that country’s attempt to gain a ceasefire? Will the Government state firmly now that Australia will support American endeavours for peace in this tragic war and will not assist President Thieu in his efforts to frustrate and delay a just political solution to the conflict?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– As 1 said yesterday, as the world is on the threshold of peace in Vietnam, which we all hope will eventuate, it would be inappropriate and indeed improper for me to make any comment at the present time.

page 2225

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– 1 direct a question to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. Is the Minister aware that the Senior Vice-President of the Australian Labor Party, one Mr R. J. Hawke, in a speech less well publicised than usual recently addressed the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations here in Canberra? Has the Minister been informed that Mr Hawke told the Council that a Labor government was pledged to give the Australian Broadcasting Commission an independence charter, that this would not succeed if certain senior management people were allowed to stay in their present positions and that a Labor government would have to deal with them? Can the Minister say whether this is a threat to sack those senior executives of the Commission who recently had the courage to discipline a junior executive? Will the Minister make a statement setting out the Government’s strong adherence to the principle of genuine independence for the ABC? As Mr Hawke seems to have replaced Mr Whitlam for the purpose of making significant policy statements for the Australian Labor Party, does Mr Hawke’s statement indicate the iron political control which Labor would exert over the ABC?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– There are many aspects of the honourable senator’s question. The honourable senator drew many inferences which I think are properly to be drawn from the statement to which he has referred. I saw reports of the statement and quite apart from the aspects to which Senator Hannan drew attention I thought it was significant that the man who holds the position of President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions should say that he was in a dilemma as to what advice he should give to certain employees in the Australian Broadcasting Commission. While on the one hand he thought that they should be prepared to defy management, he thought the result of that might be to deny to the public current affairs programmes which he apparently regarded as beneficial. That is a situation which is alarming in what it portends for the future. The Government has at all times maintained that the Australian Broadcasting Commission should be independent of government and that the management of the ABC should rest with the commissioners and the senior officers appointed by them. I think it is highly discouraging that the spokesman for the Australian Labor Party, the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions - the man who modestly says that he is the second most powerful man in Australia - should have adopted the attitude that he did.

page 2225

QUESTION

JETAIR AUSTRALIA LIMITED

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My question is directed to the AttorneyGeneral. Is it not a fact that, following he appearance in the ‘Australian’ newspaper on 23rd October of an article on Jetair Australia Ltd by Evan Williams, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Bo a en, who is also a lawyer, wrote a letter in strong terms to the ‘Australian’ warning that newspaper that the article by F.v.m Williams was actionable? Did this not constitute intimidation of that newspaper? Following receipt of this letter, did the Australian’ offer to allow Mr Bowen to write an article in answer to Evan Williams’ article? Did Senator Greenwood then submit his article which was subsequently published? If these be the facts, did Senator Greenwood know these facts when he answered my question yesterday and, if so, does he consider that he answered them frankly?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– There are times when one wonders whether the Senate is not being abused in the way that Senator James McClelland’s question suggests that it could be being abused. I just wonder whether the article which I wrote in the ‘Australian’ has soured some people, because it purported to and certainly did state facts which the article by Mr Evan Williams had ignored. This certainly must have touched Senator James McClelland on the raw because he is now fossicking around making allegations although he does not know whether they are true or false. He is seeking to have me give some indication to him as to whether they are true or false. He asked 2 questions yesterday, the allegations contained in both of which were false. 1 have since checked the answer that I gave yesterday with officers of my Department and I confirm the answers which I gave. As to the matters which Senator James McClelland has raised today, I have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever whether what he is saying is true or false. I do not know whether Mr Bowen wrote a letter or whether there were any conversations between Mr Bowen and anyone with the Australian’. I can suppose only that, once again, Senator James McClelland wants to throw some mud around in the hope that his words will be reported in the newspapers, as were his statements yesterday.

page 2226

QUESTION

DUMPING OF DETONATORS

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question u directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy. I refer to the detonators which were dumped off the coast near Jervis Bay last Friday by the Navy and which are now being washed up on beaches in this area. Is this dumping a regular practice of the Navy? Have there been any previous cases of dumped items being washed up on adjacent beaches? What steps are being taken to prevent a repetition of this incident and is it possible to have these detonators destroyed by detonation?

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

– I read the newspaper report of this matter and I made some inquiries into it. i understand that the Navy is also making inquiries into the matter. There have been reports in the past of detonators being washed up on the shore and inquiries have been made on those occasions. I am not able to say how many times this has happened before but I shall seek some information on that aspect and endeavour to provide it to Senator Willesee before the House rises.

page 2226

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY BROADCASTS

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

- Mr President, I should like to ask you a question. In view of the fact that the Australian Broadcasting Commission now broadcasts until midnight and that many people would like to hear the parliamentary broadcasts for as long as possible, would you call a meeting of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings in due course so that longer broadcasting of Parliament, including any adjournment debates, may be heard?

The PRESIDENT:

– Earlier this morning Senator McAuliffe indicated to me that this matter was on his mind. I now find that Senator Townley and Senator McAuliffe are of a like mind in this matter. I shall of course refer this matter to the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. I seem to recollect that this matter has been raised in another place, so members of the Committee from the other place will probably be cognisant of it. I cannot see any possibility of this subject being brought before that Committee in view of the fact that there is an impending event which will take place at midday on Thursday and which will cause that Committee to be out of action. But I shall certainly see that the matter is raised before the new committee.

page 2226

QUESTION

STATE TRANSPORT SYSTEMS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I refer to the meeting of State Transport Ministers held earlier this month at which they called for urgent action to upgrade urban transport and mainline railway systems. They also asked that funds for this purpose be supplied by the Commonwealth Government as funds were not available from State sources. As responses have been made by the Minister for Shipping and Transport, and to some extent by the Prime Minister, about considering these demands, can the Minister advise whether any discussions have been held with the State Ministers, because they claim that there is a crisis in State transport finances?

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

– Beyond the meeting to which the honourable senator has referred I have no information about meetings that have taken place at any later date. I know that there is continuous consultation on what might be called an unofficial basis between the Commonwealth Department of Shipping and Transport and the various State departments, but I cannot help the honourable senator with any further information about a full scale meeting. I will try to find out something about this matter today.

page 2227

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY BROADCASTS

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

- Mr President, my question is respectfully addressed to yourself. As the broadcasting of parliamentary debates has a popular rating with listening audiences and as the Australian Broadcasting Commission network now remains on air until midnight, will you raise with the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings the question of having parliamentary broadcasts extended to cover the adjournment debate?

The PRESIDENT:

– This question coincides with a question asked earlier by Senator Townley which no doubt the honourable senator will have heard. I give him the same undertaking as I gave to Senator Townley.

page 2227

QUESTION

BOMBER AIRCRAFT

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister for Air whether he has seen the following statement by the Prime Minister last night:

Any person who is prepared to take a risk with the security and defence of this country is acting in a way that is completely intolerable and could not be accepted by the vast majority of Australians.

In view of the return to the United States of the Phantom aircraft, can the Minister tell the Senate which aircraft in the Australian armed forces now constitute our bomber force and the period of service of those aircraft? If we now have no bombers or aircraft capable of fulfilling that role in an attack capacity, is this not an example of the intolerable situation to which the Prime Minister referred?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The honourable senator knows that if what he quoted to me as the words of the Prime Minister are in fact the words of the Prime Minister, the right honourable gentleman was not referring to the aspect which the honourable senator has raised. The situation of our bomber force is that only 6 of the 23 Phantoms have so far been returned to the United States. It is true that 5 more are to go on 8th of next month, but that will still leave us with a squadron of Phantoms until the arrival of the Fills next May. Those are our front line bombers. I point out to the honourable senator also that there are Canberra bombers at Amberly.

Senator Keeffe:

– The Fill has been coming for 10 years.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– That is all right. The Canberra bombers which took part in the Vietnam action have now returned to Amberley where they are based, and they also constitute a part of the bomber force of this country.

page 2227

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Yesterday I asked a question about negotiations which were taking place between the Department of Civil Aviation and the airline companies which may lead to a reduction in the amount of fuel carried by aircraft. Has the Minister any information which he can now give? Is he aware that any attempt to reduce fuel reserves will be resisted in the public interest by the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, and that this attitude on their part may lead to a strike if this new fuel policy is imposed?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– My understanding is that some information on this matter will be telexed to my office sometime early this morning. This information has not yet arrived but it should be coming up fairly soon. As I said yesterday, the Department is ever vigilant on matters like this. There is no prospect that the Department will allow air safety to be in any way jeopardised. The pilots may be quite comfortable in their minds about that.

page 2228

QUESTION

LUFTHANSA HIJACKING

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Does the recent Lufthansa hijacking episode justify a further meeting of the world aviation authorities to see whether current convention decisions are really viable? Will Australia take the initiative in such a move?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Yes, we are taking the initiative. A meeting is to be held of the International Civil Aviation Organisation this week. We are taking an active part as we always do and we are watching the matter very carefully and closely. I do not want to elaborate beyond that.

page 2228

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

My question, which 1 direct to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, follows a question directed to him by Senator Hannan. Has the Minister, in his capacity as representing the Postmaster-General, been strongly critical of the members and management of the Australian Broadcasting Commission for the manner in which they have been administering the affairs of the Commission? Does the Minister still maintain that the members and management of the Commission are acting with a degree of irresponsibility? Will the Government give an undertaking that, in contrast with the political interference that occurred in the case of the Bidault programme, the demand by a former Minister to be given time on an ABC programme after he had been refused an invitation to appear on a panel programme, and other instances where there was direct political interference, the ABC will be encouraged to develop and to expand its current affairs programmes?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– lt follows that if a commission is vested with the autonomy to manage a desirable public service that commission exposes itself to praise or to criticism according to the way in which it conducts its affairs. That is part of what must necessarily follow from the independence being conferred upon it. I would have thought that the Australian Broadcasting Commission would not seek to have it otherwise. I would have thought that when the Commission acts in a way that merits praise it should receive praise, and when it acts in a way that merits criticism it can be criticised. That, of course, is a quite different issue from that which is currently concerning people who look to see responsibility in these autonomous statutory corporations. That issue is whether or not the Commission appointed by the Parliament shall be able to run the organisation or whether it will be intimidated by staff members who seek to deny the managerial responsibility which must rest with the persons appointed by the Parliament.

Having said that, I repeat as I have repeated before that the Commission is independent of Government influence. The Government does not interfere with the programming which the Commission presents. The question whether there are to be current affairs programmes and the extent to which those programmes are to be shown is a matter for the Commission. I am sure that we would all hope that we do have a great number of current affairs programmes responsibility and fairly run.

page 2228

QUESTION

WOOL ACQUISITION PLAN

Senator WILKINSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry whether he is aware that, on a television interview on 8th July this year, Mr Vines, Chairman of the Australian Wool Commission, in answer to a question asking whether there was enough information already to put a wool acquisition plan into operation said:

I do not think there is any doubt abou: thu. The short answer to your question is yes. We have all the techniques. We have the professional staff now available to do it.

Mr Vines said further that the information had been passed to the Government. Does the Minister still believe that the new Wool Corporation would not be able to submit a report within 6 months?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– Yes, 1 do, for the same reasons that I gave when replying to the second reading debate on the Wool Industry Bill last Thursday night. 1 saw the television programme to which the honourable senator referred. I grant that there is a lot of information in the Australian Wool Commission and the Australian Wool Board and that much of it would be helpful in forming an acquisition plan. As 1 said in reply to Senator Wilkinson last week, to date an acquisition scheme has not been spelt out in detail. It was that detailed plan for which the Minister for Primary Industry was looking and which he hoped the Australian Wool Corporation would be able to place before him. In regard to the Corporation reporting within 6 months, I made the point to Senator Wilkinson that the Commission and the Board must be wound up, the Corporation must be commenced and at the same time the schedule for wool sales must continue together with the conduct of a flexible reserve price scheme. All this has to be done in the next few months. Then the Corporation has to examine the situation in relation to wool marketing. Finally it has to report back to the Minister and to the industry before presenting the report to Parliament. I believed then that it was impracticable for the Corporation to do that within 6 months, and I still say so.

page 2229

QUESTION

RURAL RECONSTRUCTION LOANS

Senator KEEFFE:

– Can the Minister representing the Treasurer inform the Parliament whether it is a fact that the much publicised low interest rural reconstruction loans are made available only at bank interest rates? Is the Minister aware of the number of loans that have been granted under these circumstances?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– No, I am not aware with any particularity of the circumstances on which the question was based. Therefore I will ,eek information and have it conveyed to the honourable senator.

page 2229

QUESTION

FIJI HURRICANE

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Government aware that the aftermath of the hurricane in Fiji is much more serious than originally assessed and that famine threatens 50,000 Fijians? In view of this situation does the Government believe that the cash grant of $25,000 is an adequate response in a time of disaster which is gravely affecting the welfare of our near Pacific neighbour? Is further substantial support to be forthcoming?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– It is greatly regretted that the damage caused by the hurricane is more extensive than was first assessed. The matter is currently under consideration.

page 2229

QUESTION

HEALTH

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Has the attention of the Minister for Health been drawn to a report from London that the British Government has announced that its scientific advisers are urgently studying claims that diseased potatoes might be causing 2 of the commonest forms of congenital birth defects? Will the Minister keep in touch with the British authorities to ensure that his Department is kept fully informed of the results of the United Kingdom investigation?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I have sought some briefing and I should say that this matter was considered by the Congenital Abnormalities Sub-committee of the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee at its second meeting which was held on Friday, 27th October 1972. A statement is to toe released by the Chairman of that Sub-committee and it will appear very soon. I think that I should say, in the light of the fact that a public release is to be made by the Congenital Abnormalities Sub-committee, that there is an awareness of potato blight in this country and my job will be to have the release of that statement made as quickly as possible. In the meantime I think we should not disregard the possibility of some caused link being involved in the situation.

page 2229

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AVIATION

Senator GEORGES:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Is it a fact that the honourable member for Blaxland, Mr Keating, approached the Director of Civil Aviation in New South Wales asking him to give information about the beneficial owners of the Jetair Australia Ltd aircraft between 1965 and 1970? Is it a fact that the Director referred Mr Keating to the Minister? Is it a fact that I also asked questions about the beneficial ownership of these aircraft during the same period? Can the Minister explain why there has been a delay in supplying this information? Is he aware that by this delay he is protecting Alexander Barton and his fellow directors from further information being put before the Senate by me?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– My understanding of this matter is that I responded to a request from Senator Georges for information. I think he now has that information. I also understand that Mr Keating, who is a member of the House of Representatives, was seeking information from the Department of Civil Aviation in Sydney, that he was advised to contact the office in Canberra and that the office in Canberra contacted the Director-General of Civil Aviation in Melbourne, which is where the register is kept. Accordingly information was provided to Senator Georges at.d a copy of that was sent to Mr Keating, which seems to me to be the proper course of action for a Minister in the Senate to take. As to what the consequences of that might be to a third party I am unable to say, nor do I wish to respond to what might be called the vilification in this place of a person’s character.

Senator Georges:

– Why do you not give us the information?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Georges:

– When did you send it by letter?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator COTTON:

- Mr President, before I give the other information, I wish to say to Senator Georges that I have given him all the information I have on this subject.

Senator Georges:

– When did you send it?

Senator COTTON:

– I think the letter was sent to the honourable senator this morning or last night.

Senator Georges:

– When?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Your interjections are intolerable, Senator Georges. The Minister is answering a question asked by you and he should be heard in silence.

Senator Georges:

– If I may, Mr President

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Georges, you will resume your seat.

Senator Georges:

– I want to make a point. The Minister has misled-

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– With great respect, Sir, I would point out that it is grossly offensive for any honourable senator to stand while you are on your feet. If necessary I will move the appropriate motion but I hope it will not be necessary for me to do so.

Senator Keeffe:

– Why does the Minister not give Senator Georges the information instead of hiding it?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Georges:

– And instead of misleading me.

Senator COTTON:

– I object to the word misleading’. It is well known that it is not my practice to mislead. What I seek to do is to respond accurately and properly to genuine requests for information when I have that information. That is the situation at present. I cannot add to the information I have given. When question time is over I shall have a look at the whole matter and see whether anything more can be done for Senator Georges. But I do not like or care for people accusing others of doing things that they have not done.

page 2230

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Earlier today Senator Georges asked me a question concerning the carriage of fuel by aircraft. I wish to add to the answer I gave to that question. Consultations are going on between the Department of Civil Aviation, the operators - that would be the airlines - and the Australian Federation of Air Pilots in relation to a review of the current requirements for the carriage of reserve fuel on jet aircraft. It is not intended that any revised requirements be introduced before agreement has been reached between all the parties concerned. The Senate may be assured that any revised requirements stemming from this review will be aimed at maintaining the high standard of safety which has been achieved in Australia, in particular in regular public transport operations.

page 2230

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I direct a ques tion to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Notwithstanding lengthy dialogue on the position of Australian nationals entering the United Kingdom following Britain’s membership of the European Common Market, I ask: Could he ascertain from either the Prime Minister or the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the evaluation of the White Paper which was recently delivered in Britain affects in any way his earlier answers to me? Seondly, could honourable senators be supplied with a digest of the British White Paper on this subject?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– As the honourable senator acknowledges, and I admit, there has been quite a significant dialogue on this matter. I will try to get the position crystallised in the way he wants.

page 2231

QUESTION

BROADCASTING OF ELECTORAL MATERIAL

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My question is directed to the AttorneyGeneral. By way of preface, I point out that the Attorney-General will recall that yesterday he said that he was looking at the implications of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board’s directive to commercial broadcasting and television stations under section 116 (4a) of the Broadcasting and Television Act as it relates to the Charlestown by-election in New South Wales. 1 ask; Has the Attorney-General or his Department given further consideration to the matter and has there been or is there likely to be any change in the present direction of the Control Board as a result of the Attorney-General’s having had a look at the matter?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– As I said yesterday, the matter has been considered by myself and officers of my Department and 1 expect that at some time later today formal advice; - the result of those discussions which I have had - will be conveyed to the Postmaster-General. I do not think I should take the substance of that advice beyond saying that I will be communicating it to the Postmaster-General. However, I should point out that the problem about which Senator Willesee yesterday asked - and, as I would understand it, Senator Douglas McClelland is now asking - is essentially a matter of what the particular section of the Broadcasting and Television Act means. It is a question of interpretation of the language in that section. As far as the Broadcasting Control Board is concerned, its function under that section was exhausted when it made its decision to exempt the whole of Australia, except the broadcasting and television stations in Sydney, Newcastle and Gosford which are receivable in the Charlestown area, from the general prohibition of that section. That was something the Broadcasting Control Board was empowered to do and it has done it. The impact of the Federal elections upon the prohibition which otherwise applies in this area, is the subject of advice to the Postmaster-General who will doubtless communicate it to the appropriate people.

page 2231

QUESTION

TELEVISION: FM BROADCASTING

Senator TOWNLEY:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. Will the Minister ask the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to reconsider the frequencies to be used for frequency modulation transmission in Australia and examine in particular the frequency range 92-94 megahertz? Is the Minister aware that the adoption of this frequency range would allow 10 FM stations? I point out that very few overseas cities have more than 10 FM stations. If this range is chosen those people who already have FM sets will be able to use them in Australia. Will the Minister also ask the Broadcasting Control Board to avoid using television Channel 5 until this matter is resolved because this channel might interfere with FM broadcasting in the frequency range which I mentioned.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– All I can do is to assure the honourable senator that I will arrange for his question to be conveyed to the Postmaster-General for transmission to the Broadcasting Control Board.

page 2231

QUESTION

BROADCASTING OF ELECTORAL MATERIAL

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Irrespective of whether it is the Government’s fault or not that this mess has occurred which prevents the Leader of the Country Party from having his election policy speech broadcast in metropolitan areas, surely the democratic process ought to permit him to do this. Will the Government consider introducing into this place legislation, if necessary today, and having the House of Representatives recalled to attend to this matter? Alternatively, will the Government consider the possibility of introducing into this place legislation which will operate from a period prior to the commencement of the general election with the understanding from all sides that such legislation would be enacted in both Houses, if required, after the elections and that it would have retrospective effect in order that we may find a common sense approach and permit the democratic process to operate as it should?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The Leader of the Opposition is saying, in effect, that, because of personal judgments which he or his Party have made, a Bill should be introduced at the eleventh hour to do what he believes should be done. The fact is that this is a matter of Government policy in the legislative sense. The other matter concerns the administration within the framework of the responsibility of the statutory authority involved. The suggestion is made that there is merit in attempting to bring back the other place on this issue. I would not be prepared to do that. The second proposition - that because some Bill is introduced in the Senate to provide guidelines it must be implemented and carried retrospectively in the other end of the ship, as it were - involves intriguing and fascinating possibilities. When the Bill was sent to the other place, it might not be carried in any event.

page 2232

QUESTION

OIL DISPERSANTS

Senator KEEFFE:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. Is any Australian government agency conducting research into the chemical lipids? Has the use of lipids proved of value as an oil dispersant on water? Does the Government carry out experimentation in the use of oil dispersants or is this field of investigation left solely to the oil combines?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I cannot answer that question, but I shall direct it to the Department of National Development. My understanding is that the investigation of the use of dispersants and detergents in relation to oil spillage is carried out by a laboratory either in the United Kingdom or in the

United States of America. I cannot be sure in which country it is situated. At one place or the other a bureau is doing some investigation work on this. I cannot help the honourable senator any further. I would be glad if he could give me the spelling of the name that he has mentioned so that 1 can take the matter up with the Department.

Fill AIRCRAFT

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister for Air advise the Senate of the probable delivery dale to Australia of the Fill aircraft and how much the Treasurer will be paying for those aircraft?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– At the present time the 24 Fill aircraft which Australia bought are going through a refurbishing programme.

Senator MILLINER:

– They are being dry-cleaned.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– That shows the little knowledge that honourable senators opposite have of what, has been going on in the past in regard to these aircraft. At the present time this programme is on schedule. That being the case, it is anticipated that the aircraft will be ready for delivery in May. The first 6 aircraft are expected to be delivered at the end of May 1973 to the Amberley air base. The programme is expected to cost $U.S.344m.

“LAKE BARRINE’

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Is the Minister aware that the former Australian National Line bulk carrier ‘Lake Barrine’, which is to be converted to an oil drilling rig and is at present at Fremantle, is being sent to an overseas docking port, probably either Hong Kong or Singapore, for most of the work involved in such conversion? As this means that only some $250,000 worth of work out of the total of some $8,500,000 worth will be done in Fremantle, does the Minister agree with the resolution carried by the metal trades and maritime workers currently employed in Fremantle on the ‘Lake Barrine’ calling for the early construction of a dry dock at Fremantle?

Senator COTTON:

– As I listened to the question I realised that I did not have the information here which would significantly aid the process of answering it. As I listened to the honourable senator I asked myself whether there were facilities available in Fremantle to do the full amount of work and, if not, were they available elsewhere in Australia. I cannot answer any of these questions, and certainly 1 cannot respond to a resolution carried by some group of people. 1 can respond to a request for information, and that is what I shall seek for the honourable senator.

page 2233

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Defence aware that serving members of the forces view with unredeemable cynicism the statement of the Minister for Defence on defence forces retirement benefits, defending a government that has made defence an issue to win elections for more than 20 years? Is he aware further of the dashed optimism of servicemen that the Jess Committee report would be adopted and that it reconfirms that serving soldiers, sailors and airmen are to be continued to be classified as second-class citizens by this Government?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

If there was any evidence of the quality of that question it was contained in the extravagant language used by the honourable senator in his opening sentence. Might T remind the Senate that the Minister for Defence issued his statement on Sunday - I think on Sunday evening. We sat all day yesterday, and today we have an honourable senator coming in with a great splurge about cynicism in the forces and making nonsensical claims about what members of the forces are alleged to have said. The honourable senator must be Mandrake because the statement was issued on Sunday. Statements usually are issued at 4 o’clock in the afternoon and it is now 20 minutes to 11 on Tuesday morning. The extravagant language which Senator O’Byrne has used is sought to be justified by what has emerged in the meanwhile. The question as posed is complete nonsense. I suggest that it does not rate a reply from me. I will send a copy of the statement issued by the Minister for Defence to the honourable senator after question time.

page 2233

QUESTION

MARITIME UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator MULVIHILL:

– -Because my question concerns maritime unemployment, 1 direct it either to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service or the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. 1 ask: Can we have an assurance that the responsible Minister will take positive action to ensure that Australian flag tankers are not allowed to remain immobilised with resultant crew stand-downs while overseas oil tankers capture the major portion of the Australian trade?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– All J can say is that I will direct that question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport who is responsible for these matters. I am sure that he would like to have an assurance also that there will be no industrial stoppages on the waterfront.

page 2233

QUESTION

LOSS OF AIRCRAFT IN VIETNAM

Senator BISHOP:

– I remind the Minister for Air that I asked him questions last week about losses of aircraft in Vietnam and whether the Royal Australian Air Force had sought information from the United States of America or whether the United States had supplied information to the Minister regarding the loss of the first aircraft and the temporary withdrawal of aircraft following that crash. Since that time there has been a second crash. Has the Minister received any information from the United States or does the Air Force intend to investigate those matters to see whether there are any technical problems which ought to be considered by the Air Force?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– As I said in reply to the question asked by the honourable senator last week, these aircraft are operating in an operational area. There are many more hazards when aircraft are operating over a target than there are when they are performing straightforward operations around a friendly country. No information has come to hand as to what happened to either of these aircraft. Inquiries are going on. Australia is kept fully informed of the position, and as soon as information does come to hand it will be forwarded to our Air Force officers in America who will refer it to the Departments of Air and Defence where it will be studied very carefully. I think it is very hard for anyone to say that there are technical problems with these aircraft when they are flying over hostile country and hostile targets.

page 2234

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION ADVERTISING

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. In view of the announcement yesterday by the Minister for Immigration that his Department has expended in excess of $4m in the last 5 years on advertising for migrants in overseas countries, will the Minister tell the Parliament the names of the advertising agencies engaged to handle this advertising and the amounts paid to each of these agencies?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I can only say that I will convey the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for Immigration for him to make such reply as he thinks proper. But I repeat what I have said to the honourable senator in Estimates Committees’ hearings and in the Senate, chat the way in which the Commonwealth arranges for its advertising is through the Commonwealth Advertising Council to which the amounts paid to the advertising agencies are known. They are not known to anyone else within the control of this Government. How many times has one to repeat that answer for the exact position to become known? But having said that which already is in Hansard many times, I shall convey the honourable senator’s question to the Minister.

page 2234

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN TROOPS OVERSEAS

Senator KEEFFE:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence: How many Australian troops remain in each of the following countries: South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Thailand? I further ask the Minister: What arrangements have been made to bring back to this country before Christmas 1972 all Australian troops in the areas to which I have referred?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONBelieve it or not, I have no details as to the numbers of troops in all the countries to which the honourable senator referred. If the question is placed on notice I will see that the information is provided to the honourable senator.

Senator Keeffe:

– Today?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– If I can obtain it.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The time allotted for question time by the Senate having expired, with the concurrence of honourable senators answers to questions on notice will be incorporated in Hansard.

page 2234

QUESTION

REPATRIATION BENEFITS

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

- Mr

President, I was asked a question yesterday and I now have an answer to it. May I give it now?

The PRESIDENT:

– Under the sessional orders question time has ended. You may ask for leave to make a statement or you may incorporate the answer in Hansard. Senator Drake-Brockman, do you ask for leave to make a statement?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Yes.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

- Senator Townley asked yesterday a question without notice concerning loss of retirement benefits by a Vietnam veteran. The Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten) has supplied the following information:

Mr Richardson qualified for 2 separate types of benefit on termination of military service on 2nd July 1969: Those related to disability compensation due to war service, under the Repatriation Act, and a pension benefit under the contributory insurance benefits arrangements of the defence forces retirement benefits scheme. Unlike the position in some overseas countries, these benefits are independent and may be received simultaneously.

Mr Richardson suffered loss of his left leg below the knee, loss of his right foot, compound fractures of both elbows and deafness in his left ear as a result of injuries received in Vietnam. War pension at the 100 per cent rate plus other financial benefits and full medical treatment facili- ties have applied since 28th March 1968 and will continue to apply regardless of any earnings or other improvements in his financial circumstances. The present repatriation payments by way of war pension, Fifth Schedule amount, special compensation allowance and clothing allowance total $28.45 a week.

As to the DFRB pension, the Chairman of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board has stated that Mr Richardson was paid the pension for over 3 years from the date of his discharge until 1st September 1972 when payment was suspended. Suspension does not sever Mr Richardson’s association with the scheme; it will be restored automatically if ever his income is reduced below the prescribed level, and, in any case, his position is reviewed periodically by the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board. In these circumstances it is not clear on what grounds an act of grace benefit could be proposed.

I should draw attention to a further matter. The two-thirds formula is not applied in relation to pay on discharge, that is $51 per week or $2,652 per annum, as stated by the honourable senator, but to the current equivalent of that pay, which was $3,758 per annum at the date of suspension.

page 2235

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to -

That Order of the Day No. 14 be dealt with after Order of the Day No. 4.

page 2235

QUESTION

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving a motion relating to the order of business.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I propose to include Senator Gair’s motion also, if he wishes.

Senator Gair:

-I can handle my own affairs.

Senator MURPHY:

-I move:

That at 2 p.m. intervening business be postponed until after consideration of General Business, Order of the Day No. 18, Commonwealth Electoral Bill 1972 and General Business, Notice of Motion No. 5.

That does nor include Senator Gair’s or Senator Byrne’s matter. I heard Senator Gair’s interjection that he did not wish his matter to be included in the motion so 1 have moved in relation to 2 matters. One is the Bill giving voting rights to 18-year-olds and the other is the matter dealing with the Government’s declaring its observations and intentions in respect of reports of Senate committees.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Health - The Government opposes the motion moved by Senator Murphy because in my understanding an effort will be made in good faith to bring on the matter to which Senator Murphy is referring. That statement does not involve me in any commitment, but at least I shall try to find time to allow him to bring on the matter. For that reason the Government again opposes the motion.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Murphy’s) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 22

NOES: 27

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2236

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

-I seek leave to make a statement regarding a matter of misrepresentation which occurred in the Senate yesterday during statements by Senator Little.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator WHEELDON:

– In the course of the debate on the Child Care Bill 1972 in the Senate last night- I now refer to page 2204 of the daily Hansard - Senator Little said:

I will repeat the exact words used by Dr Cass on the subject -

This is on the subject of marihuana -

This was part of a statement that was issued on behalf of 5 members of the Commonwealth Parliament. It appeared in the ‘Australian’ on 21st March 1970. The 5 were: Dr Klugman, Dr Jenkins, Dr Cass, Dr Everingham and Senator Wheeldon. The article sets out what Dr Cass, supported by these gentlemen said. It reads: 1 think that marihuana should be available to people who want it. I think it should be legalised’ - ALP M.H.R., Dr Moss Cass, in a joint statement with a number of other Australian M.H.R.s.

This appears in the form of a quotation from the ‘Australian’. If one looks at the Australian’ of 21st March 1970 one finds that various persons are interviewed regarding their views on marihuana. Five doctors who are members of the Federal Parliament did give some views relating to the existing penal provisions imposed for the use of marihuana. In fact, those 5 doctors were: Dr Cass, Dr Everingham, Dr Jenkins, Dr Klugman and Senator Turnbull - whose name was not mentioned last night by Senator Little. Also I am reported as having made some sort of a statement. The first point I make is that, in fact, no joint statement was issued by anyone as Senator Little told us last night was the case. Senator Little told us that the exact words used by Dr Cass were:

I think that marihuana should be available to people who want it. I think it should be legalised.

If one looks at the ‘Australian’ the words used by Dr Cass are:

I think that marihuana should be available to people who want it. Prohibition never stops anything: It often makes people want to try something. Education would stop it.

Evidence does not seem to show that it’s harmful. I think it should be legalised, with penalties no different from those applied to drinking alchohol.

I wish to refer to what I think is an even more serious matter of misrepresentation that occurred in Senator Little’s statement, It also refers to me amongst others. In the course of his statement Senator Little said:

Or have honourable senators opposite -

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Which page is that?

Senator WHEELDON:

– I am now referring to page 2201 of the daily Hansard. It states:

Or have honourable senators opposite lost confidence in the marihuana-taking, pornographic advocacy of the members of the parliamentary Labor Party who hold those views?

That is a quite clear statement that not only do these members of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party hold certain views about marihuana but also that they are taking marihuana.

Senator Byrne:

– I do not think that is viable.

Senator WHEELDON:

- Senator Little stated:

  1. . marihuana-taking, pornographic advocacy of the members of the parliamentary Labor Party. . .

That seems clear enough to me. Again on page 2201 Senator Little is reported to have said: . . I mentioned the members of the medical profession who are also members of the parliamentary Labor Party and who have advocated marihuana for everyone.

The honourable senator goes on:

I did not imply it; I referred to Dr Cass who is a member of the parliamentary Labor Party and who advocates marihuana.

That is a total misrepresentation.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Wheeldon, you asked leave of the Senate to make a personal explanation because you claimed you had been misrepresented. You cannot use this as a device to defend other people.

Senator WHEELDON:

– Very well, Mr President. My personal explanation is that neither I - I think I can include my colleagues - nor my colleagues are marihuana takers. None of us has advocated-

Senator Gair:

– Not strong enough.

Senator WHEELDON:

- Senator Gair says that it is not strong enough. I think that is an indication of the sort of campaign that Senator Gair and his friends will run in this election. I say to you, Mr

President, that this is a total misrepresentation of the position which has been taken by my colleagues in the House of Representatives and by myself. Never al any stage have we advocated marihuana. What we have done in our various ways is to make suggestions as to what is the best way to deal with problems related to marihuana. It is a total misrepresentation to say that members of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party are either marihuana takers or advocates of marihuana.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

- Mr President, I ask for leave to make a statement. I wish to make a personal explanation in regard to the matters that have been raised.

The PRESIDENT:

– ls leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator LITTLE:

– I believe it is quoting Hansard completely out of context when it is said I suggested that Senator Wheeldon is a taker of marihuana. I said that members of his Party were guilty of the advocacy of marihuana taking. When people suggest that the laws relating to the taking of marihunana should be abolished, I can place no other construction on such a statement than that these people advocate the taking of marihuana. I am a simple minded person and I lack the mental capacity of Senator Wheeldon. If my statement has offended Senator Wheeldon I am quite happy to apologise. This matter was brought up during the pressure of debate last night when I was discussing the Child Care Bill, lt was not promoted by me but by people who were interjecting while I was speaking about child welfare. 1 do not see why we had to get involved in this altercation; If I had been left alone it would not have happened. 1 did misquote when I said that Senator Wheeldon was among the 5 people that had made such a statement. I had so many statements that I inadvertently mixed them up. The statement was by 5 parliamentarians and one of them was Dr Turnbull, an independent member of the Senate. Senator Wheeldon was not one of those 5 and I apologise to him for including his name in that category. I think that Senator Wheeldon identified himself as a person who wished to remove the laws that prevented the taking of marihuana in his minority report as a member of the Senate

Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse. I think in that manner he advocated the taking of marihuana. I do not apologise for that suggestion. Seeing that certain documents were tabled last night, I ask for leave to table the article which appeared in the ‘Australian’ of 21st March 1970 and which stated that 5 MP doctors want to legalise pot. I named 4 members of the Australian Labor Parly last night. The other person concerned was Senator Turnbull. The 4 ALP members are Dr Klugman, Dr Moss Cass, Dr Jenkins and Dr D. N. Everingham, of Queensland. If the ‘Australian’ did them an injustice by saying in that article on 21st March 1970 that they wanted to legalise pot, it is for the newspaper to answer. I seek leave of the Senate to table the complete article that appeared in the ‘Australian’ on that day.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator LITTLE:

– I do not think there is any need for me to say anything further. I think the statement that I attributed to Dr Moss Cass -

Senator Murphy:

– You should apologise to Dr Moss Cass for misquoting him.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Bishop:

– I seek leave to make a statment relating to this subject.

The PRESIDENT:

– Do you claim to have been misrepresented?

Senator LITTLE:

– I thought I had been interrupted by a point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– I did not hear any point of order taken.

Senator Bishop:

– I thought Senator Little had finished speaking. I shall wait until he concludes.

Senator LITTLE:

– 1 want to dear up the matter relating to my alleged misquotation of Dr Cass. In case I did nol quote him in full or that I misquoted him in any way, I shall quote in full the remarks that I should have quoted. If I left anything out, as was suggested by Senator Wheeldon, I think it is only fair to Dr Moss Cass that I quote the whole of the statement attributed to him in the ‘Australian’. It is as follows:

Dr Cass: ‘I think that marihuana should be available to people who want it.’

As I remember the circumstances, that was part of my quotation last night. This article continued:

Prohibition never stops anything: it often makes people want to try something. Education would stop it. Evidence does not seem to show that it’s harmful. I think it should be legalised, with penalties no different from those applied to drinking alcohol’.

The article goes on to refer to what Dr Jenkins said. I have no correction to make in that regard and I do not want to quote what appeared. In fairness to Dr Cass I have read that statement on to the record and on that irrefutable evidence my case rests.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Wheeldon asked for leave to make a personal explanation on the grounds that he had been misrepresented. He made that statement. Senator Little asked leave of the Senate to make a personal explanation on the grounds that he had not been accurately represented. As far as I am concerned this completes the action and there is no further value to be obtained by pursuing this any longer.

Senator Bishop:

Mr President, may I direct your attention to the direction given last night by the Acting Deputy President (Senator Lawrie) which Senator Little accepted? My intention, if you give me leave, is to point out the circumstances under which Senator Little last night accepted the ruling of the Acting Deputy President. Today Senator Little has affronted that ruling by stating that what he said last night is substantially correct. I seek leave to draw your attention to this matter. I am not asking that you give a ruling immediately but I point out that it is a logical inference from the ruling given last night by the Acting Deputy President that Senator Little should not have pursued the matter this morning as he has done. I therefore seek leave to refer to what was said last night.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Is leave granted for Senator Bishop to make a statement?

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– No.

Senator Gair:

– No.

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is not granted.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP

(11.13) - I oppose the motion because, as you said, Mr President, it was not Senator Little who initiated this matter. Senator Wheeldon raised it on the grounds of misrepresentation. Senator Little responded by making a personal explanation. I would suggest, Mr President, that that is as far as you can take it. I do not think that the motion moved by Senator Murphy will make any contribution to this matter. In fact, it will do infinitely more damage than has been done already. I would resist the motion.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– in reply - I have put this motion because it concerns an important matter. Two senators have raised questions of personal explanation. Senator Wheeldon raised a matter which he felt concerned him. He spoke to the matter in accordance with the Standing Orders. He was restrained by you, Mr President, when he appeared to go outside the matters which affected him when speaking to clear himself. Senator Little claimed the same right and spoke. You, Mr President, restricted him to certain matters. He admitted that he had misquoted statements and distorted what Dr Cass had said. He endeavoured to clarify himself by making a personal explanation. But he went further. In his last few words he departed from endeavouring to explain himself and committed the error or saying: ‘Well, there my case rests’, suggesting that there was still some substance to the matter that he had put. Because Senator Little has abused the opportunity given to him to make a personal explanation I have moved that Senator Bishop be able to speak further to the matter.

Senator Georges:

Mr President, I wish to speak to the motion.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Murphy has closed the debate.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Murphy’s) be agreeed to.

The Senate divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Ayes . . . . 24

Noes . . . . 25

Majority . . . . 1

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2239

ASSENT TO BILLS

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I have an announcement to make.

Senator Georges:

– But I have not raised my point of order. My point of order is-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Georges, if you attempt to take control from the Presiding Officer, which you have been doing consistently this morning, you will put me in the situation where I will have to go to extremes. I am on my feet, and when 1 am on my feet all honourable senators must resume their seats.

I have received from His Excellency the Governor-General messages notifying assent to the following Bills:

Air Navigation (Charges) Bill 1972.

Loans (Qantas Airways Ltd) Bill 1972.

States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill 1972.

Crimes (Hijacking of Aircraft) Bill 1972.

Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Bill 1972.

Extradition (Foreign States) Bill 1972.

page 2239

CHILD CARE BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30th October (vide page 2212), on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson.

That the Bill be now read a secondtime.

Upon which Senator Gietzelt had moved by way of amendment:

At end of motion add ‘, but the Senate is of the opinion

that the Commonwealth should take the initiative to establish Child Care Centres to meet the needs of working mothers, and should do this on a basis of priorities, to give maximum advantage to a maximum number of families, rather than leave the provision of this service to the chance interest of employers and local authorities, and

that Child Care Centres should be within the province of the Department of Education and Science, and should be partof a pre-school system developed progressively throughout the nation’.

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

- Mr President

Senator Georges:

Mr President, 1 know you have called Senator Greenwood, but I have been endeavouring to raise a point of order and I am receiving the impression that I am being frustrated in this attempt. I have also received the firm impression that 1 have been threatened that ifI persist with my point of order I will be sent away from this chamber.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator will indicate his point of order.

Senator Georges:

-I seek a withdrawal in a similar way-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! What is the point of order?

Senator Georges:

– The point of order is that Senator Little in his personal explanation today made a personal reflection on 5 members of the House of Representatives who happen to be medical practitioners. In the course of his personal explanation he said that they advocated the use of marihuana. I raised this point of order last night and sought a withdrawal of the remarks Senator Little had made on this subject. I obtained a withdrawal, yet this morning Senator Little repeated and enlarged upon his accusation of last night.

He stated clearly that these 5 men advocated the use of marihuana. I say that is offensive to them and it is offensive to me. I seek a withdrawal, especially when such an allegation comes from a man like Senator Little and by way of interjection from Senator Gair, because these men, who on a variety of occasions can see nothing wrong with getting stoned on alcohol or puffing themselves to death, can turn round-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Will Senator Georges please resume his seat. I have heard enough to indicate to me how 1 should rule. I am clear in my mind as to what occurred last night and this morning. ] do not uphold the point of order.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– When the Senate adjourned last night 1 was replying to the debate on the Child Care Bill. I think all honourable senators will recognise that ideally most of us would hold the opinion that children should be cared for by their mothers in their own homes, but we have a changing society and mothers are choosing to work and to leave their children during working hours. The fact which we must recognise in any consideration of this Bill is that at the present time some 25 per cent of mothers with pre-school children are engaged in employment, and the Government is concerned to ensure that there are effective means whereby the welfare of these children can be preserved.

The fundamental basis of this legislation is the acknowledgment of the fact that there are working mothers and there are parents other than working mothers who cannot look after their children throughout the day and that there ought to be proper physical arrangements and professional staff to provide the type of child care in child care centres which will enable the welfare of these children to be maintained. It is of the essence of what the Government proposes that there will be trained staff in these centres, and the assistance which the Government is providing is designed to ensure that this trained staff will be available. The training will be designed to maintain good standards of cleanliness and likewise meet the developmental, emotional and personal needs of all young children. These child care centres are not to be regarded as either orphanages or institutions. In set up and appearance they are just like normal preschools and kindergartens. Emphasising the point which Senator Wilkinson made in debate last night, I indicate that these centres are distinct from pre-school centres because they will be required to operate, and will operate, throughout the day every day of the week, whereas pre-school centres normally operate for part of the week only for a few hours a day.

There are one or two other matters, by way of conclusion, to which I wish to refer. Senator Webster wanted to know whether profit making centres will be eligible for assistance. He indicated that at the present time 80 per cent of all child care centres in operation are commercially run. It is fair to say that the Government takes the view that its scheme will apply to non-profit organisations and that is why grants of various descriptions are being made. The Government has considered whether it should subsidise these commercially run organisations. In the first place these organisations are operating on a viably profitable basis and, secondly, it must be regarded, and the Government so regards it, as questionable whether in this area Commonwealth money should go to what are essentially private businesses operating for a profit.

Senator Webster:

– You must withdraw from business when you do this, of course.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– 1 do not think there is any need. There will always be some people who will prefer to go, and who can afford to go, to these organisations. Senator Little raised the question whether, involved in the proposal, there was some attack on or challenge to traditional family values and the role of the mother within the family. Such interpretations of the Government’s decisions - I do not say that Senator Little made that interpretation but he certainly raised the question - would involve a complete misunderstanding of the problem of child care and the measures which are being taken by the Government.

One of the important factors to emerge from the wide-ranging consultations which the Government has instituted on child care was that the provision of good quality facilities is often an invaluable support to a family. This is so, particularly in times of temporary financial difficulty. The measures taken by the Government in assisting the community to overcome such problems do in fact provide a number of supports to the family such as the counselling service to be provided to parents of children needing care. The Government is concerned not to encourage, by these measures, more married women to go out to work rather than to remain at home but is concerned to provide a remedy to meet a need for an existing situation. The Government acknowledges that when a mother chooses to go out to work, for whatever reason, her child should not be deprived of the opportunity to receive alternative care of a high quality.

It is important to note that the Opposition, whilst not opposing the Bill, has moved an amendment which seeks to establish 2 points. One point is that the scheme to assist with child care centres should be administered by the Department of Education and Science as distinct from the Department of Labour and National Service. 1 addressed myself to that line of argument last night. The other point is, in essence, that this scheme should be one in which the Government takes the initiative in running child care centres instead of proceeding, as the Government is proceeding, by providing financial assistance by way of capital grants, recurrent grants and other monetary sums to the private nonprofit organisations which will establish these schemes. In fact, as 1 was saying last night, it represents a difference in philosophy. The Government believes that the Commonwealth should not involve itself in the exact running of child care centres. To do that would involve the vast bureaucracy which would have its problems in terms of providing the type of service which people would expect in this area, taking unto itself the complete control of institutions. 1 do not believe that those institutions would be run so effectively as if they were run by persons who were doing the work voluntarily andin a private capacity and were therefore able to give to the institutions something other than the ordinary institutionalised service. Under the scheme the Government will not be operating the child care centres. They will be operated by local government bodies, benevolent trusts, welfare organisations, parents associations and such other eligible organisations as apply.

A main feature of the scheme is its assistance to local organisations to enable them to respond to local needs for child care. The intention is to help organisations operating child care centres. I think the purposes of the Bill are well accepted. In some places there is concern about whether the Government is not encouraging activity which will lead to children being placed in centres while their mothers are engaged in activities. There must be some such risk, but the real concern that the Government has is the welfare of the children. At present children are not being cared for properly while their parents are at work. We believe that by this type of scheme we will be meeting a need which exists. The scheme represents the fulfilment of a Government pledge during the Senate election campaign in 1970 that legislation of this character would be introduced. It was stalled temporarily because of financial problems. We are happy now to have it before the Senate where it is receiving the approbation of all parties.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Gietzelt’s amendment) be added.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 0

NOES: 26

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– Clause 14 (1.) provides:

The Minister may establish a committee, to be known as the Child Care Standards Committee, which shall consist of such number of members as the Minister thinks fit.

Can the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) indicate why the word ‘may’ instead of the word ‘shall’ is used? At present the clause gives to the Minister a discretionary power to establish a committee but I think the whole intention of the Bill is for the establishment of a committee. Can the Attorney-General also indicate what is in the Government’s mind on who shall comprise the committee. I take it that that would be included in the regulation. Will the Attorney-General convey to the appropriate quarters the suggestion that it might be to the benefit of the legislation if a representative of the Australian Council of Trade Unions were included on the committee? 1 do not advocate this, but it might be advantageous if a representative of the employers associations were also included.

There are no politics in the matter. It is a question of who would best serve the interests of the legislation. As the AttorneyGeneral would know, several representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions have had extensive experience overseas in this aspect of employment opportunities. I suppose the same could be said for the employer organisations. I have in mind the recently retired Mr Bob Anderson. I know he had a very keen interest in this field. I suggest that if it is acceptable to him he should be a member of the standards committee. He would be an appropriate person to appoint to it. However, that is for other people to advocate. As it represents so many people, I believe that the Australian Council of Trade Unions should have a representative on the committee.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · Victoria · LP

Senator Milliner raised a point under clause 14 of the Bill as to why the language used is the Minister may establish a committee’ and not ‘the Minister shall establish a committee’. It is quite clear that a committee is to be established because that is the policy of the Government. If Senator Milliner were to cast his eye over other clauses in this Bill and, indeed, other legislation I think he would find that it is a draftsman’s expression to use the word ‘may’ in preference to the word ‘shall’ wherever there is a scheme under which certain things are to be done. The word ‘shall’ is in most cases an obligatory mandatory requirement. Whilst the intention of the Government is that these things shall happen, the usual practice is not to put it in an obligatory form in the legislation. That may seem to be a lawyer’s deviousness in explaining what is, after all, a lawyer’s distinction. But I can assure Senator Milliner that it is essentially a matter of policy for the Government and that under that policy the steps which may be taken by the Government are permited by the legislation.

No decisions have been taken as to who the members of the committee will be, but consideration is being given to the way in which the committee can be constituted. I think the present intention is for an approach to be made to a number of bodies - for example, the Pre-schools Association, the Council of Social Services, the College of Psychiatrists and the relevant State government departments - and for them to be asked to provide names and make suggestions to the Minister as to who may be the members of the Committee. The important thing is to have on this commitee not simply representatives of unions or employers but persons who, because of their knowledge and their interest, will be able to perform the function of maintaining the child care standards which are so important to the way in which these centres are run. I do not know the particular individual to whom Senator Milliner referred, but I am sure that what he has said has been noted by the departmental officers who are with me. What he has had to say certainly will be the basis for further consideration. The approach I have indicated is the way in which the Government was intending to arrange for the membership of this committee.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– There are 3 matters which I wish to bring to the attention of the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Greenwood). They relate to many clauses within the Bill. In relation to all those clauses which refer to the granting of moneys. 1 ask: From where does the Government get the constitutional authority for the granting of moneys to child care centres? All grants to the States in connection with housing, education and other things are made under section 96 of the Constitution and there is a stipulation as to how they are used. This Bill provides for a payment by the Commonwealth for the care of children under school age. I fail to see where there is any constitutional authority for the granting of moneys in this respect. I should think that the Attorney-General would not move in this direction if there were no such constitutional authority. I therefore request htm to inform me as to where the constitutional authority for such legislation by the Commonwealth lies.

The second matter relates to what 1 regard as being an unfortunate statement by the Attorney-General in his closing remarks in the debate of the motion for the second reading of the Bill. Perhaps he may wish to alter them on reflection. The AttorneyGeneral said that a position exists where children are being neglected at present while their parents are out working. I think the love and affection of parents in Australia today is such that, with rare exceptions, they will not both go to work at the risk of neglecting their children. Because of extreme difficulties both parents may have to work but the children are usually well cared for. I do not think the indictment of Australian parents by the Attorney-General that their children are being neglected at present while they are out working is one which should be allowed to go unquestioned. I do not think that is the position. I think the AttorneyGeneral should reflect on whether he was correct in what he had to say.

The third matter I wish to raise, and which 1 have continually raised in this chamber on previous occasions, is the lack of constructive criteria for the giving of some redress to people who are improperly treated or unjustly treated by legislation. One of the main reasons why the Regula tions and Ordinances Committee moves for the disallowance of ordinances is that it is very strict about criteria being laid down for the right of appeal to a judicial body where it is felt that some injustice has been done under certain legislation. If we do not insist on such criteria being fully set. out we will reach the stage where Ministers or the bureaucracy will have complete control of everything in Australia and the parliament will have no power at all. Of all the Bills which have come before the chamber, this one is the most offensive in this respect.

An examination of clause 5 of the Bill will reveal such phrases as ‘as the Minister determines’ and ‘as the Minister is satisfied’, lt does not matter, for example, whether buildings or other improvements on land are or are not in fact used. If the Minister is satisfied that they are used the child care centre is entitled to a grant. But that is only if the Minister is satisfied. Another phrase used in clause 5 is ‘as the Minister considers represents that part of the cost of purchasing the land’. Sub-clause (iii) provides that the Minister has to be satisfied that the cost of making any alteration to any building is a part of the scheme. Under clause 5 (b) the Minister has to be satisfied about the cost of constructing or altering the building or any other improvements. There is reference right through this legislation to the approval of the Minister. Clause 9 provides that the Minister may, in his discretion, approve of the use of equipment for the purpose of Division 2.

What warrants a capital grant in respect to land, building or equipment, how much shall be granted and to what organisation it shall be granted are all matters which are the subject of the Minister’s approval. Of course, the Minister’s aproval generally means the approval of the Secretary of the Department, acting on the reports o£ officers of the Department. There must oe some limitation on how these grants a-e made, otherwise the way is left wide open for gifts in areas where there may be an electoral advantage from a Minister’s point of view. The information the Secretary of the Department receives in reports that may not be appropriate. While I am reluctant to raise this matter, the making of these grants is wide open to abuse by officers of the Department who make the inspection and report upon the subject. They could be persuaded to report favourably by the offer of a reward or something like that. While this is perhaps an accusation against officers, we know that from time to time this kind of thing does occur, because the report of the Auditor-General has given details of prosecutions of officers in the Taxation Office for falsifying income tax deductions, etc. There is always among a body of men the possibility of corruption in such matters.

This scheme will provide for the less privileged children. A person who met all the requirements of the legislation and incurred expenditure in the belief that the legislation would give him some subsidy, but who subsequently failed to receive it, could make application to a court, claiming that he had been unjustly treated in the light of the provisions of the Act. But today such a person has to make application and prove to a court not that he met the requirements of the legislation but that the Minister had decided on a certain question and did not always so decide. Under this legislation there is no redress in law for people who suffer hardship or injustice. There is a need for criteria to be established. This is a matter that I have raised on numerous occasions. It would appear that I have not yet influenced a sufficient number of honourable senators to encourage them to insist that legislation should be as carefully scrutinised as regulations are by this chamber. We have a situation where members of both parties who sit on the Regulations and Ordinances Committee will, on the advice of their legal adviser, oppose a regulation that does not set out objective criteria, but they are not prepared to do this with substantive legislation. This, to my mind, shows inconsistency.

Whilst there is likely to be less injustice in the operation of regulations because of the vigilance of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, through the apathy of politicians I think injustice is creeping into Bills at the present time. I do not think the Attorney-General had control of the preparation of this Bill. He is only conducting it through this place on behalf of another Minister, but he knows full well from his own experience on the Regulations and Ordinances Committee that that body is an essential instrument to preserve democracy in this country. For that reason I would say that this legislation reeks with the objectionable feature of ‘at the discretion of the Minister and ministerial departments’.

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

Senator Cavanagh raised a number of points. He queried the constitutional basis for legislation of this character. I sense that the basis of this power is to be found in the social service power of the Commonwealth, though I appreciate that there may be questions raised as to what is the ambit of that power. Likewise there may be some who might seek to justify it under the general power to appropriate moneys. But I suggest to Senator Cavanagh that he will find that what is being done in this legislation is to follow a pattern which the Commonwealth has acceptedly followed in other areas over the years. There have been similar schemes, for example with regard to the Aged Persons Homes Acts and assistance to handicapped children, in which the Commonwealth has appropriated money for these purposes. We are in the course of discussing a Bill to appropriate money for child day care. The essential point I make is that we see it as a need that has to be met, and unless the Commonwealth is prepared to come in in the way in which it is assisting the problem will continue.

The second point he raised referred to some comments I made in the closing stages of the debate on the second reading. I think what I was intending to say - and whether or not my words actually conveyed the meaning must depend upon a reading of the Hansard record - was that parents often unwittingly place their children in care that does not provide for their proper development. This is a fact that has been brought home to the Government in the extensive consultations that have taken place with well over 100 organisations and experts in ali the States. That is nol to suggest that the parents are not concerned or interested in their children, although I must say there are some - a minority, unquestionably - who do not meet their proper parental responsibilities to their children. That is not to suggest that parents generaly are not striving to do the best they can for their children. The difficulty is that they feel they must work, for whatever reason, and they leave their children in some place which they believe is appropriate and in fact it is not appropriate. There have been instances that have been tragic in some of their results where children have been left locked at home throughout the day while the parents were out working. One can only deplore the impact that that might have upon the children. But i think that I would not generally disagree with the proposition that Senator Cavanagh put forward, that parents in this country do want to take care of their children. They use their best endeavours to promote their children’s welfare on a view which is fairly current right throughout the community, that parents want their children to have a better life than they, the parents themselves, had. As a stimulus and incentive to action it is probably as desirable and good a stimulus as you can have.

The third point related to the form of the clauses in the Bill. Senator Cavanagh drew attention to the many discretions which the Minister has to exercise in determining matters that have to be determined under the legislation. I appreciate the general point that he makes that discretionary legislation is legislation in which the Parliament yields to the executive a very wide power of decision making. The theory behind the concern in this area is that the Parliament should not yield that power but should retain it as far as possible unto itself because there is a risk that if a discretion is granted to the executive the executive will in fact be legislating, not the Parliament which is the body that should legislate. It is an area in which there is a great deal of room for difference of opinion as to whether or not the discretion does amount to legislation. In the area in which Senator Cavanagh particularly concentrated upon, the Regulations and Ordinances Committee and the rules made by a subordinate authority, the risks that the Parliament In conferring upon a subordinate body the power to make legislation are rauch more evident than in situations such as this where the administrative decisions of choosing between particular applicants for a grant or of determining whether particular conditions have been complied with is more administrative than legislative.

As I said, this is an area which is grey and in respect of which there can be different views. 1 suggest to Senator Cavanagh that this is legislation in which there must be a degree of flexibility.

We are entering upon a new scheme, and the provisions that are being enacted are provisions designed to enable decisions to be made by the Minister, not on specific criteria but on general criteria in which there still is room for the Minister to manoeuvre. This, I feel, is desirable when you have new legislation and where you have moreover legislation in which not everybody who could comply with the conditions would be entitled to a grant. If everybody who could comply with the conditions were entitled to a grant, I imagine that the estimated $23m to be spent over the next 3 years could be multiplied many times. Therefore, the Government must have some control, not so much to cut down The expenditure, but simply to determine within a given year how many organisations are to receive grants. In other cases considerably detailed judgments are needed because what is appropriate in one set of conditions is not appropriate in another. I can say only that the general principles which Senator Cavanagh expresses have my commendation and, I would think, the commendation of most honourable senators. But I feel that a judgment must be made in particular cases as to whether the discriminating use of discretions and conferring upon the Minister the power to make decisions in accordance with the general criteria are not the most effective ways of administering the new scheme.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I want to mention 2 points in relation to the constitutional aspect. I would have thought that a man holding the position of Attorney-General would have known the constitutional position. I took the reply of the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) to mean that he did not know the position but that he thought we had the power under the social service powers in placitum 51 (XXi iA) of the Constitution. Placitum 51 commences by stating:

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

Plactitum 5 1 (xxiiiA) states:

The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorise any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances:

I do not think there is any way that that placitum can be interpreted to include child minding centres. In effect, the Minister says: ‘We are using this power in relation to aged persons homes.’ The question could be raised of whether there is correctly a constitutional power, but the fact is that everyone is sympathetic to aged persons homes. Not everyone agrees with the establishment of child minding centres. The matter could be subject to contest at some later stage. It would be thought that in introducing this legislation the Commonwealth would be more sure of its powers and the use of its moneys to implement this scheme. It would be unfortunate if the scheme came into operation, was contested and found to be unconstitutional.

Senator Greenwood:

– If there is doubt, do you decline to exercise a power if it is a desirable exercise of power?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I would have thought that the Commonwealth would act on the advice of the legal officers of the Attorney-General’s Department. I understand that there is doubt in the Department about whether constitutional power exists in relation to this question. Therefore, a risk is being taken in acting on the matter. I am not capable of giving a legal opinion and deciding the legal issues. I say that I would have thought the Government would have been more sure of the question and at least would have connected the scheme with some section upon which there could be reasonable grounds for legal argument. I think that the answer I received and the common wording of the social service powers outlined in the Constitution leave beyond doubt that there is no substance in that claim.

I appreciate the concern of the AttorneyGeneral about the other matters I raised. I recognise that perhaps on some occasions there must be a discretion in relation to the introduction of a new scheme. However, clause 10 of the Bill states:

The Minister may, in his discretion, on behalf of the Commonwealth, make a grant to an eligi ble organisation of an amount not exceeding the cost of the purchase by the organisation of approved equipment.

The Minister may or may not make a grant. Under this clause unfairness exists in relation to 2 organisations competing for a grant. Both may comply with the conditions but one organisation may receive the grant from the Minister for some reason. It might be by reason of favouritism because he has some sympathy with the people conducting the organisation. Another organisation may not receive a grant because the people conducting it are not in the favour of the. Minister on this question. If that happened the redress to law is taken away from such persons because the Minister is given the right either to make a grant or to withhold it. 1 say that this Bill goes too far in regard to discretion and further than it was ever anticipated the Parliament should have gone.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I heard an interjection from the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) in answer to Senator Cavanagh’s point. If I took it down correctly, it was as follows: ‘Do you decline to use a power if it is a desirable use of power?’ Is that what the Minister said?

Senator Greenwood:

– No, it was not. You should be in the chamber if you want to hear the context in which an interjection is made.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I was listening. I ask the Minister to correct me. What was his interjection?

Senator Cavanagh:

– He said: ‘Do you decline to use a power if there is some doubt’.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Was it: ‘If it is a doubtful use of power*?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If that is what the Attorney-General said, it is even more damaging to his pretensions to be some sort of legal authority. It is certainly quite inconsistent with the practice followed by his Party. It is a very familiar experience for honourable senators on this side of the chamber to hear that all sorts of desirable pieces of legislation have been eschewed or rejected because there is some doubt as to whether power exists under the Constitution. Perhaps the best illustration that can be given is the alibi that this Government has used over many years about the true meaning of the corporation powers. I suggest that when it suits this Government to find that a head of power is doubtful it aggravates and exaggerates the doubt and claims that this sets up an absolute barrier to the introduction of the desirable legislation. But it is not a problem to stretch the Constitution when it suits the Government’s purposes. J certainly heard the Attorney-General appeal to the authority which he believes is conveyed by placitum 51 (XXiiiA.) of the Constitution for the introduction of this Bill. 1 would like him to tell me specifically from which phrase or subheading in sub-placitum (XXiiiA.) he receives the power to introduce this Bill. I will read the sub-placitum for the benefit of honourable senators, it confers on the Parliament the power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

The provision of maternity allowances-

That is hardly this case - widows’ pensions-

I cannot see how the Minister can shelter under that umbrella - child endowment-

It is hardly that - unemployment-

It is certainly not that - pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorise any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances:

For the enlightenment of honourable senators, will the Attorney-General tell us under which specific phrase he believes the Commonwealth has the power to introduce this Bill?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · Victoria · LP

Senator Cavanagh raised a point about the extent of the discretion to be granted under clause 10 of the Bill. I say with regard to the matter that he raised that it is not so much a matter of competing grants but simply a matter of the Minister determining what amount of grant shall be made. 1 think that Senator Cavanagh also does not give sufficient weight to the fact that if an organisation seeks to have a grant made to it and is refused altogether, it has access to members of the Parliament who can raise the matter for public examination in the

Parliament. That is always a sanction and a deterrent that exists in regard to the way in which a Minister exercises the discretion conferred by the Parliament. I suggest that that particular avenue seldom has to be availed of because Ministers, particularly Ministers in this Government, have never given any cause for the suggestion that they are favouring organisations unfairly as against other organisations.

On the constitutional point which brought Senator James McClelland breathless into the chamber and has always attracted Senator Cavanagh’s interest, 1 do not have with me at the present time the legal opinions which were provided to the Department. Even if the opinions should be revealed on this occasion in this sort of debate, legal opinions which are given from the Crown Law officers to the Department are not made available. As far as 1 was concerned, there was no suggestion that the Opposition was challenging this measure because of its lack of constitutionality. 1 do not think Senator Gietzelt, who was the leading speaker for the Opposition during the second reading debate on this Bill, was suggesting that it should not be passed because of some lack of constitutional power. Nor, I imagine, would the Labor Party as a Party be seeking to say that it should rely upon some legal technicality or legal doubt or lack of constitutional basis as a reason why this highly desirable legislation should not be enacted. I think that if Senator James McClelland seeks to put me through a crossexamination as to whether section 51 (XXiiiA.) of the Constitution justifies this legislation, then one also would have to go to other sections of the Constitution to build up a constitutional case, if that is the way in which he would seek to approach the matter. In those circumstances, I feel that this is not the place or the occasion to have these matters further aired. Nor ought it to be regarded as such, because surely there is no issue between us on the desirability of this legislation.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I am not querying the legislation. 1 think it is desirable. Nor do I query the constitutional authority for it. I wanted to have it clear in my mind whether the Government had the constitutional power to legislate in this way or whether it should legislate as it does in relation to grants to schools under section 96 of the Constitution. I agree with the Attorney-General that perhaps a legal opinion which had been given to him need not be passed on to us. But do I take it from his reply that the advisers of his Department are of the opinion that constitutional power does exist for the introduction of this legislation which is before us at the present time? Is that the advice received from his Department?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Does the AttorneyGeneral wish to reply?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– No.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2248

COMPENSATION (COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES) BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 October (vide page 1907), on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– Before I commence my remarks, may I suggest that we debate together this Bill, the United States Naval Communication Station (Civilian Employees) Bill 1972 and the Seamen’s Compensation Bill 1972 as they are related measures. This is a practice which has been adopted in the past.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!is it the wish of the Senate to have a cognate debate on the 3 Bills? There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Senator BISHOP:

– The Opposition does not oppose the Bills. The Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill provides for improvements to the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Act, although these improvements, except in one case, do not go far enough. The case to which I refer is in relation to the medical appliances allowance requested by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations and the other Public Service unions. However, the Bill provides for improvements to the Act, and for that reason we do not oppose it. We intend to move amendments to import into the Bill and the principal Act the provisions of the Labor Party’s model compensation Bill which honourable senators will remember preceded the floating of the code put forward by the Government. One of the most important principles that we think ought to be adopted is the principle of no loss of pay. That is a trend which is receiving a lot of attention in the industrial movement throughout Australia. Many agreements have been made to apply that principle.

The Bill also provides for the re-drafting of a number of sections of the Act to confirm apparently what the now constituted Department has applied in practice, and this seems to be a good idea. As I have said, our amendments are designed to import into the Act those principles to which I have referred - the principle of no loss of pay, our own principle in relation to payments to the widows of deceased breadwinners, and also the scale of compensation which we think is more appropriate in these days. It is now estimated that nearly 450.000 persons are covered by this legislation. It applies to numerous departments and 70 posts are now covered by it. The principles contained in this legislation ought to accord with what the Labor Party has argued for in the past and what is contained in our model compensation Bill for Australia. That has been the basis upon which we have made our representations over the years.

It was not until 1970 that the Government brought in what it called the ‘first model code of compensation’. It was introduced by the then Treasurer but later, after representations from the trade unions, it was withdrawn. It was not until 19th May 1971 that this Senate and another place debated the new code which, as we have admitted, was a great improvement on the old code. It was intended to catch up with the legislation in the various States but, of course, we had been waiting since 1964 for a completely new Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act. At various times since 1964 the Labor Party introduced amendments. At one stage Mr Cameron in another place introduced a code similar to the one which we have today. So it was not until 1971 that we had a code which represented much of the thinking of the union movement. When I refer to the union movement I mean not only the ACTU but also all of those Public Service organisations which had made representations to the Government.

That is the situation in relation to the principal Act, and the Bill before us provides for some modifications which will bring it almost into line with the legislation in 2 or 3 of the States. The main purpose of the Bill is to provide for compensation payments at the rate of full sick pay. These payments will continue for a period of 26 weeks or for an aggregate of periods up to 26 weeks. The weekly payments at the conclusion of 26 weeks at the full sick pay rate will be increased from $35 to S45 for a single employee and the allowance for a wife will be increased from $8.50 to $11. Payment for an attendant, where applicable, is to be increased by $1, to $9 a week. These increases will bring the Commonwealth compensation rates close to those applying in Victoria and New South Wales. But there is no maximum in New South Wales. The maximum allowance for an alteration of appliances, where required by an incapacitated worker, will be increased from $1.50 to $3.50.

Prior to our discussing the 1971 legislation, Mr Cameron, myself and representatives from the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations met the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), and we put to him the very basis on which the new scheme is introduced. lt may be pleasing to be able to say What we requested has now been awarded- $350 instead of $150’, but I point to the fact that it has taken too long to introduce legislation to cover matters which are well established and which were established at the time when the Commonwealth Public Service unions made representations about them.

In the Bill the word ‘overtime’ is interpreted to include shift duty, weekend duty, holiday pay and excess travelling time. The Bil) contains a provision to include seamen who are not now covered by the Seamen’s Compensation Act under the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Act. The Bill also contains transitional provisions which are designed to protect the rights of employees. Another important alteration to the Act relates to a matter which we discussed when the legislaion was previously debated in the Senate and which was understood to cover the position which is now prescribed. Section 8 of the Act is to be amended to ensure that attendance at certain places is regarded as employment for the purposes of attracting compensation cover. The Bill puts beyond doubt the question relating to the attendance of an employee at certain workers camps and at certain other living accommodation. The Bil] also contains provisions relating to civil damages.

As 1 have mentioned to some extent, these days we are more concerned about trying to get legislation, particularly in respect of Commonwealth employees, which is the best in Australia. As I have said, it has taken 8 years to consider what compensation should be paid to Commonweal lh employees. We now have a specialised back-up administration. We now have specialist officers who can see what trends are taking place in the State governments and also in outside industry. What we want is the principle of no loss of pay in respect of compensation, which is a principle that is being extended. Whilst this Bill provides for the payment of compensation at the rate of full sick pay for incapacitated employees, the period is limited to 26 weeks and the levels of sick pay entitlements differ in various categories of employment. Some entitlements do not include overtime earnings.

A substantial number of workers now are receiving full pay when absent from duty because of an accident. Agreements which were reached last year extended this principle to building trades workers, metal trades workers, electricity undertaking workers and glass workers, and by regulation to employees of the New South Wales Government, the Victorian Government and so on. When we were debating similar legislation in May of last year agreement had then been obtained to extend this principle to a vast number of employees. As 1 say, the principle has been extended by agreement generally to metal trades workers in Victoria and New South Wales and also to building trades workers. Negotiations on a national basis are proceeding now to extend the principle to the vehicle building industry workers. The principle has been extended to employees of State instrumentalities in Victoria and it has also been extended to certain workers in Queensland. So, by the amendments which we will move we propose that this should be the principle upon which the legislation which we are discussing is based.

I have referred to the payment of compensation based on sick leave entitlements, and I suggest that if one considers this question one finds that it is not a satisfactory basis at all for providing compensation payments. Even if compensation is paid at the rate of full sick pay, some workers in fact will not be entitled to it. Let us take the case of a person who has sick leave credits for 26 weeks. He will be obliged to use all of his sick leave credits in order to make up his pay to what he would normally earn. In my opinion, that is not a proper principle. As I have said, it is certainly not the principle which is now flowing into legislation generally. I refer to the position applying in New South Wales and Victoria. Under the new Commonwealth compensation legislation the weekly payments will be $43 for a single employee, $54 for an employee with a wife, $59 for an employee with a wife and one child and $64 for an employee with a wife and 2 children. The weekly compensation payments in Victoria are $43 for a single employee, $55 for an employee with a wife and $59 for an employee with a wife and one child. In New South Wales the weekly compensation payment is $43 for a single employee and there is an allowance of $11 for a wife and an allowance of S5 for each dependant child, which is the same as under the Commonwealth legislation. But there is no maximum amount in New South Wales.

We propose to increase the lump sum payable to dependants upon the death of an employee to 514,500, which is S500 less than that paid in South Australia. Stale governments now are considering further improvements in workers compensation legislation. The Government in my own State is committed to applying the principle of no loss of pay in respect of compensation payments, and ii will legislate to give effect to that principle. In respect of lump sum payments, one of the criticisms which were levelled when we discussed the 1971 legislation was that made by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and repeated by members of the Labor Party. In a document which the ACTU sent to the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) it referred to:

The right of the employee to receive lump sum compensation for specified injuries in addition to all other entitlements including the right to continue to receive present and in the future ordinary benefits for the same injury and also to receive a lump sum for injury or death, without deduction for any previous payments.

So, in respect of workers compensation legislation the Commonwealth has 101 reached the standard which is applying elsewhere. I have referred to the trends which have taken place since June last year and to the principle which is now being established bit by bit throughout the States. It seems to me that, as the Government has decided to grant compensation at the full sick pay rate to Commonwealth employees, it might just as well have gone to the extent of providing what the Labor Party will legislate for when it becomes the Government: And that is, what a worker would normally earn - the no loss of pay principle which ought to obtain in these days of enlightened compensation. Our amendments provide for weekly compensation at a sum equal to the full amount of the employee’s average weekly earnings, and this would apply to all employees regardless of whether they had dependants.

I have referred to the question of lump sum payments. We would ensure that lump sum payments would not prevent a worker from receiving amounts for specified injuries. The Bill fixes the maximum amount of compensation payable for, say, the loss of 2 eyes at $14,500, which is an increase from $13,500. The Labor Party’s current proposal, which Mr Cameron has announced, will form the basis of legislation which we will introduce if we are elected to office, provides for the payment of $26,936 for the loss of 2 eyes. The Labor Party’s amendments are based on a proper formula which is related to the national minimum wage, and the amounts would be adjusted as the national minimum wage altered. There is also an important amendment in relation to widows. Our proposal in relation to the payment of compensation to widows is related to what a widow should receive when her spouse dies as a result of injury. We think that the proper treatment is to award to her an amount which her husband would have earned had he been in work. In this case that would be the greatest compensation she could get. While it would not compensate her for the loss of her husband at least it guarantees her future. In addition there would be appropriate payments in respect of a person who had no dependants. If the widow had no children she would receive 75 per cent of her deceased husband’s average weekly earnings.

As we mentioned in debate on the Bill previously, in the principal Act at present there are provisions for compensation for facial disfigurement, which has to be assessed. But there is still no provision for bodily disfigurement, which in these days is highly important to people in particular jobs, l do not intend to elaborate on them now but there are also provisions in relation to the determined loss of sexual capacity and so on. These are matters which should be related more closely to what our amendments propose. As I mentioned, our amendments would provide compensation on the principle of average weekly earnings. In our opinion this would be a most substantial improvement.

The amendments propose to alter the definition of ‘child’, ‘dependant’ and widow’. The Opposition has proposed these alterations to bring the definitions into line with the expert advice which the Labor Party committees and the trade unions received over a period of 2 years. In referring to our model Bill, which was circulated last year, I want to draw attention to the. fact that many expert people involved not only in the compilation of workers compensation legislation but also in litigation helped to formulate Labor’s proposals.

One of those persons, of course, was Senator James McClelland. On the basis of what was then the prevailing prescriptions in the other Act, largely we had imported into our amendments the present Victorian prescriptions. For example, we have broadened the definition of ‘widow’ and we have taken out the. proviso which is now in the principal Act in relation to the period of 3 years. Some consequential amendments are proposed, but the main one is the repeal of section 25. Section 25 provides the method of payment. We will provide for no loss of pay as a principle. We propose to repeal section 38 of the principal Act and section 46.

We think it is an important principle that anybody who is engaged in vocational training should not be penalised because be earns a few shillings while he is training. He should not have that amount considered in the compilation of his weekly payments, particularly when the Government is claiming that means tests should bc abolished. We propose to repeal section 39 and the schedules dealing with specified injuries. While increasing the amounts in the schedules we include an important new principle to cover circumstances where there is no specified loss. At present some Acts provide this. For example, in South Australia it is possible for a person who gets back injuries or spinal troubles to receive a specified percentage of the lump sum compensation.

We have, provided that the loss of or the loss of use of any other faculty, organ or part of the body not covered elsewhere in the Act, or partial loss of sense of taste or smell, shall be compensated. Other amendments are related to this. I state again that we see no reason not to adopt what we put forward before, namely, to award to the widow a continuing weekly payment equal to what her husband would have earned. The only new departure from that is in the case of a widow who remarries. In that case we. have decided that there should be a smaller lump sum paid to her because that would be the end of her compensation, but in respect of her children the weekly payments would continue.

As 1 mentioned, generally speaking our amendments are related to definitions which we have been advised are the best to be inserted in the Act. A number of legal opinions were given to us which we think are substantial and correct and which we think should be considered. We wrote them into the Labor Party model code, which has now been circulated for 12 months. The propositions which we shall move in the Committee stage are not new. They simply state what we think are firm principles. The only other thing I want to say is that there were, a number of representations made to the Minister by the Opposition during the debates on the Bill. I accompanied our shadow minister for

Labour, Mr Clyde Cameron, with the secretary of the Public Service unions at one deputation. But since that time the Australian Council of Trade Unions and others also have submitted a number of matters in writing to the Minister. It still takes 12 months to determine them.

When the 1971 legislation was brought forward - of course, that was delayed by Mr Bury - we were promised that an interdepartmental committee would be set up to consider what might be put forward by the Labor Party or by the unions. While we do not oppose any improvements to the code we think the improvements should have been greater. There does not seem to me to be very much sense in providing rates of compensation which are only the same as arc now prevailing in 3 of the States, when we know that in the succeeding months those rates will be altered and improved. It would be better to do as the Labor Party has proposed. The Commonwealth Act should be the best in Australia and should form the basis of uniform legislation.

One of the great advantages of uniform legislation is not only that workers know that wherever they work they will get a certain amount of compensation, but also that we are, able to identify and watch more closely the hazards of accidents in industry. One of the existing anomalies in Australia is the absence of satisfactory statistics. The work to prevent accidents at work cannot be properly carried out. When one inquires about it from the Government the answers given state that compensation methods are different in each of the States. In the Committee stage the Opposition’s suggestion will be that the amendments might properly be taken as a whole but discussion be allowed to proceed on any clause. We would be content for them to be put, as they were put in the other place, in globo, based on the interpretations I have given and other honourable senators will give.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– As my colleague Senator Bishop has indicated, we on this side of the chamber acknowledge that this Bill represents a step forward. But in this as in other spheres of government I find it rather sad that this Government should continue rather slowly to follow other peoples’ footsteps rather than act as a trail blazer in this highly important field. As Senator Bishop pointed out, an unmistakeable trend has developed in the industrial world in the last year or two. He instanced the number of agreements which have been signed in important segments of industry, including the building industry and the metal trades industry, accepting the principle of full pay during incapacity. As we see by examining this Bill, the Government belatedly has partially come to an acceptance of this principle.

The most substantial amendments to this Bill which will be moved by the Labor Party may be summed up in a single phrase: The Australian Labor Party believes that a worker or his or her dependants should not suffer financial disability as a result of a physical disability, be it temporary, permanent or fatal, which is incurred in the course of employment. This Bill, we acknowledge, as I said at the outset, takes some step forward in this direction. But it is a hesitant and slow sort of step and it is hard to see why the Goverment, having embraced the principle, could not have gone the full distance. As Senator Bishop has pointed out, the notion of a proportion of the ordinary wage as being adequate compensation is partially abandoned in the Government’s acceptance of the notion of payment being at the rate of full sick pay. Here again the Government has gone part of the distance but not so far as it could have gone - as will be immediately realised by an examination of my Party’s formula for payment at the rate of average weekly earnings. This formula would include payment of overtime and would therefore accept the principle that we advance, that an injured worker or his dependants should suffer no financial loss at all if that worker is incapacitated.

There is a similar unwillingness to go the full distance in the Government’s limitation of the right to receive full sick pay beyond the period of 26 weeks. Once again it is hard to see in logic why this should be so. The Government says that if a man is injured he will now receive compensation at the rate of full sick pay for 26 weeks and that his entitlement alters thereafter. I have heard from time to time justifications of allowing compensation at a rate which would put the worker or his family in exactly the same position as they would have been in but for the injury; the most familiar argument of course is that malingering must be deterred. If in fact it is just as good financially to be on compensation as it is to be at work, the argument runs, there will always be a certain number of people in the community who will prefer to pretend that they cannot work. That is an argument which does not appeal to me and which flies in the face of my personal experience when I was practising law.

I undertook a certain amount of this work and I found that the man who wanted to profiteer from his injury, as it were, was a very rare bird indeed, and that the overwhelming proportion of self respecting workers - and that is the overwhelming proportion of workers - wanted to get back to work as soon as they could and resume a normal life. I see no justification for this limitation of the right based on the idea that there is here and there in society- and I acknowledge that there is - the odd malingerer. In any event, this is an argument which has not carried any weight in the spheres mentioned by Senator Bishop where agreements have already been negotiated and are in fact operating, that is, in the building industry and the metal trades industries, which are major segments of the economy. There the principle has been accepted that not for 26 weeks but during the total period cf incapacity a worker and his family are entitled to suffer no financial disability as a result of an unfortunate physical injury which the worker has suffered.

The other aspect of the question of injury is the death of the breadwinner. We say that even though the Government may appear to have recognised the dwindling value of money by raising the widow’s entitlement from $13,500 to $14,500, this approach really misses the point I have been making, that a worker’s family should not suffer any penalty because of an injury to the worker whether it be temporary, permanent or fatal. After all, in an inflationary period who is there in this chamber who would suggest that a fund of $14,500, especially for, say, a widow of 35 to 40 years of age without much prospect of remarriage and with perhaps four or five young children, is any sort of an adequate cushion against adversity or any sort of a fund upon which to build a future life for herself and her children, unpenalised by the death of the breadwinner? Our proposal is that a widow with children relying upon her should continue to receive the same weekly payment while those children are dependent upon her as she would have received from the breadwinner but for his accident.

Our amendments do not leave it at that: we take account of various contingencies such as remarriage, death of the widow or widower and changes to the circumstances of the dependants, the most obvious change being that they cease to be dependants. In short, in relation to death from injury as in relation to injury from while a worker recovers and is able to go back to his work, we adopt the same general principle which is in line wilh modern notions of social welfare and with modern conscience that people who work in industry and who are injured in the course of their work, and their dependants, should suffer no financial handicap because of that physical disability. We do not suggest for one moment that any government of any colour can ever succeed in preventing the tragedy of serious injury or the death of a breadwinner. But it can take some of the tragedy out of the circumstances by ensuring that the principle we espouse is embodied in law, that is, that there should be no financial penalty for physical injury.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– We have before us a Bill to which we have been able to give some consideration; it is a Bill of some 8 pages, including the schedule. We have before us now also an amendment which was circulated to me only yesterday and which comprises 10 pages of material - and this is a matter to which we have been unable to give consideration at all. Those who understand the ramifications of political Party activity are aware that the responsibility for information about different Government departments is allocated to different members. Because the Democratic Labor Party is a smaller Party, we members of it must perhaps accept responsibility for more departments in our activities than do members of other Parties. For instance, I arn required to consider Bills for 5 departments and, as honourable senators will know, I was engaged last night on a matter connected with the Child Care Bill 1972 which led to some controversy and which absorbed all my time. I have thus not been able to discuss with my colleagues the amendments which have been so lately handed to me.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Would you like us to adjourn the Bill for a day?

Senator LITTLE:

– 1 do not know that a day’s adjournment would be of any assistance to me since the amendments are far greater in length than the Bill itself.

Senator Bishop:

– Do you agree that the amendments were circulated in the other place about a fortnight ago?

Senator LITTLE:

– -As I have already explained to the Senate, if 1 wasted my time tracking down everything that is circulated in the other place, particularly amendments which come to mean nothing and which very often are abandoned by the Labor Party, I am afraid I would be of little use in this House. Maybe some honourable senators hold the opinion that 1 am not of very much use - but at least I try to do my job to the best of my ability. I have no doubt that at least that remark will receive some support from honourable senators. Senator Bishop suggested that we should know something about these proposed amendments because they had been distributed by the Labor Party for some considerable time. He also mentioned that the Australian Council of Trade Unions had seen fit to make representations to the Minister. Of course 1 am completely unaware of what those representations are. To the best of my knowledge the ACTU has sent no deputation or made no submission to the Party to which T belong to inform us of its requirements.

We have received communications from various industries which are involved. Indeed, some of the unions which are affiliated wilh the Australian Democratic Labor Party have kept us reasonably informed of the requirements of the trade union movement in these areas. We are grateful to them for their sensibility and intelligence in recognising that allowing political prejudice to interfere with keeping members of Parliament fully informed about their requirements is not a very sin.sible procedure. It may benefit the work of the ACTU and the trade union movement in general if those who are interested in ACTU activity acquaint the controllers of the ACTU of the fact that for legislation to pass the Senate they would be wise to keep all parties and independent honourable senators who sit in this chamber fully informed on their requirements. They should not allow political prejudice to blind their judgment of what is the best attitude to adopt in the. interests of their members.

Senator Bishop:

– To clear up this matter, was not the honourable senator told last year that the organised Public Service unions were making submissions? Did he not receive a copy of those submissions?

Senator LITTLE:

– I would not have a clue. With the pressures which are on me now I cannot say whether 1 did. I just cannot recall. It could very well be that we did. We had some deputations here at different times from members of Federal unions in relation to various matters in which they were interested.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The honourable senator is breaking down under pressure.

Senator LITTLE:

– 1 have never broken down yet under any sort of pressure. 1 am not the type of person who usually cracks under pressure. It could be that some people hold different opinions of me but I have been under a lot of pressure in my lifetime, particularly in the last 20 years when I decided as a matter of principle that there were political issues for which 1 had to stand up. Some, of those pressures have been in the form of anonymous telephone calls at 2 o’clock, 3 o’clock and 4 o’clock in the morning to my wife. But we have not broken under those pressures, and I do not think that any of the pressures here are sufficiently strong to cause that to happen.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What about the compensation in the Bill?

Senator LITTLE:

– 1 was talking about compensation. I suggest it is time that the honourable senator learned that it is unwise to interrupt and divert a person from the. matter which is under specific attention. After all, the honourable senator does not always win. Even that ought to seep through to the ego of some of the people who are associated with the honourable senator, as well as to the honourable senator himself. 1 prefer to be allowed to consider this situation on logical grounds. I think Senator Cavanagh would be the first to agree that if he were handed a Bill of some 8 pages and then 10 pages of amendments on the day before the debate he could not be expected to give mature consideration to those amendments on behalf of the people he represents. These amendments relate to very serious matters because, they affect compensation at a very delicate time in the life of the Parliament. I have been very fair to the honourable senator’s Party. I have told his colleagues that if they were prepared to move all of these amendments this would virtually mean the adjournment of this matter sine die because of the state of the Parliament at this moment. If any amendments are decided upon they will have to be considered in another place before the workers concerned with the benefits to be paid under this Bill will receive any of them. They would prevent the Bill now becoming law. I would not for a moment suggest that these amendments are brought in here purely to give an airing to the policy of the ALP in relation to this matter for the next election, seeing that our proceedings are being broadcast today. I would not like to suggest that it has no possible hope of carrying these amendments but there are some people who would consider that, because of the manner in which these amendments have been introduced, that is probably a more logical assessment of the situation than to accept them as seriously intended to be carried by this chamber at this time. I have already made an offer to the honourable senator’s Party that if it is prepared to adjourn these matters so that they can be properly considered - it will have to accept the consequences

Senator Cavanagh:

– The honourable senator has not said a word about the Bill.

Senator LITTLE:

– There is plenty to say about the Bill. It is a very worthy Bill. I think even the honourable senator’s Party has established that point. I do not suggest that I will not say something about it but at this stage I am dealing with the amend ments. I think it is important that we do this because, after all, the amendments are bigger than the Bill. If the amendments are larger and more complex than the Bill, then I suppose they should be given at least consideration equal to that given to the Bill. I have suggested to the Australian Labor Party that it is a simple matter to move for the adjournment of this Bill. Then we can evaluate in a simple light whether the benefits which will be paid in the interim period to beneficiaries under this Bill will compensate for the fact that we cannot accept at this time the amendments of the Labor Party, however commendable they may be. We can make a simple decision on this matter very quickly. If the Labor Party is prepared to move for the adjournment of the Bill - that will bury it until a new Parliament assembles - then my Party will give that very serious consideration. We wait with interest to see whether the Labor Party is prepared to move such an adjournment.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If the honourable senator thinks that is such a good idea he can move that.

Senator LITTLE:

– No, I am not in a position to take the initiative. It would be futile for us with our 5 members to move such an amendment unless we were assured at the beginning of the attitude of the Australian Labor Party.

Senator Bishop:

– Would the honourable senator be satisfied if I told him that the ACTU, the CCPSO and other Public Service unions have accepted our model Bill?

Senator LITTLE:

– If Senator Bishop told me anything at all I would believe him. But if his Party as such told me, I would not trust it not to change its mind before tomorrow. The honourable senator’s sincerity and integrity are absolutely beyond reproach with me but surely I could not be blamed if, to some extent, I doubted whether his Party would be of the same mind tomorrow as it is today in relation to any matter, workers compensation or anything else. His Party changes its mind on every public statement which is issued. However much I respect Senator Bishop and perhaps a few other members of his Party, I say that there are many people in his Party at present making statements about an enormous number of matters which have political consequences because an election is in the offing.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– This guff would not win the honourable senator any votes.

Senator LITTLE:

– Unlike the honourable senator. I do not always stand up here seeking votes. I stand up here to speak in the best interests of the Australian people. To me it is very interesting to see the manner in which the honourable senator’s mind works in relation to matters which are raised. His attitude seems to be: How many votes are in it? Perhaps that is the clue to the variety of policies which are enunciated from time to time. When no votes are obvious in them, such matters are abandoned as quickly as they are enunciated. That is what leads to the confusion which I was pointing out to Senator Bishop. I could accept whatever he said but I am afraid that 1 am not in a position to advise my Party that it should accept any proposition as valid which is put up by the Labor Party. It does not have a continuity of thought. What it believes tomorrow might not be what it is putting up today. The point I have been making is that it is completely impossible for us to consider the amendments at this stage of the debate because, in accordance with the usual principles which are adopted in this Parliament, we have not been given a fair opportunity to fully consider or to evaluate them in a manner which is sufficient to meet our responsibility to the people who sent us here to represent them logically in relation to items of legislation. Of course the legislation is very necessary and worth while. It was promised by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) during the course of the Budget Speech. We agree with the Minister in charge of the Bill, the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood), that to some extent the legislation not only fulfils the objectives of the Government as outlined in the Budget; it exceeds them. We think that to that degree the Government should be commended for the things which are contained in this Bill, lt considerably improves the benefits which are paid to people who are concerned under the Commonwealth Act.

Setting suspended from 1 to 2 p.m.

Senator LITTLE:

Mr President, in view of the limited time available to the Senate I do not propose to discuss this Bill any further at great length. It provides the necessary provisions for the normal progression of increases in payments and fits in completely with the promises made by the Government in its Budget which was accepted by the people. We are concerned to ensure that the benefits are not denied to beneficiaries for any period at all. That is the danger that we see in the foreshadowed amendments of the Australian Labor Party. We are fully conscious of the consequences that would flow if the ALP accepted my offer for the debate to be adjourned. We are conscious also of the problems that would arise in the implementation of this scheme if the Bill were amended at this stage. We think a more sensible approach is to accept the Bill as it is and seek to amend the legislation at another time when it is more propitious for the people who will benefit from it. Any amendment of the Bill by the Senate at this point in the parliamentary timetable unquestionably would hold up the legislation for an unpredictable period.

I think that acquiescence by my Party in the foreshadowed amendments proposed by the Opposition would be a shock to it. I do not think that the Opposition believes that there is any possibility of its proposed amendments being carried or, indeed, that it believes that they should be carried in view of the inevitable fact that it would mean that the Bill would be buried for a lengthy period and that therefore many people injured during that period would be denied benefits under the legislation. We cannot accept the assurance given by Senator Bishop, although he made it in all sincerity. He suggested that we should know all about the amendments because they have been part of Labor’s code on compensation for some 12 months. 1 am certain that he will forgive me if I remind the Senate of the frequent occasions when the Labor shadow Minister, Mr Clyde Cameron, has made statements on labour questions. One that flies immediately to my mind is the question of strikes and penalties that would be enacted by a Labor Government against people who engaged in unauthorised strikes. I think that the shadow Minister of the Labor Party, Mr

Clyde Cameron, who leads his Party in this area, was quite sincere when he made his statement on what Labor’s policy was but within 2 days that was not Labor’s policy. The unions and the Federal Executive of the ALP met and they told Mr Clyde Cameron that although he might be shadow Minister in this field of operations the policy he was enunciating was not going to be the policy, however much he believed in it, that the Labor Party would enact if it became the Federal Government. Mr Clyde Cameron was forced to change his public utterances. He did so on television, with a great deal of reluctance, and stated a private point of view at that time that what he thought he had said was in the interests of the Australian people but that had nothing to do with what his actions would be subsequently.

We should not take too seriously any suggestion that we should be aware of the Labor Party’s policy on questions of workers compensation or anything else. I am certain that those members of the ALP who arc logical enough to appreciate the sudden changes of front that occur every now and again will forgive us if we do not take them too seriously. We believe that the foreshadowed amendments have been drawn up largely for political purposes and in order to enunciate Labor’s policy. Members of the Opposition have that right. Their policy has now been enunciated. We believe that the Bill should be passed as quickly as possible. Not even members of the Labor Party think that they will be able to implement that particular plank of the Party’s platform.

We believe that the Bill is reasonable and sensible. We believe it is essential that the working people who will benefit from it have these benefits available to them as soon as possible. Any tampering with the Bill or any playing around with amendments as lengthy and as little understood as the proposed amendments are now would serve no good purpose for anybody at all. We do not think the Labor Party seriously expects its proposed amendments to be adopted. We support the Bill.

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– What we have heard today from the Democratic Labor Party is indicative of its approach to industrial problems. Its members criticise everything connected with the

Australian Labor Party. If they looked in a mirror at their images they would realise what they have said today. The DLP said today that if we sought to withdraw the Bill it would support us. That was said after we had declared our intention to support the Bill but to propose amendments. The DLP said subsequently that if any amendment were carried it would injure the workers of Australia because the benefits being conferred by this Bill would be deferred. Let us be honest and sincere about these issues. The DLP will not oppose the Government on any issue whatsoever. It has had its opportunity to do so time and time again but it will not do anything about it.

Senator Greenwood:

– I wish we were as sure, of that as you are.

Senator MILLINER:

– Of course you wish you were as sure as you are of our attitude. The Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) knows that we put up propositions that will be to the advantage of the people of Australia but he knows also that the DLP members will run along with anything that the Government wants, all the way down the line, particularly at this critical time in Australian politics.

I want to put another point of view to you, Mr President, about the, amendments foreshadowed by the Australian Labor Party. It was said by the DLP spokesman that his Party has no knowledge of them. But we have previously put up these propositions to the Parliament and copies of the proposed amendments have been in the hands of honourable senators for a considerable time. The DLP could have devoted its time and energy to studying them. I believe on occasions such as this that machinery could be introduced which would be of advantage to the people of Australia. I refer to the possibility of having all-party committees to consider issues such as this. I do not believe that there is strong disagreement between the parties that the workers of Australia should be protected in their best interests. If we got together, as we do on Senate committees, and determined the issues before us and then brought in recommendations to the Parliament, we would be in a far better position to determine what legislation should go on to the statute book. I am not suggesting for one moment that legislation should be taken out of the hands of the Government. I acknowledge that the Government is responsible for introducing legislation. But surely we could agree on principles. When it comes to the question of quantum of money to be allocated for this purpose, obviously the Government is responsible for making the determination.

I emphasise my point by referring to clause 8 of the Bill which seeks to amend section 45 of the Act by inserting new subsections after sub-section (2.). I will not read the proposed new sub-sections. They are in the Bill for all to read but I suggest it would take a layman considerable time to determine what is meant by the words contained there. If there were an all-party committee to investigate these things properly we might - although I do not know - be able to express those proposed new subsections in a way which would be more understandable to people. Perhaps the Attorney-General, who is a Q.C., may say that the Bill is easy to read. Well, all right, but one might get some other legal authority who would say that it is not so easy to read. I put forward that point of view quite sincerely because I believe it would be in the interests of all concerned if a procedure of that nature were adopted.

Senator Bishop expressed the Australian Labor Party’s view on the amendments and I will not canvass those thoughts any more. What I do say to the Government is that I believe it should recognise the trends in industrial affairs, particularly in relation to workers compensation. I do not know of anything more cruel than the treatment of a worker who is injured on the job through no fault of his own and yet is denied a living wage while he is off on compensation. It seems incredible to me that we should still adopt that procedure. If I may say so, courts of this land have decided otherwise. They have decided that workers injured at their employment should not lose because of it. Surely it is an anomaly that a worker who is injured in his employment while doing the best for his employer, for himself and for industry generally and goes on workers compensation should receive a reduced wage when another worker, who may be injured while playing cricket, football, hockey or any thing of that nature over the weekend, receives full pay for the period of his illness consistent with the terms of the award or industrial agreement under which he works.

If your officers are going to say that this is not so, Mr Minister, I will produce plenty of evidence to show that the courts throughout this land have accepted that anyone injured in a sporting activity is entitled to sick pay in accordance with the provisions of the industrial agreement or award under which he works. If the Minister wants that information it is easily and readily available.

Senator Greenwood:

– That is not what you said initially. You talk now about sick pay. You said earlier that compensation was payable to a person injured while playing cricket on a Saturday afternoon. I would not have thought that was the case.

Senator MILLINER:

– I did nothing of the kind. If I said compensation, I apologise. I meant to say sick pay. I correct my statement if I did say compensation. However, let us forget about injury received during the weekend. A worker who is injured in his employment goes off on a reduced wage, but if he becomes sick while he is in employment he goes off on a full wage. Surely that is an incredible situation and others looking into that system may wonder what it is all about.

I appeal to the Minister to accept some of the propositions put forward by Senator Bishop because I believe it would be in the interests of the community for the proposition to bc accepted. I also ask the Minister to accept that last time when legislation on this measure was before us it was promised - probably vaguely but nevertheless promised - that matters raised by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and trade unions themselves would be considered in the next amendments to the Act. I do not think they have been considered. However, that is water under the bridge. I do say that before there are any further projected amendments to the legislation, irrespective of what government is in office, there should be more consultation between the unions, the employers and the government which is responsible for the measure. I believe that the amendments reflect the wishes of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the vast majority of unions, particularly the views of the Federated Clerks Union which the Australian Democratic Labor Party says is affiliated with its organisation.

I will not say any more although I could say considerably more. Before concluding my remarks I would like to take up the point on which Senator Little concluded when he said that the Labor Party was introducing its amendments for political purposes. On the previous occasion when we did not introduce amendments in order to allow legislation to go through we were charged with neglect of our responsibility to the workers.

Senator Greenwood:

– No, we commended you for supporting our Bill.

Senator MILLINER:

– Ah, Mr Minister, you and Senator Wright did that very thing. Again, that it water under the bridge; 1 will not canvass it any more. 1 ask the Senate to accept the propositions advanced by Senator Bishop.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · Victoria · LP

– in reply - 1 thank the Opposition and the Australian Democratic Labor Party for their indications that once again measures introduced by the Government in the field of Commonwealth employees compensation will have the endorsement of the Senate. The Senate will appreciate that a little over 16 months ago the Government enacted completely new Commonwealth employees compensation legislation. The major Act is now the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1971 which replaced the earlier legislation that had been in existence for some 40 years. At the time that legislation was introduced last year it was recognised on all sides that new legislation was desirable. 1 remember standing in this place in about May or June of 1971 and complimenting the Opposition on the fact that it fully endorsed this Government’s approach to Commonwealth employees compensation legislation. This was something of a landmark because, as 1 have said, it has been often alleged that the Party of which I am a member, and the Party with which my Party is associated, have shown no real interest in these matters. We have always denied that, because we think the record shows that this is untrue. We had proof positive of the satisfactory character of the legislation when it was accepted without amendment by the Opposition in both Houses at that time.

This Bill complements the 1971 legislation. As Mr Wentworth, the Minister for Social Services who was in charge of the Bill, said at that time, there would be opportunity for further representations to be made and for consideration to be given to what was put forward by the Australian Council of Trade Unions or any of the unions that had representations to make. This Bill, in its provision of full pay for a disabled workman for an aggregate period of 6 months, gives effect to the submissions made by Mr Souter and the Council of Public Service Organisations to the Minister for Social Services. It is a carrying through of what the Minister said over 12 months ago would be the pattern he would follow with regard to this legislation. The legislation introduces full sick pay during a period of total incapacity for an aggregate of 6 months. There is also an increase in general monetary benefits which are provided not only in the periodical payments which are capable of being made but also in the lump sum payments which are made on injury. There are other transitional matters which have not excited comment during the course of the debate.

I recognise that the general approach of the Opposition is one of accepting what has been proposed by the Government because this is generous legislation which gives substantial improvements to many injured workers and therefore is to be commended. The broad approach of the Opposition is to give effect to its ideological doctrines by moving a few amendments during the Committee stage of the Bill. Whilst the substance of these amendments has been canvassed in this debate I feel it would be appropriate to leave my remarks about them until the Committee stage. I appreciate the Senate’s general attitude. Mr Clyde Cameron, the shadow Minister for Labour in the Labor Party described the 1971 legislation as the second best piece of workers compensation in Australia. We, the Government, took that as a fine acknowledgment from the Labor Party’s major spokesman on industrial matters. He excepted at the time the 1971 South Australian legislation, but this measure when it is passed by the Senate will go far and away ahead of the South Australian legislation. We on the Government side take satisfaction from this unsolicited testimonial which we have received from the Labor Party’s leading spokesman on this issue. I thank the Senate for its co-operation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to.

That consideration of the Bill in Committee be made an order of the day for a later hour in the day.

page 2260

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP

(2.21) - by leave - I move:

I have conferred with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) and the Leader of the Democratic Labor Party (Senator Gair) on this matter. There exist some very special circumstances which require me in my capacity as Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Murphy as Leader of the Opposition and Senator Gair as Leader of the Democratic Labor Party to agree to this proposal. The circumstances justify a small delegation - 3 in number - going to Sydney tonight.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I have always opposed this type of procedure. As 1 have said from the start, it is an encroachment upon the time of the Senate for committees to meet during sitting hours of the Senate and I do not know where it is going to end. I can take the matter no further than that because there appears to be something secretive about it. I accept the assurance of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) that special circumstances exist. I shall content myself with raising my protest on the matter. I hope that the special circumstances are that there was no other available time for the Select Committee on Securities and Exchange to meet and I shall leave it at that.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I do not want to take the time of the Senate by prolonging this debate but I also want to raise my protest. Quite frankly, Senate select committees and standing committees, given the facilities, can do a tremendous job for this country. Some months ago, we were treated to a statement that, because of special circumstances, none of which were explained to us, it would be necessary for a committee to meet at that particular time. This procedure then spilled over to apply to a joint committee which met a week or so ago to discuss various matters which had to be put through before the Parliament rose. There must be mismanagement at the top for this sort of thing to happen. Today a select committee must again meet during the dying hours of this Parliament. I do not think that it is good enough and I hope that no other requests will be made for any other committees to meet between now and when we adjourn today or tomorrow.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If we al) did this, there would be no meetings of the Senate.

Senator KEEFFE:

– As my colleague interjected, if we all did this there would be no sittings of the Parliament. We would have standing and select committees meeting to consider various subjects requiring the entire personnel of this House. I would like to know the reason why the Select Committee on Securities and Exchange is to meet tonight. Is it going to investigate Nickelfields of Australia NL or another company? Is this the reason for it? Perhaps the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) might explain to us why there is such great urgency for a committee to meet during the sitting hours of this House.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Health) (2.25) - in reply - In closing this debate, I want to make it clear that I have been put in a very embarrassing position. I did have discussions with Party Leaders on this matter. In fact, the extraordinary circumstances are that a dissolution of the Parliament will occur within about 36 hours and there is a need for the Senate Committee on Securities and Exchange to hear evidence from, I understand, the last witness to appear before that Committee. That is the reason why this proposal has been put forward and if 1 appeared to be secretive about it, I did not mean to be. The reason given was that the Committee has only one more witness to hear and, as there is shortly to be a dissolution of the Parliament, the Committee requires a resolution of this nature so that it may hear the witness during the parliamentary sittings. We hope to rise reasonably soon and that is the reason why we have consented to this course being followed. I want to make it clear that this proposal was not put forward on my initiative; it came to me from the Chairman of the Committee. I consulted the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) and the Leader of the Democratic Labor Party (Senator Gair). I think we should carry this motion on the voices. I am just as concerned about it as are Senator Cavanagh and Senator Keeffe.

Senator Murphy:

– I did not hear all that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) had to say.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Murphy, you will require leave if you wish to speak at this stage.

Senator Murphy:

– I seek leave to make a statement on the same subject.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– The Leader of the Government did speak to me about this request and, for a variety of reasons, I agreed with a great deal of reluctance to the proposal that has been put. 1 was not concerned only because the Select Committee on Securities and Exchange would be meeting at the same time as the Senate. I will not go into the reasons why. but it may be the last opportunity that I have to speak on this matter. As one who moved the motion for the establishment of this Committee in the first instance, 1 must say that I feel greatly disappointed that the Committee will not present its report before the Parliament rises. I will say no more on the matter.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2261

COMPENSATION (COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES) BILL 1972

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Prowse:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is it the wish of the Committee that the Bill be taken as a whole?

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

Mr Chairman, may I suggest that that should be the procedure to be followed? As the document before the Senate is a complex one, no doubt there will be some questions about it. The range of the Opposition’s amendments is from section 5 to section 100 of the Act and I suggest that it would be advisable to take them in globo after questions relating to any of the clauses have been put. Unless there is any objection, that should be the procedure to be followed.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

Senator Bishop has amendments to move on several clauses andI understand that he is to move them in globo. I wish to make some remarks in relation to clause 6 of the Bill but 1 do not want to confuse it with what Senator Bishop is to do. Could we dispose of Senator Bishop’s amendments and return for further debate on clause 6 of the Bill?

The CHAIRMAN:

– There being no objection from the Committee, 1 will allow that course to be followed.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I take it that Senator Cavanagh suggested that he be allowed to deal subsequently with Clause 6.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That is right.

Senator BISHOP:

– The amendments that I will move relate to the following clauses which read in part:

Clause 4.

Section 5 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting in sub-section (1.), after the definition of medical treatment’, the following definition: “Overtime” includes -

any duty on shifts or on Saturdays, Sundays or other holidays; and

excess travelling time;’.

Clause 7.

Section 39 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (11.) the words ‘any of the last 4 preceding sub-sections, and inserting in their stead the words ‘sub-section (6.) (7.), (9.) or (10.) of this section’.

Clause 8.

Section 45 of the Principal Act is amended-

by inserting after sub-section (2.) the following sub-sections: (2a.) Notwithstanding the last preceding subsection, but subject to the succeeding provisions of this section if the prescribed amount applicable to the employee under the next succeeding subsection in respect of a week, being one of the first 26 weeks of the period, or of the aggregate of the periods, of the incapacity, is greater than the amount of compensation that would, but for this sub-section, be payable to him in respect of that week under the last preceding sub-section (including sub-sections (3.) and (4.) of this section, if applicable), the amount of compensation payable to him in respect of that week is that precribed amount. (2b.) For the purposes of the last preceding sub-section, the prescribed amount applicable to an employee in respect of a week is -

in the case of an employee who is, during that week, employed by the Commonwealth under conditions of employment providing for sick leave payments - an amount equal to the sum of -

the sick leave payment that he would receive in respect of that week if, during that week, he were entitled to, and were granted, sick leave on full pay by reason of an illness that is not attributable to an injury in relation to which this Act applies; and

the amount, if any, that was payable to the employee under the next succeeding section in respect of the week that ended immediately before the commencement of the period of the incapacity or, where there are 2 or more periods of incapacity, the last of those periods;

in the case of an employee who is not employed by the Commonwealth during that week, but was, immediately before he ceased to be employed by the Commonwealth, employed under conditions of employment providing for sick leave payments - an amount equal to the amount that would be applicable to him under the last preceding paragraph if he has continued in that employment; or

in any other case - an amount determined by the Commissioner, having regard to the following:

if the employee is, during that week, employed by the Commonwealth - the amount of the earnings, if any, payable to him in respect of that week in respect of that employment;

if the employee is not, during that week, employed by the Commonwealth - the amount of the earnings, if any, that, if he had continued in the employment in which he was engaged immediately before he ceased to be employed by the Commonwealth, would have been payable to him in respect of that week in respect of that employment; and

any other matter that the Commissioner considers to be relevant. (2c.) For the purposes of the last preceding sub-section -

an employee who would be, or would have been, employed but for his incapacity shall be taken to be employed, or to have been employed, as the case may be;

a reference to a sick leave payment is a reference to a payment by way of salary, wages or pay in respect of a period during which the employee concerned is absent from bis employment by reason of illness; and

a reference to earnings, in relation to an employee -

includes a reference to the earnings that would be, or would have been, payable to the employee but for his incapacity; and

does not include a reference to a payment in respect of overtime or a reference to an allowance that is intermittent or is payable in respect of special expenses incurred or likely to be incurred by the employee in respect of his employment’; and

by omitting from sub-section (3.) the words the last preceding sub-section’ and inserting in their stead the words ‘sub-section (2.) of this section’.

Clause 9.

Section 46 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from paragraph (b) of sub-section (2.) the word ‘sub-section’ and inserting in its stead the words ‘sub-sections (2a.) and’.

Clause 10.

Section 50 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from paragraph (a) of sub-section (2.) the words ‘in pursuance of this Act’ and inserting in their stead the words ‘under a provision of this Act, other than sub-section (2a.) of section 45’.

Clause 11.

Section 99 of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting from sub-section (6.) the words so much of and

by omitting from sub-section (6.) all the words after the word ‘dependant’ (second occuring).

Clause 13. (1.) The amendments made by this Act, other than sections 8, 9, 10 and 11, apply in relation to any weekly payments of compensation made in respect of a period occurring on or after the date of commencement of this Act notwithstanding that the compensation is payable in respect of an injury sustained, a disease contracted, or an aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of a disease suffered, before that date.

C2.) Where, on or after the date of commencement of this Act. an employee -

dies;

suffers a loss of a kind referred to in section 39, 40 or 42 of the Principal Act;

suffers facial disfigurement of a kind referred to in section 41 of that Act; or

becomes liable for any cost of a kind referred to in sub-section (3.) of section 37 of that Act, the amendments made by this Act, other than sections 8. 9, 10 and 11, apply in relation to any compensation payable in respect of that death, loss, disfigurement or cost, notwithstanding that it results from an injury sustained, a disease contracted, or an aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of a disease suffered, before that date. (3.) The amendments made by sections 8, 9 and 10 of this Act apply in relation to -

an injury the date of which is the date of commencement of this Act or a subsequent date; and

the contraction, aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of a disease, the date of which is, by virtue of sub-section (2.) of section 29 of the Principal Act, to be deemed to be the date of commencement of this Act or a subsequent date. (4.) The amendments made by section 1 1 of this Act apply in relation to damages recovered on or after the date of commencement of this Act. (5.) Expressions used in this section have the same respective meanings as in the Principal Act. 1 move:

– Clause 4, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: - “4. Section 5 of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting from sub-section (1.) the definition of ‘child in relation to whom this Act applies’ Sind inserting in ils stead the following definition: - “child” means a son, daughter, grandson or grand-daughter, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or child by adoption, or other child in the custody, care or control of the employee, who is not self-supporting, and includes a son or daughter, whether legitimate or illegitimate, who is born after the employee’s death;’;

by omitting from sub-section (1.) the definition of ‘dependant’ and inserting in its stead the following definition: - “dependant”, in relation to a deceased employee, means the widow of a deceased person and such persons as were wholly, mainly or partly dependent upon the employee at the date of the death of the employee or would, but for the incapacity or death due to the injury, have been so dependent;’;

by inserting in sub-section (I.), after the definition of ‘medical treatment’, the following definition: - “overtime” includes -

any duty on shifts or on Saturdays, Sundays or other holidays; and

excess travelling time;’;

by adding at the end of sub-section (1.) the following definition: - 1 “widow” in relation to a deceased employee includes a woman who, although not legally married to the employee, lived with him at the time of his death on a bona fide domestic basis and, in relation to a deceased aboriginal native of Australia or of a Territory of the Commonwealth not forming part of the Commonwealth, includes a person who was recognised as the wife of that aboriginal native by the custom prevailing in the tribe or group of aboriginal natives of Australia or of such a Territory to which that aboriginal native belonged.’;

by omitting from sub-section (4.) the words other than sub-section (5.) of section 43*3 and

by omitting from sub-section (10.) the words ‘an impairment of speech of the employee referred to in sub-section (10.)’ and inserting in their stead the words ‘a partial loss referred to in sub-section (4.)’.”.

– Leave out clauses 7, 8 and 9, insert the following clauses: - “7. Section 25 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in ils stead: -

For the purposes of this Act, the average weekly earnings of an employee before an injury shall be calculated in accordance with this section: -

a reference in the succeeding provisions of this section to earnings of an employee in relation to any employment shall be read as including a reference lo any allowance payable to the employee in respect of that employment other than an allowance that is intermittent or is payable in respect of special expenses incurred or likely to be incurred by the employee in respect of that employment;

where an employee was, at the date of the injury, employed by the employer only in part time employment or in employment in respect of which he ( employee was not paid, any earnings of the employee from any other employment shall be treated for the purposes of this section as if they were earnings of the employee from his employment by the employer;

subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, the average weekly earnings of an employee before the injury shall be calculated in relation to the period immediately preceding the date of the injury in which he was continuously employed by the employer but any part of that period that was earlier than 12 months before that dale shall be disregarded;

subject to the next succeeding paragraph, if, during the period ascertained in accordance wilh the last preceding paragraph, the minimum amount per week payable to the employee in respect of his employment by the employer was varied as a result of the operation of a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory of the

Commonwealth, or as a result of the making, alteration or operation of an award, order, determination or industrial agreement, or of the doing of any other act or thing, under such a law, so much of that period as occurred before the variation took place or, if there was more than one variation, before the last variation took place, shall be disregarded for the purposes of the last preceding paragraph;

where -

as a result of a variation in the minimum amount per week payable to the employee in respect of his employment by the employer, a period that occurred before the variation took place would, by reason of the last preceding paragraph, be disregarded for the purposes of paragraph (c) of this section; and

if that period were so disregarded, it would be impracticable to calculate the average weekly earnings of the employee before the injury in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, or the average weekly earnings as so calculated would not fairly represent the rate per week at which the employee was being remunerated in respect of that employment before the injury. that period shall not be so disregarded but the average weekly earnings of the employee during that period shall be taken to be the amount that would have been his average weekly earnings during that period if the variation had taken effect at the commencement of that period;

if, during any part of the period in relation to which the average weekly earnings of the employee before the injury are required to be calculated by virtue of the last three preceding paragraphs, the earnings of the employee were reduced, or the employee did not receive any earnings, by reason that he was absent from his employment owing to illness or otherwise, that part of that period shall be disregarded for the purposes of paragraph (c) of this section;

where, by reason of the shortness of the period during which the employee has been employed by the employer, it is impracticable to calculate the average weekly earnings of the employee before the injury in accordance with the last four preceding paragraphs, or the average weekly earnings as so calculated would not fairly represent the rate per week at which the employee was being remunerated in respect of that employment before the injury, the average weekly earnings, as calculated in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section, from employment by the employer before the date of the injury of an employee who was performing comparable work shall be taken to be the average weekly earnings of the first-mentioned employee before the injury;

subject to paragraph (k) of this section, if the minimum amount per week payable to the employee in respect of the employment by the employer in which he was engaged at the date of the injury would, if he had continued in that employment, have been increased -

upon the attainment by the employee of a particular age; or

upon the completion by the employee of a particular period of service, a reference in this Act to the average weekly earnings of the employee before the injury shall be read as a reference to the amount that is, by virtue of the preceding provisions of this section, to be taken to be the amount of those average weekly earnings, increased by the same percentage as the percentage by which that minimum amount would have been so increased if the employee had continued in that employment;

subject to the next succeeding paragraph, where -

the relevant employment of an employee is employment referred to in subsection (4.) of (5.) of section 7, or sub-section (2.) of section R, of htis Act; and

the employee is not in receipt of earnings from any other employment at the date of injury, a reference in this Act to the average weekly earnings of the employee before the injury shall be read as a reference to an amount determined by the Commissioner to be the amount per week that the employee would have been able to earn at the date of the injury (including any amount that he would have been able to earn in respect of overtime) if he had engaged in suitable paid employment;

if the minimum amount per week payable in respect of employees included in a class of employees in which the employee was included al the date of the injury is increased or reduced on or after thai date as a result of the operation of a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory of the Commonwealth, or as a result of the making, alteration or operation of an award, order, determination or industrial agreement, or of the doing of any other act or thing, under such a law, the amount that is by virtue of the preceding provisions of this section, to be taken to be the amount of the average weekly earnings of the employee before the injury shall be increased or reduced by the same percentage as the percentage by which that minimum amount was so increased or reduced, as the case may be;

in this section, “earnings” includes earnings in respect of overtime; and

where the employee deivers to the employer a statement in writing verified by statutory declaration setting out the amount of his earnings during any period, that statement shall be prima facie evidence that that amount was the earnings of the employee during that period.’.

Section 38 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section 5.).

Section 39 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: -

( - 1.) Where an injury sustained by an employee arising out of, or in the course of, his employment is a loss specified in the first column of the table in sub-section (9.) of this section, a lump sum of compensation equal to the percentage of special compensation specified or referred to, in relation to that injury, in the second column of that table is, subject to this Act, payable to the employee. (2.) For the purpose of this section, special compensation is an amount calculated by multiplying the minimum weekly wage for adult males as fixed from time to time by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission by five hundred and twenty. (3.) For the purposes of this section and the table in sub-section (9.) of this section, the permanent loss of the efficient use of a joint, organ, faculty, power, sense, limb or member, shall be deemed to be the loss of that joint, organ, faculty, power, sense, limb or member. (4.) Where an injury sustained by a employee arising out of, or in the course of, his employment is the partial loss of speech, eyesight, hearing, taste or smell, or of the use of a faculty, organ, limb, member or joint, a lump sum of compensation equivalent to such percentage of the amount of special compensation payable under sub-section (I.) of this section in respect of total loss of a similar nature as is equal to the percentage of the diminution of the efficiency of the faculty, sense, organ or part of the body concerned is, subject to this Act, payable to the employee. (5.) Where an injury sustained by an employee arising out of, or during, or in the course of, his employment is the loss of genital organs or the permanent loss of the capacity to engage in sexual intercourse or of the procreative function, the amount of compensation to be paid to the employee, shall be fair and reasonable having regard to the nature of the injury, the age of the employee, and any circumstances relevant to the injury or the consequences of the injury, but the amount of compensation shall not be less than SO per centum of, or more than the amount of, special compensation.

) Subject to this Act, the compensation payable under this Act in respect of an injury that is facial or bodily disfigurement to an employee is such amount of compensation, not exceeding the amount of special compensation, as is fair and reasonable having regard to the nature of the disfigurement, and any circumstances relevant to the injury or the consequences of the injury, and that compensation is payable to the employee. (7.) Where an employee sustains more than one injury in relation to which this section applies, he is entitled to payment of a lump sum of compensation equal to the aggregate of each lum sum payable under the preceding provisions of this section in respect of each of those injuries. (8.) The amounts of compensation provided in this section shall be in addition to any other compensation prescribed by this Act. (9.) For the purposes of this section, the table is as follows:

“9a. Section 43 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead:

  1. – (1.) Where the death of an employee results from, or is contributed to by, an injury, compensation is payable in accordance with this section. (2.) If the deceased employee leaves -

    1. more than one person who is a widow for the purposes of this Act, with or without any dependent children, but no other dependants; or
    2. a widow or dependent widower and one or more dependent children, but no other dependants, a weekly payment of an amount equal to the employee’s average weekly earnings before the injury is, subject to sub-sections (7.) and (8.) of this section, payable -
    3. in a case to which paragraph (a) of this sub-section applies - to the widows, or, if there are any dependent children and the Commissioner so determines, to the widows and dependent children, in such shares as the Commissioner determines; or
    4. in a case to which paragraph (b) of this sub-section applies - to the widow or widower, or, if the Commissioner so determines, to the widow or widower and dependent children in such shares as the Commissioner determines. (3.) If the deceased employee leaves a widow or dependent widower but no other dependants, a weekly payment of an amount equal to seventyfive per centum of the payment prescribed by the last preceding sub-section is, subject to sub-sections (7.) and .(8.) of this section, payable to the widow or widower. (4.) If the deceased employee leaves one or more dependent children, but no other dependants, a weekly payment or payments of such amount or amounts, not exceeding in the total the maximum weekly payment prescribed by subsection (2.) of this section, as is reasonably necessary to ensure the proper maintenance and education of the child or children is payable to the Commissioner for the benefit of the child or children. (5.) If the deceased employee leaves one or more dependants including any dependant in relation to whom sub-section (2.), (3.) or (4.) of this section does not apply, a weekly payment of such amount as is fair and reasonable, having regard to the extent of dependency of the dependent concerned, is, subject to the next succeeding subsection, payable to each dependant. (6.) The amount payable under the last preceding sub-section shall not exceed in the aggregate -
    5. if there is more than one dependant the maximum weekly payment prescribed by sub-section (2.) of this section; or
    6. if there is only one dependant the maximum weekly payment prescribed by subsection (3.) of this section. (7.) Weekly payments under any of the preceding sub-sections of this section are not payable to a widow or other female dependant, or dependent widower (as the case may be) of a deceased employee after her or his marriage after the death of the employee, but, if immediately before the injury or death of the employee, the widow or other dependent female or dependent widower (as the case may be) was wholly, substantially or partly dependent upon the employee’s earnings, a lump sum equal to the total of one hundred and four weekly payments, at the rate payable to her or him immediately before her or his marriage, is payable to her or him upon her or his marriage.

(8.) U-

  1. the deceased employee leaves one or more dependent children and, thereafter -

    1. the widow or dependent widower of the deceased employee or another person caring for the child or children marries or dies; or
    2. the Commissioner considers that circumstances have arisen that affect the proper maintenance and education of the child or children;
  2. any variation of the circumstances of any of the dependants of a deceased employee has occurred; or
  3. there is, in the opinion of the Commissioner any other sufficient cause, the Commissioner may vary any apportionment or, subject to the maximum weekly payments prescribed by sub-sections (2.) or (4.), or subsections (5.) and (6.), of this section, as the case requires, vary the amount of, or cancel, weekly payments that are the subject of a determination under any preceding provision of this section, but where the widow, dependent widower or another person caring for the child or children marries or dies, the weekly payments payable to each child shall not be less than one-sixth of the compensation that would have been paid to the deceased employee had he survived and been totally incapacitated. (9.) Notwithstanding anything in this Act -
  4. the Commissioner may, in respect of a child of a deceased employee who is not self-supporting, authorise the continuation of weekly payments until the education of the child is completed;
  5. where two or more employees die as the result of injury at or about the same time, and at the time of injury they were contributing towards the support of the same dependant or dependants, nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the Commissioner from determining that those dependants were dependent upon the earnings of each or all of the deceased employees; and (c) the amount of any child endowment paid under Part VI. of the Social Services Act 1947-1972 shall be disregarded in determining the extent of any person’s dependency.’. “9b. Sections 45 and 46 of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections inserted in their stead:

    1. Where an employee is totally incapacitated for work by an injury, a weekly payment of a sum equal to the employee’s average weekly earnings before the injury is payable to the employee for the duration of the period for which he is so incapacitated.
    2. Where an employee is partially incapacitated for work by an injury, a weekly payment of the sum (if any) by which the weekly amount that he is earning in some suitable employment or business after the injury is less than his average weekly earnings before the injury, or. if he is not engaged in paid employment, a weekly payment equal to his average weekly earnings before the injury, is payable to the employee for the duration of the period for which he is partially incapacitated. 46a. - (I.) In assessing the amount of the weekly payments to be made under either of the last two preceding sections, the Commissioner shall, subject to the next two succeeding subsections, have regard to any payment, allowance or benefit that the employee receives from his employer during the period of his incapacity, and the amount of the weekly payment otherwise payable under whichever of those sections is applicable shall be reduced to such amount (if any) as is just and proper in the circumstances of the case. (2.) The weekly compensation payable under either of the last two preceding sections shall not be reduced as a consequence of any earnings received by the employee during or after vocational training. (3.) Child endowment under Part VI. of the Social Services Act 1947-1972, a pension or allowance in respect of a child dependant upon the earnings of the employee, a payment other than that part of a pension not attributable to contributions for the pension paid by the employee under the Superannuation Act 1922-1971. the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1971 or the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Act 1948-1968, deferred pay, a payment under section 74 of the Public Service Act 1922-1972 or under section 8 of the Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Act 1943-1968, and payments for public holidays, annual leave or long service leave under any other law, award, determination or agreement, are not payments, allowances or benefits to which regard shall be had under sub-section (I.) of this section. “(4.) Where an employee is, subject to subsection (I.) of this section, entitled to weekly payments in accordance with either of the last two preceding sections and by reason of his retirement on the ground of invalidity caused by injury or disease, is also entitled to a pension under the Superannuation Act 1922-1971, the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1971 or the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Act 1948-1968, the liability for the weekly payments shall, if the employee so elects, but subject to the regulations, be redeemed by the payment of a lump sum of such amount as is determined by the Commissioner, having regard to the nature of the injury and the age and occupation of the employee at the date of the injury, and that lump sum shall be paid to the Commissioner for the benefit of the employee. 46b. Subject to sections 47 and 50 of this Act, where a determination is made that the liability of the Commonwealth to make further payments to the employee under section 46 of this Act in respect of an injury is to be redeemed, compensation is not payable to the employee under section 45 or section 46 of this Act in respect of a period of incapacity for work resulting from that injury, being a period occurring after the date of the making of the determination’. “9c. Section 47 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from paragraph (b) all the words after the words ‘as the case may be’.”. (3.)- Clause 10, leave out the clause, insert the following clauses: “10. Section 50 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.) the words ‘section 39 or’. “10a. Section 51 of the Principal Act is amended -
  6. by omitting sub-sections (1.) and (2.); and
  7. by omitting from sub-section (3.) the words sub-section (9). of section 45, sub-section (5.) of section 46’ and inserting in their stead the word and figures ‘section 46b’.”. (4.) In clause 1 1, leave out ‘and’. (5.) Clause 11, at the end of the clause, add the following word and paragraph: “; and (c) by omitting from sub-section (9.) the words ‘under sub-section (5.) or (7.) of and inserting in their stead the words ‘in respect of a child under’.”. (6.)- After clause 11, insert the following clause: - “11a. Section 100 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of sub-section (4.) the words ‘under sub-section (5.) or (7.) of, and inserting in their stead the words ‘in respect of a child under’.”. (7.) In clause 13. sub-clause (t.) leave out ‘sections 8, 9, 10 and’, insert ‘section’. (8.) In clause 13. sub-clause (2.), leave out ‘sections 8. 9, 10 and’, insert ‘section’. (9.) In clause 13, leave out sub-clause (3.).

J wish again to state briefly what 1 said in my address at the second reading stage of this Bill. Honourable senators will note that on the first page of the amendments relating to section 5 there are a number of definitions including the definition for child, dependant and widow. The Australian Labor Party has broadened these definitions on the basis of the advice received from those experts to whom I have referred. The bases are taken largely from the Victorian prescriptions and we have included in that section the overtime prescription which is now recommended in this Bill. There are also 2 consequential amendments relating to this matter. Section 25 is the section in which the Labor Party wants to provide, if not now, at some future time, the basis of the average weekly earnings for employees in respect to the compensation payments they will receive. The various clauses are related to how those average weekly earnings will be compiled and, of course, they are different from the bases proposed by the Government in relation to sick pay. There are various determinations as to how to calculate the average weekly earnings where an employee is only partly employed, and so on.

The next important amendment relates to section 39 of the principal Act and deals with specified injuries. By its amendments the Labor Party seeks to insert into the legislation its own principles. Apart from the amounts of compensation and the calculations which I have mentioned, we propose that the lump sum payment should be $26,000 as against the Government’s limit of $14,500. In addition on page 6 of our circulated amendments we have listed some permanent injuries which are not specified in the Bill although, as I have mentioned, they are covered in the South Australian Act. The last injury mentioned on our list is the loss of or the loss of the use of any other faculty, organ or part of the body not elsewhere covered in the Act, or partial loss of sense of taste or smell. For injuries falling into this category we say that the percentage of special compensation should be assessed by the Commissioner. Our intention is to remove section 38 from the principal Act. This section relates to vocational training. There is a later related section in the Act which provides that if a person who is doing vocational training has some earnings those earnings will be deducted from the compensation which he would ordinarily get.

I turn now to another important section of the principal Act, section 43, which deals with compensation for death. Our approach to compensation for death is entirely different to the approach that is taken in the principal Act. I think that our approach is different to almost all of the legislation. Our proposal is that a widow whose husband has been killed as a result of an accident on the job should be provided for as long as she lives with continuing payments equal to the amount her husband would have ordinarily earned whilst he was on the job. We would provide that a woman who remarried would receive a payment limited to 104 times the weekly payment that she would have received under the Bill, and we would make provision to continue the allowance for her dependent children. They are the main provisions which we want to include in the legislation.

There are other related matters which are more or less consequential to the objectives we have. It has been said, of course, by the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) that the Australian Labor Party believes that its amendments cannot be carried. We are not silly enough to believe that at this stage that, with the objections raised by the Democratic Labor Party, our amendments will be carried. I only repeat what I said earlier. The Labor Party since 1964 has been preparing what it considers to be a model code which ought to replace all other codes, particularly those in relation to Commonwealth employment. In the past the Government has failed to bring down a code. It will be remembered that in 1964, 1968 and at other times there were announcements that certain things would be done, but it was not until 1970 that Mr Bury brought down a Bill which was subsequently withdrawn because it was obvious that many of the prescriptions and particularly the definitions in that Bill were out of date and inconsistent with the best legislation which had been tested. I refer particularly to the Victorian legislation, which has been tested in the courts. There is no ambiguity about it and it provides the sort of cover we are looking for. After the announcements were made, of course nothing was done, and the Labor Party worked on its own Bill. It announced its own comprehensive Bill, which is now Labor Party policy, and the facts are that if the Labor Party wins the general election, as has been announced by the shadow Minister for Labour and National Service the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), that Bill will be the basis for future legislation. We believe that when compensation Acts are amended the appropriate parts of that model Bill ought to be written into the legislation. It cannot be said that we are putting up our model Bill for political reasons. It is a studied Bill.

We have met many of the officers who worked on the Government Bill and talked to them about what the codes were and how to translate them at various times, because as everybody knows, when we get an amendment to the compensation legislation it means one thing. For instance, in the case of this Bill, we might find that in 12 months time, some of the things that Senator Greenwood has said and which we believe, may not apply and amendments will have to be made. Specialised staff has to be engaged on this task. We are sure that our model Bill was largely the spur for the Government, whether it likes it or not, to bring in the code which we have already applauded. There is no secret about that. As the Minister has stated, the honourable member for Hindmarsh made the point that the Commonwealth legislation was only the second best piece of legislation. We are saying that with inflation and changes in legislation bit by bit and year by year State governments will go ahead of Commonwealth legislation unless there is a committee to make a regular review of it. It will be remembered that on the last occasion on which we debated compensation legislation we recommended that a parliamentary committee be set up. Mr Chairman, because of the stage we have reached in the sittings of the Senate, I merely state that for the reasons I have mentioned we believe it is necessary to promote the principles we have in mind. I repeat what the shadow Minister for Labour has said: In the event that Labor wins the election, such amendments as I have moved would be put into legislative form at an early stage.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Prowse:

– Is it the wish of the Committee that the amendments and the new clauses proposed by Senator Bishop be taken together? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · Victoria · LP

– There is an air of unreality about the amendments which Senator Bishop has moved. The amendments are extensive and they are substantial in language. They cover 10 pages in the document which has been circulated to us, and yet they have been moved in the Committee stage in globo. That to my mind represents 2 things: Firstly, that we are all under the pressures of time; and secondly, that there is a recognition by the Opposition that if its amendments were carried it would deprive people of benefits which they will become entitled to under this Bill, because if its amendments were carried of course the Bill would then have to go back to the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives of this 27th Parliament has departed, I imagine, never to return again. Nevertheless there is a perfunctory performance of duty in the motion for the amendments to be made. I think we should be indebted to Senator Bishop for his statement that what is involved in these amendments represents a policy to which the Australian Labor Party is committed and to which it would seek to give legislative expression if it ever were to be the Government. Because it has that character about it 1 propose to say a few words by way of explanatory opposition to what has been moved.

Some of the amendments proposed by the Opposition merely involve a question of degree, and such propositions merely seek to go further than the Government is prepared to go at this stage. The Opposition has nevertheless put forward some proposals that are unrealistic, and their cumulative effect could lead to situations which would be quite absurd. The Government Bill, for instance, introduces a full pay principle on the basis of full sick pay, but the Opposition of course says that this does not go far enough. It is claimed by the Opposition that the full pay should be based on average weekly earnings, but ponder a moment what that would mean. If sick pay was to be based on average weekly earnings, that would include overtime which the employee may have worked but for the incapacity. In one sense this is a question of degree, but what the Government is setting out to do in the Bill which is now before the Committee is at least as generous as any other scheme currently in existence, and still the Opposition is not satisfied with that. As I have said on other occasions, this represents an ideological commitment which is not tied to the responsibilities of government. The Government’s proposition is that the full pay principle will apply for an aggregate of 26 weeks of total incapacity. The Opposition for its part seeks to ensure that it would apply indefinitely.

The Government’s proposal is the first compensation legislation to introduce such a provision. The vast bulk of the Australian work force is covered by State workers compensation Acts. No State workers compensation Act has yet introduced this principle or been amended to grant this specific benefit. Some workers covered by State workers compensation Acts through industrial awards or agreements receive the benefit of make-up pay or full pay in the course of incapacity resulting from industrial accidents. With very few exceptions, compensation in respect of these accidents is limited to 6 months or 26 weeks. Indeed, there is a common rule in Queensland, as I understand it, where the full pay principle currently has the widest application. In that State the period for which compensation is paid is 26 weeks from the date of injury. That period is more restrictive than the provision contained in the legislation which the Government has introduced and which provides for an aggregate period of 26 weeks.

Another Opposition proposal is that the lump sum payments for specified losses be extended to include loss of or loss of the use of any other faculty, organ or part of the body not covered elsewhere in the principal Act and that all lump sum payments of specified losses be calculated on the basis of a formula. Under that formula the losses attracting the highest benefit will attract a payment of between $26,000 and $27,000. This compares with the amount proposed in the Government’s Bill which is $14,500. The Opposition has gone further than that and proposed in another amendment that the payment for such losses should in no way affect an entitlement for future weekly payments. But it is significant to note that the low level of the lump sum payments in other States contrasts very significantly with the lump sum payment which the Australian Labor Party proposes.

The only State which operates a benefit in any way comparable with what the Labor Party proposes is New South Wales where lump sum payments do not affect future weekly payments. I think it should be noted that in the State of New South Wales, where that principle does apply, the highest amount of compensation payable is $9,000. This can be compared with the amount that the Government proposes of $14,500 and contrasted with the amount proposed by the Labor Party of 527,000. The weekly payments are to be made on top of the lump sum. As I said, 1 think this is a fantasy. I would call the approach that the Labor Party makes to these measures a reckless one. Not content with this, the Opposition seeks to go further, lt is easy to give other people’s money away, particularly when it is the taxpayers’ money with which one can be generous. The Labor Party’s generosity on this occasion goes so far as to propose that any money earned by an employee in th, course of or after vocational training is not to be take into account to reduce the amount of compensation otherwise payable.

Let us examine what would be the cumulative effect of the proposals that the Labor Party is putting forward. The Labor Party asks that the employee receive full pay indefinitely on the basis of average weekly earnings, including overtime. The Opposition contends that the employee should receive lump sum payments up to $27,000, which should in no way affect future weekly payments. In other words, what the Opposition is saying is that full pay, including overtime, should continue and it says, on top of that, that if the Commonwealth has provided vocational training which opens up a new vocation for an employee his earnings from that employment are an additional bonus and are not to be taken into account to reduce the compensation otherwise payable.

Is the Labor Party prepared to say this openly on a public platform and to accept or to acknowledge that that is responsible action in the administration of a workers compensation scheme. Perhaps one of these days we will have a really affluent community where that sort of situation can prevail. But I think we are far from it at the present time. What the Opposition is saying is that the injured employee, whether injured at work or in travelling to or from work, is to receive full pay, including overtime, indefinitely, plus a lump sum payment which could be fairly substantial- up to $26,000 to $27,000 in severe cases. It is saying also that, after the Commonwealth has paid to train an injured worker for a new vocation, that worker also receives the bonus of his earnings in the other vocation and that this cannot reduce the full pay compensation already being received by him.

I wonder sometimes whether the Opposition really knows what its own proposals involve. The amendments which are proposed by the Opposition certainly are not acceptable to the Government. The Government has deep feelings and sympathy for and recognition of the rights of injured persons. Because of the character of the legislation that we have put on the statute book, no-one can challenge that statement, I believe that the Governments approach is responsible, and that is more than can be said for what is implicit in these amendments moved by the Opposition. I suggest that the approach of the Government can be comprehended in the statement that it is a responsible approach and yet a reasonably generous approach. I would have thought that it is the type of approach which commends itself to people who look at these things sensibly and responsibly and it certainly is to be preferred to the type of approach which is characterised by the Labor Party’s amendments.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I wish to reply briefly to what the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) said in his speech because I think he has distorted the objectives of the Australian Labor Party. I refer firstly to the last matter which he raised, vocational training. I take the case of a man who is a paraplegic and is confined to a wheel chair. After rehabilitation in a centre such as St Margaret’s Convalescent Hospital in Adelaide, he can be equipped with certain devices to assist him to earn a living or part of a living for himself. As a result of this treatment he may be able to manipulate objects or to make objects.

What the Government is saying is that the promises that it has made about abolition of the means test - this is a policy that it has copied from the Australian Labor Party - are nonsense and are to go by the board particularly in relation to handicapped people. The Attorney-General is saying that a handicapped person is to be discriminated against if he is able to earn $2 or $3 a week by making such items as souvenirs or bracket fittings for homes. That is what his remarks mean. It is as simple as that. The Minister’s advisers may laugh about the example that I have given. But the issue concerns a man, who is hardly able to carry out any manipulation, being deprived of any small amounts that he may earn. This is the principle involved. We are against the Government’s attitude. We think that our proposal is reasonable. We can justify it to the community. We certainly can justify our stand to those who represent these handicapped people. 1 turn to sick pay and the no loss of pay principle. As the Minister’s advisers obviously well know, and as the trade union movement and, no doubt, government departments know, many agreements providing for that now exist in the community. The principle does not relate to sick pay because sick pay represents the minimum earnings of the person injured. The Government’s legislation specifically excludes any defined benefits. I invite the Minister to consider any classification of work - fork lift drivers, crane drivers, boilermakers or fitters. The award rate of payment for any classification that the Minister may choose is the minimum rate of pay for that classification. The rates of pay paid on the job to people in such classifications are almost double the award rates. In the face of the situation confronting us. we have no hesitation in saying that we can defend these objectives before the public. We hope that we will have the opportunity to do so.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Bishop’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator E. W. Prowse)

AYES: 21

NOES: 21

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I wish to raise certain comments in relation to clause 6. I was interested in the discussion which took place on the amendments. The question which was asked was: Are we prepared to deprive workers of the increased benefits contained in this Bill until such time as Parliament resumes after the election? I query whether we are giving benefits to employees or whether we are restricting the benefits paid to employees. When one Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill was being debated I traced the history of workers compensation from the time of the industrial revolution in England. I think I pointed out that from time to time the judiciary has been in the forefront on the question of the importance of benefits to injured workers and that politicians seem to follow behind. I now raise the question of whether the courts have reached an advanced stage at which they cover every incident related to employment - whether it is at employment or not at employment. Clause 6 refers to section 32 of the Act. That section and similar sections, which were introduced in 1937, do not restrict what the court has already decided - whether compensation should be payable.

My intention was to raise this matter during the debate on the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill last year. It was debated during the last week of sitting, as has been each Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill. This year the Bill is being debated on the last day of the Parliament. So that we do not deprive someone of benefits we have to sacrifice our right to inquire into the Bill. As Senator Little complained, we are not given an opportunity to decide properly amendments to the Act on their value. On each occasion we have to decide the amendments after the other House has risen. If we carried an amendment, that would deprive someone of a benefit. Clause 6 seeks to extend section 32 which deals with employees who are living in places of employment provided by employers. It refers to residence in distance localities, such as in camps. I believe it refers to the accommodation of, say, a man employed by the Postmaster-General’s Department. I query whether that is not covered already since the word ‘or’ has been inserted instead of the word ‘and’ in the phrase ‘not arising out of or in the course of employment’. The courts have taken an attitude to incidents away from the place of employment which do not arise out of the employment.

The well known authority on workers compensation - Mills - has recently published an edition which contains reports of various judgments on this question. Among them is the case of Molyneux v. The Commissioner for Railways in New South Wales. The reference is given. The manager of railway refreshment rooms, living on premises supplied by the employer, was killed at a level crossing near his station when returning from a golf club evening. This was found to be covered, as it was a normal recreation where he had to live in this isolated locality. The change of attitude by the courts to what arises out of employment was shows by Mills when he quoted the case of the Department of Public Works v. Majcher. An injury sustained as the result of an attack on a worker by another worker at night in a camp provided by the employer at an isolated place of work was held to have been received in the course of the employment. Mills stated that it was clearly in the contemplation of the employer that the camp provided would be availed of by some at any rate of the employees and it was in the employer’s interest that the camp should be so used in order that the work might be carried on continuously during normal working hours. Hence the worker’s presence there at the time could be regarded as incidental to the employment. This quote was from the judgment of Chief

Justice Street. These compensation cases arose out of incidents in camps, and the employees were covered.

Goward v. the Commonwealth is now authority for the proposition that where it is a practical necessity for the worker to live in a camp away from home, and this necessity has been recognised by the employer providing and regulating the conduct of the camp and paying a camping allowance, living in the camp will be regarded as an incident of the employment and, hence, it seems, at least prima facie, part of the course of the employment. Similarly the act of carrying provisions into the camp, where this is a necessary part of the camping procedure, is incidental to the employment. That was decided in the case of Ford v. Forestry Commission of New South Wales. There are a number of other authorities for the court having taken that attitude. So it goes far beyond what the clauses of this Bill provide. Mills summed up:

The position of the worker will be the same where the injury occurs in a camp provided by the worker himself, at least where camping out is a necessary incident of the work: If the injury is the result of a risk inherent in camping, e.g., a burn from the camp fire, it will arise out of and in the course of the employment.

He went on to say that Murray v. Moppett and some other cases which are referred to probably would be decided differently now. He continued:

A somewhat analogous situation arises in the case of commercial travellers and other workers who are required by the nature of their jobs to stay overnight in hotels away from home. In Davis v. John O’Neill and Co. Ltd … a commercial traveller had been injured when a fire broke out in the hotel where he was staying, Perdriau, J., holding that the injury did not arise either out of or in the course of his employment: His duties took him to that town, but he was not required to stay at that particular hotel, and he was not performing any duties incidental to his employment at the time.

A number of references were given, after which Mills went on to say that the case of Murray v. Moppett would now require a different decision on these facts. He said:

Certainly, the traveller himself chose the hotel at which he stayed, but the choice was made necessary by the nature of his employment; apart from this, he was at a place where his employment required him to be, and at a time when his employment required him to be there, which should be sufficient to establish that the course of the employment was still subsisting, unless some act on his part had taken him out of it.

Here we see that the attitude of the court now is that where it is necessary to live away from home in a camp it is incidental to the employment. Today’s acceptance of the legal definition of ‘incidental to the employment or arising out of the employment’ already covers all cases which are now to be included as an extension of the Act. Accommodation provided by the employer is now to be. included, but not separate living accommodation. There is in the legislation a definition of ‘separate living accommodation’ which to my mind seems to restrict the wide application that the court has given. As Mills says, the commercial traveller referred to would now be covered because it was necessary for him to be in a particular town and it was necessary for him to stay at a particular hotel. This legislation seeks to restrict the right to compensation to a camp provided by the employer. The restriction that we are placing on the wording will restrict the application of the decisions of the court in previous cases and limit the meaning given to the term ‘arising out of or in the course of .the employment’. Perhaps the Attorney-General could assist me as to the interpretation to be placed on this provision. Are we extending the rights of workers under this legislation, as everyone thinks, or restricting them? It appears to me that we could be restricting them.

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I have been interested in the arguments raised by Senator Cavanagh. It seems to me to be strange to hear such arguments raised in this chamber. They seem to me to be the type of argument which more appropriately would be addressed in compensation cases in courts of law. I should have thought that there would be no doubt that the effect of this amendment will be to extend the nature of the employment in respect of which, if an injury occurs, the Commonwealth is obliged to make compensation. If Senator Cavanagh were to look at the existing provision he would see that it is more limited than the amendment which is proposed. He has accepted that it is the Commonwealth’s liability to pay compensation for an injury arising out of or in the course of the employment of the Commonwealth. The important consideration, therefore, is what is comprehended by the words ‘the employment of the Commonwealth’, Once one has ascertained that, one can examine whether the injury arose out of or in the course of that employment. Employment over the years, as the compensation Acts have developed, has widened and extended. It is now not simply that period of time between 7.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m., or whatever hours of the day it may be that one is in the employ of one’s employer; it is now deemed to include periods of travelling. It is deemed to include also things which one is doing incidental to one’s employment but which are not strictly a part of it. Sub-section (3.) of section 8 of the Act provides:

For the purposes of this Act other than section 32, the employment of an employee by the Commonwealth includes the attendance of the employee at his place of employment (other than a part of that place constituting separate living accommodation of the employee) at any time during a period when he is not required to engage in his employment, where the attendance is reasonably incidental to his employment.

So he may be at his place of employment at any time and be entitled to be regarded as in the employment of the Commonwealth if his attendance there was reasonably incidental to his employment. One can imagine the situation where a worker employed by the Postmaster-General’s Department is way out in the country and the only place to which he can go when he is not technically on duty is in the area of his place of employment. That, imagine, on my understanding of it, could be an attendance reasonably incidental to his employment. But there are some gaps there. One of the gaps is that his being at a part of a place constituting separate living accommodation excludes him from being able to say that he is within the employment of the Commonwealth. The amending Bill seeks to make it quite clear that providing a worker is not in, for example, his own living room or bedroom or the living room or bedroom of a person at one of these camps, wherever he is within that camp, provided that it is at his place of employment or connected with his place of employment - something which has been provided for him because of where he is working - any injury which occurs to him at that time would constitute part of his employment. For example, the amending Bill says:

For the purposes of this Act other than section 32, the employment of an employee by the Commonwealth includes the attendance of the employee at his place of employment or. if his living accommodation is accommodation to which subsection (1.), (2.) or (3.) of section 34 of this Act applies-

I interpolate simply to say that they are the sub-sections of the provision where an employer, having required an employee to live away from home, provides living accommodation for him or money with which to get his own temporary living accommodation - at thai accommodation (other than a part of that place, or of that accommodation, constituting separate living accommodation of the employee or another employee) at any time during a period when he is not required to engage in his employment, where the attendance is reasonably incidental to his employment.

The effect of that may be put in other words in this way: Under sub-section (3.) of section 8 of the Act as it stands at the present time employment by the Commonwealth for the purposes of the Act includes the attendance of an employee at his place of employment other than at a part of that place constituting separate living accommodation as defined - for example, selfcontained married quarters within an Army camp where the attendance is reasonably incidental to his employment. I think that is self-explanatory. We come now to what is proposed in this amendment to the Bill. The words to be inserted by the amendment will ensure that employment by the Commonwealth for this purpose also includes the attendance of an employee at living accommodation of the types referred to in sub-sections (1.). (2.) and (3.) of section 34 of the principal Act. For example, the amendment ensures that the protection provided by the sub-sections will extend to a member of, say, a Postmaster-General’s camping party while he is in attendance at the camp, that is, the living accommodation, even though his place of employment is outside the camp area, perhaps on telephone lines several miles from the camp.

At the same time the amendment extends the limitation in relation to attendance at separate living accommodation. This is an extension of the limitation. Currently an employee is excluded the cover provided by the sub-section while he is in his own separate living accommodation. That may be reasonably understood even if there might be differences of opinion on whether it is justified, but he is in his own home as it were - his own separate living accommodation. The insertion of the words ‘or another employee’ ensures that he is also excluded while in the separate living accommodation of another employee.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– 1 seek clarification on this. I do not dispute what the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) has said but I wonder whether he understands my point. By extending the limitation in relation to living accommodation, will this add anything to the entitlement of a worker under the more liberal attitude which the courts take to injuries arising out of a person’s employment? Would the courts, unfettered by legislation such as this Bill, go further than clause 6 would permit them to go? Is it a restriction? I understand what the Minister said about an injury in the course of employment and whether accommodation is provided by an employer. But take the case of PMG staff working at Oodnadatta where the only recreation in the town at night is at the golf club. By restricting the staff to periods of time at work and periods in the camp provided by the employer, would that exclude a person from receiving entitlement to compensation? I have in mind the case of Molyneux v. the Commissioner for Railways in which the court upheld the claim that a person returning from a golf club at night was reasonably incidental to his employment.

In regard to separate living accommodation, if a person found his own accommodation in Oodnadatta but because it was insecure or it subjected him to the possibility of injury, would the fact that he was living in that accommodation be regarded as reasonably incidental to his employment? If there is no amendment to cover this situation - although the courts have accepted this principle - is it correct that in isolated camps or isolated localities there is much wider coverage in regard to workers compensation than is provided by putting in a clause which will give them coverage, which the courts have already extended to them, but with some restrictions? If we say that coverage will apply only when they live in the camp which is provided, which is nol separate living accommodation, do we restrict the extension that the court has granted within the meaning of the words ‘in the course of his employment’? I agree that the amendment in the Bill seeks an extension of the existing provisions of section 8 but section 8 in itself may not be restrictive in view of the courts present attitude on this question.

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I do appreciate the general argument which Senator Cavanagh is putting and the question which it raises for me. I think it must be appreciated, however, that whether an employee is to be entitled to compensation as a result of injury suffered by him when he is away from home and required to be in another area in the course of employment, depends upon whether the activity in which he is engaged at the time he suffers his injury is part of his employment and, if it is part of his employment, whether it occurs in the course of his employment.

As [ understand it, Senator Cavanagh wants to know whether in the legislation which is currently before us we are in fact cutting down what otherwise a person might be able to obtain if he were ‘o apply to the courts under the existing legislation.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I simply say that if he applied under the existing legislation the ambit of his entitlement would be fixed by the terms of the existing legislation because there is no inherent workers compensation legislation which the courts can apply in the way in which they apply genera! principles of common law. Any existing rights must be based upon legislation, lt is clear that the existing provisions of section 8 sub-section (3.) of the principal Act are extensive and apply to the principle behind several of those cases to which Senator Cavanagh has referred as coming from decisions in State jurisdictions, but because there is a limitation even in what is contained in section 8 sub-section (3.) at the present time the purpose of the amendment is to extend the limitation, and it extends it so that a person who is in a camp which is provided for him by his employer, because that employer has taken him away from his own place of employment, then provided he is not then in his own separate living accommodation any .injury to him whilst he is in that camp would be compensable. It does not matter whether the camp is 100 miles from his actual working place because the purpose of this amendment is to cover that situation precisely, but it does not have to be at his working place. It can be many miles away and provided he is there he is still covered. I have no doubt from my examination of this that it is an extension of an existing definition which works in the employee’s interest.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

page 2276

UNITED STATES NAVAL COMMUNICATIONS STATION (CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES) BILL 1972

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 25 October (vide page 1905), on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2276

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL 1972

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 25 October (vide page 1908), on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2276

COMPANIES (FOREIGN TAKE-OVERS) BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 October (vide page 2026), on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– Once again the Senate is faced with a piece of legislation that has been put together hastily. I think that this example is one of the worst because the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) indicated in some confusion several weeks ago that he had actually worked on this Bill. Then he found and had to admit that he was referring to some other Bill. Apparently the legislation was then thrown together to have something to be put before the Parliament in an endeavour to show that the Government was really conscious of these economic matters and was trying to do something about them, even if it was only in the last few days of its 3-year term in office, the last of the vintage that we have had for 23 years. The legislation has all the indications of being thrown together in haste, lt is not the fault of the parliamentary draftsman. The fault is that the Government has no real policy on the economic matter of foreign ownership and control.

The legislation is fragmentary. It is conceded to be unable to operate properly on its own. Apparently there is to be some other Bill to set up an authority that is envisaged. Even then we are dealing only with a small section of takeovers. We are dealing with only a tiny part of the problem of foreign control of our industries, commerce and resources. This Bill is completely inadequate to cope with the great problem of foreign control of Australian industries and resources. We are in a critical stage. Thai crisis was admitted by the officers of the Department of the Treasury who appeared before the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control. I asked them:

We are in a somewhat critical stage right now, are we not, with overseas moneys apparently flowing into Australia al a great and perhaps unprecedented rate? ls that correct?

They agreed with me and answered:

That ib correct.

It is a crisis. Australia has always been a political colony. We are largely emancipated from that position today but not entirely. We still retain some of the vestiges of a political colony. Of course, we have always been an economic colony. The extent to which foreign control of our industries and resources is increasing certainly has disturbed many people in Australia. The fact that there are no real policies or procedures whereby Australia can determine what is in its own interests, and set up authorities to ensure that is alarming. The legislation in its own way seeks to deal with certain takeovers, namely, foreign takeovers. A definition is contained in the Bil) that a takeover will be 15 per cent of any one interest or 40 per cent in the aggregate. There is also machinery for orders and other matters which are not necessary to traverse now. The Bill is aimed at takeovers by purchases of shares so as to give foreign control in this way.

I suppose if the Bill were looked at as part of a general legislative scheme and there were satisfactory measures in other respects, it could be said that this Bill represented a reasonable endeavour to handle the problem. But the Government recognises that this is no real solution, lt is not even prepared to say that it is a permanent approach to the question in this limited way because the Bill purports to operate only until 3 1st December 1973. In its original form as presented to the House of Representatives it is of a temporary nature. The Government’s feeling of some distrust of the Bill as a measure capable of permanently containing this problem can be shown by the inclusion of a clause which states that the Bill ceases to operate even before the end of next year on a date to be fixed by proclamation. So the legislation could be tossed aside as law if a proclamation were made to say, in effect, that it was repealed by proclamation. If that were done it would be deemed to have been repealed by some legislation other than this legislation, lt is an exceedingly temporary and inadequate Bill. It does not cope with the problem that has become more and more recognised as the real problem, namely, that of foreign control. That control may be exercised in a number of ways other than by the purchase of shares in some company which controls an Australian enterprise or Australian resources.

There are ways in which the controls can be exercised extremely effectively without any ownership of shares. For example, control can be exercised by making conditional loans rather than by shares being taken up. The conditions attached to the loan can be such that effective control is secured by those who have made the loan. That is one of the increasingly popular ways of exercising control. It can be done by means of franchise agreements under which, for example, a whole retail industry, including all the outlets can be tied up. The conditions under those franchise agreements are such as to give control to the person who owns and gives the franchise or licence. In this and in other ways control can be exercised. This Bill does not even attempt to deal with those matters. As I say, it has just been thrown together and put to the Parliament. But at least this Bill has the virtue of being proceeded with. It is not like the Restrictive Practices Bill which has been hovering around for so long. Those proposals were put before us earlier in the year so that we could have a look at them. We were told that the Bill would be debated at this time of the year. Although it has been introduced, the Government says: ‘Ah. but we are not going to proceed with it’. And so wilh the anti-monopolies legislation, the insurance legislation and so many other pieces of legislation. The Government is not even prepared to put its legislation through the Parliament. But this Bill is to go through.

The nation is entitled to policies on foreign ownership and control that will serve our needs. It has been clear for a long time that the elementary procedure is to determine some guidelines in respect of the entry of foreign investment. There ought to be in this country, as there is in other countries, a set of limitations and guidelines on foreign investment which deal with such matters as limitations upon the field of enterprise, the period of operation, the legal form and structure of the enterprise, co-operation between foreign and national capital in enterprises, the development of Australian manpower - that means the acquisition of know-how and skills and so on - and also a determination of the priorities for fields of enterprise. As I have said, those considerations are elementary, and one will find them set out in the policies of many other countries which are faced with this problem of foreign ownership and control and which are coping with it in the traditional way.

One does not have to be a genius to come to the conclusion that there ought to be some such guidelines. In the interests of those firms who are seeking to come here as well as those already here, the Government’s policy ought to be clearly set out within these guidelines, and such guidelines can be extremely valuable. Even if the Government had stated its guidelines with some clarity - that is, even without legislating - a good deal could have been achieved. My authority for that proposition is Sir Alan Westerman, the head of the Australian Industry Development Corporation. On page 426 of the record of the proceedings of the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control, I am recorded as asking Sir Alan Westerman:

Do I understand then that you think that by a suitable set of rules we could improve the Australian content and reduce the degree of overseas ownership and control, as there would be a divestment by the foreign interests even if they were simply asked, or if that were nol enough, if some kind of encouragement or discipline were applied?

Sir Alan Westerman said:

Yes. I believe you would get something for just as little as that.

I said:

And would you agree that the foreign interests regard us as fools for not having some such rules?

He replied:

I have not heard them use precisely those words, bin I have often heard them express some wonder that we are one of the few countries which does not appear to make public any requirements for local participation. lt is clear that the Government has let Australia down badly on this question which has excited us for a long time. During the 1960s concern about the situation was expressed not only by the Australian Labor Party but also by other parties and by those who are affected by foreign ownership and control. Many people throughout industry and commerce and many nationally minded persons in Australia have been calling out for national policies. There have been no national policies. There have been no national objectives of any kind. It is little wonder that there has been no national policy on foreign control because one needs to have some national economic objectives or policies if one is to have a sensible policy on foreign control, because that policy needs to be fitted into the total national economic planning and objectives. That was one of the conclusions in the interim report of the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control. If I might remind the Senate, paragraph 7 of the Committee’s report states:

The fundamental problem encountered by the Committee is the lack of any national economic planning policy or objectives which can be used as a framework against which the benefits or otherwise of foreign investment can be related.

That is a damning indictment of this Government, and it is a proper indictment. That indictment was one founded on the evidence of witness after witness who came before that Committee and stated that this was the problem, namely, the lack of any national policies. The conclusion stated in that interim report was an irresistible conclusion. We should have legislative measures directed towards the attainment of such national economic planning policies and objectives. The legislative scheme dealing with foreign control ought to be in conformity with those policies and objectives. The Australian Labor Party is of the view that at the least the legislative measures dealing with this topic ought to include laws to ensure that adequate information will be kept on the existence and degree of foreign ownership and control and the movement of capital and income which affect such ownership and control. There ought to be laws which provide that information on the beneficial ownership of all shares be available publicly or at least to those who have to make the decisions on these questions.

As I have indicated earlier, because control may be exercised otherwise than through shares, there ought to be laws which provide that information on the beneficial ownership of other property should be made available publicly or at least to those who have to make the decisions in regard to foreign control. There also ought to be a national Companies Act. Despite the Government’s failure to introduce such an Act I think that now the feeling in Australia has moved heavily towards a belief in the advantages of such a national Companies Act. We ought to have a securities and exchange commission, and again I believe that the feeling of the community has moved heavily towards that as being a desirable policy. I note that in one of the interim reports of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange, although the expression ‘securities and exchange commission’ was not used, except on one occasion when the Committee did so by inadvertence, words were used which indicated that the Committee had at least formed the interim view that there should be some such Federal regulatory body. There ought to be a screening agency to regulate further foreign investment and to advise the Government on all matters con cerning the flow of foreign money into Australia and all substantial foreign takeovers and mergers. In other words, the provisions in this Bill ought to become part of a provision for proper screening agency on a permanent basis and not limited simply to takeovers by the purchase of shares. There should be definition of strategic or sensitive areas from which foreign control should be excluded. That was again the subjejct matter of one of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control, and that view was confirmed by the evidence given by a number of witnesses before the Committee. Those sensitive areas, according to some of the experts, ought to include the financial institutions; the financial institutions should be included in the strategic areas.

There ought to be provision for and encouragement of foreign participation where it is to the national advantage, and that advantage ought to be determined by tests, such as whether the investment will add to Australia’s real resources and not cause any unwanted economic effect, such as to reduce competition or to create unemployment or surplus capacity; whether the investment will ensure minimum restriction of export franchises; whether it will deplete scarce resources, cause pollution or environmental destruction or alienate Aboriginal lands; or whether it will be better served by locally sourced capital.

There also ought to be tests which would include a consideration of the limitations on the period of enterprise. For too long have we approached this question as being one which ought to be determined on the absolute of whether foreign participation ought to be permitted and on absolute approaches of time, that is, whether it is to be permitted for all time or not at all; and there are intermediary stages, such as permitting foreign participation for some period of time - either to go out at the end of that time, or for some transition and erosion of the extent of foreign participation or in particular of foreign control. There should be provisions in the law to ensure the transfer of knowhow, expertise and the other advantages which could accrue from the entry of foreign capital, management or techniques. There should be the establishment of some agency, such as an adapted Australian Industries Development Corporation or a National Development Corporation, to regain control of Australia’s industries, commerce and resources. This is practicable, and it was dealt with by Sir Alan Westerman in his evidence before the Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control. He indicated that he thought that a National Development Corporation could be used as an agency to enter into the large scale exploitation, say, of our mineral resources; that great sums of money could be made from such entry; and that that money could be ploughed back into regaining the ownership and control of those industries and parts of commerce which already have passed under foreign control. The money necessary for that could be obtained on a government guarantee without the expenditure of government moneys and by borrowing preferably overseas. Sir Alan Westerman, as we know, has been charged by the existing Government with the responsibility for this great organisation - The Australian Industries Development Corporation. It would be interesting to know what could be done if such an organisation had the hampers taken off it; if the limitations which are built into it were removed; if it were given its head. That, or perhaps another agency with similar but somewhat widened powers, could set out vigorously to mobilise money, to endeavour to exploit our resources in the interests of our own people and to secure into Australia’s hands those resources, industries and parts of commerce which already have gone into the hands of others.

This is not the only way it can be done. As the Committee indicated, some members of the Committee were of the view that this should not be restricted merely to Government enterprise; that there could be participation by the Australian Resources Development Bank. There may be differences of opinion between us as to which agency should undertake this great task, but I do not think that there ought to be any difference of opinion about the importance and the necessity for the task being undertaken. The participation of private enterprise could also be by way of encouragement of life assurance companies and superannuation funds to make greater investment in national development projects.

There ought to be established or expanded enterprises to operate under licence from multi-national corporations. There also ought to be an entry by the Federal Government, either alone or with State or foreign governments or their agencies or other companies or persons, into enterprises in order to ensure that these enterprises are in the control of this nation and operated for the benefit of this nation. That may easily be done, as it has been done by other countries, by means of corporations or joint ventures, or similar means.

There have been many famous instances in the world of the development of the great natural gas and oil resources; for instance, Libya co-operated wilh the Government of Italy in this field. There have been movements throughout the world towards this type of joint venture approach to the development of resources and of industries, particularly in the underdeveloped countries, but it is not necessary that such approaches should be restricted to those countries. One of the tragedies of recent times is that our Government apparently has failed to extend the hand to other governments; it has failed to extend the hand to agencies of other governments and even to private corporations in order to enter into this co-operative endeavour for the exploitation of the tremendous resources of Australia. Instead, we have seen the passage of these resources out of our hands, and we have become tenants in our own country; we have become observers of the operations being conducted on a large scale by enterprises controlled from overseas.

There also ought to be a review and a revision of existing taxation provisions and double taxation agreements in the light of the balance of trade with benefiting countries and specifically to remove the, advantages that can be obtained by overseas investors but not by Australians, and there ought to be a re-enactment in a modern form of an Australian Industries Preservation Act.

Senator Hannan:

– Go on.

Senator MURPHY:

– I see Senator Hannan giving great attention to that, and I am pleased because that is one of the measures which we need. We need an effective anti-monopoly law. We need effective restrictive practices laws. We need to move into this province of economic law and order, but the Government, I regret, has signally failed to do what it has been pressed on all hands to do, and that is not only to take the measures which are necessary to stem the increasing trend in Australia to foreign ownership and control, but also to endeavour to reverse that trend. If some of the Government senators are amused at that statement I ask them to read table 17 in the White Paper issued by the Treasury. They will not, I would hope, be amused to see that the overseas ownership of our motor vehicle industry is 88 per cent and the overseas control likewise is 88 per cent. The non-ferrous metals industry has 62 per cent foreign ownership and 83 per cent foreign control. The mineral oils industry has 79 per cent overseas ownership and 81 per cent overseas control. The pharmaceutical and toilet preparations industry has 75 per cent overseas ownership and 76 per cent overseas control, and so on along the line. Major Australian industries are owned, and worse, controlled, by overseas owners so that the destiny of this nation is being controlled in the economic sphere with all the attendant implications, politically and culturally, by foreigners.

My party and I believe - I think the vast majority of the Australian people believe - that this is not good enough for Australia and that the control of these industries should be returned to Australian hands. There should be a proper basis for participation of foreign capital and a proper basis for participation of foreign techniques and the encouragement of those things where it is to our national advantage. But there is no reason why our industries, our commerce and our resources should be controlled by those who are not resident in this country. Therefore I move:

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson) - Order! Is the amendment seconded?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes. I second the amendment.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– My intervention in this debate will not be at any unusually great length because the Senate is now coming quickly to the end of this session. There is a great deal of legislation still to be considered before this Parliament rises and dissolves. Nevertheless we welcome the presentation of this Bill by the Government, albeit that we consider it is considerably belated. When one looks at the history of the governmental attention to foreign ownership and control one is rather disconcerted that for so long there has been an absence of any definitive, action to operate in this field or to lay down proper controls and disciplines, or for that matter even to accumulate the necessary information.

For many years there were virtually few guidelines until the former Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) laid clown, somewhat belatedly, guidelines relating to foreign investment in Australia. The Democratic Labor Party over a long period sustained interest in this matter and finally moved for a select committee of this chamber to investigate the whole matter of foreign ownership and control of Australian resources. That committee has been constituted, has met, has taken evidence and has produced an interim and intermediate report. The gigantic nature of the investigation, the necessity to sectionalise its deliberations and its areas of examination indicate just how vast is the problem, how technical is the problem and how careful one must be in attempting to provide solutions.

Therefore, it is somewhat disconcerting that the Government, in the absence of available information, should take this action, desirable and all as it is. One can only conclude, even in the absence of specific information, that there is sufficient evidence before the Government to warrant the introduction of this Bill, which is intermediate to the presentation of similar and complementary legislation in the new Parliament. Because the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control has been somewhat concerned and has expressed its concern in rather clear terms at the absence of information which would enable judgments to be made in this field, at page 7 of the interim report of the Committee is recited:

Another problem that exists as a result of the open door policy is the complete lack of quantitative information in respect of almost all aspects of capital inflow as illustrated by the fact that information in respect of Exchange Control Approvals for inward capital movements was published by the Reserve Bank for the first time in February this year. The Committee has been surprised at the complete openness with which overseas funds can flow into the economy, despite the fact that exchange control regulations exist and have been administered by the Reserve Bank since 1939.

The absence of quantitative evidence has been one of the problems facing this Committee. That the Government should bring in this Bill must indicate that if there is not a somewhat desperate position at least the position has sufficiently manifested itself to require the Government to move as it has done - commendably in this Bill - even in the absence of that accumulated knowledge in depth which the Committee found to be necessary and which so far has not been discovered in Australia.

Nevertheless, this Bill, so far as it goes, is a very great step. At least it will do something in the intermediate stage while the new techniques are being discovered and while the problem is being examined in greater breadth and depth. That will be the function of the Committee. One is also concerned at the absence of a more positive approach to the whole problem of capital investment in Australia. That is a specific term of reference before the Committee which was inserted designedly because we realised that a nation such as ours - perhaps any nation - must have a continuous inflow of capital for national development. Young underdeveloped countries particularly are in need of capital development. But if that is not to be obtained from outside - that is, if there are to be undue restrictions on the inflow of foreign capital - the only alternative is, within one’s own resources, to mobilise indigenous capital into national development or into projects which will merge or impinge on projects of a national developmental character.

Obviously this Bill does not purport to lay down any plans by which there may be a mobilisation of Australian capital. If there is to be an inhibition on the inflow of foreign capital by way of takeover of the equity purchases in Australian corporations, in the absence of any measures by which there can be an encouragement of the development of Australian capital commitment, we could find ourselves in a position of capital starvation. We could find ourselves in a position where we would have accumulating deposits at call in trading and saving banks and other savings institutions but those funds would not be committed to capital investment. Just how this is to be accomplished is one of the questions to be answered. It is a specific term of reference before the Committee. Whether the commitment of Australian funds is to be encouraged and accomplished by taxation concessions or in some way or another remains a problem to be solved. A formula has to be worked out and a solution discovered.

Therefore, we must accept this Bill for the merit that is in it; and there is very considerable merit in it. But it only goes a certain distance and does not purport to deal with many of the things to which I have referred. In particular, it is obviously prompted by a developing concern about the specification of the particular evidence which could only come from the development of statistical data which has not been available and which can only become available from now on. It is prompted by a growing, rather inchoate concern or perhaps because of the reflection of a national concern that our ownership and control is passing into foreign hands and something should be done about it. But whatever the basis, whatever the prompting, at least the legislation has very considerable merit. Whatever the solutions may be Senator Murphy, with considerable specification, has set out what he believes might be some of the methods by which the mobilisation of Australian funds and their commitment may be accomplished. Of course, a great deal of evidence on that matter has been given in public sessions of the inquiry, and the final conclusions of individual members of the Committee or of the Committee itself will come in due course. But many of the views which Senator Murphy has put forward are ones which possibly will be shared by many members as to techniques by the use of which the purpose may be accomplished. Those views may be shared by some of the members, by all of them or by one or two of them. I think that in general terms some of them will appeal to all members of the Committee and, when a report is presented, no doubt will be accepted by many members of the Parliament, if not by the Parliament itself. The intermediate report presented by the Committee already canvasses the matter of the enactment of a national companies Act. This is one matter on which the members of the Committee are ad idem, and I think that would find reflection in the nation as a whole.

Therefore we must accept this legislation at this stage for the virtue that is in it. lt lays down certain rather simple machinery, it attempts to redress situations that have developed, it provides for on-going situations and it provides for the necessary investigations. I think that in that sense it is considerably in the public interest and shows that the Government has moved to meet a developing situation which is causing national concern and even national alarm. I do not think that at this stage a longer examination of the measure or more detailed reference to its provisions is warranted. So, with those few observations, I indicate that the Democratic Labor Party supports the Bill and does not find itself in a position to support the amendment moved by Senator Murphy.

We realise that this Bill is a temporary approach; we realise that it is, perhaps, an inadequate approach. However, I think that, firstly, in view of the action which the Government has taken and, secondly, because the Government has intimated that a more final and more comprehensive approach is contemplated next year, it would be premature and unfair to anticipate it by an amendment of this kind, which is somewhat condemnatory and by way of a reprimand, however there might have been some delay and lethargy in bringing in this measure at all. I think that, in view of the action that has now been taken, the interest of the Senate, the operation of the Committee, the fact that an intermediate report has been presented and the announced disposition of the Government to bring down further legislation and to make a further examination in the intervening period, the amendment at this stage might well not be pursued. For those reasons, the Democratic Labor Party supports the Bill and finds itself unable to accept the amendment.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP

(4.3) - I thank the Senate for the passage of the Bill at the second reading stage. The Government will not, of course, support the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Murphy), even though it may well be that the carrying of the amendment as proposed would not necessarily lose the Bill.

Senator Murphy:

– It would not.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

We would not lose the Bill. 1 agree almost overwhelmingly with the comments made by Senator Byrne, and I believe that, since he has put them, it is hardly necessary for me to put them, too. This is an interim Bill. It is stated categorically that the Bill is to operate until 31st December next year. It is quite definitely, without any embellishments, an interim Bill pending the introduction in the new Parliament of another Bill which will, in fact, have regard to the canvass of items that were mentioned by Senator Murphy. He mentioned, and I do not mean this in any discourteous way at all, almost every problem that we as a nation have had and are having in relation to the great question - one of the most fundamental questions of our economy - of overseas investment and capital inflow. It is a question through which we have lived during our lifetime in this Parliament and it is one which is in a state of change.

Many of us seem to forget that Australia is a very young country and that there is a financial and economic limit to the capital that a country can generate. When one considers that this continent is bigger than central Europe but has only a tiny population in terms of the populations of other parts of the world, and when one looks at it in terms of our urge and our national characteristic to develop it, the simple fact is - and we all know it - that even now, with a population of 13 million, we cannot generate the capital which is required to do all the things that we want to do in this nation of ours. We as a nation, as a people - in a taxation sense, a productivity sense or any other sense - cannot generate the capital that we require. Our history, particularly since Federation and through 2 major wars and the smaller wars including the Korean War, has shown that a tremendous capital capability has been required in order to create and to provide the things which this country and the people of this country need.

Senator Murphy spoke about the percentages of overseas investment in certain industries. He spoke of the automotive industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the oil industry, and the ferrous metal industry. The simple facts are that, had we not had the advantage of that overseas capital, as a primary producing country of vast size with a variety of climates across the continent and with the ebb and flow of good times and bad times in terms of the elements we would have been a backward country. In the very essence of it we have had overseas investment; in the very essence of it we have had evolving, if one could put it that way, a situation in which overseas investment has had a significant equity in these industries. However, Australia is growing up. Whilst we have always recognised this need for capital, we recognised until the last 5 years or the last decade that capital was a shy bird. But we have grown up; we have become more capable.

Senator Gair:

– We frequently complained because overseas people would not invest in Australia.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– That is right. I can remember that early in my time in the Senate the story was always: “We are not getting sufficient capital for the things that our people require’. If one wants to go back to the simple things, but the important things - in the fields of local government and State government - one remembers that we were always hungry for capital, for schools, hospitals, roads and all these things. However, 1 repeat that we are growing up aud that we have developed. This is a great tribute not only to the people of Australia but also to our way of government in our democracy - and, I might say. it is a tribute to those who have had the responsibility of government in our democracy. Therefore, we have to recognise that this is an interim measure in relation to this question of foreign takeovers. The Government believes that we have reached the stage at which it is desirable and proper that we should have more control to ensure, as we are capable of doing, a greater Australian equity and to insure against the takeover element. This is all wrapped up in world finance, is it not? It is all wrapped up in the banking systems of the great nations of the world and in our currency. In fairness to Senator Murphy I point out that he gave us the complete canvas of all the things we need to look at. 1 do not walk away from the fact that when a permanent piece of legislation is introduced the very matters which he has raised will have to be looked at. I say this without prejudice to the way in which we may move in the national interest. The Senate Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control has put down its first report. It is a very important report and it canvasses many of the points which Senator Murphy has raised. If honourable senators look at my second reading speech they will see that I mention that when the Government does come to a permanent piece of legislation it will very properly look at this report and any subsequent reports which may be put down for consideration. 1 have with me a copy of the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ of Thursday, 26th October. I think a small passage in the editorial expresses the position better that I can. It states:

Wilh its much more mature economy Australia no longer need depend so heavily on foreign investment. As the Prime Minister said in foreshadowing the present Bill, we can now afford to trade off some of the benefits of overseas capital for a greater Australian share in our industry and resources, although we still need to be careful how we go about it.

I think they are effective words. They express the very spirit of this Bill. It is true, as Senator Murphy has indicated, that there are technicalities in the procedures of the Bill in this interim period but this is the spirit of the Bill. The intention of the Bill is the fundamental thing which we should be looking at this afternoon. This is an interim situation in relation to takeovers. The fundamental consideration of the Government in the short term is to afford protection against takeovers in this very widely drawn Bill. Indeed, this Bill has a double function because it applies to holding companies as well. That is inherent in the Bill. I want to finish on this note because I am trying to keep to the broad canvas of the function of the Bill. The national interest is the thing.

We in this Government want, as does everybody, a greater Australian equity and ownership but we realise that we are going through a period of development. We are growing and we cannot do these things with the stroke of the pen. We have to protect the Australian community and Australian capital investment. We have to protect our very way of life by ensuring that when capital does come in its does not do so in the sense of a mere take-over after all the sweat, blood and tears of the industry and the people have been expended. It is the public interest which we have to protect. It is not actually spelt out in the Bill as it is in the second reading speech which I do not need to develop here. I thank the Senate for the passage of the legislation. We resist the amendment but only because this is an interim measure. We will do the things we think we can do with more particularity and greater detail during the life of the new Parliament. But what we are doing here will ensure the protection of Australian citizens and the nation.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Murphy’s amendment) be added.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 22

NOES: 26

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

Mr Chairman, we are not very satisfied with this Bill. I do not think anyone would doubt that this Bill was hastily prepared. We are not happy about so many matters in it that it would delay the Committee considerably if I were to explain the objections to its structure and phraseology. I am sure that if I were to ask for answers to questions I would not get any which would illuminate us. Beyond indicating that this is a temporary and hasty Bill, 1 see no purpose to be served by going through it clause by clause.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth

Anderson) read a third time.

page 2285

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES) BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 October (vide page 1900), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

- Mr President, I suggest that, with the concurrence of the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) and the Senate, this Bill and the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 2) 1972 be considered together.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, that course will be followed. The Bills will be voted upon separately.

Senator WHEELDON:

– Apart from a rather minor provision in the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 2) relating to some adjustments to the capital expenditure in New South Wales for colleges of advanced education, the purpose of these 2 Bills is to give effect to the national wage case insofar as it affects the payment of academic salaries to members of the staffs of universities and colleges of advanced education. The Australian Labor Party certainly does not oppose the benefits of the national wage case being made available to members of the academic staffs of universities and colleges and for that reason we are not opposing the Bills. The new salaries for members of university academic staffs now range from a minimum of $6,801 per annum for a lecturer at the bottom of the scale to $15,368 per annum for a professor. It no doubt speaks well for the high regard in which members of this Senate place positions within institutions of tertiary education that the salaries of senators would place them in status somewhere near the bottom of the senior lecturers and well below professors, associate professors and readers. When one takes into account that at present there is a committee under Mr Justice W. B. Campbell of the Supreme Court of Queensland investigating the desirability of giving a further increase to academic salaries, one will see how dedicated this Parliament is to the adequate remuneration of academics. In fact it regards a university professor as being in the vicinity of twice as valuable as a member of this Parliament. I have nothing further to add on this matter at this stage so far as the ALP is concerned.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– in reply - We are dealing with 2 Bills which simply make adjustments to the contribution that the Commonwealth is making to the academic salaries of colleges of advanced education and universities. In one case the adjustment is $219,000 and in the other it is $70,000. As Senator Wheeldon said, they are subsidiary Bills. I do not think it is necessary to take further time to reply to anything that has been said.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2286

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION) BILL (No. 2) 1972

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 25 October (vide page 1902), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2286

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES) BILL (No. 2) 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 October (vide page 1902), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– I suggest, Mr President, that with the concurrence of the Senate the States Grants (Universities) Bill (No. 2) and the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 3) be taken together.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is it the wish of the Senate that there be a cognate debate on these 2 Bills? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Senator WHEELDON:

– The Opposition supports the passage of these 2 Bills also. The States Grants (Universities) Bill (No. 2) 1972 makes provision for payments to the States to assist them in the financing of universities for the 1973-75 triennium. It follows up on the fifth report of the Australian Universities Commission. The States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 3) 1972 is of a similar nature. It provides for grants to the States to assist in the provision of advanced education through colleges of advanced education for the 1973- 75 triennium. This Bill has been introduced as a consequence of the third report of the Australian Commission on Advanced Education.

The Australian Labor Party supports the establishment of commissions to advise the Government on the provision of finance for education. Not only do we support the Australian Universities Commission and the Australian Commission on Advanced Education; we go further than this. We believe in the establishment of an Australian schools commission to deal with related matters so far as primary and secondary schools are concerned, and an Australian pre-schools commission to advise on the provision of funds for pre-schools throughout the Commonwealth by assisting the States, where that is applicable, and by direct grants where that is not applicable. The criticism which has often been levelled against the Labor Party is that our policy of establishing a schools commission and a pre-schools commission will be to centralise education in the hands of a Canberra bureaucracy; that it will take away from the States the right to conduct their own affairs in the field of education. The very fact that this Government itself maintains the Australian Universities Commission and the Australian Commission on Advanced Education shows that despite what it says it does not believe its own propaganda. Indeed if one looks at the second reading speech of the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) on both of these Bills, one finds that mention is made of the acceptance within universities and colleges of advanced education of the recommendations that have been made by those commissions. The Labor Party agrees with these proposals. We believe they should go further. We believe that these commissions which have worked so successfully in the case of universities and colleges of advanced education, also would work just as well and just as successfully in the fields of primary, secondary and pre-school education. That is the Opposition’s policy and for that reason we do not oppose the Bills which are now before the Senate.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– It is rather unfortunate that Bills of this nature which involve such a gre?* deal of money and which have an effect on the lives and careers of so many people are placed in a situation where they must of necessity be restricted to a confined debate. However, I wish to take a moment or two to support the measures which are before the Senate this afternoon and to underline the fact that the purposes of the Bills is to give, effect to the Government’s decision to provide funds for universities and for the development of colleges of advanced education. The system of colleges of advanced education has, of course, received a wide measure of community support. It is important to point out to the Senate that the proposed level of expenditure for colleges under the States Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 3) 1972 represents an increase of some 78 per cent on the expenditure in the present triennium. This Bill, to which I wish to refer in particular, is a reflection of the Government’s determination to encourage, development of the system of advanced education.

In August last the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) put down the report of the Australian Commission on Advanced Education. The Commission made the observation that since its second report - the report which the Minister put down was the third report - colleges had developed remarkably and all of them had made good progress. The Commission observed that ‘growth has been the outstanding feature’ and this growth has been made ‘despite the problems which inevitably accompany a period of rapid expansion’. The Minister in his second reading speech referred to one or two other features in the report. He referred to the improvement in the quality of both students and staff. The Commission had been particularly impressed with the way in which what it called old and familiar educational administrative problems were being tackled in new and varied ways. The Commission found that there was a general willingness to abandon hide-bound or traditional attitudes and to experiment in a whole range of vital matters such as traditional attitudes, student selection techniques and modern educational technology.

The system of colleges of advanced education was designed, as the Senate knows, to meet an educational need, to complement the pattern of tertiary education and to provide for a greater diversity of opportunity. There is a warning in the Commission’s report where it makes the observation that while the basic purpose of the colleges is to increase the range of opportunities for tertiary education, and has a strong emphasis on practical application, it was concerned to note signs that this original aim was tending to be changed by academic pressures. So the Commission has made the observation that there, should be some restraint in providing courses which lead to senior degrees. I quote from part of the report which states: . . the performance of its graduates in industry and society rather than their qualifications will be the criterion by which the community judges the college system.

I have been very interested to note also that there has been a measure of support from the Australian Union of Students which has pointed out that colleges of advanced education should be more oriented towards vocational practical teaching and more towards industrial and social needs. One of the areas in which I have an interest in this measure is the relationship between the Bills and the report, of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts on the Commonwealth’s Role in Teacher Education. Honourable senators will recall that this report drew attention strongly to the necessity for the integration of teachers colleges into the college of advanced education system, indeed, one of the conclusions of the Committee in this sphere stated:

Those teachers’ colleges at present operating as single-purpose institutions should be incorporated as integral parts of colleges of advanced education wherever possible and that those teachers colleges which are geographically remote from existing or planned colleges of advanced education should be deemed to be Colleges of Advanced Education for the purposes of autonomy and eligibility for funds.

I note in both the second reading speech of the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in another place, and of the Minister for Works, who presented the Bills in this place, reference to the fact that a report is expected in March next year. I hope that there will be some further advance in respect of teachers’ colleges in the report which the Minister will pui down at that time.

Before I conclude my speech J briefly want to refer to one or two significant developments which are referred to in the Minister’s second reading speech. Firstly, I refer to the establishment of new colleges of advanced education in South Australia and New South Wales. There is also provision in the legislation for special assistance for student residences, particularly in country areas and for the running costs of and. of course, the provision of special assistance to libraries. These 3 matters are significant. Not only are they additional to education facilities but they also carry significant overtones of a social measure. I will not develop that argument at this stage although I think I could well do so in the light of various other measures which have been before the Senate in recent days. I have had the opportunity in the last 2 or 3 weeks of visiting and inspecting a couple of colleges of advanced education - one in Hobart and the other in Canberra. Both of them are most impressive establishments. The one in Hobart has been established to what may even be called a lavish degree. It is unique and is of very contemporary architectural design. One has an impression of size, and greater size yet to come in regard to the College of Advanced Education here in Canberra. Both of these colleges are fulfilling a unique role in the total pattern of education.

These 2 institutions and others like them, along with the financial references and allocations in the Bill, highlight the enormous amount of money and effort that is being spent on advanced education. At the same time, while more and more money is being spent on advanced education, there is a continuing demand for even more money to be spent on providing more facilities. In this regard, the taxpayer rightly asks for value for money but government equally rightly replies that, in terms of educational opportunities, it is providing opportunities for an everwidening range of people. So, in supporting the Bill, I draw attention to its value in the opportunities that it will provide and, above all, the diversity of opportunity, authority and management which is the important difference between the Government’s educational measures and the policy put forward by the Australian Labor Party.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– in reply - In rising to reply to the debate that has been offered on the States Grants (Universities) Bill (No. 2) and the State Grants (Advanced Education) Bill (No. 3), 1 feel that the occasion calls for a more complete review of the situation than has to date been advanced because we approach a debate on Bills of this sort only once every 3 years, as each of the commissions - the one dealing with colleges of advanced education and the other dealing with universities - puts forward a comprehensive report every third year in pursuance of their function. The commissions’ function, of course, is to make an assessment of the needs which exist in each of the fields to which I have referred over the triennium provided for in the Bills, namely, 1972-75.

I think that the Senate could connect the debate upon these 2 Bills with a passing reference to the Bill that has just been discussed - the Companies (Foreign Takeovers) Bill - in terms of the control of foreign capital entering Australia. It will be remembered that it was in the early 1950s that Sir Robert Menzies saw the need to provide extra assistance to Australian universities. Following a very thoughtful report on the needs that could be foreseen in the universities, the Menzies Government immediately decided that it was a field of Australian endeavour in which special assistance should be provided by the Commonwealth Government. So it is that we now have operating in Australia 16 universities. As 1 said in my second reading speech, we expect the university undergraduate population to increase by no less than 20,000 students during the triennium 1972-75 so that in 1975 the student body will total 140,000. I believe that this will give to the Australian population a very creditable proportion of the people who have access to university education.

That, of course, is not an end in itself. But the emphasis then laid upon the insistence for universities was in recognition of the need that industry would have for greater skills in the years that lie ahead of us. So, when the Universities Commission this year put forward its report, the Government introduced a Bill recommending a total appropriation of some $S96m. Of that amount, the Commonwealth’s share is to be S344m. Of the total financial programme, of S896m, $175m will be spent on buildings and equipment and the remainder in recurrent expenditure. I do not have before me the comparable figures for 15 or 20 years ago when the Commonwealth programme of assistance to universities was first established, but it would be safe to say that the figures 2 decades ago were minuscule compared with the programme of expenditure for the next 3 years of $896m, of which the Commonwealth’s share is to be $344m. This will provide for an increased population of university students who can be trained at the universities for the various and diversified lives that modern life provides.

Realising the intensified demand for technical skills from the Austraiian population, the Government in 1965 saw the necessity to branch out into a second field of tertiary education, namely, the colleges of advanced education. In this field, the Bill that we are discussing provides for a total programme of expenditure of S450m, which will cater for 44 colleges of advanced education. The amount of S450m includes the approporiation that is made for the Commonwealth Canberra College of Advanced Education but the total that the Government will provide for assistance to colleges of advanced education in the States will be of the order of about S423m. As I have mentioned, this assistance is to be provided for the second branch of tertiary education, the colleges of advanced education.

Senator Davidson, who obviously has a very great interest in the field of education, referred to the report of the Commission in which it is stated that the outstanding feature with regard to colleges of advanced education over the last 3-year period has been their growth. The report discussed in a most interesting way the degree of overlap and community of purpose between the colleges and the universities. Nevertheless, the Commission is quite definite in advising the Government that the colleges provide a field of practical and active application of learning to industry in a way in which the universities do not and, despite the degree of overlap, the Commission - composed as of course we all know of very resourceful and experienced people - is quite definite that there is an expanding role for these colleges to fulfil.

Of the $423m that the Bill will provide for State colleges of advanced education, $266m will be absorbed in recurrent expenditure while $157m will go towards expanding or reconstructing or constructing and equipping colleges. The Commonwealth’s share in recurrent expenditure will be $94m and in capital expenditure will be S79m. I have already pointed out in the second reading speech that there are particular aspects in the provision made in this triennium which have relation to assistance for buildings, not only of colleges themselves but of student residences at the colleges. There is also special provision designed to enlist the employment of private funds in the way of either loans of grants to the colleges. There is also special provision made for the running expenses of affiliated colleges; and, heeding the report of the Commission the Government has made special provision for libraries. I will not detail the amounts that are involved under each of these separate heads, but, I think it is satisfactory to the Senate to know that the Commonwealth Government is devoting a very significant part of its Budget in the ways I have indicated - a total of $344m for universities and $173m for colleges of advanced education under these 2 Bills. I believe that it is a satisfactory note upon which the Senate can proceed to the closing stages of this session to realise that there is projected into the future for the next 3 years a commitment of over S600m in the 2 fields of tertiary education to which I have referred. So, Mr President, in that spirit I recommend the Bill to the Senate.

I add one thing. I have noticed one argument that Senator Wheeldon advanced, lt was practically the only thing he chose to say, and I may be forgiven for having left it to be noticed as a postscript, so to speak. He said that as the Menzies Government and the McMahon Government had provided commissions, in one case for universities and in the other case for colleges of advanced education, so he would claim initiative for an original idea of . having a commission for primary and secondary schools and another commission for pre-schools. But the unfortunate fact about that is that the Australian Universities Commission caters for the needs of 16 institutions and reconciles the claims for appropriations by each of those 16 institutions. The Australian Commission on Colleges of Advanced Education caters for the need at present of some 44 colleges. It can be seen that it has to extend its net a little wider and cater for 44 institutions. But we had a commission dealing with primary and secondary schools we would have a commission which would have to reconcile the claims of no fewer that about 9,500 schools throughout the country. That shows how impracticable is the idea that Senator Wheeldon advanced again, copying what has been done by the present Government with regard to universities and colleges of advanced education. The idea that having commissions can be extended to include a commission to deal with all the problems of 9,500-odd schools is an impracticable idea which does not seem to be very acceptable for the purpose of real assistance to education.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2290

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION) BILL (No. 3) 1972

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 25 October (vide page 1904), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2290

AIRLINES AGREEMENTS BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 October (vide page 1985), on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Tasmania

– I presume that the Airlines Agreements Bill and the Australian National Airlines Bill will be dealt with concurrently.

Senator Cotton:

– I am happy for that course to be followed.

Senator WRIEDT:

– The Airlines Agreements Bill seeks essentially to renew the 2- airline policy of the Government; the other Bill seeks certain amendments to the Australian National Airlines Act, which concerns Trans-Australia Airlines. Before directing my remarks specifically to the legislation I wish to make a few remarks about the civil aviation industry. The Airlines Agreements Act was first introduced in 1952. The purpose of it was to ensure the continued existence of the private operator, nowadays Ansett Transport Industries Ltd, and also the continued existence of the Australian National Airlines Commission, that is TAA. It also provided for the maintenance of competition between the 2 operators and the provision of efficient and economical services within Australia.

Most of us are familiar with the background of the events that led up to the present duopoly situation where the 2 major operators are sharing almost equally the interstate market. In this situation they are both comparatively happy. They are both guaranteed profitable returns and both would resent any intrusion by a third operator. The Australian Labor Party’s position is quite clear. We believe that Australian aviation should be a vital industry that will reach the maximum number of Australians. To what extent are we achieving this goal? It is not easy to obtain statistical information to prove or disprove that we are, but it can be said that only a small proportion of Australians use aircraft for interstate travel. Airline travel is still not within the reach of a large percentage of Australians.

Industry growth has faltered somewhat in the past year or so when compared with its rate of development in previous years. The number of passengers embarked in 1969 increased by 12 per cent over the previous year and by the same amount the following year, but slipped to half that rate in 1971, mainly due to the recession in the economy brought about by this Government’s policies. This is a bad thing for the airline industry as investment in aircraft is such that a uniform rate of expansion in that industry is most important for a proper and economic utilisation of equipment. 1 wish to place quite clearly on the record my Party’s attitude to civil aviation. We believe very strongly in the principle of co-ordination of the various transport modes. This does not necessarily mean an amalgamation of different organisations but a continual appraising of how Commonwealth finances can best be directed to improve our overall transport system. In respect of civil aviation as with other transport we want to see a system that will bring the maximum benefits to the Australian people. Paragraph 1. (f) of section XVII of our Party’s platform states:

The Commonwealth to compete actively with private enterprise in interstate transport by sea, air or road.

This clearly means that we, as a Party, have no desire to see either a government monopoly or a private monopoly in the aviation industry. But with equal conviction we do not subscribe to any policy which, under the present basic 2-airIine policy, discriminates against one of those parties.

I imagine that few v/ould argue with the contention that over the years TransAustralia Airlines has in fact suffered such discrimination. Many questions may be asked in respect of the present system. For how long can we continue to allow only 2 operators to share the main trunk routes? No-one would deny that TAA and Ansett Airlines of Australia to all intents and purposes have the industry wrapped up between them. Despite their continual complaints about higher air navigation charges and higher fares, both airlines have been doing quite well over the years. Neither is in financial trouble. In the past 3 years TAA’s return on capital has averaged 10.6 per cent, which is not a bad return by general standards in Australia. Dividends paid by TAA to the Commonwealth in that period totalled S4.3m. For the year 1970-71 Ansett Transport Industries Ltd showed an earning rate on ordinary capital of 17.2 per cent which had increased from 16.4 per cent the previous year. The company earned a net profit of $4.4m. Ansett Transport Industries Ltd obtained 71 per cent of its revenue from airline operations.

In fact, it is interesting to recall that, in the course of the proposed takeover of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd by Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd, Ansett was able to lift the dividend rate from 10 per cent to 15 per cent. My purpose in making these points is to demonstrate that these 2 operators are, despite their facade of discontent, relatively happy with the system although they have some reservations. Both operators are well protected and their futures look comparatively assured. The fact that neither of the major operators wants a fundamental change in the present system was most evident in the course of the proposed takeover of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd by TNT.

Trans-Australia Airlines in its submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade which commenced an inquiry into the proposed takeover - which inquiry, perhaps fortunately for many people, was aborted by the Victorian Government’s legislation - stated quite clearly its opposition to the takeover. It said:

If the TNT takeover is successful the dominance of the private airline increases further to the point where the airline and its subsidiaries are almost 3 times larger than its only competitor, TAA. Obviously, the 2-airline policy must be threatened unless action is taken to achieve a closer competitive balance.

That is a valid argument. Although the takeover bid did not eventuate the possibility still cannot be dismissed; but I will return to that. Similarly, Ansett Transport Industries Ltd in 2 lengthy submissions to the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade strongly opposed the takeover bid. Part of its submission stated: . . a situation in which control of ATI is acquired by TNT not only might but will inevitably be prejudicial to the Australian aviation industry.

It is quite apparent that neither airline wanted to see any major rocking of the boat.

I wish to digress here for a moment in order to refer to the rather strange sequence of events which led up to the Thomas Nationwide Transport affair and what I consider to be the very strange attitude of the Commonwealth at that time. This Government has always congratulated itself on the success of the 2-airline policy in which, I would say by default, rather than by design, some benefits have accrued. What a remarkably passive, and indeed, indifferent role the Government played when advised by TNT of its intention to take over Ansett Airlines. This was a move that could have led to the destruction of the 2-airline policy but there was no ripple of protest from the Government.

In the ‘Australian Financial Review’ of 11th May 1972, Sir Peter Abeles, the managing director of TNT, was quoted as saying that he could see no reason for Commonwealth intervention and he explained that when he told Canberra about his group’s decision to move on Ansett, there was no objection. Apparently no effort was made by the Government to consult TAA, a party to the agreement, to obtain its views. No effort was made to have departmental officers of the Department of Civil Aviation look at the implications of such a takeover. No effort was made to consult ATI which was also a party to the agreement. This Government’s vaunted 2-airline policy could have become a shambles in 2 or 3 years with a giant transport organisation, such as TNT cracking the whip. Can we afford to dismiss the possibility that this takeover bid will not be renewed? The legislation passed by the Victorian Government expires on 30th November 1972 and no longer will the actual wording of that Act apply.

What has the Federal Government done in the meantime? Does the Minister still regard this matter, as I think he is on record as saying, as being simply a business deal between 2 private companies. The Select Committee appointed under the Victorian Act has really done no more than report that its terms of reference were too limited to allow it to fulfil properly its task of determining whether the takeover would be in the public interest. The irony is that if the TNT bid had become or still becomes a reality, it would prove a most interesting initiative in overall transport planning but without any comparable initiative in the public sector of transport. Should this eventuate, a Federal Labor government would need to give serious consideration to the creation of a Commonwealth transport corporation to coordinate the activities of TAA, the Australian National Line and the State railways systems, where the States were prepared to co-operate, and to institute its own freight forwarding arrangements. Such an undertaking would be the only means to match the combined TNT-Ansett conglomerate.

What then is the course we should adopt? lt seems that we have one or two options open to us if we are to ensure that an over protective policy is not to hamper the development of civil aviation in Australia. Depending on the rate of growth in the industry, we can through the 1970s allow a third major operator in Australia. If traffic growth returns to the level of between 12 per cent and 14 per cent as has happened in recent years, it would seem that by the end of this decade passenger traffic would have almost doubled and that the introduction of a third operator would become a serious consideration. We would be returning to the position of the 1940s and the 1950s when we did in fact have 3 major operators. Alternatively, we could allow a greater degree of initiative by the 2 present operators to allow greater competition between them. We have seen, for example, the new package deals operated by TAA and Ansett in respect of holiday trips. This is something which would not have been dreamed of 3 or 4 years ago. Such package deals and charter operations generally must be allowed to find their own level of demand to the extent that the market will carry. As both airlines are dependent on Commonwealth support for loans, they are obliged to provide the Australian public with services that incorporate all the new thinking that prevails in civil aviation the world over.

Until now 1 have confined my remarks to general observations. 1 now direct my remarks to the Bill. For some years the Government has been studying a lengthy departmental report on civil aviation. The report has been prepared by many knowledgeable and competent officers of the Department of Civil Aviation over many months. Typical of the Government’s secretive policies, a copy was not available to the Opposition’s shadow minister, much less to interested backbenchers such as myself, despite a request to do so. In other words the Government, with the full armoury of departmental expertise behind it, expects the Opposition to glean whatever information it can, with its completely inadequate facilities, to produce a meaningful debate on a matter of major public concern. Not only that, but this important Bill is being debated in the last hours of this Parliament, lt will renew the agreement until 1982. No-one has any illusions about pressures being brought to bear. I refer to a question which 1 asked the Minister on 21st September, 2 weeks after he had made his original statement on the new airline policy. I asked: ls it true that the recent major statement on the extension of the 2-airline policy has come under great pressure from certain interests and that the Government is reconsidering ils whole position as given in the statement 2 weeks ago? When can we expect the necessary legislation to be introduced?

Senator Cotton replied:

The answer to the first part of the question is no.

I would contest that, but 1 will return to it later. Despite the fact that we are on the eve of an election, which the ALP almost certainly will win-

Senator Cotton:

– Would you like to bet on it?

Senator WRIEDT:

– I understand that the Minister already took the bet last night. The Government seeks to impose this legislation on future parliaments until 1982. The argument that section 6 of the Act expires this month is no argument to justify the renewal of the whole Act. We in the ALP are fully aware of the need to continue to guarantee arrangements on outstanding loans, and if the Government had sought to renew that section there would have been no objection from this side of the chamber. Not only is the Government’s act a deliberate imposition of the whole of these Bills on this Parliament but - I have no compunction in saying so - it is a dishonest imposition. That statement is not directed personally at the Minister, but at the Government. Any discussion on this industry should not degenerate into a slanging match by one operator against the other. Patronage should not come into it, but there certainly is patronage in this legislation.

No-one could accuse me of having an anti-Ansett bias. I use its services. I have great respect for those people in the Ansett organisation whom I know. They do not include Sir Reginald Ansett, whom I have not met. Under no circumstances will I condone what has been done in the time between when the Minister made his statement and when this Bill was introduced. The Minister made his statement about 4 or 5 weeks ago. In it he said:

The Government has decided further to give TAA greater opportunity to undertake outside engineering works, including government contracts, and to enter into mutually beneficial arrangements with surface transport carriers and hotel/motel operators. This is designed lo improve TAA’s abilities to continue to compete effectively - especially now that it faces additional competition.

The submission made by TAA to the Senate Standing Committee outlined the matters which it felt were causing a discrimination against its operations. In particular, it referred to the need to amend section 19 of the Act. That section sets out the powers and functions of the Austraiian National Airlines Commission - that is, TAA. The Minister’s statement made it quite clear that the Government had made certain decisions in respect of this matter. I say that the Government has gone back on the undertaking that the Minister gave in his statement.

I do not believe the excuse which has been given about there being insufficient time to prepare the legislation, but for the moment I will leave that. Honourable senators will recall the case some years ago in which TAA tendered successfully for a contract, I think with the Department of Supply in the Antarctic. A private company named United Helicopters, I think, took the matter to the New South Wales Supreme Court and contended that TAA was not empowered under its Act to engage in this type of activity. The court upheld that contention. Since then TAA has known that, because of the restrictions placed on it under the Act, it has not been able to perform the functions which it should be able to perform. The basis of the Government’s 2-airline policy is that TAA shall be a commercial undertaking, that it shall return a profit to the Commonwealth, that it shall be competitive, that it shall be efficient and so on. If the Government wants it this way, TAA should not be restricted in making what are simply commercial judgments. I am sorry to say that, despite the fact that the Minister spelt out these things during the course of his statement 4 weeks ago, they have not been followed through in the legislation. The Chairman of TAA, Sir Frederick Scherger, in his recent report, said:

Immediate action is necessary to place TAA on an equal footing with its competitor if, in the terms of the 2-airline policy, each airline is to be capable of effective competition with the other’, lt will not be possible for TAA effectively to diversify its operations, in order to allow it to compete on an equitable basis with its competitor, unless the Australian National Airlines Act, and in particular sections 19 and 19a thereof, is amended to allow such diversification to be soundly based.

That is a very carefully worded paragraph, but it is a quite correctly worded paragraph. At present any action that TAA takes outside the operations that it is conducting are not soundly based because of that New South Wales Supreme Court decision. The Government continues to place these restrictions on TAA. I am not arguing from a pro-TAA attitude or from an anti-Ansett attitude but purely from a position of what is fair and proper, as the Labor Party believes in a fair policy. The thing that we should be concerned about is what is in the interests of the Australian travelling public. It is certainly not in its interests to find that these restrictions are placed on TAA. This is the sort of thing which we have been advocating for a considerable time, not for the purpose of adopting a partisan attitude in relation to this matter but because we believe that it is in the interests of the travelling public. It is very difficult for anyone to believe that what the Minister said in his second reading speech is true. The Minister said:

In order to remove any doubts that may exist regarding TAA’s powers to implement the Government’s decisions, certain changes in the Australian National Airlines Act may be desirable, but the limited time available has precluded the drawing up of the necessary amending legislation.

It is very hard to accept that statement. There was plenty of time to draw up all the other amendments that were mentioned in the Minister’s statement 4 weeks ago. There was time to draw up an amendment under which TAA is no longer allowed to use its superannuation fund for capital purposes. There was no shortage of time to do that, although that will deny to TAA $500,000 for its own purposes in the next 12 months. There was time to do all the other things that the Government wanted to do. The important and vital amendment to section 19 of the Act which TAA specifically wanted is the very thing that the Government did not find time for, although it is known full well that only a simple amendment is required. In a big handout at the worst possible time all the Government could do for TAA was say: ‘If you make an application to operate services in Western Australia we will allow you to do so’. I now have the amendment in front of me. I close my remarks by formally moving, on behalf of the Opposition, the following amendment:

Leave out all words after ‘That’, insert ‘the Government be condemned for seeking to usurp the powers and functions of future Parliaments by extending an agreement which does not expire until 1977 through to 1982 and for the reason that it discriminates against Trans-Australia Airlines and does not provide for even-handed competition between the 2 airlines’.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke) - Is the amendment seconded?

Senator McLaren:

– I second the amendment.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– The Airlines Agreements Bill and the Australian National Airlines Bill are being debated together. The first Bill purports to renew the Agreement relating to the conduct substantially of the second airline in Australia, namely, that conducted by Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. This is a most important measure. I think it would be unfair to the operating company if the Agreement provided for in this Bill were not renewed in sufficient time to enable the intense and long range forward planning that is necessary in airline operations to be undertaken at the earliest possible date.

Airline operations are completely different from most other commercial undertakings. There must be long range planning. Orders for aircraft must be placed well in advance. New types are continually coming into production. As the economics of the airline industry are so finely balanced, the failure to present orders for new aircraft and new services in sufficient time can often have a disastrous economic effect upon the finances of an operating company. Therefore, I do not think, in all fairness, that anything sinister - not that it has been suggested that there has been anything sinister - should be seen in the renewal of this Agreement at this stage, lt is something which is inherent in the nature of airline operations because of the necessity for long term planning and to avoid the disastrous economic circumstances that otherwise might be precipitated. A company that operates as the Ansett group of companies does has a particular position in the Australian economy and in the operation of our airlines. Therefore, merely to renew the existing Agreement without the insertion of any of the provisions that are being sought to be inserted on this occasion would be repehensible. If the Government were to renew the Agreement without requiring certain norms to be satisfied and certain requirements to be met, it would place itself in a totally indefensible position.

I think the Government is to be commended for having incorporated in the renewed Agreement certain requirements which have stemmed from national discontent and concern at certain inadequacies, shortcomings and, in many cases, frustrations and irritations in the operation of our airlines, lt is obvious that this Agreement has not been made lightly on the side of the Government. It is fairly obvious that the Government has been stern to the point of being hard about the terms of the renewed Agreement. When one reads the terms in the Schedule to the Bill of the requirements upon which the Govern ment insisted before agreeing to the renewal of this Agreement one can see, with respect and fairness to the Government, that it has been conscious of the fact that certain matters required rectification and that the way in which to achieve their rectification was to insist upon the operating company and the Australian National Airlines Commission observing certain requirements in relation to the conduct of services.

Let us look at some of the provisions which are to be found in the Schedule. One of the major complaints in this country has been about the subject of parallel air services and the fact that alternative services have not been available to the travelling public, which in many cases has caused great inconvenience. 1 think there has been a great deal of good will in an attempt to resolve this problem. The Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) from time to time has assured the Senate of that and has not spared his best endeavours in trying to overcome the problem. But it is an extremely difficult problem to overcome as the Minister has pointed out time and again. Sir Donald Anderson, in his annual reports and generally, has indicated that there has been intense activity between the Department of Civil Aviation and the 2 operators to see whether it is possible to work out alternative services in order to avoid the parallel type of operation that exists at present and to provide a better overall air service for Australia.

Clause 5 of the Schedule to the Bill provides that the Minister may take certain action if he is of the opinion that parallel air services are operating prejudicially to the interests of the Australian travelling public or Australia generally. That immediately puts the operators on the alert. In other words, the good will which has been alleged and which exists must not be merely an empty gesture. There must be a genuine attempt from time to time to overcome the problem and to improve the services. If the Minister is not satisfied that such an attempt is being made - if he is of the opinion that services are operating prejudicially - he can step in and insist on certain things being done. I think that is a very salutary provision. It is one of the many which appear in the new Agreement. Then there is the provision regarding rural air services.

Candidly, I think that there has been a very stern requirement by the Government in this respect. The Government has insisted on the present rural air services being continued, provided the revenue from them exceeds the outgoings on them. That is a very stern provision. As far as I can see, it does not speak of margins of profit; it merely speaks of ins and outs - of revenue as against expenditure. I think that indicates quite a firm attitude on the part of the Government.

A series of requirements has also been written into the Schedule to the Bill - which is the Agreement between the Government and the operators - concerning promotional fares, air freight and curfew operations. The subject of curfew operations is a matter of great concern, particularly in the area in which I live in Brisbane, which is, if not adjacent to the major airport, quite close to it, and in suburbs which are closer to the Brisbane Airport than is the one in which I live. I know that plans are in hand for the removal of the whole of the airport complex to a site further down the river, where there are vast areas in the delta of the Brisbane River, which ultimately will provide a most commodious airport, removed from the city and with flight paths right away from the centres of population. But until that is accomplished - it will take some time - this Agreement will require the curfew to be observed. Once again the Government will be in a position to exercise certain disciplines. Those disciplines have been written into the Agreement. The Government therefore, will be in a position to impose, them virtually under statutory contract.

Another provision of interest in the Schedule is clause 11, which states that the Government is to be informed of the operating costs of - in the case of the Ansett group of companies - such of its operations as concern airlines. There is to be a dissection of the Ansett accounts and such part of them as is attributable to airlines operations is to be separated and made available for governmental and, if necessary, parliamentary or committee scrutiny. Those are very salutary alterations and advances. 1 think that it should be a considerable degree of consolation to those who may not altogether condone or approve of the 2-airline policy to know that, whilst it is to continue, it is not to be a policy at large but a policy which is subject to the very severe disciplines that have been specifically written into the Agreement. Clause 1 2 of the Schedule provides:

Without prejudice to the operation of clause 8 of the 1961 Agreement, the Commission, the Company and the Operating Company recognise that the Commonwealth is entitled to fully recover from the air transport industry the costs properly attributable to the provision of facilities for civil air transport . . .

That refers to such things as air navigation charges and the provision of facilities at airports. Again the operators have been put in the position of having to dissect their accounts. What has been legitimately provided by the Commonwealth must be accounted for to the Commonwealth by the operators.

I feel that it was wise airline planning for this Agreement to be renewed at this stage. I think the Agreement indicates a desire on the part of the Government, in view of the franchise which is given to the private operator and having in mind the legitimate competition that exists between the private operator and the Australian National Airlines Commission, which is TAA, that the airline operators should be required to observe certain conditions. Therefore, to put them on a basis of fair competition, TAA has been given certain extended commercial opportunities which, if seized, will bring about a much more legitimate commercial competition between the 2 operators. For those reasons and without unduly wishing to delay the Senate at this late hour of its deliberations the Democratic Labor Party supports the Bill. So far as the. amendment moved by Senator Wriedt is concerned, the DLP finds itself in the position that it cannot accept the amendment which in part reads: the Government be condemned for seeking to usurp the powers and functions of future parliaments by extending an agreement . . .

I cannot see that any grounds exist for a proper charge that there has been a usurpation of powers. In view of the long range planning which necessarily must accompany the economic planning of the airline industry I cannot see that there is any attempt to usurp the powers of Parliament. I think it is good economics. It is prudent forward parliamentary planning. I think we would be recreant if we insisted on anything in the alternative which could finally involve airline companies in very great disaster. 1 do not think there is this element of discrimination against the National Airlines Commission which is recited in the amendment. The whole basis appears to be to bring the airline companies into a closer genuine and legitimate commercial competition and requiring both to observe the canons that should be observed in providing adequate, comfortable, convenient and efficient airline services for the Australian airline travelling population. For those reasons the DLP supports the Bill and will oppose the amendment.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I rise to support the amendment moved by Senator Wriedt on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. 1 want to make some comment on the remarks made by Senator Byrne who said that it is good economics that the Government should be renegotiating this agreement in the dying hours of the 27th Parliament.

Senator Byrne:

– 1 did not say that.

Senator McLAREN:

– Yes, you did. You said it was good economic planning to renegotiate it.

Senator Byrne:

– I said that long range planning must accompany economic planning. I did not say ‘in the dying hours’.

Senator McLAREN:

– The words ‘in the dying hours of the 27th Parliament’ are mine. I cannot see where there is good economics attached to this measure. We should realise that at the most there are only 3 months before the commencment of the sittings of the 28th Parliament and because this present agreement will run at least for 5 years the fact that we are going to give in the dying hours of this Parliament approval to a new agreement means that there is no urgency attached to it. When the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) made the announcement in the Parliament on 29th August that he was going to extend the 2 - airline policy I posed on 1st September the question as to what he intended to do in relation to allowing TAA to operate intrastate in South Australia. I will refer to some of the answers with which the Minister provided me in reply to a series of questions which I posed to him after 1st September. In the Minister’s second reading speech he said:

Another major decision arising from the Government’s reviw is to give additional routes and opportunities lo the Government’s own airline, Trans-Australia Airlines, which will be authorised to operate air services between Perth and Darwin in competition with the Ansett subsidiary, MacRobertson Miller Airline Services.

The Minister went on to say:

Although traffic growth on routes throughout Western Australia has fallen considerably in recent months, due mainly to reduced mining activities in the north west, the Government nevertheless decided that the Perth-Darwin route could no longer be denied the benefits that competitive services have brought on other major trunk routes throughout Australia.

I should add that the approval for TAA to enter the Perth-Darwin route does not involve the Commonwealth Government in any express commitment to upgrade airport facilities at any proposed intermediate airport to cater for a particular aircraft type. TAA also will be given immediate rights to operate air services in competition with the Ansett airlines between Darwin-Gove and between Cairns-Weipa-Thursday Island. In the case of this latter route, the Department of Civil Aviation will take all practical steps to minimise the effects of the operation on Bush Pilots Airways Ltd which operates a service calling at intermediate points.

The Government saw fit to grant TAA a licence to operate between Perth and Darwin even though the Minister himself admits that traffic is declining. Yet we, in South Australia, where there has been an increase in population, an increase in traffic and an increase in the desire of people to travel by TAA, particularly between Adelaide and Mount Gambier and Adelaide and Kangaroo Island, are refused the chance to travel intrastate by TAA. The Government would not be put to any extra expense in relation to airport facilities because they already exist and Ansett is already using those facilities. The South Australian Government has over the years made application to the Commonwealth Government to allow TAA to operate intrastate. Those applications go back many years. My colleague, Senator Bishop has posed questions in this Parliament on many occasions in regard to this matter and a great many honourable senators before I came to this Parliament, including an exPremier of South Australia, Sir Thomas Playford, have also made approaches to the Commonwealth Government to allow TAA to operate within the borders of South Australia.

As I said, the Minister announced the new agreement on 29th August and on 31st

August 1 asked him whether he would make provision for intrastate operations by TAA in South Australia. His answer was:

This is always a matter for the State Government concerned to decide upon. If the South Australian Government has any interest in this matter I expect that it will communicate wilh the Department of Civil Aviation and myself.

I posed this further question to the Minister:

Has any South Australian government every requested the Commonwealth Government to allow Trans-Australia Airlines to operate within the boundaries of South Australia

The Minister replied: lt will be necessary for me to have the Department check right back through its records . . .

The Minister did this. He was kind enough to furnish me with a letter of reply. I also checked with the South Australian Government and found that they were the matters to which 1 have referred, that in fact the previous South Australian Government had made application for TAA to operate intrastate. I posed this question to the Minister: ‘Has the Government notified the South Australian Government that it was going to negotiate a new airlines agreement 5 years in advance of the expiration of the existing one7’ The answer I got from the Minister disturbed me no end. i also asked the Minister this question:

Were the States advised that such a review was in fact taking place? If not, how could the States be in a position to make such a submission? Further, will the Minister give consideration to a submission from the South Australian Government to allow Trans-Australia Airlines to operate intrastate in South Australia under the new agreement?

The Minister in his reply said:

It is presumed that, like everybody else, the State governments and Premiers read the newspapers. They would have been able to gather from doing so that a review had been undertaken. Many answers have been given in this Parliament over the last 12 months that reviews were being conducted. If the South Australian Government wants this matter to be considered by the Commonwealth Department of Civil Avia’tion it is most welcome to write to the Department about it.

Without any reflection on the Minister, I feel that this is no way for State and Commonwealth governments to carry out negotiations particularly in a situation in which we have made applications over the years to allow TAA to operate within the borders of South Australia, lt should not be taken for granted that the Premier of South Australia or officers of his Department will scan every newspaper to find out for themselves whether the Commonwealth is to renegotiate another airlines agreement. Why should they be expected to know this when the agreement is being negotiated 5 years before the expiration of the existing one? No government should be expected to find this out from a reading of the newspapers. I think it would have been common courtesy for the Government, through the Minister, to advise Mr Dunstan that a renegotiations was in fact taking place so that the South Australian Government could once again have made its feelings known on this subject and could have advised the Commonwealth Government that we in South Australia do want the services of TAA to operate in that State. 1 checked with the Minister again by way of a question recently to ask whether he had had any communication from the Premier of South Australia and he told me - and I excuse him for this - that he thought he had had correspondence from the Minister for Transport. I have with me a copy of a letter which was sent to Senator Cotton by the Premier of South Australia. 1 would like to quote this letter dated 12th October. It was written some weeks before the Bill was introduced into the Parliament; so the Minister has no excuse for saying that he was not contacted by the South Australian Premier and so at least he could have made some provision in the Bill to allow Trans-Australia Airlines to operate in South Australia in the same way as he will allow it to operate in Western Australia after a phase-in period of 2 years. The letter to the Minister for Civil Aviation from the Premier of South Australia reads as follows: Dear Senator Cotton,

It is the desire of the South Australian Government that Trans-Australia Airlines be permitted to operate services within South Australia.

This matter was first raised in correspondence in July 19S6 and again in August 1963. With the development which has taken place since those years the need for services from TAA within the Stale has become much greater.

I should be grateful if you would give consideration to tb is matter and advise me in due course of the decision taken on this request.

I think that I have pointed out quite plainly that over the years South Australian governments of different political colour have made application to the Commonwealth Government for permission for Trans-Australia Airlines to operate in South Australia. I am a little disappointed that, although the Minister has been aware of this for a long time, no provision was made in this legislation for these services. I hope that when replying the Minister will tell us at least that he will be prepared to give due consideration to the request of the South Australian Government to allow us to have operating within our State services provided by Trans-Australia Airlines.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– It is a pity in a way that at a late stage of the session of the Parliament we should be confronted with an unnecessary and inaccurate amendment. But this is what happens in the Senate. The amendment states in part: the Government be condemned for seeking to usurp the powers and functions of future Parliaments. . . .

It has done nothing of the kind. What the Government is dealing with is the situation in the 2-airline policy in the Australian aircraft industry and the major trunk routes. It sees this measure - I think quite sensibly - as necessary to maintain economic viability and to provide for the future growth patterns of the industry and the equipment that will be needed. The 2- airline agreement expires in 1977. Decisions on equipment for the next phase of development of the industry need to be made very soon because it takes time to have aircraft investigated, manufactured and delivered. This position is compounded by the fact that we are now required to investigate a new phase of aircraft type for use on the major Australian trunk routes. That type of aircraft, if selected, will involve the Australian taxpayer in fairly substantial infrastructure costs, I am talking about the advent in this country in due course of the wide bodied jets. Essentially, this is a decision of some importance. Honourable senators opposite interject. If I am allowed to speak without the help of the experts opposite, perhaps what I have to say might be useful to them.

The decision on the wide bodied jets is a critical one. lt is a more difficult decision than those made in relation to the DC9, Boeing 727 and the stretch version of the Boeing 727 aircraft. It is a different aircraft which takes different loads. The decision needs to be taken critically and carefully. Therefore, both operators were concerned about their positions. We felt that the way to handle this matter was to look at that position and to examine the situation of loan repayments, realising that unless there was profitability by the operators the loans could not be repaid. The average loan repayment time is now 10 years. It seemed to us that the only way to handle this was to extend the agreement to make it possible for the loan to be called up on notice by either side - the Government or the private operating arm - at 5 years rest. Therefore, this Bill protects future Parliaments, the operators and the system. I do not see how honourable senators opposite have any claim in justice or equity to say that this Bill is being rushed or that it is not necessary. I think that if they were connected with one of the operators involved in this huge business they would be concerned to provide for the future and to understand what lay ahead, I think that the Government has acted responsibly, sensibly and properly. The statement I made on civil aviation policy sought to make that clear to those who had an interest in this matter.

It is natural for oppositions to attack governments. This is what we all hear about. But I think that in the process it would not be bad if just a little attempt were made to see that there was some justice in the argument. Senator McLaren has dealt not only today but also on many other occasions with the request by the South Australian Government. The situation is as I reported it to him last. We have that request under active consideration and examination. Probably the honourable member would be aware that there are not many air routes in South Australia that support a great level of competition. That is one of the things being examined at the present time. I am in no way seeking to set aside the wish of the South Australian Government to have Trans-Australia Airlines operate in that State. Of course, TAA for its part as an operator of an airline system would have to make application when the time came, if it wished to do so. But the honourable senator may be quite sure that the Department of Civil Aviation stands ready, as I do while I am here, to examine any such application, to encourage such action and to try to make such a service possible.

Senator Wriedt made various observations. I think that he became concerned about the declining growth rate in the industry. This was of concern to us all about 6 months ago. The honourable senator might like to know that in recent weeks there has been a very good return to quite strong growth rates. I am sure that this will give him the same satisfaction as it gives me. 1 believe that this is a reflection of the general improvement in the Australian economy following the improvement in the rural situation and the Budget which was introduced recently and which 1 think has done much for this country. Without any doubt, there has been a strong return to growth. Senator Wriedt also made several observations that were quite mysterious to me. They concerned this great comprehensive report which apparently has been floating around the Department of Civil Aviation for a long time and which I, as Minister, refused to table or give to anybody. There is no such report. There are a great number of individual matters for examination dealing wilh a long list of items and a great number of minute papers relating to examinations being conducted by various officials on different aspects. But there is no beautifully bound report bearing on the whole matter which, because of some horrible habit of mine, I will not let anybody see. That is just not the case. The matter has been examined very carefully and tSe fine detail is dealt with in a great number of papers. I thought that the honourable senator might like to know that.

He made the point also that at the time of the proposed takeover by Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd there was not a ripple of protest by the Government. That is not the case. We were very concerned about the takeover and looked at it very carefully. One has to understand this position:

The shareholding situation of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd changed relatively little. There were 2 shareholders holding 24 per cent of the shares. They had done so all the time. We did not hear anything from anybody when that was the case. One shareholder took their place. At the time we were examining this the Senate moved - very usefully, I may say - to have a Senate Committee examine this matter. That work, in which I acknowledge that Senator Wriedt played a most useful part, was valuable to the Department and to the Government.

Trans-Australia Airlines has not been discriminated against by the Government. If we had another 6 or 7 hours to deal with this matter, or at another time and in another place, I could show honourable senators, a great number of complaints made by the Ansett group to suggest that it has been discriminated against. As Minister for Civil Aviation 1 have received more complaints from the Ansett group that it has been discriminated against than I have received from Trans-Australia Airlines. I do not think what the honourable senator has said can be sustained. TAA reserves last year increased from S6m to $10m. The Government has recognised the need to widen TAA’s base. It has undertaken to legislate accordingly in the next session of the Parliament. I have mentioned that 1 presented to the Senate on 29th August 1972 a comprehensive White Paper on civil aviation policy. This is not done very often in the Australian Parliament, but I have regarded it as a useful way to proceed in regard to civil aviation. I have done this on more than one occasion. The purpose of this Paper was to give the Parliament and the Australian community an opportunity to examine the relevant facts before the legislation came forward or before the issues were decided. In some cases, as was the case with the paper presented in relation to Qantas Airways Ltd, they have been purely for information purposes. It will be clearly acknowledged and recognised by any fair minded person that in that Paper presented on 29th August I foreshadowed the intention to introduce the legislation. We are now doing this. There has been much time for consideration of the Goverment’s proposals. When that White Paper was presented in another place, the Australian Labor Party commended the Government’s statement, describing it as an excellent paper. They could find very little in it to cricitise. I can remember that because I thought: ‘Bully for us; at last we are receiving a little credit’.

Some people have expressed misgrivings that this important legislation is being considered so late in the life of this Parliament. As a Government it was our intention to try to have this legislation passed in the Autumn session of this year. However, we were thrown off our schedule by the TNT/ Ansett takeover discussion and the Senate Committee’s examination and report on that takeover. We proceeded immediately after bringing down our civil aviation PO’ icy statement on 29th August to begin negotiations with both parties to the 2airline agreement - Ansett Transport Industries Ltd and the Australian National Airlines Commission. I think that perhaps Senator Byrne has seen the situation with more clarity than have many people. He has realised that this was a protracted discussion in which both sides had to come out accepting a strong infusion of the public interest which had not existed before - I think all honourable senators accept that - and that took time.

I have mentioned on many occasions since 1 have been Minister for Civil Aviation matters in relation to which I have been seeking wilh the Department improvements in the public interest area. I refer to such things as parallel scheduling in relation to which there has been no power until now for the Department or the Minister to make change other than by asking for co-operation. 1 refer to country air services where I believe there is need for improvement and where I am hoping to stimulate the use of the Nomad Australian manufactured aircraft in due course. 1 refer also to improved air freight services. I believe that the growth of air freight in this country is well below the growth of air freight in those overseas countries where I think comparisons are valid. I refer also to concessional fares. All honourable senators know that the first discussions in trying to get concessional fares in Australia took place in this Senate. The first suggestions in this regard were made in this place be me, and those suggestions have been taken up by the operators. The Government and the Department of Civil Aviation will continue to try to improve these areas of what we call the public interest. Senator Wriedt picked up the comment that I had made in my civil aviation policy statement that thi.; is a duopoly where upon 2 large operators is conferred a monopoly of the major part of the airline business. I believe that they have a responsibility to the community to serve it as well as they possibly can, in addition to being economically viable and making money. That is what the Government and the Department of Civil Aviation seek to achieve. 1 think it has been acknowledged by all people that the 2-airline policy has played a major role in Australia’s development and has maintained stability in a domestic aviation industry faced with a strong pressure of expansion. Despite rising costs over recent months the airlines have achieved a high standard of service in a period which has seen a falling off in growth. As I reported to the Senate a little earlier, fortunately this position is now starting to pick up again. The 2-airline system is the envy of many countries. Anybody who leaves this country representing the Department of Civil Aviation finds that he is questioned all over the world about the effect of the 2-airline policy and how it operates. People come from other countries to study it. I think it is one of the mot admirable regultory air transport systems in the world. Through it we have maintained control of capacity and fleet parity. These are essential to the success of the administration of a 2-airline policy and, in turn, to the operation of a successful domestic aviation system. I think the system has demonstrated that it stands alone in its ability to provide the Australian public with what is undoubtedly one of the safest and most efficient air services in the world, and whose fares are as low as any in the world when one considers all the factors involved.

I do not think anybody has set out to rubbish the 2-airline policy, and for that I am very glad. No one has attempted to cast any shadow on the operators or on the people who administer the policy, and for that I am very pleased because they would not want to do so. It has been said that it is unfair to bring in such a policy now. I think that is not the case. It is both wise and sensible to bring it in now in the interests of the Australian people, in relation to re-equipment, capital costs, time to repay loans, and the decisions that must be made concerning equipment. It is said that this policy is unfair against TAA. If one talked to the other operator he would tell one that it is unfair against him. There will always be arguments when there are 2 parties to a situation like this. The Government has a responsibility to act in the public interest. It has to be a fair umpire to see that both sides get equality of treatment. That is what we have set out to do. In the renegotiation and in the extension of this policy we have taken full regard to the character and the opportunity of future parliaments and future operators to cancel out if they want to do so. It seems to us to be eminently fair. I think we have behaved both well and properly. Rather than being condemned, ifI may say so, I think the Department of Civil Aviation is due to be commended.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Wriedt’s amendment) be left out.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 20

NOES: 25

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2302

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES BILL 1972

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 26 October (vide page 1987), on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator WRIEDT:
Tasmania

– The Opposition will move one small amendment to the Bill. The part of the Bill to which we object is that which proposes to permit increases in salaries by regulation. We are not prepared to accept that proposition because we believe that this is a matter which should be determined by the Minister or by referring it to the Public Service Arbitrator or, in the case of the airlines, to the appropriate tribunals. I refer to clause 4 of the Bill which reads:

Section 17 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (7.) the words ‘if it exceeds the rate of Five thousand dollars per annum.’ and inserting in their stead the words ‘if it exceeds the rate of thirteen thousand seven hundred dollars per annum or, if a higher rate is prescribed, that higher rate’.

I move:

Its effect will be that the salaries cannot be fixed by regulation; they must be fixed with the approval of the Minister.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– The Government thought that this amendment would be moved because a similar amendment was moved in the House of Representatives. The Government is not prepared to accept the amendment. We note that the Opposition in general supported the full body of the amendments that are being made to the legislation, but it wishes to make this slight change. One might argue that TransAustralia Airlines is a commercial enterprise operating in a competitive, commercial environment and that it should have complete freedom to determine such matters as the salaries of its senior executives. Traditionally, however, and because there is some relationship between the management structure of Government instrumentalities and the Second Division of the Commonwealth Public Service, as well as a responsibility for the interests of the owners of the airline, that is, the Commonwealth, to be safeguarded, it has been the practice to have ministerial supervision over the salaries of senior officers of these instrumentalities. TAA is no exception. Section 17 (7.) of the Australian National Airlines Act specifies the limit above which salaries have been approved by the Minister. The limit is now 35,000, and the proposed new limit is $13,700. This new level is considered more reasonable in present day circumstances compared with the $5,000 limit set in 1959 when amending legislation raised the figure from $3,000, which was initially set by the Labor Government in the 1945 Act. We believe that $13,700 is approximately the current salary of the lowest level of TAA executives. I do not think that I need to elaborate on the matter any further.

Amendment negatived.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2303

POLLUTION OF THE SEA BY OIL BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 October (vide page 1988), on motion by Senator Cotton: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– On behalf of the Opposition I would like to state our attitude to these 3 Bills and the procedure which, with the concurrence of the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton), we will follow.

Senator Byrne:

– Are you moving any amendments, Senator?

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Yes. We will be moving an amendment at the second reading stage of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil Bill 1972, in respect of which we will seek a division. I shall then move, at the Committee stage, several amendments in respect of which a division will not be sought. Again with the concurrence of the Minister I propose to seek information in relation to the other 2 Bills - that is, the one dealing with the shipping levy and the one dealing with the method by which such levies will be collected.

Senator Wilkinson:

Mr Acting Deputy President, I do not think that we have agreed as yet to take the 3 Bills together. Senator Mulvihill is rather assuming that. I think it will make it easier if we first agree to that course being followed.

Senator Cotton:

– As might be expected of Senator Mulvihill and myself, being old friends, we made a slight ex cathedra arrangement together. We certainly agree with what Senator Mulvihill has suggested. We understand what he wants to do. I think - he can correct me if I am wrong - that he will move this amendment to .he principal Bill, the Pollution of the Sta by Oil Bill 1972, and that at the Committee stage he will move amendments to various clauses of the Bill. Then he will seek information in relation to the other 2 Bills and make some general observations. We shall respond to him on the basis that it is all covered in the one debate and then when the time comes separate questions can be put in relation to the 3 Bills.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke) - Is it the wish of the Senate that the Pollution of the Sea by Oil Bill 1972, the Pollution of the Sea by Oil (Shipping Levy) Bill 1972 and the Pollution of the Sea by Oil (Shipping Levy Collection) Bill 1972 be debated cognately at the second reading stage? There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I move:

At end of motion add ‘ , but the Senate regrets that the Government (a) has failed to clarify whether responsibility for protection of Australian territorial waters belongs to the Commonwealth or States, (b) has not acted in a comprehensive way to ensure that Australian territorial waters are protected from all environmental threats from oil, whether they be from shipping or land based activities and including all ocean dumping and (c) has not, on behalf of the Australian people, co-ordinated management of the Australian territorial waters in the interests of the long term conservation of the Earth’s oceanic resources’.

Aware of the time factor I do not think that I need to mention how important this legislation is to a maritime nation with 13.000 miles of coastline. I think the story of the long State-Commonwealth tug-of-war that has gone on about territorial rights does not really need much reiteration by me. But I honestly believe that while this bickering goes on the tight organisation that is essential to control oil pollution will not be achieved. I need only mention the dispute over the famous ‘Oceanic Grandeur’ oil spillage when the Queensland State department responsible in such fields was rather caustic about the lack of liaison with the Commonwealth Minister for Shipping and Transport. I do not desire to pursue that argument any further other than to indicate that our reservations in that field are that until we can get some unanimity or Commonwealth supremacy there will always be this particular problem.

The major reservation that the Opposition has in relation to this Bill is that while we, as a Party with an internationalist attitude, welcome the fact that Australia accepts its responsibility as a member of the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, we would not like to feel that when this legislation is passed by the Senate everybody can sit back and feel that we have adequate safeguards. I take umbrage for a start at a passage of the second reading speech of the Minister for Shipping and Transport where he says: . . the proposed amendments limit the discharge of oil to waters more than 50 miles from the nearest land, and then only at the low rate of 60 litres a mile.

Even if that were rigidly enforced the Opposition has a reservation in relation to our inability to detect offenders, even with this low discharge rate.

As a matter of fact I obtained figures from the Minister for Shipping and Transport covering a period to the 31st March 1971. On the New South Wales coast there were 111 instaces of oil spillages and in Victoria there were 134. But the serious thing was that in New South Wales in 25 of these instances the offenders could not be detected. In Victoria there were 69 offences where the guilty parties could not be dealt with. The Opposition fears that in the absence of a coast guard patrol or adequate aerial surveillance this legislation will be more or less a cardboard tiger.

In the Minister’s second reading speech it is pointed out that only 9 of the 31 countries involved have so far accepted the convention. For that reason the Opposition feels that interim local measures should be undertaken. 1 draw the Minister’s attention to something about which we are a little puzzled. The Navigation Act was amended and we have this Bill before us now, but there is some doubt as to where one Act ends and the other will take over. 1 say that because the Hansard of 27th April 1971 gave the answer to question No. 1046 in relation to the terms of settlement on the ‘Oceanic Grandeur’ case. I know that the owners of the ship made an offer which the Government accepted. Although a settlement was made, the owners were based at Hong Kong and it could be that a future legal tangle, something like the Torrey Canyon’ case in the British Channel or the one I referred to in the Torres Strait area, could arise. It is debatable whether the Government necessarily would win, having regard to the penalties proposed. 1 want to crystallise the Opposition’s attitude in this form: We all know of the massive oil tankers that are being built. With all the technical emphasis on larger tanker capacity 1 think the time is overdue when a virtual embargo should be placed on any tanker that does not have receiving tanks which could avoid oil discharge at sea. 1 hope the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) will be able to acquaint the Senate with the number of vessels that are coming on to the Australian coastline that are not involved with the Tanker Owners Voluntary Agreement Concerning Liability for Oil Pollution - the private indemnification scheme for oil spillages. I believe in the old adage that prevention is better than cure. I cannot see why, rather than waiting for another disaster of the magnitude of the ‘Oceanic Grandeur’ on the eastern seaboard, we could not have recourse to the Navigation Act to provide that if by a given time oil tankers were not modernised to avoid discharges of oil at sea we would deny them port facilities.

I know that this is very drastic, but it irritates me and the Opposition that all these new types of oil tankers, in the countries where they are registered, such as the United States, the United Kingdom and France, usually have incorporated all the modern designs, including receiver tanks. I should not like to feel that oil tankers that are less modern would be used on the run to Australia because the companies would be confident that they would not have the same rigid provisions imposed upon them as are imposed in their countries of registration. I do not look at this with my eyes closed, and I know there would probably be a bit of a battle between some oil companies that would play ball and others that would not. We have seen them play tough in other fields. I think we all agree that bigger oil tankers are coming out of the shipyards. It would take only one of these tankers which might not have these modern facilities or might not be in an indemnification fund to cause a disaster of national magnitude if it happened to get into difficulties.

There is considerable doubt whether some of these oil tankers should be rerouted off the Queensland coast. Of course, it may well be that the cost factor again comes into the question. To my way of thinking, of all industries today the profits of the big oil tanker companies are in the top bracket. This is the real crux of the Opposition’s argument. Although we are happy for Australia to meet its international obligations there does not seem to be much sense of urgency among some of the member nations. For that reason we would like to see interim action. It is quite obvious that one oil company could be played against another. We could say to the oil company that had the more modern tankers with the receiver tanks to avoid oil disposal at sea: ‘You may have a permit to travel along the Australian coast.’ To the others we could say: ‘Until you put your house in order you are sent to an economic Coventry’. That is the thinking that I have in the approach to this matter.

I want to mention environmental responsibility a little further. It is a pity Senator Davidson is not here because he would know that the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution had a much broader concept than has this legislation. I know that the legislation provides for a form of levy in respect of certain aspects of oil pollution. But it will be noted that the Opposition’s amendment also refers to oil pollution which emanates from the land. In other words, we have in mind oil refineries such as that at Kurnell in New South Wales and a similar one in Corio Bay in the Geelong area. The Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution, which consisted of members from all the parties in this Senate, was unanimous that a levy should be imposed on the oil industry. What I am getting at is that we may have litigation when we try to apply a levy on a foreign tanker but if the levy were imposed on the oil companies that are operating in Australia we would get the same money.

I do not even see it as something where only a certain amount of money for a given purpose will be raised from the oil companies, whether at Kurnell or Corio Bay. I notice that in one of the Bills there is great emphasis on getting only enough money to meet the cost of stockpiling dispersants. My attitude and the Opposition’s attitude is different to this. Senator Muskie of the United States, who represents the coastline State of Maine, told me in a private letter that it is not sufficient to get money to meet a clean up operation; money should be raised over and above that to feed back to what he called the county authorities and I would call the shire councils, to ensure that beautification is carried out in those areas. These are virtually the reservations we have. We know that this problem will not grow less but will become more involved and for this reason we have proposed the amendment. I do not know just how far the Department of Shipping and Transport has gone into this question, but the Minister will know that I was somewhat disappointed about another aspect which I had raised, namely the dumping of chemicals which has gone on in Bass Strait and which is part of the pollution of the sea. Senior departmental officers who appeared before the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution, I thought, were inclined to play down these things. However, events have proved that there has been a compounding of this type of pollution. So it is largely on that basis - and I am purposely compressing my argument on this Bill - that the Opposition has moved this amendment. The amendment will not prevent implementation of the legislation to achieve what the Government wants but it is concerned with an international obligation. The Opposition believes that a gap exists in this respect and that this would be wrong in the event of a major disaster occurring. Now that Australia is a party to this convention the Opposition wants to know just how effective that convention is.

The other points which I want to refer to and the information I seek are concerned with the question of the shipping levy. As I understand it the levy is virtually to pay for the stockpiling of dispersants. This is an area also - again reverting to the experience of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution - in which a few questions remain unanswered. The United States Coastguard Service appears to change its type of dispersants from time to time; that is, if one dispersant was on the market and the Coastguard Service had stockpiled it but believed that a better one was available, it would simply jettison its stockpiled supplies and use the other. When the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution made inquiries - I will not name the senior officers who gave evidence before the Committee - it seemed to me that some answers were very slow in forthcoming. I do not merely indict the Minister for Shipping and Transport, for in a further question which I directed to the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay) I was advised in relation to dispersants that were being used to combat what were termed minor spillages in Sydney Harbour that the Navy itself was using a dispersant which in Britain at least 18 months before had been regarded as obsolete. I would like to be given some idea by the Minister on how the Department of Shipping and Transport selects dispersants and just how effective is its know-how so that it can change from one supply to another.

In the collection of this levy I notice that great emphasis is made on the amount of the levy. The argument is that the levy is not being imposed with the idea of making any profit; it refers, in effect, to the polluter-pays syndrome. But the second reading speech goes on to say that over a period the notional accounts will be required to balance exactly with neither surplus nor deficit. This brings me to the problem for the average person, the small fisherman or the pleasure craft operator. Is such a man, despite the previous amendments to the Navigation Act and this legislation, still required to take on some oil company in order to seek redress if his small craft happens to be damaged by oil pollution? I do not raise this as an academic question; I speak on behalf of the small fishermen and the pleasure boat operators of the Kurnell area. A similar problem has applied on the north coast of New South Wales though not to the same degree as at Kurnell.

To sum up, the Opposition submits the amendment because we believe that apart from our international obligations, the Government could apply pressure and that it could lean heavily on the big oil companies to prevent pollution. The Government could act to hasten the introduction of oil tankers which would not have to discharge at sea at all. Further, I think the Government should outlaw the diminishing number of oil tankers which are not members of TOVALOP and which deliberately have no form of indemnification. They should be outlawed from the Australian coast. I believe the Government should not ignore the responsibilities of oil refineries at both Kurnell and Corio Bay. I am sure that my colleague Senator Poyser, who has been a constant critic of the need to improve Corio Bay and to eliminate the tainting of fish catches, will agree with me. I know that oil companies which have installations at Kurnell have promised at times to rehabilitate part of the Kurnell area but, frankly, at one area which I have in mind, which embraces conservation projects, they have done very little. Mr Acting President, I did not want to gallop through my speech, but at the same time I did not want to leave the vital attitude of the Opposition undeclared. I leave it at that.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– in reply - As honourable senators will appreciate, in this particular context I am in loco parentis. I am not the Minister for Shipping and Transport; I only represent that Minister in this place- This Bill concerns the Department of Shipping and Transport. The information I have from the Department is that this amendment as proposed tonight was proposed in the House of Representatives and that the

Minister did not feel that it could be accepted because it did not add anything which made any particular useful difference. Accordingly, the same position prevails here. The issue raised in the first part of the amendment is not relevant to the responsibility for action to be taken by governments in combating marine oil pollution. It lacks relevance because the question of general responsibility for, or legal sovereignty over, territorial waters was deliberately put aside when discussions were held between the Commonwealth and State Ministers responsible for ports and marine affairs in September 1971, to determine responsibility for combating marine oil pollution in the various off-shore areas.

The second part of the amendment states that the Government has not acted in a comprehensive way to protect Australian territorial waters from the effects of pollution. This is not the fact- The Commonwealth, in close co-operation with the States, has drawn up a national plan to deal with marine oil spillages. At a meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers in September last year it was agreed that the State governments would accept responsibility for pollution incidents in ports. The Commonwealth is to take control of pollution incidents on the high seas and in coastal waters in States other than Victoria and Tasmania, where the State authorities will have responsibility. In this way division of responsibility has been established which is acceptable to the governments concerned and which enables immediate and effective action to be taken without giving rise to any fine points of legal sovereignty.

Dumping of materials other than oil is outside the ambit of this Bill because the principal Act gives effect to an international Convention which itself is confined to the question of oil pollution caused by ships. Ocean dumping of waste materials is the subject of a diplomatic conference to be held in London during November to formulate a separate convention to deal with such dumping- Australia has been very active in pressing for such a convention at 4 international meetings on the subject and will, of course, have representatives at the London conference. Pending the preparation of this convention action has already been taken to control dumping by introducing with the cooperation of industry procedures similar to those expected to be adopted by the Convention.

The meaning of the last part of the amendment is not entirely clear, but from what has already been said it will be apparent that full co-operation has been achieved between the Commonwealth, State governments and industry in setting up the management machinery whereby an efficient control of marine pollution incidents can be quickly introduced in all offshore areas. Senator Mulvihill, I know, has a great interest in this matter, I acknowledge that and his very genuine concern.

More than 90 per cent of the world’s tanker fleets are contributors to TOVALOP. TOVALOP is a voluntary scheme adopted by tanker owners as an interim measure pending the international convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage and the international fund for compensation for oil pollution damage. The Navigation Act (No. 2) 1970 deals with action which might be taken in the event of an accidental spillage or a likely spillage resulting from, for example, a collision or a grounding. The Pollution of the Sea by Oil Act deals with the deliberate discharge of oil from ships. This distinction makes it quite clear, I think, where one Act leaves off and the other begins. A question was asked also about receiver tanks. Use is now being made of existing tanks in the structure of a tanker under what is known as the load-on-top system. This does not involve structural alterations but is a system whereby one or more tanks in a tanker are used to receive oil residues and washings from other tanks during cleaning operations. The residue tanks are left to settle, the water is drawn from the bottom and the remainder is then discharged into shore terminals which accept such residues as a standard procedure.

The load-on-top system is now used by nearly all tankers. In regard to the shipping levy collection, dispersants to be stockpiled .will be determined by a committee of experts from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the Department of the Navy, the Department of National Development and the Department of Primary Industry. They will consist of low toxicity dispersants and dispersants of high efficiency .without regard to toxicity. The particular dispersant to be used in any incident will be decided in consultation with fisheries authorities and others. If new dispersants are developed and it is desirable to replace the initial stockpile, this will be done progressively.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I shall be very brief. I want to indicate the attitude of the Australian Democratic Labor Party to the Bill generally and more particularly to the proposed amendment. We can see what prompts the Opposition to present the amendment. The propositions are probably valid but I want to make one or two comments, firstly about the terms in which the amendment is framed. It states: ‘(a) has failed to clarify whether responsibility for the protection of Australian territorial waters . . . ‘. I do not know what exactly is meant by protection’. If it goes to defence protection, which is the first meaning I would attribute to it, in no circumstances is that a State responsibility. The protection of territorial waters must be a federal responsibility and to that extent the amendment must be quite defective. Paragraph (b) states: ‘has not acted in a comprehensive way to ensure that Australian territorial waters are protected from all environmental threats from oil . . . ‘. Again that is framed in the most general terms. I am unable to comprehend what the Senate would express or convey by accepting that amendment.

Senator Mulvihill:

– That embodies a recommendation of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution.

Senator BYRNE:

– That might be right. I am saying that the Senate would not know what it is supporting in such a comprehensive and widely drawn amendment. It goes on: ‘(c) has not, on behalf of the Australian people, co-ordinated management of the Australian territorial waters . . ‘. Again I am quite unable to comprehend what is involved in that amendment although I understand what prompts its presentation. As to sovereignty over territorial waters, if the Senate is to take an attitude on this most important constitutional and national question it should be done in a very definite way, perhaps by a specific resolution and after proper debate directed to that matter. To dogmatise on the subject by an amendment, somewhat casually phrased, to a Bill that goes to a particular area of concern seems to me to be totally inappropriate. For those reasons the Democratic Labor Part finds itself unable to support the proposed amendment.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I rise to support the amendment moved by the Opposition. I thought that we were endeavouring to cut down debate but if Government supporters want to prolong it in the way that they have I feel that Opposition senators should be able to present their views clearly, too. At the international conference on environment a few months ago, it was a matter for deep regret that I represented a country which was not able to express its views on the law of the sea. In another place, at the end of a fairly lengthy debate, at least 2 Government supporters were disappointed in the Government’s attitude to the formulation of policy in this field.

In 1973, an international conference will be held on the law of the sea. Because the Government has failed to formulate a policy, delegates will go to that conference without being able to state a positive attitude. It goes further than that: Of all the nations in the world there are only about 3 that come into this category. On numerous occasions in this place the Opposition has suggested that laws ought to be formulated for the protection of the Great Barreir Reef. We have said that the Gulf of Carpentaria ought to be declared Australian waters. Two or three years ago, secret conferences were being held between this country and Indonesia. At irregular intervals we were told that agreement was about to be reached. But as recently as the last conference no formal agreement had been reached between this country and Indonesia.

As my colleague, Senator Mulvihill, said when he spoke to this amendment earlier, unless we are prepared to adopt positive attitudes, this country will become an orphan in this field. We have no real laws for the protection of the environment. We have no real laws for the protection of one of the wonders of the world - the Great Barrier Reef. We have no real laws for the protection of our fishing industry. Nor have we any law at all for the real protection of the marine environment. Senator Georges, in this chamber, a few days ago, referred rather caustically and with great justification to the lack of available Commonwealth finance to curb the southern march of the crown of thorns starfish. I think it is high time that the Government had enough intestinal fortitude and political backbone to accept amendments of this nature. At present no Democratic Labor Party senators are in the chamber. Usually they are very vocal about protecting this and that, but when it comes to legislation of this nature they are mostly concerned to save their political skins and will not support amendments such as we have proposed.

The PRESIDENT:

– That is not an unusual habit amongst politicians, senator.

Senator KEEFFE:

- Mr President, I think the average sincere politician is prepared to expose his skin to a few political barbs from time to time.

The PRESIDENT:

– I interjected from the Chair only on the basis of relevancy.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I shall have to call you to order, Mr President, at this stage of the debate. I think that this subject is of such magnitude that it deserves an even longer debate and proper researching by all parties into the consequences of passing legislation such as that before us. The amendment moved by the Opposition at least has reasonable substance and could be the basis of improved legislation of this nature in the future. I sincerely hope that honourable senators opposite and those who sit on the cross benches will have second thoughts and will vote for the amendment.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Mulvihill’s amendment) be added.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 19

NOES: 26

Majority . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– The amendments I propose refer to clauses 2 and 4, which read in part:

Clause 2. (1.) Subject to the next succeeding sub-section, this Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the royal assent. (2.) Sections 3, 4 and 9 of this Act shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by Proclamation, not being earlier than the date on which the 1969 Amendments, within the meaning of the Principal Act as amended by this Act, come into force for Australia.

Clause 4.

Section 6 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead:

  1. – (1.) Subject to this Act, if any discharge of oil or of an oily mixture occurs from an Australian ship into the sea, the owner and the master of the ship are each guilty of an offence punishable, on conviction, by a fine not exceeding Fifty thousand dollars.

I move: (1.)In clause 2, sub-clause (2.), leave out ‘,4’. (2.) In clause 4, in proposed section 6, subsection (1.), after ‘ship’, first occurring, insert ‘or any other ship’.

The implication of these amendments has already been discussed. As far as I can recall, the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) when replying to the second reading debate did not clarify some points for me. In the face of the amendments to the Navigation Act and this legislation, is there any added protection for owners of small pleasure craft or fishermen if they are victims of oil pollution, or do they still have to initiate private civil proceedings to obtain damages to compensate them for any damage to their craft?

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Prowse:

– Is leave granted for the 2 amendments to be moved together? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I take this opportunity to cover the 2 points which were raised by Senator Keeffe. I could not do so before because I had already spoken. In relation to the Great Barrier Reef, the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) was personally responsible for moving an amendment to the Convention for the Prevention of the Pollution of the Sea by Oil at a meeting of the Seventh Assembly of the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation in London last year. This amendment will have the effect, for the purposes only of this Convention, of moving the Australian coastline to the outer edge of the Great Barrier Reef. In other words, the Great Barrier Reef will be afforded the same measure of protection against marine oil pollution as are all other parts of the Australian coastline. In regard to the Law of the Sea Conference, the Commonwealth is not inhibited in expressing views or putting forward proposals at the Law of the Sea Conference.

Senator Keeffe:

– What if we do not have a policy?

Senator COTTON:

– That is not a matter for me at the moment. But I think that we will have. In fact, the State governments are not recognised internationally and cannot themselves become signatories to international conventions. I have some material dealing with the 2 amendments. The advisers are obtaining something for me in relation to small boats.

The Opposition has proposed that the reference in sub-clause (2.) of clause 2 to section 4 of the Act be omitted. Clause 2 of the Bill is the commencement clause and it provides, in effect, under sub-clause (1.) that increased penalties will be brought into effect on the day on which the Bill receives the royal assent. Sub-clause (2.) provides that sections 3, 4 and 9 will come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation, not being earlier than the date on which the 1969 amendments to the Convention come into force. The effect of the proposed amendment to sub-clause (2.) would be that section 4 of the Act would come into operation on the day on which the Bill receives the royal assent. Of course, this would precede the coming into force internationally of the 1969 Convention amendments, and it cannot be agreed to. Until such time as the Convention amendments themselves come into force, Australia is not able to exercise its external affairs power to bring into operation under our national legislation the relevant amendments. It is for that reason that the Bill provides that sections 3, 4 and 9 will come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation and then not earlier than the date on which the 1969 amendments come into force in Australia.

I turn now to the amendment proposed by the Opposition in relation to clause 4 of the Bill. It is proposed that after the word ‘ship’ the words ‘or any other ship’ be inserted. Again it seems necessary to explain the effect this amendment will have if adopted. The Act applies to Australian ships as defined, wherever they may be on the high seas or in the coastal waters of other countries. Such ships are prohibited from discharging oil or an oily mixture into the sea anywhere in the world except under the conditions permitted by the statute. In cases where there is sufficient evidence of an infringement, punitive action may be taken in our courts against the owner or the master of the ship. Therefore, if clause 4 were amended as proposed by the Opposition it would extend Australian jurisdiction to any ships, including foreign flag ships, anywhere in the world in the same way as we have jurisdiction over Australian ships. Such an unprecedented extension of jurisdiction could be justified only to implement a convention in which that intention was clearly expressed and which had gained international acceptance. This is certainly not contemplated by the Convention which is given effect to by the Pollution of the Sea by Oil Act. I would point out that although the Act does not apply directly to foreign ships, section 7 provides power for marine surveyors and authorised persons to ‘board any ship for the purpose of ascertaining whether the provision of the Convention has been complied with. Such power may be exercised if a foreign ship is suspected of having discharged oil anywhere in contravention of the Convention. Article 10 of the Convention provides that any evidence so acquired may be transmitted to the national government of the ship concerned. Where sufficient evidence is received in this manner the Convention imposes a duty on the recipient government to take proceedings against the owner or the master as soon as possible.

The Government is satisfied that Commonwealth legislation, as amended by the Bill now before the Senate, coupled with the complementary State legislation also implementing the terms of the Convention, makes adequate provision to deal with most ships which may cause pollution in Australian waters. Therefore the Government is not prepared to accept the amendments. Before I sit down I have a short note for Senator Mulvihill regarding small craft. Damage caused to personal property by an oil pollution incident is a matter for the civil law. This applies regardless of whether the damage results to small craft, short installations or any other private property. Such damage is not a matter for the legislation before the Senate at the moment; as I pointed out to the honourable senator, such recovery for damages is a civil law process.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– I wish to support the amendments that have been moved. I particularly refer to the second amendment. I believe that the words any other ship’ should be added, despite the fact that the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) has given some reasons as to why the amendment should not be accepted. Senator Mulvihill in the second reading stage of the Bill referred to 2 refineries, one being at Corio Bay. We have had tremendous problems in that Bay, not so much from tankers that are en route, but from tankers berthed at the pier discharging oil into the refinery of the Shell Oil Company. Nobody seems to be prepared on a State or Commonwealth level to protect the working fisherman in that port or any other ports where refineries are established. It is a matter of fact and record that professional fishermen in the Corio Bay area have dwindled from a great number to a handful at present. Literally hundreds of tons of fish from that Bay have been condemned when they have been taken to market because of kerosene and oil pollution. The fish concerned are mainly surface eating fish, such as mullet, trout, barracuda and other types of fish that do not feed off the bottom of the sea.

This Parliament and State parliaments have legislated for increased penalties to be provided against the polluters. There is no way in which the professional fishermen can receive just compensation for the loss which they sustain because of oil pollution. The losses amount to thousands and thousands of dollars, not only in relation to their catches that have been rejected but also to the equipment that has been ruined because of the oil pollution and other types of pollution by the oil industry. Nobody is ever to blame. On the occasions that we have been able to pin home the blame for pollution to tankers in the Bay they have paid the fines imposed out of the petty cash tin and have gone without 2 or 3 beers. That shows how ridiculous the situation is. We now have a chance to legislate at Commonwealth level to put adequate compensation clauses ir the legislation, not only relating to the big people that are losing but also the small men. I do not want to hear the nonsense that States have certain rights and the Federal Government has certain rights because the Commonwealth has deliberately dodged its obligation to bring down legislation in this area. At least 2 members of the Liberal Party in another place crossed the floor because the Government failed to face up to its responsibilities in this matter. I sincerely hope that the amendment will be a deterrent to the owners and masters of tankers who pollute areas while their vessels are at the wharves. The people responsible should not be fined the petty cash sums that they have been fined over the years. In many cases they do not even bother to defend the charges because they know that the fines will be so puny that they do not have to worry about them. While this is happening people with small enterprises who earn their living in this area are losing thousands of dollars. The hearts of many of them have been broken and they have had to leave the industry because of lack of action on the part of both the State and Federal governments.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Mulvihill’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator E. W. Prowse)

AYES: 20

NOES: 26

Majority . . . . 6

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 2312

POLLUTION OF THE SEA BY OIL (SHIPPING LEVY) BILL 1972

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 26 October (vide page 1989), on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2312

POLLUTION OF THE SEA BY OIL (SHIPPING LEVY COLLECTION) BILL 1972

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 26 October (vide page 1989), on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2312

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL (No. 4) 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27th October (vide page 2092), on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I suggest that the Senate debate the Customs Tariff Bill (No. 4) 1972, the Customs Tariff Bill (No. 5) 1972 and the Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) 1972 as cognate Bills.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is it the will of the Senate that these Bills be debated as cognate Bills? There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– The Bills before us are supplemented with massive documentation which would take honourable senators a long time to study. On behalf of the Opposition I have studied the second reading speech of the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) in another place and also the second reading speech of the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) who represents the Minister for Customs and Excise in this place. I point out to my colleagues and to the Senate that the recommendations contained in these measures are mainly of a machinery nature. The Customs Tariff Bill (No. 4) 1972 comprises 7 Schedules. The First Schedule constitutes a replacement of the First and Fifth Schedules of the principal Act and amendments to the Third and Fourth Schedules of the Act. The change to the metric system of measurement has necessitated quite a number of alterations, but they are all of a machiney nature.

Other changes contained in the legislation are to effect drafting amendments arising out of the Brussels Nomenclature which was instigated by the Customs Cooperation Council in Belgium. The First Schedule contains changes arising from recommendations of the Tariff Board and the Special Advisory Authority. The First Schedule includes also a reduction in the duties on grape wine. This alternative, of course, has been widely acclaimed. But we on this side of the chamber believe that the imposition of the duty on wine was unnecessary in the final place because of the effect it had on the wine industry. Part of the Second Schedule makes an important change to sections of the New ZealandAustralia Free Trade Agreement. The Fourth Schedule makes concessions for the free entry of tobacco, cigarettes, cigars and snuff if these products are to be used for approved medical or scientific research programmes. The Sixth Schedule provides for the implementation of Tariff Board reports on knitted shirts and outer garments.

The Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) is complementary to the Customs Tariff Bill (No. 4) 1972. It validates the collection of duties on wine and ships, boats, etc., up to 30th June 1972, that is, before metrication. Customs Tariff Bill (No. 5) 1972 deals with quite a number of alterations to the Customs Act. We on this side of the House realise the massive nature of the activities of the Department of Customs and excise. These matters have to be reviewed periodically by the Tariff Board and the Special Advisory Authority. Legislation is necessary on occasions such as in the case of the change to metrication and to validate and measures that previously had been brought in under the normal regulatory form. The Opposition does not oppose these measures.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– In the past I have expressed my regret that Customs Tariff Bills have been brought into the Senate in the dying moments of the session and that we have not been given the opportunity to discuss tariff policy in a way I believe it should be discussed in this chamber. Whatever way we care to look at it, tariff policy is a major determining factor in the development of the economic structure of Australia. It is a shame that, because of the pressure of time, the Senate for a long time has been deprived of the opportunity of discussing in full any in detail all the ramifications of tariff policy.

Tonight I had hoped to develop this argument in some depth and detail but because of the time factor, I have reluctantly accepted that I must speak only briefly. As I said a few moments ago, tariff policy is a major determining factor in the development of the economic structure of Australia. It is no secret that I have been a critic over many years of the tariff policy that has been followed by the Government and now, I must say, by the Opposition. There was a time when I think I could say that Senator O’Byrne and I were in general agreement on tariff policy.

Senator Byrne:

– That was a general agreement on tariffs and trade, of course.

Senator SIM:

– Well, I think at times we found ourselves agreeing. However, I will not criticise only the Opposition; I have a few minutes left to me to say something about Government policy. I have found that there has been a complete about turn in. the attitude of the Australian Labor Party to tariff policy over the years, and today I think it would be safe to say that I find myself completely opposed to the views that are being expressed.

I was interested to read the views expressed over the years by the spokesman for the Labor Party in another place on tariff matters, Dr J. F. Cairns. Because of the time factor, I cannot quote in full a speech he made in 1967. The speech can be found in the House of Representatives Hansard of 21st September 1967 at pages 1212 and 1213. Dr Cairns expressed views which were clearly in line with the views that some of us on this side of the House, especially ex-Senator Bull and I, expressed. Dr Cairns in a recent speech accused the Tariff Board of engaging in a search and destroy mission among Australian industry. This was a complete about turn from the policy that he enunciated on behalf of the Labor Party in 1967 and 1968 and, indeed, even before that. I was rather interested to read the speech which

I regarded as a farrago of economic nonsense. One can only wonder at the reason for the about turn in the attitude of the Labor Party.

I was therefore interested to read articles in the ‘National Times’ of 4th September and 9th September written by Mr P. M. McGuinness. He referred to the speech by Dr Cairns which I have just mentioned and I think it is worth quoting a few of Mr McGuinness’ remarks but only briefly because of the time factor. He referred to the accusation by Dr Cairns that the Tariff Board was engaging in a search and destroy mission amongst Australian industry and he wrote:

This is, of course, pure nonsense, and could be dismissed as such were it not for the danger that Dr Cairns may, in the not too distant future have the opportunity to vent his ill-considered prejudices upon one of the few official bodies in Australia that has shown signs of having an active concern for the long-term economic welfare of Australia.

Senator Jessop:

– Who wrote that?

Senator SIM:

– The article was written by Mr P. P. McGuinness and appeared in the ‘National Times’. I think that the Tariff Board has had a proud record of protecting its independence over the years against what has been at times extreme pressure. In speeches many years ago, I referred to the courageous attitude of Mr Rattigan, who protected the independence of the Board against what he considered were references which were dictating to the Board the type of report that it should produce.

I believe that we must clearly understand the influence of the Tariff Board upon Australia and Australian economic policy. It seems to me that many people do not understand that the reports of the Tariff Board have a great influence on the diversion of Australian resources, labour and capital into areas which make the greatest or the least contribution to our national growth.

Senator Webster:

– Much of this is theoretical though, senator.

Senator SIM:

– I do not agree with Senator Webster that much of it is theoretical. I believe that the record of the Tariff Board over the years has been one of practical decisions. Its recommendations to the Government have been based upon sound economic principles which the Board has developed. It is the responsibility of the Government whether it accepts the Board’s recommendations. I cannot agree with Senator Webster if he is questioning the record of the Tariff Board. I challenge anybody to dispute that the Tariff Board has made assessments and recommendations, in the last few years particularly, which were based upon sound economic principles.

Senator Webster:

– Like the Board did with the cherry industry.

Senator SIM:

– One may argue about different industries, but I would even dispute that the Board was at fault in the case of the cherry industry. One of the great problems in Australia has been the diversion of resources into high cost industries which have proved not to be in the national interest.

Senator Webster:

– Such as what?

Senator SIM:

– If I had half an hour I could tell Senator Webster of a number of industries, including the motor industry.

Senator Jessop:

– What about television?

Senator SIM:

– I will come to television also, if I have enough time remaining to me. The policies which have been followed by the Government have placed a heavy burden on the community and, I believe, have been the cause of the lowering of our living standards. These policies have placed a heavy burden particularly on those industries least able to bear it. Uppermost in my mind, of course, are the primary industries.

In a speech in 1967, Sir Leslie Melville, a former Chairman of the Tariff Board, referred to the fact that high protection was diverting resources into industries with the result that those industries capable of making a substantial contribution to Australia’s national development were being starved of the essential resources of both capital and labour.

Senator Webster:

– Very theoretical.

Senator SIM:

– Despite the interjection by Senator Webster, I believe that tariff policy over many years has resulted in a distortion of Australia’s economic structure. We have had a haphazard development of industry which has not been based upon rational economic thinking. There has been a desire to protect anything and everything. I refer again to the speech of Dr Cairns in 1967 when he said - I do not quote him exactly but I will make the exact quotation if any honourable senator wants it - that there is a desire to protect everything under the sun. I think that that has been a feature of Australian economic policy over some years. There has been a craze for economic self-sufficiency. The thought has been that any industry which wanted to establish itself was entitled to protection, regardless of the effect of that protection upon our national growth.

I believe that there has also been a reluctance to accept the realities of world trade. I have been interested over the years in what I would regard as double standards in Australia. Nobody has been more critical of other countries for the establishment of high trade barriers against the import of Australian products. There has been criticism, I believe justifiable criticism, against the European Economic Community because of its high trade barriers - not only tariff barriers but non-tariff barriers - against the import of Australian products.

Senator Webster:

– Hear, hear!

Senator SIM:

– I am glad that my friend, Senator Webster, agrees with me. 1 am interested to hear him say this.

Senator Jessop:

– What does the honourable member for Wakefield say about it?

Senator SIM:

– I will come to the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) in a moment if I may. There has been criticism of these non-tariff barriers which have been erected against Australian exports not only by the European Economic Community but also by Japan and other countries. I suggest that Australia has nothing to learn from the European Economic Community or Japan when it comes to the establishment of non-tariff barriers. No country is more sophisticated than is Australia in this area. At one time we used to refer to quantitative imports, but now we have a more sophisticated and perhaps less objectionable expression ‘import control’, but it means the same thing. I will mention in a few moments a couple of instances of this. I may also mention our by-law administration. I suggest that one of these days the Parliament has to have a very close look at our by-law administration. I have frequently sought from the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) a definition of ‘suitable and equivalent’ and I have yet to receive an answer which would indicate to me that there is any clearly defined rule regarding ‘suitable and equivalent’. It is an arbitrary decision made on the moment rather than something that we in the Parliament can at least understand.

In Australia we cannot avoid structural changes in industry. We are facing them in our primary industries and we have to face them in our manufacturing industries as well. Japan today is making tremendous structural changes in its industry to meet changing world trade conditions. Only a few days ago the Prime Minister of Japan, Mr Tanaka, acknowledged this and said that Japan must face up to this factor. The United States of America is facing and has faced up to structural changes. The United Kingdom has to face up to them. I think it is foolhardy for us in Australia to believe that we have not to face up to these structural changes.

Senator Webster:

– What do you suggest?

Senator SIM:

– If you give me half an hour to speak I will suggest something, but I am really restricted tonight. I will have the greatest pleasure in the new Parliament in making a major speech in this area when I can spell out in some detail what I mean by structural changes.

Senator Webster:

– 1 am only trying to help you.

Senator SIM:

– I do not need help. We in Australia cannot be isolated from world wide competition. I mention 2 matters very briefly because of the time factor. I mention first the chain industry in Australia. The honourable member for Wakefield has long been a lone voice in his advocacy of tariff changes. But fortunately today he has some friends, including Mr Maisey of the Country Party and others. He spoke at some length in the other place on this matter. I do not wish to deal at length with this because of the time factor. May I just say that here is an industry on which the Tariff Board has made a number of reports from time to time. The Tariff Board has reported that certain sections of this industry have not been economic or efficient. I regret that the Government seems now to adopt the policy of circumventing Tariff Board recommendations. Despite the recommendation made on the Renolds chain industry the Government has imposed import licensing - this new sophisticated and apparently less objectionable term - on certain areas of the chain industry. Without going into the details, may I say that the result of this has been to increase the price of these chains to the Australian primary industries and to the Australian manufacturers of farm machinery such as Massey-Harris. Whereas the world trend is towards a lowering of price of these chains, the trend in Australia is to increase the price. One wonders how long we can tolerate this type of development. I turn very briefly to colour television.

Senator Hannan:

– That is a good decision.

Senator SIM:

– I am glad to have .the support of my friend. If the reports - I only go on reports because I have no official information about this - are true, there is a suspicion that the Government will issue a directive to the Tariff Board about colour television. I have before me a number of articles on this subject and a letter which all senators have received from Mr Cowan, the General Manager of the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations.

Senator Webster:

– What is the summingup of all these papers?

Senator SIM:

– If you like to read them you will be able to understand the summingup of all of them. What the letter is saying in effect is that we are faced with a situation in Australia where there is a limited market particularly for tubes. At the moment we have a tariff of $50 on a television set, plus 121 per cent on tubes and 45 per cent on the rest of the set. On 1969 statistics this amounted to an average of 108 per cent. This high protection was introduced on the basis of a very meagre report. It has been suggested in the reports that the tariff on colour television sets would be 45 per cent plus $125 and that the sales tax would be 27± per cent. In Canada, which is an equivalent country, the tariff is nil on imports from preferential countries and 15 per cent on imports from elsewhere, and there is 12i per cent federal sales tax plus any local tax. In the

United Kingdom the tariff is nil on imports from preferential countries and 15 per cent on imports from elsewhere and the sales tax is 25 per cent.

One of the matters to which Mr Kelly in another place and I have referred from time, to time is the protection of Australian industry which is uneconomic because it has insufficient throughput to have economic production. Senator Obyrne will remember that when we discussed this matter some time ago in relation to air cooled engines he and I agreed completely on this matter. That was 3, 4 or 5 years ago. It is admitted by the Chairman of Philips Industries Ltd that the economic production run of colour television tubes is about 1.5 million a year but the, Australian consumption of colour television sets would be about 400,000 to 500,000 a year. That is a pretty optimistic figure because one of the concerns is that because of the cost of these sets - a figure of $1,000 has been quoted, but I do not vouch for its accuracy - sales would be minimal in Australia because not many people can afford to pay $1,000 for a colour television set. They could be imported from the United Kingdom or Japan for about half that amount. The electronics industry is a fragmented industry, with a number of manufacturers. The companies in this industry, I might add, are wholly overseas owned companies. The Opposition talks about these companies owned wholly overseas. If we protected this Australian industry completely from any overseas competition the Australian producer would face, higher costs. For instance the terribly high cost of installing colour television equipment to the Australian Broadcasting Commission and to the commercial television stations would place in jeopardy the introduction of colour television in Australia.

My only comment is that I am not averse to a full inquiry being conducted by the Tariff Board but I would take the greatest exception to any directive to the Tariff Board that this industry should be protected. I know it is argued that it is a defence industry. May I say that as I understand it - and I am only quoting from information I have - that a study was undertaken by the Department of Trade and Industry into the Australian electronics components industry, so described, and that inquiry described in one word the Australian market of that industry as a defence industry. The word was ‘negligible’. I think that we have to be very careful when people claim that their industry is a defence industry. I could get into an argument but I will not because I must now conclude. We need to have a close look at the argument that an industry is a defence industry. If it is a defence industry, we must ask who should bear the cost of protecting that industry. Should it be the consumer or should it be our defence services through the defence vote? That is another argument and I will not enter into it now.

I have made my viewpoints known but I regret that I have not been able to deal with this matter as deeply as I hoped to speak on it. It is my desire that, when the new Parliament meets, we will have the opportunity in its first session to devote time for a detailed debate on tariff policy to which contributions will be made from both sides of the Senate so that we may obtain a far better understanding of tariff policy than we have at the moment. Therefore, whilst I do not oppose the proposals before the Senate, I trust that we will have greater opportunity in the future to study tariff matters as deeply as they deserve to be studied.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– in reply - It is noted that these Bills are not opposed by either honourable senator who has spoken. No one would quarrel with the observation of my learned friend and colleague, Senator Sim, as to the great importance of tariff policy.

Senator Webster:

– Well, I would.

Senator COTTON:

– But I think-

Senator Webster:

– He did not expound Government policy. That is the main thing to say.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke) - Order!

Senator Webster:

– It is no good the Minister saying that he agrees with what was said.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT -Order!

Senator COTTON:

– What I would like to be able to do if I may have a moment of silence from the great helpers that we have here is to conclude the remarks that I began to make when I was interrupted. Tariff policy is important and people are entitled to have varying views on it. There is nothing wrong with the Government of this country when its supporters can have different views. I do not object to that. But what I do-

Senator Mulvihill:

– You will be in trouble next week.

Senator COTTON:

– I think not. I say to the Senate that I am assured that in the autumn session of the new Parliament Tariff Bills will come forward on which a full ranging debate may be conducted. I hope that I will be able to take part in that debate because, in common with my learned friend, Senator Sim, my other learned friend, Senator Webster, and various other unlearned friends whom we have, I would like to take part in such a debate very much. I think that it is right and proper that we should have a debate in depth on tariff policy. I see no objection to that. When this Government is returned it will facilitate that process.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

Mr Temporary Chairman, Senator Sim has aroused my interest in his attack on the Government and the Country Party particularly.

Senator Sim:

– I attacked the Opposition as well.

Senator WILLESEE:

– What the honourable senator did say about the Opposition was that Senator O’Byrne and he used to agree but now they did not and that Dr Cairns had changed his mind since 1967. Dr Cairns is apparently one of the unlearned ones referred to by the Minister. The honourable senator went on to say that we cannot ignore the structural changes in industry. At that stage I lost his line of thinking. If we are to have structural changes in industry which cannot be ignored, it seems to me that Senator O’Byrne and Dr Cairns are more on the ball than Senator Sim is. But perhaps I am mistaken because I have been assured that Senator Sim is a very learned man and that Dr Cairns is not.

I rose to ask the. Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) another question. Senator Sim mentioned quantitative imports and seemed to indicate that this policy had been discontinued. At one time the Government based quite a deal of its economic policy on the fact that a number of imports were controlled quantitatively. In other words, the Government applied import controls.

Senator Sim:

– I think I said they are now called import controls.

Senator WILLESEE:

– Oh, just be quiet! You have said enough silly things tonight. Quantitative imports were a basic part of Government economic policy in the 1950s when what we term import controls were applied. On one occasion this Senate condemned that. A rapport existed at that time between the then Minister for Trade and Industry and the Senate. It was agreed (.hat it was not sufficient for the Government to say that Mr A could have whatever imports he wanted depending on all sorts of things including the colour of his eyes and his politics. At the insistence of the Senate the Government at that stage set up industry committees to advise the Government.

As I understand it, particularly in relation to the question of the import of knitted shirts, the Government has returned now to that quantitative system of import control but it is not following now any of the procedures on which the Senate insisted such as industry committees to advise the Government on those to whom these restrictions should be applied. The Senate adopted the view in 1957 that it was dangerous - indeed, it was tyrannical - to permit some civil servant the right to say that one man who applied would have unrestricted imports of his commodity; another could have imports that he sought and a third person who applied would not be permitted to import any commodities for which he sought approval. It seems to me that the Government has returned to this policy. If appears that, from what Senator Sim has stated, changes in tariff policy have occurred. Can the Minister give the Committee any informa tion as to whether the safeguards on which the Senate insisted in 1957 have been written into the new policy of quantitative imports control? I understand that this is the policy to which the Government has returned, particularly in relation to knitted shirts. I do not know who wears knitted shirts, but evidently somebody does, and it is thought there should be safeguards as to the importation of knitted shirts.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– We had better make up our minds fairly soon whether we wish to have now a full scale debate on customs tariffs. If we do, we are considering a discussion which will involve the passage of a number of hours if not a few days. I did observe - I ask the Committee to bear with me while I observe again - that I am assured that tariff Bills will be presented in the autumn session of the new Parliament and that ample opportunity should be available for a wide ranging debate on tariff policy which some honourable senators seem to bc seeking now. Senator Willesee reminded me, although long before I became a member of the Senate I had observed the fact, of the quantitative import controls and restrictions that applied at an earlier period. I was very glad to see them pass away. I am advised that, at the present time in certain areas, the Government does admit quantities of imports at certain normal rates of duty and that excess quantities above that level are subject to higher rates of duty. All these are matters for a much wider ranging debate than we are able to have now. I have not the slightest objection to a full scale discussion on this matter at an appropriate time.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– I wish to reply to Senator Willesee. I think he is under some misunderstanding about the position in relation to knitted shirts. At this stage the Government has not imposed either quantitative restrictions or import controls, but it is having discussions with the exporters of knitted shirts with a view to having them accept voluntary controls of imports into Australia. At this stage no decision has been reached. I might have argued on that point, but I am not doing so tonight. It is a bit different to the arbitrary system of import controls.

Discussions between the Australian Government and various governments about voluntary restraint on imports of knitted shirts into Australia are being held.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2319

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL (No. 5) 1972

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 27 October (vide page 2092), on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2319

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1972

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 27 October (vide page 2092), on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2319

NATIVE MEMBERS OF THE FORCES BENEFITS BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 October (vide page 2093), on motion by Senator DrakeBrockman:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I suggest that the Native Members of the Forces Benefits Bill 1972 and the Repatriation (Torres Strait Islanders) Bill 1972 be debated together and that separate votes be taken on each Bill.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke) - Is there any objection? There being no objections, the Bills will be debated together and separate votes will be taken on each Bill.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Whilst the Opposition is not opposing the 2 Bills, I make certain criticisms on behalf of the Opposition. The introduction of these Bills has been consistent with the Government’s action over a long period. The Government is throwing a few crumbs to the underprivileged people in this community. I think I have used that phrase previously. The Government has consistently been throwing a few crumbs to the people of the Torres Strait Islands since about 1957, I think, when the first botch was made by the Government. The Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman), in his second reading speech on the Native Members of the Forces Benefits Bill, said:

At the present time, Torres Strait Islanders and mainland Aborigines who served in the Torres Strait Light Infantry Forces during World War fi are eligible for benefits under the Native Members of the Forces Benefits Act.

He referred to the alleged wide ranging benefits. He said that the ex-members have no right to receive pensions for non-war caused tuberculosis.

On other occasions I have mentioned the problems being faced by these people. I can recall that not so many years ago the then Minister for Housing was asked whether she could state the number of Aborigines and Islanders who had obtained war service homes. To the best of my knowledge, in Queensland the number would be about 3, and one of them lives on Thursday Island. I recall the Minister referring on that occasion to the housing situation at Bamaga. She said that the frangipani trees and the hibiscus trees were growing fine. I think my colleague sitting on my left at the time said: ‘You cannot sleep under an - adjective - frangipani tree’. In his second reading speech on the Repatriation (Torres Strait) Islanders Bill the Minister for Air said:

Although the proposals will bring no direct financial improvement to pensions and other benefits payable to these ex-servicemen, because their pensions and allowances arc already payable at rates equal to those under the Repatriation Act, it will allow them access to the repatriation appeal tribunals.

I submit that a large number of people in the Torres Strait area and a large number of people who have moved away from the area would not know that they are entitled to repatriation benefits.

Earlier this session I referred to 2 letters - one signed by the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten) and the other signed by the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns). Both said that during this session there would be no amendments to these 2 Acts. I think we have to thank God for the forthcoming election on 2nd December, because that is the only reason why these amendments are before the Senate tonight. The Minister for Air also stated: lt will also extend to them the benefits of section 37 (3) of the Repatriation Act in respect of pulmonary tuberculosis.

He made a further reference to the extended period of time for appeals to the tribunals. He said:

However, because of the geographic location of the Torres Strait Islands, their remoteness, and the limitation of sea transportation between the islands, this time limit has been extended’ to 6 months for persons resident in the Torres Strait Islands, so that no member will be disadvantaged in respect of the exercise of his rights of appeal.

That statement highlights the fact that Queensland is a fairly densely populated State on the coastal fringe from the border to the Torres Strait and highlights our request for a repatriation office in Townsville or Cairns. I know that we have asked for this for many years. A former Minister for Repatriation said: ‘You cannot have it. We have only one provincial city repatriation office in Australia, and that is a failure’. It is situated in one of the outer suburbs of Sydney. That is where the provincial repatriation office is. The people living in the isolated island areas will be further handicapped. I know that the Minister for Air said that by advertisement and otherwise they will be advised of their entitlements. On behalf of an elderly gentleman who retired quite recently I made 3 submissions for a war service home. Each of them was refused. f do not think that the legislation states clearly enough or that the Minister for Repatriation or the Minister for Air have set out in clear enough terms the entilements of the people who it is alleged will be covered by this amendment to the Act. Does it mean that everybody who has served other than on Thursday Island, whether they served at Merauke, on small ships, on Horn Island or an any of the other islands in the Torres Strait, will be covered by the provisions of the War Ser vice Homes Act and the Repatriation Act in precisely the same way as a white soldier who served in these areas? I do not think that that is the intention of this Bill. If it is proved to the contrary and I am incorrect I shall be delighted. There is a particular provision which says that Thursday Island was not a war zone, but a white man who went from Cape York to serve on Thursday Island at a certain time during World War II could qualify for repatriation benefits and a war service home. The Minister for Air also made the following statement in his second reading speech on the Repatriation (Torres Straits Islanders) Bill:

In relation to other Commonwealth legislation the major change arising from this provision concerns entitlement to war service bornes benefits. The amendments proposed by this Bill wilt enable applications by these ex-servicemen for assistance under the war services homes scheme to be considered under the existing provisions of the War Service Homes Act. Applicants must, of course -

This is the killer - have the appropriate qualifying war service and must satisfy the requirement1; which apply to all applicants for assistance under the latter Act.

I wish to point out that not one more war service home will be available on Thursday Island unless an existing home is bought. The Torres Strait Islands are owned by the Queensland Government. The Tomes Strait Islanders have no title to land nor can they obtain land. After years of agitation we were able to get 60 acres of land released by the Department of Defence. I do not know why such a large area has been reserved. Hundreds of acres of land are still reserved for defence purposes. But 60 acres was released. It may be thai it was to have been a launching pad for a sputnik or something like that. That land was released about a year ago. What has happened to that land since then? I have in my office numerous files of correspondence with Commonwealth Ministers on this particular parcel of land. The last I hears about it was a few days ago when I was told by a Commonwealth Minister that negotiations were going on with the Queensland Government about it. I have asked for this land to be subdivided into building allotments and for the Islanders to be given preference to it.

On previous occasions when land has been released there it has been released to people who exploit the Islanders. They have built fowl houses and hen coops and charged more than the average weekly wage of an Islander for rental. The responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of the Government to see that land is released and to see that the Queensland Government does not make a tidy packet out of selling it for tourist purposes or something eke. lt appears that the Commonwealth Government put no tags on this land when it released it. A limited number of allotments is available on Horn Island for people to build homes on. The rest of it is Crown land that is vested in either the Commonwealth or the State government. The same situation, apart from the mission areas, applies Ham, Murray and Moa Islands.

The Prince of Wales Island is a slightly different kettle of fish. The magnificent Queensland Government has decided to grant a grazing lease to an American on Prince of Wales Island. At least a section of this land should have been subdivided for housing purposes and the rest of it should have been given to the Islanders for grazing purposes or for any other purposes for which they wanted to use it. I fear the repercussions that can flow from the people who complain. Practically anywhere at all north of the Tropic of Capricorn in Queensland, in the Northern Territory to a lesser degree, and in those areas in Western Australia where mining development has taken place or railway construction is being carried out, one can find large numbers of Islanders who have left their island homes because of the lack of employment opportunities for both themselves and their families.

As less than 1,000 people served in the Island infantry group, I would respectfully suggest to the Minister that it would not be a major task to circularise every one of those Islanders and if possible have a followup by a Commonwealth liaison officer or a Repatriation officer to tell them their entitlements. It has taken so many years now for these entitlements to be made available to them that many of them will not be able to understand the technical problems associated with receiving them. Here we have a golden opportunity for some of this land to be returned to the people in such a way that they have a title to it and will be able to borrow money under the War Service Homes Act to build for themselves a comfortable home on it. There is nothing to stop them from doing so. Grants made available to the Commonwealth Office of Aboriginal Affairs are being channelled towards providing Aborigines with the deposit that is necessary in this respect.

However, I know what is going to happen in the War Service Homes Division when the first Islander makes an application for his entitlements and states that he receives the princely training allowance of $10 or $15 a week. He is going to be told: You are not receiving sufficient income for us to make a grant to you’. A person working under those circumstances has not in the past been able to earn sufficient to be able to produce the necessary deposit that the Department is going to require. There is a great moral responsibility upon the Government to ensure that the Islanders who desire assistance under the Repatriation Act and the War Service Homes Act to build a home are able to get that assistance. I know that it has been many years since World War II finished. But today there are about 20 young Islanders serving in the Australian Navy as well as a few in the Army.

That brings me to another point. As you know, Mr President, the Senate Standing Committee on Social Environment is currently investigating the social problems of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders and the preservation of their sacred sites. So this matter goes right across the board. I have deliberately mentioned the Commonwealth Office of Aboriginal Affairs which, under the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson), has a direct responsibility to the Aboriginal people of this country. Not many weeks ago the Senate Standing Committee on Social Environment was investigating the housing conditions of people of the Northern Territory and a senior social worker who had his heart in the right place decided that there were a couple of people who needed to be returned to a reserve so that they would be able to talk to members of the Committee. For his pains he has been charged under section 55 of the Public Service Act 1922-1972. If the Committee wanted to investigate where these homes may be better utilised in the

Torres Strait area and some public servant wanted to assist it he would be treated in the same way as this man was treated. He would receive the following notice:

Take notice that you have been charged with the commission of an offence under section 55 of the Public Service Act 1922-1972, a copy of which charge is annexed hereto, and take further notice that in accordance with the provisions of the said section I hereby require you to forthwith state, in writing, whether you admit or deny the truth of the charge, and to give any explanation, in writing, you desire in regard thereto, and take further notice, pending the determination of the charge you will be permitted to continue in the performance of your duties subject to any subsequent action which may be considered as to your suspension.

I am not going to mention the name of the officer who received this notice nor of his superior officer. However, the whole file I have on this subject is available to the Minister for perusal afterwards if he has enough interest in it to want to have a look at it. It is most unfair that a senior social worker in the Welfare Division of the Northern Territory Administration who had in his heart a wish to help certain people should be charged with the commission of an offence within the meaning of section 55 of the Public Service Act.

We have a standing committee which is investigating right across the board 2 aspects of the problems facing Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. One is their living and social conditions - health, education and what have you; the other is the preservation of those things that are sacred to them, such as the Drums of Mer which were made famous by an Australian writer but which today are virtually non-existent. I think there is one in existence. Not only do we neglect these people’s housing problems, not only do we neglect the repatriation benefits to which they are legitimately entitled, but we take away those things that are most dear to them in their spiritual life.

I am respectfully suggesting, although not in accordance with the terms of this Bill, that you, Mr President, and the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Environment, Senator Laucke, ought to have a serious discussion of whether or not public servants can be inhibited, intimidated or otherwise disposed of when they want to help a Senate standing committee. Nowhere is this more necessary than in relation to the Aborigines and Islanders of this country. They have been deprived for 200 years by our white society. I feel that in the case of this gentleman who was charged under section 55 of the Public Service Act it would be a gracious act on the part of this Government if the initiative could be taken at the Government level to have the charge waived without him having to go to the expense, should he so desire, of appealing against the determination of the Board, because he has now been fined for something which, in my view, he morally did while he was doing his duty. I trust that some of the remarks that I have made will be taken into account. I trust that the Minister and the officers in both responsible departments will ensure not only that the letter of these amendments to both Acts are carried out but also that the spirit is carried out, if the spirit already exists. If this is not done, then obviously there is room for further amendments to be made to both Acts. My criticisms are of a constructive nature and I hope that some notice will be taken of them.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I support the concern of my colleague Senator Keeffe in regard to the social worker he mentioned. Yesterday I consulted the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Environment, Senator Laucke, on this matter. I know that he has been unable to get anything positive on it. As senators, we have been inundated with submissions from the Standing Orders Committee and other groups about the rights of witnesses who testify before Senate committees. I think we all are conscious of the fact that if one adopts a bully-boy attitude one can jeopardise the whole standing of these committees. I do not think any senator has been guilty of that. Conversely, if there is to be indirect pressure, this to me is tantamount to the situation in which a shop steward gives evidence in an arbitration court and when he gets back to work his employer attempts to dock him or to harass him for having the temerity to express his viewpoint. Speaking for myself and for Senator Keeffe, I think I can say that no information that we obtained on our visit to Darwin or the Northern Territory at large was obtained in any espionage manner. The fact of the matter is that it seems rather ironic that the gentleman in question received from Senator Laucke a letter dated 9th October which epitomised the views of the entire Committee because it stated that he was an extremely dedicated and helpful officer. There was no holeinthecorner method.

Quite frankly, if there was some minor disagreement with a senior officer I think whoever implemented this part of the Public Service Act had a pretty poor concept of industrial relations. We all knew, when we went on this safari, that there were many explosive aspects of the Aboriginal question. Surely senior officers would have been extra vigilant to ensure that no element of intimidation was being practised. I do not want to pre-judge the incident, but I think the Board should have erred the other way. All I say in conclusion is that I take a very serious view of the fact that a particular officer who merited the commendation of our Committee found within a fortnight that the Public Service disciplinary code was applied to him. I inform the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman), although I think he is already aware of this, that probably at the end of this debate Senator Keeffe and 1 will give him all the details, if Senator Laucke has not already done so.

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

– in reply - I thank the Senate for the passage of the Bill. 1 never cease to be amazed at what Senator Keeffe does. He draws the long bow, if be knows what that means. Over the years I have never heard him make a speech on a subject in which he has not done this. Also, I was quite concerned about his statement to the effect: ‘If the Minister does not believe me, I have the information here and I can show him’. Any Minister is very concerned at what happens within the responsibilities of his portfolio. But he cannot be expected to know exactly what is happening in every part of Australia and the islands beyond. I believe it is up to Senator Keeffe to go to the Minister concerned, put his case to him and say: ‘This is what I have found out. I would like some information as to what you propose to do about this’. It is no good just sitting back and asking the Minister to do something about it.

Having said that, I inform Senator Keeffe that the amendments proposed in this Bill will have the effect of enabling applications for assistance under the war service homes scheme to be considered under the existing provisions of the War Service Homes Act. No consequential amendments to the War Service Homes Act will be necessary. I believe that this is the part that counts: The granting of a war service loan to those ex-servicemen will be dependent on their applications for assistance meeting the requirements that apply to all applicants for assistance under the Act. These include evidence of qualifying war service, the provision of minimum deposit required by the Act, the Department of Housing being satisfied that the applicant has a reasonable prospect to meet the terms and conditions on which the loan is provided and that the property the subject of an application will provide a suitable security for an advance.

The honourable senator made out a case for Torres Strait Islanders. He said that he knew of a man who had served during the Second World War who was not eligible for a war service loan. I know of many people who served during the last war who are not eligible for a war service loan. The simple reason is that some of them-

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– Including myself.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson is one who is not eligible. Some of them served in the Citizen Military Forces and some in Darwin but not during the qualifying period. I understand that the Torres Strait Islanders were part of a light infantry regiment that was raised in that area on the same basis as the CMF. The main requirement for the granting of a war service loan is that a member of the Services must have served overseas. Perhaps the man about whom Senator Keeffe is talking served in the light infantry forces but not in the qualifying period. He may not have seen service overseas. I do not know whether this is correct until the honourable senator gives me the background of the case so that we can have a look at it. But it is not right for the honourable senator to rise in the Senate and say that he knows of the case of one man. All honourable senators know of any number of men who served during the 1939-45 war who are not eligible for a war service loan. When we look into their cases we find the reasons why they are not eligible. That is why I said when I opened my remarks that the honourable senator was stretching the long bow. I am winding up the debate so he will not be able to reply to what I say.

Senator Keeffe:

– Do not think you are going to get me to sit down.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I am not going to but the President might. Senator Mulvihill supported Senator Keeffe on a particular point which he made. I do not have any background information in relation to that matter. Apparently the honourable senator has spoken to the Chairman of the Committee so I think it is a matter between the 2 members of the Senate and the Chairman of the Committee. If any assistance is needed afterwards, the honourable senators can go to the Minister concerned with this matter. I am sure that he will give sympathetic consideration to it and take whatever action his powers enable him to take. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator KEEFFE (Queensland) - Mr President, before the vote is taken I wish to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I claim to have been misrepresented by none other than the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation. The Minister claimed that I was making false statements in relation to people’s service.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– I never said such a thing.

Senator KEEFFE:

– It was a play on words. I wanted information from the Minister and I asked him to define something for me.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator KEEFFE:

– That was fair enough, and that is all I asked of him. Yet he misconstrued my words and created a wrong impression.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!I heard the Minister quite clearly. I have been listening to the debate intently. The Minister did not accuse you of making a false statement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– The Minister for Air (Senator DrakeBrockman) pointed out that he was closing the second reading debate and that 1 would not get another chance to speak. Apart from this long bow exercise, from where I sit in this chamber one is forced to speak because there have been so many times when, unless one takes a little licence in this direction, one finds that Ministers are deliberately evading issues. 1 did not want that to happen tonight between me and the Minister for Air who represents in this chamber the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten). It is not a nice way in which to end this parliamentary session. I was hoping thatI would get the information for which I asked when 1 was speaking to the 2 Bills.

I mentioned specific points on which I hoped to get some sort of an answer from the Minister. Honourable senators may have noticed that when the Minister replied to the statements that I had made he made no reference at all to the areas of land available in the area to which I referred. He did not supply on behalf of the Government any sort of response to the solution that I suggested to the problem, namely, that the Commonwealth Office of Aboriginal Affairs could find the minimum deposit for the construction of homes under the War Service Homes Act and that there could be a scaling down of rents or something else by the Department. The Minister made no reference at all to the non-availability of land on Horn, Hammond, Murray and a host of other islands. He made no reference at all to the areas in which the people have served. This is a very important point. If we are to pass this amendment to the Repatriation Act there has to be a clear definition of where these people needed to serve in order to qualify under the Act. I ask the Minister whether Merauke was one of these areas, because many of these people who served in this light infantry battalion went from Thursday Island to the Merauke area. Perhaps some people served on small ships.

Honourable senators will have noticed that when 1 suggested that each of the fewer than 1,000 people ought to be circularised by the Department the Minister replied with a complete and utter stunning silence. These are not major questions. Heavens above, the Minister has his advisers. After tonight we will not get another chance to come back here and railroad the Government anywhere, although it will railroad itself into political oblivion. Tonight is the last opportunity on which any Minister in the current Government either can give the lie to accusations that are made by members of the Opposition or, alternatively, can set out a sensible and responsible answer to them. I am now challenging the Minister to come up with the goods or to resign before the election.

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

Senator Keeffe frightens me. I say to the honourable senator that I did not reply to his question because he asked me about the availability of the land and the area of the land, and that does not come under the control of the Commonwealth. lt comes under the control of the State Government. Therefore, I cannot give him an answer to that question at the present time. Then he referred to the Commonwealth Office of Aboriginal Affairs. That has nothing to do with the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation. I shall have to seek an answer for him in relation to that matter. All 1 can say is that every time an honourabe senator makes a contribution in this place, the relevant Minister and the officers who are with him at the time of the debate study the Hansard record, pick up the points that need to be answered and generally they are answered. I shall certainly ask the officers who are with me tonight to give me some information so that I can write to the honourable senator and try to provide him with the information which he seeks.

Senator Keeffe also asked about the areas in which people had to serve in order to qualify for a war service home. I told him when I replied to the second reading debate that one of the first requirements of an applicant is that he had to serve overseas. If this Torres Strait Islander did not serve away from his area, if he was a member of the Torres Strait Islands infantry, which is the equivalent of the Citizen Military Forces, then he is not entitled to a war service home. I have already given that answer to the honourable senator and I cannot take it any further. I have noted the points as the honourable senator made them. Two concern the Queensland Government, one concerns the Office of Aboriginal Affairs and one concerns the War Service Homes Act. I have given the hon,ourable senator an answer in regard to the War Services Homes Act. I cannot give him an answer in regard to the other 3 questions.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– The Minister now claims that he has given me the answers. In fact, he has not given me the answers because my definition of the word ‘overseas’., his definition of the word ‘overseas” and the previous Government’s definition of the word overseas’ are apparently all at variance. What I. am saying is that members of the Citizen Military Forces who served in the Torres Strait-Horn Island area qualify for repatriation benefits and war service homes, provided that they served in those areas at a particular time. The same thing applies to Darwin and to other parts of far northern Australia.

If the Minister agrees with me on that - from the way in which he is nodding his head I assume that he agrees with me - I now ask him about the people who served in this particular unit. They cannot be penalised because their home address happened to be Thursday Island. In fact, they served in the same area as did members of the CMF, but the Government will not give them these entitlements. If this is the way in which the Government is to introduce amendments into the Act, it is nothing but a hollow political sham and window dressing for the coming Federal election. Let me say publicly now that if this is the way in which the Government is to interpret the Act, not one Tones Strait Islander, not one Murray Islander and not one Moa Islander will receive any benefits other than the meagre ones which they are getting at the present time, and the Minister has to prove otherwise.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Drake-Brock man) read a third time.

page 2326

REPATRIATION (TORRES STRAIT ISLANDERS) BILL 1972

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 27 October (vide page 2094), on motion by Senator Drake-Brockman:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

page 2326

ADVANCE TO THE TREASURER 1971-72

Statement of Expenditure

In Committee

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Ander son) agreed to:

That the Committee approves the statement for the year 1971-72 of Heads of Expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to Section 36a of the Audit Act 1901-1969.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 2326

GENERAL BUSINESS

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP

(10.24) - To all intents and purposes we have dealt with the Bills on the notice paper to the point to which we propose to go. It will be recalled that during the last several weeks, in relation to General Business item No. 18 in the name of Senator Murphy and item No. 13 in the name of Senator Kane. I gave an assurance that within the limits of my capacity and within the limits of time, when Government business had been disposed of, I would attempt to have the items called on. Pursuant to that undertaking, despite the motions that have been moved during the week, I want to get to that position. Therefore, I seek leave to call on General Business item No. 18 in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Murphy.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection leave is granted.

page 2326

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12 October (vide page 1542), on motion by Senator Murphy:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Senator Byrne had moved by way of amendment:

At end of motion add ‘, but the Senate is of the opinion that while the extension of the franchise to young people of the age of eighteen years and under twenty-one years will provide for a more accurate reflection of the relevant opinion of electors the most accurate and democratic means of ensuring the equitable Parliamentary representation in the House of Representatives of substantial bodies of political opinion in the community is by the electoral system of proportional representation voting for election to that House.’

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

Mr President, you have called me but I should indicate that this Bill is in the course of its second reading and other senators might wish to speak on it. If they do not, I would simply ask that the question be put to the vote. If they do wish to speak, however, then I do not want to prevent the debate continuing.

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

Mr President, I am in continuation on this debate; I spoke shortly when the matter was last before the Senate and I desire to continue my remarks. However, I do not know whether it is the will of the Senate that at this hour it desires to continue to possibly beyond 11 o’clock; it may be that the debate would go for that length of time. As the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) has said, he had indicated quite some time ago that the course which he adopted tonight he would adopt when Government business was concluded. He has done that, and I think that he has, as honourable senators would appreciate, quite fairly approached this matter in accordance with his undertaking. But I think also that all honourable senators know that valedictory statements are normally made at the conclusion of a session, and it may be that what remains of the balance of this evening should be taken up in that way. Likewise as a consideration predisposing the Senate to that course may be the realisation that there is little point in pursuing this Bill at this particular time, because it is apparent that there is an amendment to be debated, that there is a vote to be taken on the second reading and that there will be a considerable debate in Committee on the basis of amendments that have been foreshadowed. Furthermore, even if all of that were to be completed, which would mean going into the early hours of the morning or resuming tomorrow, there would still be no point in the exercise because it would be a decision merely of the Senate; the House of Representatives has ceased and accordingly the Bill would not pass through that House. In those circumstances, and in order to test the opinion of the Senate, I move:

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I am aware of the discussions and I am a party to the discussions-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The learned Clerk has advised me that the Minister who has charge of the debate has moved that the debate be now adjourned and that there cannot be any further debate on that subject - unless Senator Murphy has something in mind.

Senator Murphy:

– 1 seek leave to speak.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I have endeavoured to bring this Bill on and bring it to a vote. I will be content if it is brought to a vote on the second reading. T think that all the arguments that could be put for and against it have been put. I have tried each day to have it brought to a vote. I do not want to go into all the details but 1 have good cause to believe that there has been a breach of understanding, not as a result of anything to do with the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) but as a result of the arrangements which were made about business earlier in the sittings; that is, that if this matter was not brought to a vote the understanding was that it would be dealt with. However, I think it ought at least to be brought to a vote on a second reading. If this is to be disposed of by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson saying, All right, we will bring it on for decision tonight’, and then the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) getting up and promptly moving that the debate be adjourned. I do not think that that is a reasonable, fair or decent way to discharge the moral obligations involved. If this is what the Government wants to do I do not regard it as a fair or reasonable course of behaviour. I gave the Government every cooperation that I could; I agreed to waive general business on Thursday night on the understanding that this matter would be given its proper course and brought to a vote. That was made very clear much earlier in the session when, as I have said, Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson was not here. I ask the Senate not to accept this step and to allow the matter at least to be put to a vote.

Senator GREENWOOD (VictoriaAttorneyGeneral) - by leave - I took exception to what Senator Murphy said. He clearly implied, if he did not explicitly state, that in some way I had been party to breaching an arrangement that this matter was to be brought on and brought to a vote. I am not aware and never have been aware of any such arrangement. I understand the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) to have informed the Senate, as he had informed Government senators, that it was certainly Senator Murphy’s desire to have this matter brought on for debate, but the outcome of that debate might take many nights to resolve. It may take only a matter of hours or minutes, but as I understood Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, the obligation was to bring it on for debate when Government Business had been concluded. As I said earlier, that obligation has been honoured by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson. That is my understanding and any suggestion that I am acting in breach of that is quite unwarranted because there is no breach of any agreement.

Senator BYRNE (Queensland - Democratic Labor Party) - by leave - I was a party to a general arrangement in relation to the Bill proposed by Senator Murphy and the Prices Limitation Bill, listed as Order of the Day No. 13, standing in the name of the Senator Kane, Over a period of days Senator Murphy has asked the Senate formally to advance his Bill to debate. We have resisted that in a series of divisions and the arrangement, as I understood it. agreed to by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson was that he would give an opportunity after the conclusion of Government Business for both of these measures to be brought forward for debate. In relation to our matter particularly it was not a matter for decision at all. My impression never was that either Bill was to be taken to a decision. I know that ours was not to be so treated.

Senator Murphy - I am speaking of a much earlier arrangement which was made when Senator Drake-Brockman was Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator BYRNE:

– This is the only arrangement of which I am aware. Senator Murphys’ Bill is a measure of very great significance. An amendment in relation to proportional representation has been moved by me to the motion that it be read a second time. To my knowledge, that aspect has not been canvassed at all in the course of this debate. A series of specific amendments to which the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Greenwood) referred are to be moved at the Committee stage. They concern such important matters as polling hours, electoral deposits and things of that nature. Each of them legitimately should attract the attention and certainly would attract the interest of all honourable senators. I do not feel that the measure would be disposed of adequately or properly to the satisfaction of the Senate if it were now brought forward for debate and resolution.

We are still anxious that Senator Kane’s Bill, which has been taken only to the first reading stage, should be taken to the second reading stage, again without resolution. I understand that Senator Kane has a short speech to be delivered at the second reading stage. It will be circulated as a ministerial speech might be circulated and if he were to make it now it would not unduly occupy the time of the Senate. I have mentioned that because we would not be parties to carrying the Commonwealth Electoral Bill to a resolution. We think that the debate should go on before that point is reached. However, we hope that the Senate will permit Senator Kane’s Bill to be taken to the second reading stage and then adjourned. We of the Democratic Labor Party do not think that the time is propitious for a Bill of the immense proportions of Senator Murphy’s Commonwealth Electoral Bill to be taken to a resolution at the second reading stage, particularly in view of the amendments to be moved at the Committee stage. At the same time, we would hope that Senator Kane might have an opportunity to take his Bill to the second reading stage and to make a short speech.

Question put:

That the debate be now adjourned.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 26

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) proposed:

That the adjourned debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I would like to speak to the motion. I do not know whether the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) meant what he said, and I am sure that personally he did not, but this shows the depth of cynicism to which the Government can sink after an endeavour is made throughout the whole of this sitting to have this matter brought to a vote. This is an important issue affecting the right of 18-year-olds to vote. The Government, together with the Democratic Labor Party, has resisted every attempt to bring this Bill on for discussion and to have it decided. That has happened notwithstanding the co-operation given by me and by the Opposition in dealing with Government Business. That co-operation was provided at every stage and I think that view is accepted in this chamber, lt was done on the clear understanding that this matter would be brought up and dealt with. Time was wasted on the evenings which were set aside for General Business. Government speakers deliberately stalled and filibustered: they indicated that they would continue to do that and to put up further speakers so that we could not get a vote on this Bill.

Day after day I have moved that the Bill be brought on for decision and each day that move has been rejected, again by the votes of Government supporters and the Democratic Labor Party, including honourable senators who claim outside this chamber that they are in favour of the vote being given to 18-year-olds but who come in here and do everything they can to frustrate it.

Senator Gair:

– Ours was the first party to advocate it.

Senator MURPHY:

Senator Gair interjects and says that his was the first party to advocate it. One of the problems that the people of Australia will have to cope with is this 2-faced attitude adopted by people who say that they are in favour of something and constantly proclaim it outside, but when the chance comes inside this chamber to have something done about it they use every excuse to prevent the matter from being brought to a vote. Here, on the last night that the Senate will sit this session, when we will rise in a half-hour or so, the Government has moved that this debate be adjourned to the next day of sitting although there will not be any next day of sitting for this Parliament. As I say, I do not address any remarks personally to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and I have the feeling-

Senator Jessop:

– I rise to a point of order. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition is debating the subject matter. I believe that that is out of order and that he ought to be ruled out of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to address himself to the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator MURPHY:

– The Leader of the Government in the Senate is a kindly man who is respected by us all. I feel that if he had his way this would not be happening. But the Government, particularly some honourable senators on the Government side, aided by members of the DLP, is determined to ensure that the democratic process is not carried out entirely. We see the use of numbers to prevent a decision being made on a Bill which is of great importance to many people in Australia.

I regret very much that these tactics have been used over a period so that it has been impossible to have a vote on this matter in order that we would be able to see how those who have said outside this chamber that they are in favour of this principle would vote on this Bill. In an endeavour to sidetrack this Bill, the DLP has moved all sorts of amendments which have nothing to do with the Bill. The aim of the Bill is to bring about a simple decision as to whether 18-year-olds should have a vote. All sorts of other issues have been raised about the Electoral Act, polling booths and other nonsense. Now we reach the end of the road. Here, on the last night of these sittings, just before the Parliament is to end, a motion has been moved that the debate on the Bill be adjourned to the next day of sitting. Well, I think that reveals that those on the Government side and members of the Australian Democratic Labour Party, including those who are protesting that they are in favour of the vote for 18-year-olds, will do everything they can to prevent 18-year olds being given the vote.

Senator WITHERS:
Western Australia

– I suppose it is fair enough in the last night of the sitting of the Senate that Senator Murphy should go through his usual antics in an attempt to take over the business of the Senate. He has always imagined, merely because he has 26 senators out of 60, that he owns this place and that he is entitled to say what he likes about anybody else.

Senator Bishop:

– How many have you got, Senator?

Senator WITHERS:

Mr President, I thought I was addressing you and not the chirpers in the background. I am saying, through you Mr President, with the normal courtesy that one shows in the Senate, that Senator Murphy has got up and cried, moaned and whinged. We are rather accustomed to this process. I take exception to his remarks about the view that some of us have expressed outside of this place. I have no wish to put words in the mouth of my colleague, Senator Sim, but I do not think he will object to my saying that we made it quite clear during the second reading debate that w© had a certain view on the principle of this matter and that we were not prepared to be a party to a cheap political stunt by the Opposition. It is no good Senator Murphy coming in here tonight and trying to put words into our mouths because we will not accept them. It is as simple as that.

Senator Murphy might whinge. He has complained about the fact that people on this side have spoken on the Bill. Why should members of the Australian Democratic Labor Party not talk about certain attitudes they have on electoral matters? Why should they not talk about whether proportional voting is a valid method? Why should not they talk about the hours of polling? Is this place the prisoner of what Senator Murphy wants us to do? Who does Senator Murphy think he is? He is the leader of a group of 26, and they are 26 out of 60 and the other 34 here also have some rights. It is high time Senator Murphy realised that. Quite frankly, Mr President, I am glad we are going home because I am sick and tired of listening to him for so long trying to take over this place as if he owned it.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP

(10.48) - in reply - I moved a motion that this matter be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. This was a procedural motion which had to be moved. If I had not moved it Senator Murphy may have been obliged to move it himself. In those circumstances I hope that I am not being accused of some villainous conspiracy. I want to be completely frank about this matter if Senator Murphy is under any misunderstanding. I never at any time thought, having regard to the magnitude of the Bill, the amendment to the second reading and the foreshadowed amendments which are to be moved during the Committee stage, that we would have been able to dispose of the Bill. I had made a commitment and I hope that I have honoured it. But, as I have said, what I moved was a procedural motion which is the proper thing to do and is part of the procedures of the Senate which Senator Murphy would know equally as well as I do.

Senator Byrne:

Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I am putting the motion.

Senator Byrne:

Mr President, I am entitled-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The debate has been closed.

Senator Byrne:

– I am entitled to speak. Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson did not close the debate.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson closed the debate. He moved the original motion.

Senator Byrne:

– Well, I seek leave to make a statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– I would like honourable senators to be a little more careful in their challenging of the President.

Senator Byrne:

– 1 apologise, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Byrne has asked for leave to make a statement. Is leave granted?

Opposition Senators - No.

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is not granted.

Senator Byrne:

– An attack was made and members of the Opposition have denied members of the Australian Democratic Labor Party the opportunity to answer.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 25

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2331

PRICES LIMITATION BILL 1972

Second Reading

Senator KANE:
New South Wales

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

I seek the indulgence of the Senate to follow the traditional practice in the case of second reading speeches, to read a short statement as my second reading speech on the Bill. The Bill seeks to restrict increases in prices of certain goods and services resulting from the making of industrial agreements. Let me say at the outset that the Democratic Labor Party accepts the principle of genuine negotiations between unionists and employers, and the principle that wage increases are often perfectly legitimate. However, the iBll which is now before the Senate provides that every consent agreement between unions and employers, whether made privately or within the arbitration system, must be registered with the Commissioner of Trade Practices. Where there has been such a consent agreement the Bill prohibits any subsequent price increases within 200 days of its conclusion. Any price rise which is made within 200 days of finalising the consent agreement by any firm which is party to it is automatically illegal, and the fine for such a price rise is $10,000. A firm which increases prices can escape liability but only if it can prove affirmatively that the price rises did not derive from the consent agreement but from totally extraneous factors. The onus of proof is important. Under the provisions of this Bill all firms which enter into price rises after consent agreements are in effect guilty until the firm proves that it is innocent. The DLP’s Bill, if passed, will not affect the capacity of unions and employers to negotiate freely within or outside the arbitration system. It will not limit the right of unions to demand for employers-

Senator Keeffe:

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I note that the honourable senator is reading his speech. I wonder whether it would be possible to have copies of it circulated so that all honourable senators may know what he is talking about.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke) - Order! This is a second reading speech. The honourable senator is entitled to read it.

Senator Willesee:

– We are asking that it be circulated.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Are copies of the speech available?

Senator KANE:

– No.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I raise a point of procedure, Mr Acting Deputy President.I understand that Senator Kane is making a second reading speech. Has the Bill been read a first time? Has it got to the second reading stage?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Yes, it has been read a first time.

Senator KANE:

– I am sorry that I am upsetting Opposition senators.

Senator Keeffe:

– I take a further point of order. I asked whether the speech was available for circulation.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order! I am informed that no copies of it are available.

Senator Keeffe:

– Under the circumstances can the matter be adjourned until copies are available to all honourable senators?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order! Senator Kane, continue your second reading speech.

Senator KANE:

– The DLP’s Bill, if passed, will not limit the right of unions to demand, or employers to grant, wage increases. What it does enforce is that there shall be no price increases as a result of these consent agreements. The Bill will ensure that wage increases come out of profits and not out of additional prices. It will also ensure that negotiations are genuinely based on the capacity of a firm to pay and not on collusion, which raises wages and prices at the same time at the expense of the entire community.

This Bill brought forward by the Australian Democratic Labor Party deserves to be supported by the Government, the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and, indeed, the entire Labor movement. The purpose of the Bill is to limit price increases and not to limit wage increases. The Bill does not in any way affect the process of conciliation between the unions and employer organisations.

Debate interrupted.

page 2332

ADJOURNMENT

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke) - In accordance with the resolution of the Senate, it now being 11 p.m. eastern summer time, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 22

NOES: 26

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2332

PRICES LIMITATION BILL 1972

Debate resumed.

Senator KANE:
New South Wales

– I was saying that the Bill does not in any way affect the conciliation between unions and employer organisations within or outside the arbitration system. The Party to which I belong is strongly wedded to the principle of conciliation within this system, with arbitration as the method of last resort. May I therefore, for the sake of emphasis, re-state what I have already said. It is this: The DLP is strongly in favour of bona fide conciliation within the arbitration system. It is equally strongly in favour of wage increases gained by the process of conciliation and arbitration within the system. We are against collusive practices between powerful employer and union groups in key sectors of industry, at the expense of increased prices passed on to the rest of the community. We are also against the sacrifice of the economic interests of the most depressed groups in the Australian community, including the breadwinners on or close to the minimum wage, pensioners and people on fixed incomes.

The evil that the Bill seeks to remedy is that of collusive practices between major employer groups and unions in key industries such as the metal trades industry and the waterfront industry, at the expense of the general public. The existence of collusive agreements in key industries, at the expense of the public, is widespread throughout the western world. A recent study of inflation by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development referred to these collusive agreements in high productivity industries as a basic cause of inflation throughout the western world. The mechanics of these agreements are more or less uniform. In the stevedoring industry, the oil industry and the metal trades industry, to take a few key Australian examples, the union leadership periodically announces its intention of demanding large, concessions in wages and conditions: and that is natural. It is the union’s business to threaten to stop the plan unless the grants are forthcoming. This procedure is normal bargaining in any major wage negotiations in highly capitalised industries with low labour content. The economics are clear. Stopping the waterfront costs the stevedoring companies Sim a day. Stopping oil refineries or automotive or metal manufacturing plants also involves large sums. Both the union leadership and the employers understand the situation very well. Where the labour force is small it is cheaper for the employer to settle for large percentage increases in wage costs than to have his highly capitalised plant tied up, with losses in interest and in depreciation. So the employers tend to settle, especially if they are associated, and protected by high tariffs against international companies.

There can be no objection if the employers settle out of profits and if prices remain the same. But both sides are well aware thai this is not the situation. The employers then increase their prices to the consumer to Gover the extra wage costs plus a percentage for mark-up. The union leadership, particularly if it is left wing, talks loudly about price control but in fact condones these disgraceful fix-ups and then boasts proudly of gains from industrial militancy. The price increases imposed on these basic industries thus flow on to everybody. They have a special impact on the lowest paid group in the community, the pensioners, and the large families, which have no hope of compensating themselves. The chief victims of the cynical fix-ups between monopoly unions and employers are thus the poorest and most defenceless elements in the community. That is the background to the. Bill I have introduced on behalf of the Democratic Labor Party and which I commend to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) adjourned.

page 2333

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) - by leave - agreed to:

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

page 2333

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) proposed:

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to a day and hour to be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable owing to illness or other cause, by the Chairman of Committees, and that the hour and day of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I wish to make one or two very brief observations on Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s motion. The dissolution of the House of Representatives is pending. It is a very fine point - probably a fine constitutional point - as to whether the Senate has any right to continue to function in the absence of a viable House of Representatives. The Senate has moved into a new role in more recent times with the establishment of a series of committees, which have an on-going function and which have very important matters under investigation. It is therefore a matter of concern that the Senate should be stopped from its functioning by the dissolution of the House of Representatives. Whether that is the constitutional position is a problem of very great import and of very great complexity. I have risen at this stage merely to mention the matter and to advert to the fact that the Senate is conscious that, perhaps in the near future, a stand may have to be taken and the Senate may have to consider that it has not only a right but also a duty to insist upon a continuance of its operations. I am thinking not of its legislative function because, after all, the Parliament is Her Majesty the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives, but of its nonlegislative functions of a quasi administrative character - the continuation of committee investigations and matters of that sort.

It is a moot point whether the Senate should allow itself to be stopped by tha dissolution of the House of Representatives. I had in mind moving a formal amendment to the motion which is now before the Senate to add the words ‘notwithstanding a dissolution of the House of Representatives’. However, I think that that might be an unwise formal amendment to move. I have adverted to this matter to indicate that the Senate is conscious of the position, that the Senate contemplates that it may be necessary to have the position examined in greater depth and that at some stage steps will have to be taken to ensure that the functions of the Senate in the important field of committee investigations and things of that character will not have to stand in abeyance for a number of months until the newly elected House of Representatives is called together.

I have risen merely to put on record the fact that this matter has been within the mind of the Senate, or at least one member of the Senate, and that it may be necessary in the future for it to be constitutionally resolved. The Senate should have a continuance because of the fact that honourable senators have overlapping terms. I do not think it is within the concept of our parliamentary system for this chamber, the members of which have been directly appointed by the people, not to have such a continuing function. Parallels have been drawn between the functions of the Senate and the operations of the House of Lords within the Westminister system. The House of Lords is a non-elected House whereas the Senate is a House which has emerged by formal contract from the Constitution as a body which has protective rights over the States. I do not think that the Senate should be allowed to go into a substantial dissolution that coincides with that of the House of Representatives. I want merely to put that on record and I shall leave it at that at this stage but 1 do think it important that the fact be registered in this place at this time in the present circumstances.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2334

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

Senator WITHERS:
Western Australia

– On behalf of Senator Durack, the Chairman, I bring up an interim report from the Standing Committee on Constitu tional and Legal Affairs relating to the law and administration of divorce and related matters.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 2334

ADJOURNMENT

Valedictory - Australian Labor Party

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP

(11.18)- I move:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

This adjournment is very significant in the sense that we are all rising until summoned to return and we will not be summoned until after the general election. I think therefore it is worthy of reflection that we in the Senate have served during the life of this Parliament under tremendous difficulties. We have always been confronted by the problem of the passage of legislation which comes from another place. In fact very often we do not get that legislation until the other place has risen.

I would like, in the circumstances of this adjournment, firstly to express to you, Mr President, on behalf of myself, my Ministers and honourable senators supporting the Government - I am sure, that 1 could include other honourable senators but they will express this through their leaders - our appreciation of the dedication that you have given us as our President. You have always been able to keep the peace to a degree which is not always easy in a House where there are honourable senators of strong views and indeed strong emotions. You have exercised your function as Presiding Officer with dignity and with fairness. I am sure that I echo the sentiments of everybody in this place, but I say this particularly on my own behalf, on behalf of my Ministers and those honourable senators who sit behind me in relation to the work that you have done not only for this Senate and the Parliament but in fact for the nation in the democratic processes that we practise.

I want also, if I may, to express our thanks to the Clerk and to his officers for the wonderful assistance they have given to us all in the management of the Senate, management which has not always been easy because of the sheer pressure and volume of the work that we do and, indeed, having regard to the wider perimeters of work which the Senate has carried out during the life of this present Parliament. 1 express thanks to all the officers who serve under Mr Odgers. I express thanks to the members of the Hansard staff who faithfully record our words with a degree of co-operation and patience that I think is extraordinary having regard to the excitement that sometimes develops. They always capture our words fairly and accurately. Also, on behalf of myself and Government senators, I express thanks to those who are associated with the Parliament and who provide for our other comforts, who serve below the line and with whom we. do not often come in contact in that sense. 1 express particular thanks to the transport officer and his staff. He lives with a situation in which senators are going and then not going; coming and then not coming: there are fogs and then they lift. Through it all he seems to be. able to keep that pleasant sense of responsibility and patience. I express our thanks to all the people associated with the Parliament and acknowledge the service we receive from them. Of course, in doing that I include an acknowledgment of the service we receive from the Press Gallery.

Also, in a personal sense, I express my thanks to the Leaders of the other parties. While, in a political sense, we are in a debating area or in an arena, I say this with complete sincerity: A Parliament cannot function unless there is an acknowledgement of the procedures of Parliament. I am not talking about politics at the moment; I am talking about the procedures of Parliament. In the Senate we have a situation in which the numbers are almost evenly divided and in which many great difficulties of management are involved. I express my thanks to Senator Murphy and to Senator Gair, as Leaders of the other parties, for the fact that they have always been willing to cooperate in the procedures of the Parliament, with your concurrence, Mr President, when it has been necessary.

Having expressed those thanks, 1 wish to say something on a personal level. I have occupied the chair of Leader of the Government in the Senate for about 4± years, lt has been a wonderful experience for me. It has been an experience fraught with problems. But 1 am very proud for myself and my family that I have been able to do it. Of course, exigencies may occur. There may be an exigency of health or a desire which would not necessarily allow me to remain in the chair of Leader of the Government in the Senate. There may be exigencies within the Government itself which would not permit me to remain in this chair. There may even be exigencies in regard to the will of the people on the day of the election which would preclude this. Be those exigencies as they may, I express now my personal thanks to all honourable senators and all those associated with the Senate for the help, co-operation and courtesy that I as Leader of the Government have always received. I say again to you, Mr President, that we acknowledge with great appreciation the wonderful service that you as the Presiding Officer, and all associated with you, have given in the interests of the Senate.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– Before speaking on some of the matters on which the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) spoke, there is one matter I have undertaken to deal with before the Parliament rises. It is a matter which arose in the House of Representatives several weeks ago when Mr Irwin, the honourable member for Mitchell, stated in the House, amongst many other things, that on some occasion I had made some reflection against Mr Armitage, the honourable member for Chifley. I understand that there is some kind of controversy - I will not call it a feud - going on between them. When this was drawn to my attention I spoke to Mr Irwin and told him that this had not occurred and that he must be mistaken. He told me that a conversation had occurred at the top of the steps. He was unsure of which year it had occurred. In fact at first he thought it had occurred when Mr Armitage was in Parliament after his enforced absence, and then again he thought that it had occurred beforehand. He was sure at first that there was no other person present and then he recalled that at least some other person was present and that he would inform me who it was.

I told him of my strong feelings about the matter and he expressed his regret for having said what he did and indicated that he would consider withdrawing it. I said that if he did not do so by the end of the Parliament I would raise the matter in this House, and I do so. Putting it as charitably as I can, I am sure that the honourable member for Mitchell is mistaken in what he has said. The honourable member for Chifley, Mr Armitage, is held in high regard by everyone in the Federal parliamentary Labor Party, including myself, and plainly no such incident occurred in which I was involved, as was suggested by the honourable member for Mitchell, Mr Irwin.

Passing on to the matters which have been mentioned by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson), 1 join with him in what he said about the assistance which has been given by the Parliamentary staff, including all the officers, Hansard and the various attendants who look after us whether we are happy or whether we are irritable. They have to put up with a lot on many occasions. They help us to the best of their ability and they never seem to complain, even though honourable senators seem to be given to complaints. Mr President, I share with the Leader of the Government what he said about you. You have been a good President. There is a feeling in this chamber that you have added to its stature.

Senator Gair:

– Not one of your own members could have given you a better go.

Senator MURPHY:

– That still remains to be seen, Senator Gair. We have no complaints about the President. We consider him to be impartial. He is an adornment to the chair of the Senate. I thank the Leader of the Government himself for his good wishes and what he said about us. I delect a note of some shadow of things to come in the statement that he made to us about the exigencies of fate, whether they be personal or inflicted by the public. He has always been a man of good will. I have always been able to trust him and I respect him. He has put up with a good deal of opposition from us. 1 regret to say that he has had to put up with a lot of opposition from one quarter in his own ranks, which has added to the burden of his office. I am pleased that during the years he has been Leader of the Government we have been able to get on well together. 1 regret that what has happened over the course of the last few weeks has led to a feeling of resentment in the ranks of my own members at the actions of the Government, but I do not lay the responsibility for this at the feet of the Leader of the Government. I must say that my colleagues are extremely resentful - I believe rightly so - of the treatment which the Opposition has been given in this Senate in certain respects.

Senator Webster:

– That is not right.

Senator MURPHY:

– I do not want that remark to obscure the events of this evening, and 1 hope that Senator Webster will not interject. 1 mention the matter because I want to make clear what my colleagues feel rather than have their feelings demonstrated in some more singular fashion. For our part, we wish everyone here a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I trust that we all return here and that when we do the main task which you, Mr President, will have will be to re-arrange the seating in this chamber to accord with the wishes of the electorate.

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

– I do not rise to endorse Senator Murphy’s last remarks; I rise to support my Leader’s best wishes to you, Mr President, and also to extend our thanks to you for the job that you have done, to Mr Odgers and the staff of the Senate and to all those who have assisted honourable senators in any way during the past session and the past year. I should like to extend the thanks of my colleagues on the Country Party benches, together with my own, to all those people. 1 personally thank the members of the Government Parties, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) and his colleagues, the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party (Senator Gair) and his colleagues, and my 3 independent colleagues for the assistance which they gave me during the period when I was Acting Leader of the Government in this place. One does not realise the onerous tasks that befall the Leader of either the Government or the Opposition in this place until one has to shoulder those burdens. Then one very quickly recognises the resonsibilities involved. But no-one can carry out the duties of any position unless one has the assistance of the Senate itself, of the

Leader of the Opposition and of the Leader of the DLP, and then the assistance of the Clerk and the staff of the Senate. I believe that 1 received that assistance during the period when I was Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate. I am very grateful to all those who assisted me. I enjoyed the experience very much and it was made all the more enjoyable by the assistance which I received. To all of you I express, on behalf of myself and my Country Party colleagues, very best wishes for a Merry Christmas.

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

Mr President, the session which is about to conclude has been a heavy one, having regard to the lesser time that we have sat because of the dissolution of the House of Representatives. Normally the Budget session concludes in late November or early December. On several occasions it has concluded on about 10th December. In this session we have rushed through a lot of legislation and a lot of business in less time. Inevitably, on occasions that has caused a little fraying of the nerves, and because of the fraying of the nerves we have had little exhibitions of heat - something that the Senate never sees me display. However, that is something associated with parliamentary life.

Only one of our number in this chamber is required to face his masters at the forthcoming Federal election and that is Senator Bonner. Senator Bonner, during the time that he has been here, has conducted himself in a very exemplary way and his contribution to debates has been very sound and wise. He has been wise enough to speak on matters that he knew something about. He did not rise to talk for the sake of talking, which so many people appear to do. I cannot wish him success at the polls because the DLP will have a candidate opposing him. But I can do the second best thing. If our candidate cannot win I hope Senator Bonner does. I can assure him now that he will get our preferences, so I cannot do better than that. I want to say thank you to the Ministers’ staffs, other staffs and all of those with whom I come in contact who have been courteous to me in return for the courtesy that I have displayed to them. I particularly want to thank the attendants because they are invariably courteous and friendly and I get on very well with them as I do with most people who have any sense of reason.

The dining room staff are always very gracious and helpful. I cannot blame them for the standard of the meals that are served to members in the dining room. They leave a lot to be desired. I do not know whether it is inferior food or inferior cooking. That might be a good way of not having to criticise the cook. Nevertheless, the meals leave a lot to be desired.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Or jaded appetites.

Senator GAIR:

– I am not a gourmet by any means. I like food properly cooked and properly served. Of course, we will always get these complaints. That is normal. I always claim to be the easiest man in Australia to please as far as food is concerned. My wife has never had any complaints from me about the food she has presented on the dining table.

I thank you, Mr President, for giving me what I deserve as far as this House is concerned. I never look for any quarter and I do not give any. I thank the Clerk of the Senate and his staff. I even thank the Press for the little they give me. I do not blame the employees of newspapers. They are only workers and I have always had a great sympathy for them. In my 40 years in public life I have never had any disagreement with pressmen. It is the bloke above them with whom I have the grievance. Our relationship has been cordial. So, I have no ill feelings to anyone in particular. To those who wish me well I reciprocate, and to those who wish me ill I reciprocate. So we are on an even footing. However, to those who believe in Christianity and in Christ and his birth I wish a very happy Christmas. To those who do not, I hope they will fit in with the Christians and have a good time too.

I hope the result of the election will be in the best interests of Australia, because after all that is the only thing that matters - what is best for Australia. Irrespective of the Party in government, it is charged with grave responsibility, particularly now when I feel, and see so much evidence of it around me, that our nationhood is slipping and deteriorating quickly.

Unless those who are charged with government recognise this and try to arrest the drift, there will be a poor lookout for our children and the future generation of Australia. They will have nothing for which to thank us. In fact, when they realise just what we had in our possession and what we allowed to drift from us, they will have contempt for us and will despise us. Before it is too late let governments of Australia awaken to their responsibility, and instead of fostering and encouraging the permissiveness that is abroad let them accept responsibility and take the reins strongly and firmly, and bring Australia back to the guidelines that our parents, the pioneers of this country, laid for us.

Senator TOWNLEY:
Tasmania

– As a member of the Independent back bench - I will be leader if the good doctor does not turn up a bit more often - I would like to spend a few moments mentioning my appreciation to the many groups of people and individuals in Parliament House who have helped during this parliamentary year. Perhaps I could start by thanking the Australian Broadcasting Commission staff and the Joint House staff who do a great job behind the glass and behind the scenes. The journalists, too, I feel deserve some recognition. They have a lot to sit through and I do not know how they do it. I thank them for the friendly and fierce reports I have had. I thank the Hansard staff for their accurate reporting, particularly when taking from my scrawl; I am amazed at the quality of their work. I should like to mention the dining room staff and to thank them for the good steaks and orange juices. I thank the Library staff for their good and bad books. To the other staff, attendants and transport officers I say Thank you all’ for your help and consideration.

To Senator Bonner I say. I think you have been a credit to your race and to this Parliament. I am proud to know you and I wish you well. To all honourable senators from both sides and to other members of the independent back bench, present and absent, I say: Your tolerance and help has been appreciated and I offer you my best wishes and good will for the coming Christmas season even though it is a fair way off. Finally, Mr President, I feel that we all owe you a debt of gratitude for the dignity and tolerance that you have shown to us all and especially to myself.

The PRESIDENT:

– Before 1 put the motion I would like to respond very briefly by thanking Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, Senator Murphy, Senator Drake-Brockman, Senator Gair and Senator Townley for the kind references which they have made to me. However, I think it is not quite fair that they should have been accorded to me for the simple reason that I have received in the 12 months in which I have had the honour to be your President the utmost loyalty from every member of the parliamentary staff whether in the Senate area or the Joint House area; I disregard the other end because I am a stranger there. There is a tremendous esprit de corps amongst all the parliamentary servants and officers which I think stems from their pride in those honourable senators whom they serve in this place. I am therefore very pleased to have this opportunity of making this public reference to them. I want to take on notice Senator Gair’s reference to the dining room. One reason why I have not been there recently is that I tend to share his view.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.43 p.m. to a date and hour to be fixed by the President.

page 2339

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

page 2339

HAIPHONG HARBOUR: AMERICAN MINES

(Question No. 2255)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Has the North West Cape Base been used to activate the American mines placed in Haiphong Harbour; if so, was the Australian Government consulted and asked for permission beforehand.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

page 2339

No

page 2339

ASBESTOS

(Question No. 2264)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minis ter for Health, upon notice:

  1. Do the allowable dust standards, recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council in the asbestos mining industry, give recognition to the new standards imposed in the United States of America following extensive research conducted by the Mount Sinai School of Medicine; if so, what action is being taken to ensure that State Government Mining Acts are suitably amended, so as to reduce the likelihood of this industrial disease in Australia.
  2. Can the use of floor polishers on asbestos based floor tiles result in office cleaners developing lung lesions; if so, has the Department of Labour and National Service been co-opted to campaign for more effective safety measures to combat this disease.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
LP

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

  1. At its 69th Session in November 1969, the National Health and Medical Research Council recommended hygiene standards for exposures to concentrations of chrysotile and amosite asbestos dust in air breathed by workers. These standards are periodically reviewed in the light of all research findings, and any new standards imposed in the United States America are considered in such reviews. Mining legislation, including provisions for the prevention of industrial disease in mine workers, is the responsibility of the respective State Governments.
  2. I am informed that it seems unlikely that the use of floor polishers on vinyl tiles could give rise to an asbestos dust hazard, since the nature of the operation and the materials used do not provide dust. However, there is evidence that an asbestos dust hazard could arise when a vinyl floor is being stripped by abrasives, prior to the laying of a new covering. The National Health and Medical Research Council is preparing comprehensive draft model legislation for the protection of workers from atmospheric contaminants.

The relevant Commonwealth and State Departments are being kept informed of developments in this respect.

page 2339

ENTRY OF ALGERIANS INTO AUSTRALIA

(Question No. 2400)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. How many persons from Algeria have entered Australia in the last 15 years.
  2. Did any political refugees seek to enter Australia after Mr Ben Bella, the former President of Algeria, was deposed and, if the answer is in the affirmative, what was the attitude of the Australian Government.

Senator GREENWOOD- The Minister for Immigration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Separate statistics are not kept on the number of people who have entered Australia from Algeria. Settlers who were formerly resident in Algeria are included in the category, ‘Africa - Other’ which includes all African countries except the Union of South Africa, the Arab Republic of Egypt and Commonwealth countries in Africa. Statistics on settler arrivals have been kept since January 1959 and the total number of settlers arriving in Australia from countries in the ‘Africa - Other’ category in the period January 1959-June 1972 was 2,897.
  2. No record can be traced of any person from Algeria who may have become a political refugee following the overthrow of Mr Ben Bella seeking to enter Australia.

page 2339

IMMIGRATION: ADVERTISING

(Question No. 2403)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

What has been the expenditure in each of the last 3 years on advertising to attract migrants to Australia in each country where advertisements were placed.

Senator GREENWOOD- The Minister for Immigration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The following are details of the expenditure and countries in which my Department has advertised directly to attract migrants in each of the last three years:

page 2340

PRESCRIPTIONS: TAXATION DEDUCTIONS

(Question No. 2409)

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Is a person who pays for drugs and medications not on the free list, but which are prescribed for patients in nursing homes, unable to claim their cost as a taxation deduction.
  2. Would a major step in the social welfare scheme be achieved if the costs referred to in (1) were made a deductible taxation item.
  3. What is the position of a patient in a nursing home who has no relative to pay for prescribed drugs or medications not on the free list.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. The Treasurer has advised that, where a taxpayer makes a payment to a chemist in respect of drugs and medication for a patient in a nursing home, an income tax deduction for the expenditure is allowed under the heading of medical expenses if the patient qualifies as a ‘dependant’ of the taxpayer and both the taxpayer and the dependant are residents of Australia. In this context, the term ‘dependant’ includes the spouse of the taxpayer and a child (including an adopted child, a step-child or an ex-nuptial child) of the taxpayer less than 21 years of age. Medical expenses incurred by a taxpayer in respect of his spouse and child under 21 years qualify for deduction irrespective of whether the taxpayer is entitled to a deduction for their maintenance.

The term ‘dependant’ also includes any of the following persons if the taxpayer is entitled to a concessional deduction for contributing to his or her maintenance:

  1. a daughter-housekeeper over 21 years of age;
  2. a dependent child less than 16 years of age who is not the taxpayer’s own child;
  3. a dependent full-time student less than 25 years of age, not necessarily the taxpayer’s child;
  4. an invalid relative as defined; and
  5. a parent or parent-in-law of the taxpayer.

The maintenance deduction otherwise allowable in respect of any dependant is reduced by the amount by which the separate net income of that dependant exceeds $130. If the application of the separate net income test results in no maintenance deduction being allowable to the taxpayer In respect of a dependant within these categories, a deduction is also not allowable to the taxpayer for any medical expenses incurredin respect of that dependant.

  1. The question of additional assistance for the cost of drugs and medication for a patient in a nursing home is one which would require detailed study by the Government.
  2. Under existing provisions a patient in the situation described by the honourable senator would be responsible for the cost of the prescribed medication.

page 2340

AUSTRALIAN SCHOOL CHILDREN: FITNESS

(Question No. 2452)

Senator McAULIFFE:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. When can the Senate expect to receive the results of a survey, headed by Dr A. W. Willee, on the fitness of the Australian school children, the draft of which was completed in June 1971.
  2. Is the cause of the delay in the publication of the survey the fact that one of its conclusions has upset health officials because it shows that Australian school children are considered to be among the most unfit in the world.
  3. Does the Minister consider that the National Fitness Act 1941, which was introduced as a war-time measure, is appropriate in the vastly different circumstances applying in the 1970’s.
  4. Will the Minister take action to have the Act amended so as to permit specialist groups to be represented on the Commonwealth Council for National Fitness.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1)The Report of the results of the survey of the fitness of Australian secondary school students was released by the Commonwealth Council for National Fitness on 12th September 1972. A limited number of advance copies of the report are held by my Department pending the availability of printed copies which are expected about the end of the year.

  1. The Report does not stale that Australian secondary school students are among the most unfit in the world. Before it could be published it had to be considered and released by the Commonwealth Council for National Fitness as the survey was commissioned by that Council and Dr Willee’s report was to the Council.
  2. and (4) Although the National Fitness Act was introduced in 1941, it is generally still considered appropriate. However, consideration is being given to the question of whether any changes should be made to the Act andthe honourable senator may be assured that the question of representation by specialist groups will be kept in mind.
Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister for

Health, upon notice:

  1. Who commissioned and approved the Government’s anti-smoking television advertisements.
  2. Are these advertisements presented only on commercial television; if so, why.
  3. What is the frequency of screening advertisements.
  4. What has been the cost of the advertisements.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe answer to the honourable senators question is as follows:

  1. The anti-smoking television advertisements were recommended by the Smoking Advisory Committee which comprises State and Commonwealth representatives. The advertisements were approved by the Director-General of Health on this recommendation.
  2. These advertisements are presented on commercial television in the same way as other advertisements. They have also been shown on ABC both in news broadcasts and This Day Tonight.
  3. The frequency of showing varied between metropolitan and country stations. The stations showed the advertisement the following numbers of times during the first 6 weeks of the campaign:
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

No doubt the honourable senator has in mind press reports relating to Mr Geoffrey G. Silver’s connection with Scientology.

This connection was not revealed to the Department as a result of any questions relating to his religious beliefs or adherences, but in his answer to a question relating to his employment background in the standard form of application for assisted passages used in Britain. In answer to a question requesting particulars of all employment since leaving school, Mr Silver stated that he had been employed from November 1967 to April 1970 by the Hubbard Scientology Organisation. 68 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1 in various capacities.

The practice of Scientology was strongly criticised in a report to the Victorian Government by a Board of Inquiry constituted by Mr K. V. Anderson, Q.C. (as he then was), and was subsequently banned or restricted in 3 States.

In these circumstances assisted passages are not granted to known adherents of the practice. Applications for permission to enter Australia as unassisted migrants are considered ontheir individual merits, including any known association with Scientology.

Scientology in any of its manifestionsit ‘s not been proclaimed a religious body nor denomination for the purpose of the Marriage Act. There are doubts whether it is in fact a religious body or denomination.

The consideration of Mr Silver’s application included the aspect of his connection with Scientology as well as the other normal considerations on which immigration decisions are normally based, and his application was refused.

page 2341

ANTI-SMOKING TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENTS

(Question No. 2469)

page 2341

ASSISTED MIGRANTS: RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

(Question No. 2500)

SenatorWILLESEE asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

Was Mr Geoffrey G. Silver of London refused permission to migrate to Australia as either an assisted migrant or as an unassisted migrant; if so, will the Minister give an assurance that the rejection of Mr Silver’s application was not a consequence of his religious or quasi-religious beliefs.

page 2341

ALIENS ACT

(Question No. 2516)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the Minister representing the Minster for Immigration, upon notice:

What percentage of Aliens notified particulars required of them under the Aliens Act for the years 1970 and 1971.

Senator GREENWOOD - The Minister for Immigration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Fifty-one per cent of registered aliens complied with 1970 notification requirement.

By November 1971, 48 per cent of registered aliens had complied with the notification requirements for that year. However, also see answer to Question 2441 regarding subsequent developments concerning introduction of a computer system and further overall review (Hansard page 1552)

Senator McLAREN:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport:

  1. Why did the Commonwealth impose upon Commonwealth Railways added maintenance costs of between $230,000 and $2.8m by its decision to use timber sleepers, instead of concrete sleepers, in work on the Trans Australian Railway.
  2. Has the loss of the concrete sleeper contract by South Australia meant a loss of approximately $403,500 to that State in wages alone, with $118,000 of this amount being lost to the town of Mannum, which is largely dependent upon employment in the local foundry for its economic survival.

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

  1. and (2) The figure of $2.8m represents the amount the Bureau of Transport Economics estimated to be the savings in present value terms over a 50-year period if the whole of the Trans Australian line were re-sleepered with concrete.

The figure is derived by taking all the costs of using timber and concrete sleepers over a 50-year period and discounting them at a rate of 7 per cent per annum back to present day values.

The Bureau of Transport Economics report goes on to say: ‘The results of the evaluation, however, are sensitive to timber sleeper dimensions, place of manufacture of concrete sleepers, interpretation of employment efforts and choice of discount rate. The evaluation indicates that there is little difference either in commercial or in social terms, between concrete sleepers and 10 in x 5 in jarrah sleepers’.

Where the results show such a delicate balance it is important to take into account social factors as well as economic desults.

In fact, if the Bureau’s figures are discounted at the rate of 10 per cent instead of 7 per cent, then the results are reversed and in fact timber sleepers have a very slight advantage over concrete sleepers on this particular railway.

The decision to use timber sleepers in maintenance replacement work on this line does not commit Commonwealth Railways to relay the whole line which would take 13 years.

It has been clearly stated that timber sleepers would be used while price and social factors are compatible.

page 2341

TRANS-AUSTRALIAN RAILWAY: USE OF SLEEPERS

(Question No. 2531)

page 2342

NATIONAL WAGE CASE

(Question No. 2528)

Senator MILLINER:

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

Did the Commonwealth brief counsel to appear on its behalf in the 1972 national wage case; if so, what was the extent of such instruction and, in particular, was counsel instructed to (a) support the Australian Council of Trade Unions’ application, (b) oppose the Council’s application, or (c) provide statistical information for the parties in the case without either indicating support for or opposition to the application.

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

I presume the honourable senatoris not referring to the current National Wage Case, but to the previous case, the decision in which was handed down on 5th May 1972.

The Commonwealth did brief counsel to appear on its behalf in that case. In accordance with instructions given, counsel opposed the claims by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, but submitted that the Commonwealth was not opposed to some increase in the minimum wage. The reasons for the Commonwealth opposition to the claims are given at pages 338 to 373 of the transcript of the case. Counsel also provided statistical information for the members of the bench and for the parties.

As it may be inconvenient for the honourable senator to refer to the transcript, 1 shall arrange for a copy of the Commonwealth submission in the case to be sent to the honourable senator.

page 2342

HOUSING COMMISSIONS: WAITING LISTS

(Question No. 2285)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Has the Minister seen a report that half a million people will be on the waiting list of Housing Commissions in 2 years because of the collapse of Australia’s programme to house lowincome families at cheap rental rates.
  2. Have the States had to cut back their Housing Commissions’ building projects by 50 per cent in the past year because of lack of funds and rapid increase in land costs.
  3. How many Housing Commission homes were approved for construction in each of the States in the last financial year compared with the numbers in the financial year 1969-70.

Senator WRIGHT- The Minister for Housing has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Newspaper speculation of this nature has come to my attention. However, information supplied to my Department by the State housing authorities indicates that no such ‘collapse’ has occurred and that the speculation is unfounded.
  2. No.
  3. Statistical procedures vary between State housing authorities and few have records of approvals available as such. They have, however, supplied the following statistics:

page 2343

AUSTRALIAN CINEMA AND TELEVISION FILM INDUSTRY

(Question No. 2179)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. Did the Prime Minister, in October last year, announce that the Government would be referring to the Tariff Board for consideration the question of the need for protection of the Australian cinema and television film industry.
  2. Did it take the Minister for Trade and Industry until 6 months after the Prime Minister’s statement to announce that he had asked the Tariff Board to consider the degree of assistance to be provided for the production of films in Australia.
  3. Did the Minister also stale that the Government felt that the inquiry should be treated as a priority matter.
  4. When is the Tariff Board likely to embark upon such an inquiry, and bow long is it estimated the inquiry will take.

Senator COTTON- The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided me with the following reply to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. Yes.
  2. At the time of the Prime Minister’s announcement, no terms of reference for the inquiry had been decided. Settlement of the terms of reference proved time consuming because of the complexity of the industry, the need to confer with other Ministers and the Government’s wish to arrange an inquiry which would be comprehensive, yet capable of being concluded without undue delay. The reference was signed on 17th March 1972.
  3. Yes. In conveying to the Board the Government’s view that the inquiry should be treated as a priority matter, I indicated however that it was for the Board itself to determine the timing of hearings and analysis to ensure that references already before the Board proceed as quickly as possible.
  4. The Board conducted the first public hearing on the reference on 25th September 1972. The Chairman of the Board has informed me that he will give an estimated date for completion of the inquiry and report when the public hearing is sufficiently advanced.
Senator COTTON:
LP

- Senator Milliner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry a question without notice on 27th September, relating to the possibility of damage being suffered by the printing industry as a result of the Tariff Board inquiry into excess margins of preference (the ‘1000 items’ inquiry). The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The tariff items included in the inquiry to which Senator Milliner has referred are those on which the difference between the General and the Preferential rates exceeds the minimum margin of preference which Australia is obliged to accord the United Kingdom under the terms of the United Kingdom/ Australia Trade Agreement. The scope of the Board’s inquiry is limited So identifying those areas within these items where the General tariff is higher than necessary to protect existing Australian production, and where there joh id therefore be scope for reducing the Genera.’ -ale to a level not lower than the Preferential rate. The inquiry does not involve the question of whether existing Australian production in any industry is economic or efficient.

The timing of the inquiry is related to the expiry on 1st February 1973 of Australia’s obligations under the United Kingdom/Australian Trade Agreement, and to important international negotiations due to commence during that year. The Board’s report will help the Government to decide what tariff concessions may appropriately be offered to other countries in return for compensating concessions for our exports. The report will be valuable also in enabling the Government to assess the scope for action to achieve cost savings in the domestic economy, without causing injury to Australian industry.

page 2343

PRINTING INDUSTRY

page 2343

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

(Question No. 2454)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

Will the Minister take steps to have the Australian Industries Development Corporation reveal the identity of those companies to which it has provided funds.

Senator COTTON - The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Government established the Australian Industry Development Corporation as a body set apart from Government with the intention that it conduct its affairs for all practical purposes as if it was a private enterprise company and with the confidentiality of its commercial affairs respected in the normal way. it would not, therefore, be appropriate for me to request the AIDC to make public the particular information you have requested. However, the following companies have themselves announced publicly that they have had funds provided by, or other financial commitments undertaken or on offer from AIDC:

Altikar Pty Ltd

Australian Tube Mills Pty Ltd

Gay-Dor Plastics Ltd

Information Electronics Ltd

James Miller Holdings Ltd

Kathleen Investments (Australia) Ltd

Metals Exploration N.L.

Northern Woodchips Ltd

Poseidon Ltd

Robe River Ltd*

South Australian Barytes Ltd

Tara Holdings Ltd*

page 2344

AUSTRALIAN FILM INDUSTRY

(Question No. 1878)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. Has the Tariff Board yet commenced a tariff Inquiry into the need and appropriate form of protection for the Australian film industry, as announced by the Prime Minister in his ministerial statement on the Arts in Australia, dated 26th October 1971; if not, when is it anticipated the inquiry, will commence.
  2. Is it intended that the inquiry will include a reference to the importation o£ programmes for use on television.
  3. If the Tariff Board has not commenced its inquiry will the Minister consider referring the matter to the Special Advisory Authority for emergency protection pending the outcome of the Tariff Board hearing.

Senator COTTON- The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (3) The question of assistance for the industry producing motion picture and television films in Australia was referred to the Tariff Board on 20th March, 1972. The Board held its first public bearing on the reference on 25th September.
  2. The Board’s inquiry will cover the question of assistance for the local production of films or tapes of ‘story’ and documentary and educational material for showing on television. The importation of television programmes will be examined in this context.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP; NCP from May 1975

-BROCKMAN - On 17th August 1972, Senator Laucke asked me a question without notice concerning salary statistics. The Acting Treasurer has now provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

While the available statistics do not allow an exact answer to the honourable senator’s question, a reasonable indication can be obtained from the Commonwealth Statistician’s May 1971 Survey of Weekly, Earnings (size distribution) if the assumptions set out below are made. It should be noted that the survey related only to full-time adult male employees and related only to weekly earnings in the particular pay-period in which the survey was conducted. A copy of the bulletin relating to this survey has been provided to the honourable senator.

As the highest category of non-managerial employees’ earnings was only, $120 per week (i.e. an annual rate of $6,260) and over, it is necessary to assume that all employees earning at a rate of around $15,000 a year were ‘managerial, executive, professional and higher supervisory staff’.

On the above basis, the survey results show that about 4,800 (or 0.3 per cent) of all full-time adult male private employees represented earned $300 or more in the survey week (equivalent to approximately $15,640 or more per annum), while about 1,500 (or 0.2 per cent) of all full-time adult male government employees were in this earnings group. For those earning $280 or more in the survey week (i.e. equivalent to approximately $14,600 or more per annum), the comparable figures were about 7,100 (or 0.5 per cent) fulltime adult males in the private sector and about 3,100 (or 0.4 per cent) in the government sector.

In the Explanatory Notes to the bulletin it is pointed out that ‘As the private sector and local government sector of the survey were surveyed by means of samples, the estimates … are subject to sampling variability, that is, variations which occur by chance because only samples of employers were surveyed’. Paragraph 16 of those notes shows the approximate standard errors relating to the private sector. Commonwealth and State government departments, government authorities and semi-government bodies were surveyed in full.

page 2344

SALARY STATISTICS

page 2344

VIP FLIGHT

(Question No. 2464)

Senator McLAREN:

asked the Minister for Air, upon notice:

  1. How many VIP aircraft were used on Thursday, 21st September 1972, to transport to

Melbourne guests attending a dinner held in honour of Sir Henry Bolte.

  1. how many passengers travelled on the aircraft and what were their names.
  2. What was the cost involved in the use of the aircraft.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN- The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. and (2) On Thursday, 21st September 1972, there was one VIP flight from Canberra to Melbourne. The following passengers travelled in the aircraft: Mr McMahon, Mr Lynch, Mr Fraser, Mr Street, Mr Dobie, Mr Grigg, Mr Gaul, Miss Logan, Inspector Sharpe, Mr Cribb, Miss Cory, Miss Hendy. Miss Zucco.
  2. The cost of the flight from Canberra to Melbourne is estimated at $649.

page 2345

RAAF BASE AT POINT COOK: SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS

(Question No. 2538)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the Minister for Air, upon notice:

Did the Senior Health Inspector of the Werribee Shire Council claim in a report that the Royal Australian Air Force is dumping inadequately treated effluent, with a bacterial count of more than 6 times the allowable maximum, into Port Phillip Bay; if so, will the Minister take steps to ensure that the discharge of effluent which contravenes the Stream Pollution Regulations, and according to the report of the Senior Health Inspector is ‘potentially dangerous to swimmers’, is stopped immediately.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN- The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

My attention has been drawn to statements in the Press on the lines indicated by Senato Willesee, although I understand my Department has not received a copy of the report mentioned and 1 have not yet received a copy myself.

The position is that the current sewage treatment works at RAAF Base Point Cook has been in existence for many years and is reaching the end of its useful life. A new sewage treatment works is being constructed, for the design of which approvals were sought and obtained from the Port Phillip Authority and the Victorian Department of Health. Construction of the new works has commenced and target completion date is January 1973.

Part of the project has involved removal of the existing chlorinator for overhaul and modification so that it can be fitted to the new treatment works. The chlorinator is due for replacement in the next week, lt is understood that the levels of pollution referred to in the Press stories were based upon tests carried out during the period that the chlorinator has been inoperative. The reconnection of the chlorinator should ensure that in relation to effluent from RAAF Base Point Cook bacterial counts are below accepted maximum levels pending the completion of the new treatment works.

page 2345

REVALUATION REPORT

(Question No. 2384)

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

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

  1. Has the Development Division of the Australian Wool Board produced a report which argued in favour of revaluation of the Australian dollar; if so, does the report have the concurrence of the Board’s Chairman, Sir William Gunn.
  2. Why has the Board declined to make the report, referred to in (1) public.
  3. Did Sir William Gunn, as a member of the Reserve Bank Board, sign the Bank’s Annual Report which advocated revaluation of the Australian dollar.
  4. Have all the economists employed by the Australian Wool Board resigned; if so, for what reasons.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN- The

Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Earlier this year, the Development Division of the Australian Wool Board prepared a report for Board members on the disequilibrium in Australia’s balance of payments as reflected in the build-up of foreign reserves. Since the issue was of concern to the wool industry the report outlined the issues involved and examined 3 possible courses of action which could be taken to restore equilibrium. These were: Use of exchange controls, appreciation of the Australian dollar, a package’ including devaluation and tariff [eduction. In each case, an assessment was made of the likely impact on the Australian wool industry. No recommendations were made, however, as to the adoption of any particular course of action.
  2. In view of the political controversy which developed on the question as to whether Iiic Australian dollar should be revalued, the Wool Board decided not to publish the report as it believed that to do so would enable the report to be used to support various conflicting view points to the detriment of a dispassionate study of the issues involved.
  3. I am not aware of the attitude adopted by Sir William Gunn in his capacity as a member of the Reserve Bank Board on the question of the revaluation of the Australian dollar.
  4. lt is not true that all the economists employed by the Wool Board have resigned. The authors of the report did not resign because of any alleged suppression of the report. Their resignations were completely unrelated to the report and in fact, were submitted at different times before the draft report was finalised. The principal author resigned to do post-graduate university studies.

page 2346

EXCISE ON BEER

(Question No. 2428)

Senator McLAREN:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Why is the amount of excise duty collected on beer in the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory, and in the States of Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and South Australia not published.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
LP

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

The Commonwealth Statistician has advised that statistics of the amounts of excise duty paid on beer in the Northern Territory and in each of the States of Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania are compiled under the authority of the Census and Statistics Act 1905-1966 and in terms of that Act are not published separately as to do so would divulge confidential information relating to the operations of the respective companies engaged in beer brewing activities in the Northern Territory and in the States concerned. No excise duty is paid on beer in the Australian Capital Territory, as there is no brewery operating in that Territory.

page 2346

YUGOSLAV TERRORISTS

(Question No. 2529)

Senator O’BYRNE:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Will the Attorney-General table in the Senate a summary of the Government’s note in reply to the Government of Yugoslavia’s protest that nothing had been done to prevent Yugoslav terrorists from training in Australia.
  2. Did the New South Wales police, in Wallsend Court, during the hearing of a charge against a Yugoslav migrant, Mr N. Miskovic, of possessing an unlicensed revolver state that the defendant had claimed that members of the Ustasha Movement had been in Newcastle 2 weeks earlier seeking him and another man and that he had carried the revolver for personal protection.
  3. Does the Attorney-General, in view of the constant references to the Ustasha Movement, still deny that a Croatian Liberation Movement, which obviously ignores semantics and uses the feared name Ustasha within the Yugoslav community, is active in Australia.

Senator GREENWOOD- The answers to the honourable senator’s question are as follows:

  1. See answer to Question No. 2490 (Hansard, page 2223).
  2. Yes, but the defendant did not produce any corroborative evidence of his claim. He was subsequently convicted of the offence charged. (?) See answer to Question No. 2442 (Hansard, p:t£e 16>5).

page 2346

USTASHA

(Question No. 2458)

Senator CAVANAGH:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. In view of an authoritative statement made on 20th September 1972 on the television programme “This Day Tonight’ that there exists in Australia a Ustasha Movement which has a large number of members, does the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation possess full knowledge of the policies and activities of the Movement.
  2. Has the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation reported to the Prime Minister on the Movement; if so, was the report of such a nature as to cause concern to the Prime Minister and the Government.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) The Prime Minister is aware of recent television allegations regarding Croatian organisations. So far as the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation is concerned the practice of all Governments, back to Mr Chifley’s Government, is not to answer any questions concerning ASIO activities. This practice should be adhered to in this case.

page 2346

CLEANING COMPANIES

(Question No. 2496)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is the take-over of Australian-owned cleaning companies by overseas cleaning companies between 25 and 30 per cent of the total Australian investment in this field to date.
  2. Will the Treasurer investigate the take-over of Australian owned cleaning companies by overseas cleaning companies and in those instances where the foreign investment exceeds 50 per cent, or where foreign capital is not being used in the best interests of Australia, implement preventive measures.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The Commonwealth Statistician has advised that there are no statistics currently compiled by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics which would indicate the degree to which Australian-owned cleaning companies have been taken over by overseas cleaning companies.
  2. The honourable senator’s attention is directed to the Prime Minister’s statement on overseas investment in Australia made to the House of Representatives on 26th September 1972 in which he outlined measures for the control of foreign takeovers.

page 2347

VIETNAM

(Question No. 2471)

Senator O’BYRNE:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer upon notice:

  1. Has compensation been paid to the nextofkin of Australian troops killed in Vietnam, both in relation to conscripts and volunteers.
  2. What is the amount, in approximate figures, and how are these amounts calculated.
  3. What has been the total amount paid out in compensation.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Treasurer has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Servicemen, whether conscripts or volunteers, allotted for special duties in a special area, such as Vietnam are eligible for benefits under the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act 1962-1972 from the time of departure from the last port of call in Australia or from a point of allotment outside Australia until their arrival at the first port of call back in Australia or other point of allotment. War pensions are paid under this Act to the eligible dependants of Australian servicemen who were killed in Vietnam or who subsequently died as a result of their injuries at the same rates as pensions provided under the Repatriation Act 1920-1972. (The Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1971 precludes payment of compensation to dependants of deceased servicemen where the dependants are entitled to benefits under the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act 1962-1968).
  2. The rates of pension and allowance payable under the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act 1962-68 to the categories of dependants of deceased servicemen are set out in the First and Third Schedules to the Repatriation Act 1920- 1972 and Repatriation Regulation 176d and are as follows:

    1. War Widow

Pension. $40 a fortnight.

Domestic allowance, $17 a fortnight.

  1. Children

Single Orphan

Pension, $14.70 a fortnight.

Double Orphan

Pension, $29.40 a fortnight.

  1. Mothers, Fathers and other close relatives

Pension, $9 to $16.60 a fortnight (depending on service rank held by the deceased serviceman).

These payments are free of income tax and are provided, in the case of war widows, orphans and widowed mothers, regardless of the dependant’s other means. In addition to these payments, the Commonwealth provides free medical and paradical services to certain dependants (war widows, orphans and widowed mothers). The Commonwealth may also provide assistance to war widows in the form of training and, to the eligible children of deceased ex-servicemen, the Commonwealth may provide education assistance by way of allowances, fees, fares, books and equipment under the Soldier’s Children Education Scheme.

  1. In the period from 31st July 1962 to the end of September 1972, approximately $785,000 has been paid in war pensions to dependants of Australian servicemen who were killed in Vietnam, or who subsequently died as a result of their injuries.

page 2347

UNIVERSAL WORLD CHURCH

(Question No. 2497)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will the Treasurer investigate the affairs of Dr Neilsen of Townsville, Queensland, and the Universal World Church, which he claims to lead, so as to ascertain if any breaches of Commonwealth taxation or company laws have occurred.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

As regards the taxation aspect of the honourable senator’s question, the administration of the taxation law is the responsibility of the Commissioner of Taxation. I have brought the honourable senator’s question to the Commissioner’s notice. As to company law, none of the information available to me suggests that the organisation referred to is registered as a companyin Australia, whether under Stale or Territory law, so the question of breaches of company law cannot be said to arise.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
LP

– On 30th October, Senator O’Byrne asked me a question concerning Government assistance to victims of the drug thalidomide in Australia. I now provide the following information:

In July 1963, the late Senator Wade, then Minister for Health, announced special arrangements designed to assist children born deformed as a result of their mothers’ taking the drug thalidomide. The Commonwealth agreed to share equally with the States the cost of fitting artificial limbs to such children. It was announced that the limbs would be supplied and fitted by Repatriation Department Artificial Limb and Appliance Centres which were also to provide initial training in their use.

Subsequent rehabilitation services were to be provided by the States but the Commonwealth decided to make available, for consultation with State authorities, specialists from the Repatriation Department and from the Department of Health’s Institute of Child Health. This was intended to provide a ‘team’ approach to the provision of the most effective assistance to these children.

Furthermore, a specialist in the Repatriation Department investigated European techniques for the fitting of prostheses and subsequent training of thalidomide babies, and an eminent specialist advisor was also brought to Australia from overseas. These arrangements have proceeded satisfactorily and more than 20 children have received the assistance prescribed. The provision of any legal aid to persons taking proceedings for damages in the States is essentially a State matter. There is no provision for the Commonwealth to provide legal aid in these circumstances where proceedings in the States are involved, except perhaps by way of some form of special ex gratia payment. As far as can be ascertained there has been no request for such an ex gratia payment in respect of thalidomide babies.

page 2347

ASSISTANCE TO THALIDOMIDE VICTIMS

page 2348

CHEESE

(Question No. 2541)

Senator PRIMMER:

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

  1. Did a leading dairy food processing company import cheese over recent months from New Zealand; if so, what were the quantities and types of cheese.
  2. Why is cheese being imported from New Zealand by the company.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN - The

Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Under the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement provision is made for an annual import quota of 1,000 tons of cheddar cheese. However last August special approval was given for the import of 450 tons of cheddar curd for processing over and above this figure conditional on the processed cheese being re-exported.
  2. The special approval was given because of a shortage of supplies of suitable cheese from Australian production last season and was to enable the servicing of established export markets which otherwise would be lost.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 31 October 1972, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1972/19721031_senate_27_s54/>.